Should Africa start over?

I grew up in Africa, so I have first hand experience with it and I can boldly say that Africa is a continent of failed states. A lot of my American friends (both white and black) tend to blame European colonization but growing up in Nigeria, I know that African failure is the fault of Africans and their leaders.
So my question is, do you think that Africa should start over? I mean dissolve its states and form new territories based on previous tribal kingdoms.
Do you think Africa should be symbolically burned down and rebuilt from the ashes?

Other urls found in this thread:

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dunning–Kruger_effect
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oyo_Empire
twitter.com/NSFWRedditGif

That kind of thought was always turn things to be even worse than before. Just look at Soviet Union and its history.

Sounds absurd naijabro, going back

But I DO think we need ethnic nation states

I'm a Ghanaian and you can see the difference in prosperity because we're mostly Twi, or like Botswana which is 90% Tswana

Redrawing the borders would be a good start.

All that dissolving all the states and telling people "you figure it out" would do would cause a more monumental clusterfuck.

It's not like you could get everyone to agree to abide by borders that haven't existed for over 100 years. Not to mention some populations have moved (many as a consequence of the current borders) since those times.

If you look at shit like that mess in Yugoslavia you'll see pretty quick that even when a state breaks up and people start making their own nation states everyone bickers over what constitutes it, then you wind up with genocide and shit.

>I grew up in Africa
I don't believe that for a second without proof of some kind.

Africa is the new China

The bait is getting advanced

what proof do you want?

well usually when you ask a girl/woman/black/brown/tranny/other non-white male person to prove that they are in fact non-white they never do provide at least a time stamp of an identifying body part

liars are more common on Veeky Forums than non-white male specimens, statistically speaking

that said, i've seen blacks post time stamp of hand for example on r9k, girls too

anyway

Most african states are only 60 years old (at least the subsaharian ones), that´s nothing in historic terms.
Considering those societies were thrown from tribal and feudal stages straight into nationhood, it´s quite normal they fall constantly into civil wars.

The African leaders are the result of colonization. Europeans gutted previous such that when they left there was no educated class of elites to rule. The only way they could keep power was through fear and cronyism.

It's still Europe's fault desu, muh nigga.

but african leaders are very very prone to corruption and are generally bad at their job

60 years is not a short period of time

That would be throwing the baby out with the bathwater. Africa needs to change, but it has already changed a lot and accomplished things as evidenced by .

Obviously corruption is a nebulous problem, it is very slippery, even attempts to end corruption can become corrupt.

If you try to put too many resources towards 1 thing it becomes inefficient due to the law of diminishing returns, so I think the best approach is to try and target as many different things as possible. So for example rather than relying on some generalissimo to spend aid money or redistribute oil wealth you create dozens of unconnected programs to distribute mosquito nets, raise literacy, provide clean drinking water and so forth.

>I know that African failure is the fault of Africans and their leaders.
Who have been corrupted by western ideology and capitalist culture.

>We're all living in America
Fuck off

it's more likely he's baiting than he's genuine

however, if you see the history of other former colonial countries, like the south american ones, you see that the first century after independence was constant civil war, the second was more political conflicts and only recently they are finding stability and something they can call a national identity

Africa is shit because any talented people aren't willing to stay there to make it better
They all come to developed countries

Hell, you don't have to leave Europe. Bulgaria joins a coalition, starts a war with their former allies and join a global war in less than ten years after being formally independent.

it was rightful clay we wanted to reclaim

yes but Bulgaria was already a nation, even if not an independent state

Too many different tribes, some occupying the same areas it would be a logistical nightmare. I suppose they could combine states by common language but even that is difficult to do

>BORDERS MUST MIRROR THE ETHNIC LINES

Fuck off with your 19th century meme. Ancient European empires always had multiple ethnicities and they managed just fine, Africa has no excuse whatsoever.

i agree, multiculturalism is not bad in any way

Preach

My point is that war and instability seems almost inevitable for a new country, be it for whatever reason that makes politicians unhappy ("I must unite the Bulgarians under one flag", "this colonial map shows us having this strategical place under our borders at some point in time", "we want to be independent of a newly independent shithole because we are special"), it's like they're making up for the time they didn't exist as a sovereign entity.

Ethnic lines are needed for giving any social cohesion to that new country

This is kind of true when you have democratic forms of government. If people have the power to vote on issues they can easily vote in a way that is specifically aimed at, or even unintentionally, disempowering a group. With states in Africa home to do many different tribes, ethnicities, languages, cultures and traditions, it can be hard to make compromises, which is why the current states often only function with string and fairly undemocratic governments.

>*strong

This is precisely what happens in RD Congo elections. Everyone votes for their ethnic party.

>le european colonization was bad boogeyman

hey reddit

Enlighten us then, what was good about it?

crack a book dumbass

Please don't include north Africa in that map.
Sub Saharan Africa can start over yes.

DEFINITELY.

So Europe pays back the profits made during colonialism?

Foreign companies can have their property seized?

Africans get to determine their own borders and countries?


It could only be an improvement of a century and a half of European rule.

This.

Agreed. Nuke it.

As long as Africa is populated by Africans it will never have anything past tribalism and low civilisation.

How was the Russian empire better than the Soviet Union?

>Terrorists running amok
>Women executed for being raped
>Primitive tribes
>Strongman dictators
>Illiteracy widespread

Nice try

A fuckton of development has happened in Africa since the late 90's.

Don't try to reason with the /pol/kiddies, they don't respond well to it.

only 2 generations

You mean they will just move the goalposts until they can claim that they won.

It had civilization before Europeans arrived. And farming. And iron. And muskets.

Working on it as we speak.

Not that hard, to be honest.

You are an ignorant moron.

>60 years is not a short period of time
>Veeky Forums - History & Humanities

It's a stupidly short period in the scope of history

>Managed just fine
If by managing just fine you mean living in your own shit for a thousand year and adopting eastern technologies, yeah sure.

The most successful European nations were or made themselves ethnically homogeneous: France forcing everyone to speak a langue d'Oïl, Germany forcing everyone to speak Hochdeutsch, the UK forcing everyone to become English, Spain suppressing Catalan, Galician, Basque, Leonese, Aragonese...

WTF are you talking about?
That barely describes Libya and that's because of Western intervention.
Morocco Algeria Tunisia and to some extent Egypt are doing pretty damn good.

>Ancient European empires
You mean Rome and only Rome. All the rest fragmented into eventually todays borders which is essentially people of the same culture in singular countries. Rome only worked because for the first time most people were experiencing something beyond a fucking tribe. You couldn't have remade the empire in 1300 it would have just instantly come apart.

Also, scratch that. Your retarded post doesn't even describe Libya except for the terrorist stuff.
None of those countries apply Sharia law you retard (except for irrelevant things like divorce etc)

Educate yourself, none of that is true except Libya but that was ruined by western intervention.

Some of these seem too big, while others wouldn't probably be able to finance themselves. You shouldn't mess with "countries that have a history" like Egypt and Ethiopia.

>Some of these seem too big, while others wouldn't probably be able to finance themselves.
Would you mind telling me which ones?

The one blob to the north, and the one to the south seem too big. There's no reason to have an independent state in middle of the Sahara, fuckall lives there and it'd just get annexed by its neighbours

>he shares a different opinion then me! He must be reddit tier!

How does it feel to live with autism?

>The one blob to the north
That's either the Tuareg folks or the Kanuri Empire.

>and the one to the south seem too big
I don't know which blob you're talking about. If you mean what's around Namibia, Botswana and Eastern Angola, that's stuff I'm still working on, not a country.

>There's no reason to have an independent state in middle of the Sahara, fuckall lives there
Of course people live in the Sahara. You've got the Tuareg, who have cities in the south, in the Sahel. You've got the Tubu, who I've put under Kanuri rule, since they share a linguistic family. You have the Fur, the Nubians, the Beja, the Arabs in the West.

>and it'd just get annexed by its neighbors
Not if they're the ones doing the annexing or if their neighbors respect their territorial integrity.

African leaders are intelligent psychopaths they arent idiots, they just dont give a shit about the human population in their countries outside of getting them money.

>That's either the Tuareg folks or the Kanuri Empire.
The one that goes from Ethiopia to Senegal?

>south
I mean the one that has SA, Botswana(isn't it somewhat ethnically homogenous already?) And southern Namibia, yeah.

>Of course people live in the Sahara
Was specifically thinking about the one in southern Algeria. . Together, those three big states in Southern Algeria have an impressive amount of 600k inhabitants, I doubt the addition of those provinces from Mali and Niger would add much in population.

multi-ethnicism*

>tfw even if someone would try to stabilize Africa or redraw the borders they would get assassinated before they could make any changes

>The one that goes from Ethiopia to Senegal?
Not a country, same as the southern blob. West Africa, Greater Egypt and Southern Africa are a pain in the ass to split.

>Together, those three big states in Southern Algeria have an impressive amount of 600k inhabitants, I doubt the addition of those provinces from Mali and Niger would add much in population.
You don't really need a lot of people to have a functioning state. Estonia only has around a million, Iceland has around half a million people in it, a whole lot of island nations can barely get to 50K or even 10K. With the Tuareg being mostly nomadic, I assume they would go the same way Mongolia did: a single ''big'' city (probably Gao) surrounded by sparsely populated land roamed by nomads.


Added Algeria, Tunisia, Libya, Darfur and some kind of South Sudan.

>European colonialism
>The biggest forced migration in history being sustained over four centuries
>Massacres and enslavement of millions of people
>Sustained plunder of natural resources over centuries
>Destruction of local trade routes, institutions and economic practices adapted to the territory in order to have mal-adapted European institutions imposed in their stead
>Destruction of dozens if not hundreds of cities and destabilization of several kingdoms and empires
>Stimulation of inter-ethnic wars to capture slaves over centuries, only to later force the warring ethnicities under the same quasi-representative government for arbitrary reasons
>All of this happening in the last few centuries during the boom of capitalist modernization

>Not fucking terrible and catastrophically destructive, with long term consequences that can take centuries to fix

>Africa civilization

>upvoted fucking niggers, when will they learn

>Mali Empire never existed
>Songhai never existed
>Ethiopia never existed
>Aksum never existed
>Kingdom of Kongo never existed
>Oyo empire never existed
>Egypt never existed
>Carthage never existed

Do you really expect /pol/tards to know anything about what they're talking about? They are literal Dunning-Kruger effect sufferers.

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dunning–Kruger_effect

''The Dunning–Kruger effect is a cognitive bias in which relatively unskilled persons suffer illusory superiority, mistakenly assessing their ability to be much higher than it really is. Dunning and Kruger attributed this bias to a metacognitive inability of the unskilled to recognize their own ineptitude and evaluate their own ability accurately.''

Sounds like your average /pol/tard.

Mali/Songhai/Ghana were all roughly the same lands with different rulers.

Aksum/Abyssinia/Ethiopia are pretty much the same thing. They lost some land to arabs though.

Kongo was chill, but honestly was too decentralized

Egyptians and Carthaginians weren't African; Nubians were though.

>Oyo
>an Empire
lol

>Mali/Songhai/Ghana were all roughly the same lands with different rulers.
The same could be said of pretty much every Chinese Empire/Dynasty and every Islamic Empire/Caliphate.

>Aksum/Abyssinia/Ethiopia are pretty much the same thing
This I can give you.

>Egyptians and Carthaginians weren't African; Nubians were though.
Only if by African you mean black.

>Oyo
>an Empire
>lol
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oyo_Empire
???

Egyptians and Carthaginians were African by definition.
Not niggers though.

>The same could be said of pretty much every Chinese Empire/Dynasty and every Islamic Empire/Caliphate.
Your point?

>Only if by African you mean black.
Of course

>en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oyo_Empire
Shit I guess we better start calling Liberia an Empire. They're the same size.

>Your point?
That they are separate entities and shouldn't all be lumped together.

>He thinks what determines what is an empire or not is its size
Pleb detected.

Of course size isn't everything. But calling a country, whose greatest extent was the size of Georgia, an Empire, is just dishonest.

>Estonia only has around a million
Educated.

>Iceland has around half a million people in it
Isolated form the mainland and educated and good resources.

>a whole lot of island nations can barely get to 50K or even 10K
Many who only function off tourism to whore themselves off, being a tax haven or owned by bigger nation that they suck the teat out of.

The Tuareg consists of multiple groups as well and all those years of being deserted by borders does colour the political and social perspectives of each group. A sedentary or borderline sedentary lifestyle will need to be adopted by a substantial part of the population as well as praying climate change doesn't rape Africa (Southern Africa has a MASSIVE drought currently as well as other parts in Africa to a smaller but still heavy degree).

How is it dishonest, if size isn't what makes an empire? The USA is huge as shit and isn't an empire. Oyo was small, but was one.

What's bad about whoring yourself to tourists? It's good money. Even ignoring that, they would have some oil to sell and their small population would mean they wouldn't need to sell a lot to get their GDP per capita relatively high, like with Gabon and Equatorial Guinea. Furthermore, everyone who decides to just stay nomadic would probably not give a shit about being "poor", as long as they can continue herding camels and shit.

Nigeria used to be really thriving and now it's hungry again

development thanks to us white people.

Ha! Most of it comes from China.

It's a bloody shame what happened to Africa but that approach would just create a bunch of statelets and would be rife with war and strong man tactics.
Do you think an approach of trying to reduce the number of different peoples would work? As in, having different tribes assimilate into or forming larger tribes.

Also, do you guys think Nyerere's ideas about one party politics had any merit to it?

>As in, having different tribes assimilate into or forming larger tribes.
It worked for Europe.

>But calling a country, whose greatest extent was the size of Georgia, an Empire, is just dishonest.

What's the lower limit before you qualify for empire status?

after countless wars and ethnic cleansing

That's nation building for you.

>But calling a country, whose greatest extent was the size of Georgia, an Empire, is just dishonest.

>The USA is huge as shit and isn't an empire.

the fuck we aren't.

>we have this thread every day

>So Europe pays back the profits made during colonialism?

Yes, and in total fairness, Europe also destroys all infrastructure, ports and industry created by Europeans.

>Foreign companies can have their property seized?

Of course! All foreign companies get destroyed by the European dogs, leaving only the fertile soil of mother Africa.

>Africans get to determine their own borders and countries?

Of course, free from ANY European intervention.