What if Africa was never colonized?

>Things that make you go hmm
Could you actually post what you mean by that?

...

It just really made me think

Wasn't it estimated to be at 80?

Considering slave trade harmed Africa way more than the scramble, it would probably be the same shit with a different face. Semi-decent nations like South Africa or Botswana won't exist, so it would be even worst.

>the average IQ is inherited

*even worse.

>muh iq

robertlindsay.wordpress.com/2011/01/19/black-iq-gains-in-britain-kenya-and-dominica/

Muh heritability

debunkingdenialism.com/2012/08/11/the-widespread-abuse-of-heritability/#more-5129

debunkingdenialism.com/2016/04/30/mailbag-modern-high-throughput-genomics-versus-race-realism/

about what? Can the proper environment post colonization can help raise IQ? Selection on that population that already had a high IQ? Nothing can change it? What?

Thanks senpai, english is not my native language and I like to be reminded of stuff like that so I can get better. One day maybe I'll be able to publish in english.

This.

Though I reckon it would be more like Japan.

...

It's all over the place because the stuff they get that number from is a total joke.

No they had plenty of time to do that but North Africa didn't extend much south.

Low in some areas, higher in others.

The more developed the country, the higher the iq

More like te higher iq of the people the more developed the country is

>They would go a similiar route like japan.
>Being under european influence but slowly modernizing through trade and exchange of ideas
So in other words the complete opposite route of Japan?

All over the place, but there are gains

racialreality.blogspot.com.au/2011/11/african-iq-and-the-flynn-effect.html?m=1

The whole of african nations that matter would boil down to caliphates in mali, Ethiopia, Egypt, Zulu, Morocco, Tripoli and the Boer states (the ones that werent colonized but only settled)
Outside that it would be oogabooga land, desolate and backwater full of tribal negros in their natural state.

You are missing a lot of states though.

South Korea was stupid as fuck back in the 50's.

Like what, algeria? That was conquered before the scramble
What else could I have missed? Kongo? That barely stately tribe?

If you say Masina and Sokoto they are included with Malian Caliphates.

Or maybe you mean the pre scramble european lands in africa. Im sure maybe they could have been organized into such states as Mozambique and maybe ethiopia wouldnt eat the somalis alive like the belgians did to congolese, skewering them ass to mouth on spits. But thats the farthest it would go. Or do you think egypt would let sudan go? Those Nubians wouldnt know a state if it hit them in the dick, without egyptians of course.

Then they'd still be killing each others with spears in mudhuts villages instead of killing each others with firearms in white-built cities like now

Yeah, because early 19th century Japan totally was as backward as early 19th century (pre-colonial) Africa...

Kongo wasn't a stately tribe though they had a pretty stable government and hierarchy and far influence as well as regional power.

I bet you also say they where kings as well.
Also nice sphere of influence on the unstatly dindus in their general viscinity. I bet they even let them touch the chieftans rainstick for good luck!
If only the spanish near them would have civilized them, then maybe. But they could not have civilized themselves. And even then we are considering no colonization. So tough chance for them.

ethiopea.

It's incredibly naive to think that just because a place wasn't colonized means it'd be completely isolated from the rest of the world in some sort of fucking bubble.

Even before Ethiopia was colonized (briefly) by Italy under Mussolini they'd begun modernizing by inviting western experts in, in the same way Japan did. I think other African countries could have done a similar thing if they hadn't been colonized. I'm not suggesting the outcome would be the same success story as Japan, but I also don't think it'd be the same abject failure of postcolonial Africa.

That said, I also think Africa could have been much better off today if decolonization hadn't been such a botch job. Given a few more decades of colonial rule I think there could've been a smoother transition of power.

What are you going on about just correct time you on Kongo.

Also the Kongo state was heavily centralized which helped converting the masses to Christianity much quicker and spreading the church.
They had trade and cultural contact with Portugal.

Having deep trade contacts helps with development of you nation and civilisation and many African leaders sought help and assistance of others like Kongo and Portugal.

The colonies were getting way too costly and decolonisation was always going to a mess no matter what.

But Portuguese are neither white nor civilized
Glorified Moorish puppets of the Anglos

Hey sugar tits, not him but "really made me think" is just a meme.
Youre replying to a shitposter and actually losing

Oh fuck off to whatever board you came from.

The US and USSR forcing it didn't help though.

While I can see Ethiopia westernizing nicely, I can't see many other places (Let's assume Rhodesia/South Africa never get colonized).

Ethiopia had a long tradition of Ethiopian Orthodox kingship, and a further tradition of Afro-Asiatic cultural government and traditions along with it's own writing system. The vast majority of places in Africa did not have that (I can see the people of Nigeria running with Nsibidi however).

No colonization means we get a handful of westernized African states, sure, but the vast majority of Africa is still uninhabited or inhabited by ooga booga tribesmen.

I think the way the 20th century panned out it was bound to happen the way it did, but if the first and second world wars hadn't been a thing I think the imperial powers could have done better.

Part of the reason the colonies got so costly was because the imperial governments (at least in Britain, I think in the others as well) shouldered a lot of administrative responsibilities in order to run the war. That's where it was the most costly, and while the governments were footing that bill private interests were still making money.

ITT cucks who have never met s black perso

>but the vast majority of Africa is still uninhabited or inhabited by ooga booga tribesmen

I'd anticipate that the westernized states would establish hegemony over those regions pretty quick if they didn't get with the program.

Kek, Africans neglected what the Europeans built for them. Portuguese built sewers for example but after they left the Africans did nothing now it's a stinky diseased shithole

>heritability studies can tell and do tell us that some of the variation in IQ can be attributed to genetic variation

>dat projection

I wonder if the world wouldn't be as developed as it is today without slavery.

Africa was on its way to becoming a great civilization Arab contact was good for them desu

Completely different climate though.
Portugal can pay for up keeping of those sewers and infrastructure most poor nations can't because they don't have the tax base OR the ability to force people to do forced labour like in many colonies.

m8 I'm black myself

Fairly certain the closest you've come to meeting a black person was rolling up your windows frantically at the gas station

The colonies wouldn't have changed much and still be heavily disadvantaged and crippled as hell and The First world war would have happend either way because of the constant strife and bad sentiments between nations. There was many times where countries would've broken out in conflict if the issue between the two involving colonies wasn't mitigated in time. If not then it would've happened at later and probably worse time

I'm half black and grew up around blacks. Nice try though. You're a white dude

Yellabone calling the Negro white?

You must be if you are oblivious to the nature of blacks

Colonies means settlements so unless there are 100% English areas they weren't colonies.

Africa was the least colonized area, the most colonized was Australia, New Zealand, Canada, USA.

youtube.com/watch?v=51vFbsZkhXU

So you'll claim anyone is white just to say that they don't know the true nature of I guess and entire continent and it's descendants because clearly 1 guy knows all there is to the nature of not only Blacks but I guess every other people?

Fuck no there's several types of colonies.

Most white people get uncomfortable when you discuss black underachievement and instability. They are raised to believe we are all the same. Black people don't believe this. They are very aware of their situation. It's usually white people who are ignorant of the facts.

Ask a black person if white people are like them compared to if you as a white person the opposite, you'll get different answers.

No, colonies means settlements, having tributary states are not colonies.

Whole lot of self hate in this bitch

Settlements aren't the only type of colony bro.
Do you even know what the fuck you are saying?

Who the fuck cares?

even worse than it is now

It's a feedback loop

What if's are a stupid thing but any answer can't really be concrete.

If you have money to spend and you invest it right it comes back to yo in other ways.

People who don't like poverty, killings and crime care.

If it was never colonised I'm thinking that African locals would start to take ideas from the West and at least attempt to develop sort of state institutions.

However I couldn't see how colonisation would ever be avoided given the mindset of Europe and the need to expand.

>expand
Africa was barely touched, only "colonies" were in Rhodesia and South Africa which were exterminated long ago.

This video is a colony that is 100% colonized.

youtube.com/watch?v=qVEcvdclrqo

Orania is a town though not a colony.

Also you forgot East Africa and settlers would have been brought in sooner or later in other colonies.

There is no colony that is worse than the colonizer.

Qubec is a colony, it is no worse or better than France.

Canada is a colony, it is no worse or better than England.

the Least colonized areas are the shitteist, maximum colonization is 100% population from the colonizing entity.

>he Least colonized areas are the shitteist

They are the shittiest because the state that did the colonizing did barely investment at all to develop the state.

All African infrastructure is from small European colonies in Africa.

Are you saying every infrastructure is solely from Europe? You do know many infrastructure was built post colonial period?

Also most of those buildings were for extraction or resources and transportation of goods to ports or for the benefit of concession companies? So they weren't really as all encompassing as thought of since they were limited to a few places.

It really doesn't matter, Africa doesn't matter to Europe and nor to me.

Africa had infrastructure pre colonial era, and even before Islamification in certain areas.

Then why make a statement like that's clearly wrong.

>Africa without colonialism

/pol/ shitposting aside, sub-saharan africa never really had a chance. Just look at Ethiopia and Liberia. Both were "free" nations for the most part and today, Liberia is literally the poorest country in the world and Ethiopia is doing pretty shit too. Or look at Equatoria Guinea. You'd think that with all the oil it'll be a gulf-tier state. But it's actually an authoritarian shithole that sold its oil right for nothing- basically economic colonialism- the fate of sub-saharan africa with or without colonialism.

I also really hate how people pretend that ethnic tensions wouldn't exist without colonialism. The whole continent is a shitshow of ethnicities. The post-colonial wars will just be replaced by wars of conquest and the subsequent rebellions on an even bigger scale than now.

>inb4 muh modernization like asia
China (Taiwan), Korea and Japan are the sole countries that modernized. Most of south-eastern asia was africa-tier up until the 80s. And those 4 (3) countries had a national identity, administration and social hierarchy, skilled workforce and capital, on which to build the modernization process. They also had organized armies (even if inferior to western ones) Africa had none of that, for the most part.

Best case scenario for Africa is there being several coastal 2nd world countries in the 10,000$ gdp per capita range (Sokoto, Mali, Ethiopia, Zanzibr, Kongo etc), the rest being the same shit as now, since european corporations would've moved in with or without colonialism.

Although I will agree that Ethiopia faced it's struggles

(Me being an Ethiopian whose parents were migrants)

Ethiopia is getting better, it's not a shit hole as it once was.

worldbank.org/en/news/press-release/2015/07/08/transforming-ethiopia-into-a-manufacturing-powerhouse-requires-skills-development-and-improved-investment-climate

csis.org/analysis/sustaining-improvements-public-health-ethiopia

>European economies collapse left and right due to lack of strategic resources
>this creates even more of a dependence upon New World resources
>Americas thrive
>Europe and Asia die
>Africa remains stagnant due to complete lack of social mobility, scientific progress, or uplift to achieve either of these things
A world without a European Africa is a world that looks bleak for everyone outside of the Americas.

Japan is the sole country that self-modernized. China and Korea had to be dragged out of their anti-industrial states by other powers.

>European economies collapse left and right due to lack of strategic resources
>european corporations, instead of paying 30% of its income in taxes to a colonial government, pay a 2-3% to bribe the local ruler to let them in and protect them
>this is somehow bad for europe

True.

>implying colonial companies did any of that successfully in our timeline
You're implying that the companies which eventually became outright protectorates and colonies were successful in any way, shape or form. This is completely false. Most African colonial companies that existed with permission of their European counterparts and local rulers failed within 5 years or less. I don't think you fully understand the startup cost for these companies.

>failed within 5 years or less
And resources were never extracted from African ever again.
Oh, wait.
>implying they aren't/weren't successful for the most part
>implying africa was ever a vital resource exporter
>implying the pre-WWI europen superpowers would let the US be a monopolist of any kind and not just exploit other parts of the world like east asia
>implying I'm talking about the XIXc. meme concessionary companies and not about the corporations that are going all out an-cap in africa currently
>implying it wouldn't be the same shit with or without colonialism

>they aren't/weren't successful for the most part
They weren't and aren't. They were literally forced into government takeover from immediate collapse. Modern companies are almost solely propped up by states in the same fashion that the colonial charter companies of the fin die siecle were.

>implying africa was ever a vital resource exporter
Prior to 1902, Germany received 80% of their cotton from the United States. State legislation for German East Africa rectified this which reduced American cotton imports to 35%. This doesn't even take into account rubber and palm plantations, or various mines for rare metals.

>the pre-WWI europen superpowers would let the US be a monopolist of any kind and not just exploit other parts of the world like east asia
Except that's what happened. Fear, and the reality in some cases, of overdependence upon American markets and resources forced Europe into Africa to avoid complete dependence.

>I'm talking about the XIXc. meme concessionary companies and not about the corporations that are going all out an-cap in africa currently
>near solely funded by the Chinese state in order to extract resources for use in Chinese industry
>an-cap
It's like you don't even know what's actually going on.

>it wouldn't be the same shit with or without colonialism
Not even close.

You'd still see a lot of large scale warfare throughout the twentieth century as the few major population centers adapted technology to build large empires to their geographic limits.

No it's not. China invested way more heavily in it's 'self-strengthening' program than the Japanese. The problem is that their modernization program undermined the class basis of their society, and so they ended up in an anarchic heap.

>You'd think that with all the oil it'll be a gulf-tier state. But it's actually an authoritarian shithole that sold its oil right for nothing- basically economic colonialism- the fate of sub-saharan africa with or without colonialism.

It's based on the area.
Many areas had rulers with big checks of power on them and many of those nations like Equatorial Guinea are simply just reenacting polices that the populace know best in a modern state through och the 20th century (a colonial state) Not to mention many of the states are artificial.

>This is completely false. Most African colonial companies that existed with permission of their European counterparts and local rulers failed within 5 years or less. I don't think you fully understand the startup cost for these companies.

THIS. I remember many cases the colonial government had to really step in to make a lot of those concessions even turn a profit

Colonies could barely turn a profit so many colonies enacted polices designed to extract as much from a colony as possible like arbitrary taxation, popualtion movement, forcing native farmers to grow cash crops even to the detriment of the local food markets and food output or forced labour to concessionary companies or public projects.

Many companies could be construed as successful but the colonies were a burden and for many offered nothing other then just labour. Would you say a guy who owns a plantation is really successful if the only reason he can turn a profit was through a government forcing people to work for him?

Violating the prime directive was a mistake.

Fuck that shit contact was made from a very very long time.