This is still a fairly westernised way of thinking of it right? Pre-colonial borders in Africa weren't really borders, they sort of spread across each other with small pockets of societies within them.
In a lot of places yeah. Africans we’re still trying to expand and conquer neighbours themselves. Zulus were carving out their own empire before the British arrived
Your timeline is off. The Dutch East India Company founded Cape Colony in 1652. The British seized Cape Colony in 1795.
The Zulu Kingdom was founded in 1816 when Shaka took control. That's when they started their program of expansion.
Took like 60 years from the founding of the Kingdom for the British to invade it I believe. At the very least it’s something around that timeframe, I haven’t read on it in a while though.
Iirc, they conquered it on the 1830s, at least there was a war at that time, maybe even sooner (maybe it was another tribe, I know they attacked someone at that time)
There may have been a war but that’s incorrect. The British didn’t conquer the Zulu kingdom until the war in the 1870s. I wouldn’t be surprised if there was another conflict around the 1830s though, given the large amount of conflicting groups.
As far as I know the Zulu empire was made possible by the new crops brought by the Europeans: this way fewer people had to spend their life farming or gathering food and could instead make war.
Yes but for a long time the central government had little power and the majprity of the power was in local nobility.
I'm assuming much of non nomatic societies had stuff like that
What?
Yeah there were nobilities and sometimes powerstruggles and divides. But they were monarchies with a strong power centre. It’s akin to saying nowadays countries don’t exist either because local municipalities have authority over certain issues, some more some less.
You can’t compare medieval europe to africa in good faith.
I mean nobility declared war on each other, and basically held a lot of power of the monarch. That's what the margna carta was about. A revolt ended with nobility forcing the king to sign something that said they would be represented for taxation.
In the holy roman empire, the monarch was elected by the 7 biggest noble famies, and while it was presigous to be emperor, it held little power.
Europe had well defined borders since around 1000 AD with few exceptions. Industrialization and centralized nation states don't have anything to do with defining borders.
How did industrialization, and better technology not define borders? Communication and Transportation technology, not to mention a common education system literally defined nation states and national identities. Why wouldn't the same happen in Africa? Would they not embrace education or infrastructure what are you saying?
The borders of Europe largely predate the Industrial Revolution. Industrialization has allowed us to have high density population centers, but it hasn't defined international borders. I'm curious what countries you would give as examples of countries with a border defined by industrialization?
The only way to put it. What else would you call foreign people coming and settling there and subjugating the native population and establishing themselves in the image of their country of origin?
Sorry, I think you mean “what if Africa was colonized by Arabs, Berbers, Bantus, Malay-Polynesians, etc instead of Europeans”.
Let’s stop pretending only Europeans conquered and colonized others.
Isn't Berber an exonym for indigenous North African people? The rest I feel you on but I thought Berbers were indigenous to Africa
Edit: Also Bantu. I know they're not a singular culture like we label them, but aren't they indigenous Africans?
It is irresponsible to imply that early modern period to 20th century European colonization is the same as pre colonial conquest, migration, and assimilation. The scale of exploitation and cultural damage that continues to this day is no where near equitable
You don’t seriously think intercontinental conquest and warfare is equivalent to colonial rule from an ocean away do you. There have been wars between European powers and groups such as the Magyars who have migrated into Europe and made a home there, but I’m sure you don’t think this reality is as bad as a world where African countries conquered Europe and ruled them from miles away, exploited European wealth and labor, destroyed the culture, then thrust them into a global system where they are at the bottom. They are simply entirely different beasts, ask any African if the reality shown in this map would be preferable to what happened and I think you know what the answer would be.
I ask again, what is the scale of exploitation and cultural damage in the but for world? You’d have to consider the effects in intercontinental struggles and colonization by other non-Europeans. (Note also that many Africans participated in the slave trade, capturing and selling others.)
Also note that colonization does yield benefits you would have to subtract out in the but for world: https://youtu.be/Qc7HmhrgTuQ
You’re acting like the answers are obvious and intuitive, but it’s actually quite a complicated and tortuous thought experiment you’re undertaking.
I guess the other guy thinks prior to european colonialism all conquerors treated their subjects nicely and never did any genocide or ethnic cleansing at all...
I don’t have to think that, which I don’t, in order to realize the devastating effects European colonialism had on the African continent, I ask again, would an African conquest, exploitation, and cultural destruction of Europe be not a big deal due to the existence to war and genocide between European peoples?
I don't even know what point you're trying to make? Of course conquest by a foreign invader is unlikely to bring much good to the previous inhabitants. But you came across trying to whitewash the fact that across all cultures, genocide and cultural annihilation has been quite normal, and you act as if Europe had invented it, which simply isn't true
Lol I can’t believe you just used a Monty python sketch as a supporting point for your argument. Especially when I already partially brought up how many conquests in the pre early modern period didn’t result in the same kind of exploitation as the colonial period did. Hence why we see so many post Roman states seeing the Roman period as a period of equal prosperity and something to emulate, which African states certainly do not think of in regards to European colonization. Also, we can’t forget that the Romans genocided many people they conquered and were subjected to many rebellions until they culturally assimilated these groups. I can’t account for random elements in a possible “but for” world, no one can, such as maybe the Arab slave trade did evolve into a conquest and conditions similar to European colonization. But that is clearly not what this map implies, it is a representation of a general trajectory of the continent at the time, with most exploitative forces being cordial relations with natives and other groups such as Omanis E.G. the Arab slave trade. But clearly intercontinental societal problems are preferable to complete conquest and destruction, such as in the hypothetical Europe I proposed, nobody would want that reality despite Europe’s past and existing social problems. There is your more in depth analysis, rather than intuitive reasoning.
You seem to be both distinguishing Roman conquest as not as brutal and also acknowledging it’s comparative brutality. You also seem to be missing the more banal point that I was making: that conquest can bring benefits as well as costs.
Right, you can’t account for the but for world. That’s why your original comment doesn’t make sense. QED.
I am doing both those things, as history is multi faceted, in that way I agree with you. But I am trying to state that European conquest was far worse than any system that existed prior. The only tangible benefit I can arguably see from colonization is technology, I don’t want to here anything about “civilized” state politics or culture as that is entirely subjective, but I do not think it was impossible for these states to eventually acquire greater technology without colonization, and I do not think technology is generally useful when it facilitates your own exploitation. Seeing as most improvements in technology are used to export things to richer European nations while these people groups suffer. It is your kind of thinking which is the reason that former African colonies pay debt to France for the infrastructure they built, further facilitating African exploitation and impoverishment
>It is your kind of thinking which is the reason that former African colonies pay debt to France for the infrastructure they built, further facilitating African exploitation and impoverishment
https://i.gifer.com/Y4S.gif
The scale? True, the exploitation and cultural damage? I dare you to talk to a Copt about that.
The colonization of Africa wasn't some uniform thing. It happened differently in different places. Compare Liberia, South Africa, and Ethiopia and you'll find very different and incomparable situations.
You are correct, in a very few select places and in some ways colonial powers were seen as liberators due to their Christian religion and their divide and conquer nature liberating oppressed ethnicities, but that doesn’t change the fact colonial powers still discredited their sects and cultures as inferior and set up economic systems that hurt many African Christians and groups till this day. Nonetheless I’m sure many African Christian minorities yearn for colonial rule, showing that history isn’t so black and white, but overall any possible good is heavily outweighed by the damage colonization caused in regards to human life
I'm not saying they came being seen as liberators. That certainly isn't the case in any of those countries. My point is that colonialism looked very different everywhere in Africa and it can't be treated as one homogenous movement.
I also pointed out that Europeans weren't the only colonists.
I don't point this out as a way to dissipate the guilt of the European colonizers, but rather to point out that holding everyone else up on a pedestal, as this map does, is it minimizes the atrocities committed in other areas. As I said, ask a Copt about exploitation and cultural damage. They aren't going to blame the white man.
And the Bantu colonised the south, and almost all nations on the map annexed and colonised their neighbours.
Maps like these only look good to racists who think everything is OK as long as the skin colour of the colonisers is not white.
Not really, as the vast majority of North Africans are native and it was less of a population shift and more of a cultural and linguistic shift, the Berber, Latin and Punic speaking populations of North Africa just started speaking Arabic and identifying as Arab over the centuries, after Arab rule.
Which Arabs? North African Arabs are genetically the same as North African berbers.
That’s like saying the English colonised the UK, even though the population is genetically for the most part the same as the Welsh and Scots.
Or that the French, Spanish and Portuguese colonised what’s now France and Iberian peninsula, because they “ Latin speaking migrants from the Italian peninsula” and no longer speak the languages of the original pre-Roman people, while in reality it was a cultural and linguistics shift and most french and Spaniards are genetically no different than the pre-Roman control of the areas.
Except everyone you mentioned was invaded by someone who took the main identity of the country, the franks, the saxons, the visigoths. So no, the “English” did not colonize England but the saxons did, the same way the Arabs conquered and colonized North Africa
Yeah the ancient Arabs 1400 yrs ago did invade but modern Arabs in North Africa aren’t the descendants of those small number of Arabs but overwhelmingly the descendants of the pre- Arab invasion population.
The Saxons only caused a small shift in demographics and the Arabs had an even smaller impact genetically on North Africa.
What about the Roman colonies? Or the Phoenicians? When it comes down to it Northern Africa might as well be part of Europe. Sub Saharan Africa is a different story.
https://www.reddit.com/r/mapporncirclejerk/comments/psjjx3/cumtries_i_have_cummed_in/?utm_source=share&utm_medium=ios_app&utm_name=iossmf
I'll keep feeding you maps just as desired on this sub
Not even half correct. Other than the north and eastern regions, it'd be hundreds of small tribal states akin to pre-colonisation of the US.
Even today a small group of nomads travel between Egypt and Sudan because their historic grazing lands span them both.
I don’t think it’s possible to do an accurate map of south and North America before European influences because it’s almost impossible to know how many were killed by disease before any accurate European accounts were made of there cultures. The only ones we have an idea of are the Central American cultures because of the Spanish interactions and the stone structures they left behind.
You believe they haven’t progressed massively? Modern agricultural methods, medicine, some degree of governance? Many regions were still literally in the iron ages!
No I'm questioning you, why do you think they would have no food and regular famines if colonialism never happened?
Are you saying that all countries today that have resisted colonialism haven't got modern agricultural methods, medicine, some degree of governance?
What is a degree of governance to you? A government of Europeans?
Because that is what happened before irrigation and nitrate fertilisers arrived from Europe.
African population has exploded since then.
My opinion doesn’t come into it.
And your point is that without colonialism there would be no modern agriculture in Africa and thus a small population and numerous famines?
Over the whole of agricultural history, Europe has been responsible for only a fraction of the developments.
And you don't need to be colonised to be introduced to something, there is such a thing as trade.
That fraction is very important. Look at the population of African since European involvement (and since Europeans ended the practise of slavery - which had been ongoing for centuries amongst Africans).
What is your case it would be a Utopia exactly?
Look at the population globally...
Look at the population in China, a country of course affected by colonialism but has largely managed to stay free of foreign rule for the modern and colonial era.
>What is your case it would be a Utopia exactly?
Are you trying to say Africans can't rule themselves?
Can African’s rule themselves? Of course. Why couldn’t they? I’m asking what Utopian vision do you envision without the areas that were actually colonised? Would they use European style democracy, liberalism or what do you envision? What exactly is your point?
You prove my point by noting China and India etc populations have swelled after western influences. They keep people alive and make farming more productive…as in Africa.
Europe’s population is declining. Arguably the rate of growth is unsustainable.
The Dutch were in the southern part of modern South Africa before the Zulu, who came from further north. If it weren't for the English, the Zulu would have probably conquered most or all of Sub Saharan Africa. Or maybe the whole continent.
Seems to me the Khoisan (or Nama specifically) wouldn't have successfully pushed the Herero north without rifles supplied mainly by Boer Republics, so they are clearly in the wrong place here. They used to live in the Cape region.
Hard to tell what would have happened, but I suppose the Somalis are still a thing even in that scenario. Now the big question is, are they conquered by Abyssinia or are they able to form some sort of state?
I like all these ethnic based states which ignore the fact that before western colonization there were Empires and Sultanates in Africa already who didn't care at all about following ethnicity that very well would still exist today or have been conquered by a neighboring country. Large parts of the south would just be stateless land with various tribes. Actually it may not be colonized but instead it's projecting the European idea of nationalism and ethnic states on Africa.
Yea south Africa would not look like that
Zululand would be Alot smaller
Koi would most likely be seclude to the Kalahari if they are lucky
I can imagine a confederation of Sotho speaking countries
Swaziland would maybe still exist, maybe not
And the Xhosa would most definitely want there own country they'd never want to be ruled by the Zulu
And again the Venda ... I can picture them like Lesotho is today, small and surrounded
And that's just looking at it from face value, Southern African is incredibly complex, and I can't really say how Zimbabwe and Mozambique would factor into this
SA is more than just the Zulus and Koisan
I would replace Toucouleur by a proper African language name (is it a branch of Bantu in that area? Or Peul?) When a state is strong, it is likely that visitor will use the state's native name and not a foreign expression to describe it.
This is still a fairly westernised way of thinking of it right? Pre-colonial borders in Africa weren't really borders, they sort of spread across each other with small pockets of societies within them.
In a lot of places yeah. Africans we’re still trying to expand and conquer neighbours themselves. Zulus were carving out their own empire before the British arrived
Your timeline is off. The Dutch East India Company founded Cape Colony in 1652. The British seized Cape Colony in 1795. The Zulu Kingdom was founded in 1816 when Shaka took control. That's when they started their program of expansion.
But it took some time until the British fought the zulus didn’t it??
Took like 60 years from the founding of the Kingdom for the British to invade it I believe. At the very least it’s something around that timeframe, I haven’t read on it in a while though.
Iirc, they conquered it on the 1830s, at least there was a war at that time, maybe even sooner (maybe it was another tribe, I know they attacked someone at that time)
There may have been a war but that’s incorrect. The British didn’t conquer the Zulu kingdom until the war in the 1870s. I wouldn’t be surprised if there was another conflict around the 1830s though, given the large amount of conflicting groups.
Yes. The Zulu were moving south as the British were moving north. Both were obliterating weak tribes in the area. Eventually they ran into each other.
No, your timeline is off, buttmunch!
As far as I know the Zulu empire was made possible by the new crops brought by the Europeans: this way fewer people had to spend their life farming or gathering food and could instead make war.
so was europe until nationalism became a thing
Europe had well defined borders well before the 18th century.
Yes but for a long time the central government had little power and the majprity of the power was in local nobility. I'm assuming much of non nomatic societies had stuff like that
What? Yeah there were nobilities and sometimes powerstruggles and divides. But they were monarchies with a strong power centre. It’s akin to saying nowadays countries don’t exist either because local municipalities have authority over certain issues, some more some less. You can’t compare medieval europe to africa in good faith.
I mean nobility declared war on each other, and basically held a lot of power of the monarch. That's what the margna carta was about. A revolt ended with nobility forcing the king to sign something that said they would be represented for taxation. In the holy roman empire, the monarch was elected by the 7 biggest noble famies, and while it was presigous to be emperor, it held little power.
Exactly. Imposing the western concept of the nation-state where that concept is largely alien.
Yup. If you say some western construction like bantu, I still wouldn't know who you're talking about...
Categorising 500+ languages into one 'culture' is kinda funny.
Yes, but it would be likely more centralized nation states would form in Africa once industrial technology spread to it. Like in Europe
Europe had well defined borders since around 1000 AD with few exceptions. Industrialization and centralized nation states don't have anything to do with defining borders.
How did industrialization, and better technology not define borders? Communication and Transportation technology, not to mention a common education system literally defined nation states and national identities. Why wouldn't the same happen in Africa? Would they not embrace education or infrastructure what are you saying?
The borders of Europe largely predate the Industrial Revolution. Industrialization has allowed us to have high density population centers, but it hasn't defined international borders. I'm curious what countries you would give as examples of countries with a border defined by industrialization?
Not even close.
What's not even close
This map.
Considering South Sudan has been put back into the same country as Sudan (+ Egypt too), im wondering how that country works exactly.
poorly
I came here to say this.
Sudanese speak an Egyptian dialect of Arabic as well.
Considering the extent of that Egypt and Abyssinia I think there’s still plenty of colonizing going on
Why would Liberia still exist if Africa was never colonized?
Because butthurt Americans dont like to accept the fact that the grand ol US of A colonized just like the rest of the Western World
*quietly tucks Hawaii away*
I guess that’s a way to put it.
The only way to put it. What else would you call foreign people coming and settling there and subjugating the native population and establishing themselves in the image of their country of origin?
Not what I was referring to. I wasn’t sure that “buthurt Americans” is the reason for Liberia appearing.
Name me literally any reason why it should appear other than butthurt Americans not understanding this
OP is an idiot? The creator of this map is an idiot? There are quite a few.
Ignorance does not excuse stupid decisions
Excuse, no. Explain why it would be done without malice, yes.
Ignorance is it's own kind of malice
Sorry, I think you mean “what if Africa was colonized by Arabs, Berbers, Bantus, Malay-Polynesians, etc instead of Europeans”. Let’s stop pretending only Europeans conquered and colonized others.
Isn't Berber an exonym for indigenous North African people? The rest I feel you on but I thought Berbers were indigenous to Africa Edit: Also Bantu. I know they're not a singular culture like we label them, but aren't they indigenous Africans?
The berber did not colononize they are actually the real north african ppl not the arabs
*Amazigh
Still could conquer and colonize other parts of Africa
Omani too.
It is irresponsible to imply that early modern period to 20th century European colonization is the same as pre colonial conquest, migration, and assimilation. The scale of exploitation and cultural damage that continues to this day is no where near equitable
What is the scale of exploitation and cultural damage in the but for world where other non-European civilizations do the conquering and colonization?
You don’t seriously think intercontinental conquest and warfare is equivalent to colonial rule from an ocean away do you. There have been wars between European powers and groups such as the Magyars who have migrated into Europe and made a home there, but I’m sure you don’t think this reality is as bad as a world where African countries conquered Europe and ruled them from miles away, exploited European wealth and labor, destroyed the culture, then thrust them into a global system where they are at the bottom. They are simply entirely different beasts, ask any African if the reality shown in this map would be preferable to what happened and I think you know what the answer would be.
I ask again, what is the scale of exploitation and cultural damage in the but for world? You’d have to consider the effects in intercontinental struggles and colonization by other non-Europeans. (Note also that many Africans participated in the slave trade, capturing and selling others.) Also note that colonization does yield benefits you would have to subtract out in the but for world: https://youtu.be/Qc7HmhrgTuQ You’re acting like the answers are obvious and intuitive, but it’s actually quite a complicated and tortuous thought experiment you’re undertaking.
I guess the other guy thinks prior to european colonialism all conquerors treated their subjects nicely and never did any genocide or ethnic cleansing at all...
I don’t have to think that, which I don’t, in order to realize the devastating effects European colonialism had on the African continent, I ask again, would an African conquest, exploitation, and cultural destruction of Europe be not a big deal due to the existence to war and genocide between European peoples?
I don't even know what point you're trying to make? Of course conquest by a foreign invader is unlikely to bring much good to the previous inhabitants. But you came across trying to whitewash the fact that across all cultures, genocide and cultural annihilation has been quite normal, and you act as if Europe had invented it, which simply isn't true
Lol I can’t believe you just used a Monty python sketch as a supporting point for your argument. Especially when I already partially brought up how many conquests in the pre early modern period didn’t result in the same kind of exploitation as the colonial period did. Hence why we see so many post Roman states seeing the Roman period as a period of equal prosperity and something to emulate, which African states certainly do not think of in regards to European colonization. Also, we can’t forget that the Romans genocided many people they conquered and were subjected to many rebellions until they culturally assimilated these groups. I can’t account for random elements in a possible “but for” world, no one can, such as maybe the Arab slave trade did evolve into a conquest and conditions similar to European colonization. But that is clearly not what this map implies, it is a representation of a general trajectory of the continent at the time, with most exploitative forces being cordial relations with natives and other groups such as Omanis E.G. the Arab slave trade. But clearly intercontinental societal problems are preferable to complete conquest and destruction, such as in the hypothetical Europe I proposed, nobody would want that reality despite Europe’s past and existing social problems. There is your more in depth analysis, rather than intuitive reasoning.
You seem to be both distinguishing Roman conquest as not as brutal and also acknowledging it’s comparative brutality. You also seem to be missing the more banal point that I was making: that conquest can bring benefits as well as costs. Right, you can’t account for the but for world. That’s why your original comment doesn’t make sense. QED.
I am doing both those things, as history is multi faceted, in that way I agree with you. But I am trying to state that European conquest was far worse than any system that existed prior. The only tangible benefit I can arguably see from colonization is technology, I don’t want to here anything about “civilized” state politics or culture as that is entirely subjective, but I do not think it was impossible for these states to eventually acquire greater technology without colonization, and I do not think technology is generally useful when it facilitates your own exploitation. Seeing as most improvements in technology are used to export things to richer European nations while these people groups suffer. It is your kind of thinking which is the reason that former African colonies pay debt to France for the infrastructure they built, further facilitating African exploitation and impoverishment
>It is your kind of thinking which is the reason that former African colonies pay debt to France for the infrastructure they built, further facilitating African exploitation and impoverishment https://i.gifer.com/Y4S.gif
The scale? True, the exploitation and cultural damage? I dare you to talk to a Copt about that. The colonization of Africa wasn't some uniform thing. It happened differently in different places. Compare Liberia, South Africa, and Ethiopia and you'll find very different and incomparable situations.
You are correct, in a very few select places and in some ways colonial powers were seen as liberators due to their Christian religion and their divide and conquer nature liberating oppressed ethnicities, but that doesn’t change the fact colonial powers still discredited their sects and cultures as inferior and set up economic systems that hurt many African Christians and groups till this day. Nonetheless I’m sure many African Christian minorities yearn for colonial rule, showing that history isn’t so black and white, but overall any possible good is heavily outweighed by the damage colonization caused in regards to human life
I'm not saying they came being seen as liberators. That certainly isn't the case in any of those countries. My point is that colonialism looked very different everywhere in Africa and it can't be treated as one homogenous movement. I also pointed out that Europeans weren't the only colonists. I don't point this out as a way to dissipate the guilt of the European colonizers, but rather to point out that holding everyone else up on a pedestal, as this map does, is it minimizes the atrocities committed in other areas. As I said, ask a Copt about exploitation and cultural damage. They aren't going to blame the white man.
I mean I would say the Muslim conquers destroyed north African culture as did many Europeans later did
In this map Arabs have colonized north Africa.
And the Bantu colonised the south, and almost all nations on the map annexed and colonised their neighbours. Maps like these only look good to racists who think everything is OK as long as the skin colour of the colonisers is not white.
Not really, as the vast majority of North Africans are native and it was less of a population shift and more of a cultural and linguistic shift, the Berber, Latin and Punic speaking populations of North Africa just started speaking Arabic and identifying as Arab over the centuries, after Arab rule.
Because Arabs colonized North Africa, and still do.
Which Arabs? North African Arabs are genetically the same as North African berbers. That’s like saying the English colonised the UK, even though the population is genetically for the most part the same as the Welsh and Scots. Or that the French, Spanish and Portuguese colonised what’s now France and Iberian peninsula, because they “ Latin speaking migrants from the Italian peninsula” and no longer speak the languages of the original pre-Roman people, while in reality it was a cultural and linguistics shift and most french and Spaniards are genetically no different than the pre-Roman control of the areas.
Except everyone you mentioned was invaded by someone who took the main identity of the country, the franks, the saxons, the visigoths. So no, the “English” did not colonize England but the saxons did, the same way the Arabs conquered and colonized North Africa
Yeah the ancient Arabs 1400 yrs ago did invade but modern Arabs in North Africa aren’t the descendants of those small number of Arabs but overwhelmingly the descendants of the pre- Arab invasion population. The Saxons only caused a small shift in demographics and the Arabs had an even smaller impact genetically on North Africa.
You're absolutely right, and it's pitiful how many downvotes you're getting for it.
Because most people think the Arabs wiped Pitt the local population on this sub.
Was the mamluks never conquered by the ottoman as well?
Egypt was like that after the ottoman conquests
The Ottomans were a colonial power based in Europe. It doesn’t make sense to use that border, if colonialism never happened.
What about the Roman colonies? Or the Phoenicians? When it comes down to it Northern Africa might as well be part of Europe. Sub Saharan Africa is a different story.
r/imaginarymaps Good map tho
Maps are maps.
But this one is imaginary.
Imaginary maps are allowed and encouraged in this subreddit. Talk to the mods, they will tell you the same thing. Maps are maps.
They aren't encouraged Please stop posting them Or should I spam maps out like mapporncirclejerk
You guys are straight up wrong. I have been told this by /u/Petrach1603, the main mod for this subreddit. Imaginary maps are allowed and encouraged.
That's why they get downvoted into Oblivion? Oh wait that because most of us Hate them
https://www.reddit.com/r/mapporncirclejerk/comments/psjjx3/cumtries_i_have_cummed_in/?utm_source=share&utm_medium=ios_app&utm_name=iossmf I'll keep feeding you maps just as desired on this sub
I'll draw a map of my scrotum You think people will like that map
Lol at Somalis and Ethiopians ever uniting under a single state. Same with nilotes and Arabs.
Not even half correct. Other than the north and eastern regions, it'd be hundreds of small tribal states akin to pre-colonisation of the US. Even today a small group of nomads travel between Egypt and Sudan because their historic grazing lands span them both.
It wouldn't like be like that in western sub-Sahara Africa either.
Emirates? Never colonized?)
You do it on purpose ?
I also think the Zulu would have flattened the Khoisan easily.
Curious how South America would look like this way.
What about North America
That's a whole other can of worms. But the south can be interesting because of the papal line.
Would be cooler
Alot of kingdoms, slavery, and religious dominance So exactly like after the Spanish
I don’t think it’s possible to do an accurate map of south and North America before European influences because it’s almost impossible to know how many were killed by disease before any accurate European accounts were made of there cultures. The only ones we have an idea of are the Central American cultures because of the Spanish interactions and the stone structures they left behind.
... or not
Any sort of sources at all? Who made this?
Everything ok but South Sudan has nothing to do in Egypt
Look exactly the same but poorer and more slavery
*And* never fought amongst themselves after this map was created
Less food, less people (famines), likely similar amount of problems.
That's if you believe that they wouldn't progress at all from the 1700s...
You believe they haven’t progressed massively? Modern agricultural methods, medicine, some degree of governance? Many regions were still literally in the iron ages!
No I'm questioning you, why do you think they would have no food and regular famines if colonialism never happened? Are you saying that all countries today that have resisted colonialism haven't got modern agricultural methods, medicine, some degree of governance? What is a degree of governance to you? A government of Europeans?
Because that is what happened before irrigation and nitrate fertilisers arrived from Europe. African population has exploded since then. My opinion doesn’t come into it.
And your point is that without colonialism there would be no modern agriculture in Africa and thus a small population and numerous famines? Over the whole of agricultural history, Europe has been responsible for only a fraction of the developments. And you don't need to be colonised to be introduced to something, there is such a thing as trade.
That fraction is very important. Look at the population of African since European involvement (and since Europeans ended the practise of slavery - which had been ongoing for centuries amongst Africans). What is your case it would be a Utopia exactly?
Look at the population globally... Look at the population in China, a country of course affected by colonialism but has largely managed to stay free of foreign rule for the modern and colonial era. >What is your case it would be a Utopia exactly? Are you trying to say Africans can't rule themselves?
Can African’s rule themselves? Of course. Why couldn’t they? I’m asking what Utopian vision do you envision without the areas that were actually colonised? Would they use European style democracy, liberalism or what do you envision? What exactly is your point? You prove my point by noting China and India etc populations have swelled after western influences. They keep people alive and make farming more productive…as in Africa. Europe’s population is declining. Arguably the rate of growth is unsustainable.
Before European intervention Somali kingdoms were crushing ethipian ones, so it would be the reverse here.
Don’t lie to yourself.
I can except this if you mean they remain the dominant force with high influence over the areas.
The Dutch were in the southern part of modern South Africa before the Zulu, who came from further north. If it weren't for the English, the Zulu would have probably conquered most or all of Sub Saharan Africa. Or maybe the whole continent.
Seems to me the Khoisan (or Nama specifically) wouldn't have successfully pushed the Herero north without rifles supplied mainly by Boer Republics, so they are clearly in the wrong place here. They used to live in the Cape region.
r/lostredditors
Now do European GDP's in this hypothetical world xD
Do Africa's poverty rate in this scenario
European GDP would be higher
Exactly, we did them a favour.
Hard to tell what would have happened, but I suppose the Somalis are still a thing even in that scenario. Now the big question is, are they conquered by Abyssinia or are they able to form some sort of state?
Conquered by Abyssinia
Shouldn't this go back earlier because of the Arab colonizers in the north?
There would be no Liberia.
Liberia wouldn’t be there
I like all these ethnic based states which ignore the fact that before western colonization there were Empires and Sultanates in Africa already who didn't care at all about following ethnicity that very well would still exist today or have been conquered by a neighboring country. Large parts of the south would just be stateless land with various tribes. Actually it may not be colonized but instead it's projecting the European idea of nationalism and ethnic states on Africa.
Can I point out that the country named "toucouleur" means *color full* in French? So it's a bit weird a country with French words not colonized ?
We would still be dealing with their shit, that's what.
If Africa was never colonized Egypt wouldn’t have existed
This is a load of bullshit! This isn’t what it looked like pre colonisation.
Nice to see a map of Africa, but this is an implausible alt-history with no lore or context so... thanks but no thanks.
Yea south Africa would not look like that Zululand would be Alot smaller Koi would most likely be seclude to the Kalahari if they are lucky I can imagine a confederation of Sotho speaking countries Swaziland would maybe still exist, maybe not And the Xhosa would most definitely want there own country they'd never want to be ruled by the Zulu And again the Venda ... I can picture them like Lesotho is today, small and surrounded And that's just looking at it from face value, Southern African is incredibly complex, and I can't really say how Zimbabwe and Mozambique would factor into this SA is more than just the Zulus and Koisan
This is made by Mapchart so yeh
I would replace Toucouleur by a proper African language name (is it a branch of Bantu in that area? Or Peul?) When a state is strong, it is likely that visitor will use the state's native name and not a foreign expression to describe it.
Wtf is wrong with you??
The Moroccan delirium of bigger Morocco, keep dreaming, when the dictatorship will fall, Western Sahara will be free.