They're extremely spread out. Having one or two of those resources alone doesn't help you very much. Also diamonds are gold are fricking useless for making anything. That's only good for trading.
Yeah, we don't know for sure they had already invented mudhuts and loinclothes in 10,000 BC
For all we know they may have been living like literal monkeys
If we're going off of OP's map and only saying colonization after 1880 didn't happen, then South Africa would probably be more white than it is today, not less. The Boers had already established themselves in the region, and their numbers would be a whole lot higher without the Boer Wars and forced relocations. The British Empire also extended its protection to a lot of Bantu tribes to counterbalance the Boers... something they wouldn't have enjoyed in this scenario.
>languages
Anon any kind of European style nationalism with a large linguistic component was absolutely foreign to Africa, it would be evolutions of traditional structures and it would be smaller but j average, but stateswould absolutely not follow language
Most of the continent except Ethiopia would be ruled under Islamic theocracies. Arabs would have continued settling throughout East Africa and the Congo, and they would have replaced the native Bantu populations and formed a large Afro-Arab race. Meanwhile, West Africa would be ruled by Black Muslim ethnic groups such as the Fulani and the Wolof
Morocco along with some Spanish mercenaries marched across the Sahara and pushed West Africa's shit in. The region never really recentralized and recovered.
Africa being completely uncolonized is a pipe-dream. Actually, make that Africa not being colonized period, is a pipe dream.
But if Africa had been left relatively untouched (say, suppose colonization started much later or it proved more difficult to exploit its resources or access the interior), it would have ended up sort of like Papua New Guinea in the 1970s.
Even if there was never an official Scramble for Africa, Portugal would have kept exploring and claiming the interior to connect their colonies Angola and Mozambique. Without any British backstabbers in the mix, they could have actually accomplished their Pink Map plan.
Liberia would have also become a lot larger. They originally claimed a lot of interior regions, but were pushed back by the British and French.
Most of central Africa would have become Muslim. The western muslim african empires would have expanded slowly but surely.
Western european colonialism , especially British colonialism. came at just that moment that halted a great deal of Mali's expansion and were especially paranoid about Sudans Mahdist uprising hence their later intervention. European policy of christinization came hand in hand with colonial consolidation. In the european belief system faith is seperated beatween Abrahamic religions and weak heathen paganism. Europeans were in fact freaking out quite a lot about Islams rapid expansion in western Africa. But at the same time they didn't undertand at all how many indigenous belief systems co-existed with Islam , and so they did their best to eraze it all. The Yoruba for example were prosperous , and infact more democratic than any european nation at the time.
I'm not a historian but I do think some parts would be quite nice today is some areas. Most of it would probably still be poor but there would be a few decently successful states.
Best areas would be Sahelian West Africa to an extent, Gulf of Guinea, and Swahili coast area. Honestly the Horn would probably still shoot itself in the foot in this timeline. Hard to say though because you can't just pretend colonialism didn't happen due to its massive global effects over centuries
Unironically thinking that any Subsaharan country would be better off now if colonialims hadn't happened is being uneducated or brainwawhsed.
It brought shitons of advancement and had basically no negative effect besides hurting the pride of locals (or more accurately, of their descendents).
At most a few states may have managed to eventually get as "successful" as some are now, but better most definitly not.
>Unironically thinking that any Subsaharan country would be better off now if colonialims hadn't happened is being uneducated or brainwawhsed.
Cope >It brought shitons of advancement
This is possible without colonization you dimwit, have you never heard of trade? Treaties? Diplomacy? >had basically no negative effect besides hurting the pride of locals (or more accurately, of their descendents).
Nevermind you're actually moronic >At most a few states may have managed to eventually get as "successful" as some are now, but better most definitly not.
Literally what I said
Guns arrived there before colonization.
Nigs had been exchanging their brothers for guns ever since the 16th century.
16th-19th century West Africa was basically a bunch of neolithic apes killing each others with modern European guns despite being naked and living in prehistorical mudhuts.
Muslims would take longer but still conquer thye entire continent, maybe 50 years later than european christians did. Black folk would have been fully genocided or forced to convert. Their descendants in america would be grateful to the slave trade that saved them and fully assimilate.
Mind you this is what should have happened in the current timeline too, if not for the slave trade they would be stuck in africa and trying to cross the atlantic themselves. They certainly wouldn't get to use the internet to ape out and colonize the humanities field with their grievance studies.
>Egypt
>not independent
Lel
It technically wasn't. Technically.
In a mildly better position than today.
But with how the course of capitalism and Imperialism was going, it was very unlikely Africa wasn't going to get colonised by _someone_ at some point
Resources are tasty
Africa doesn't have any resources
le chinese tiresome man face
They're extremely spread out. Having one or two of those resources alone doesn't help you very much. Also diamonds are gold are fricking useless for making anything. That's only good for trading.
and* ffs
The coastline would probably be more developed
Like SEA tier or East Europe
The interior would likely be poorer and somewhat like Afghanistan
>Like SEA tier or East Europe
they don't have enough IQ for that.
they'd be the same shit they've always been.
>muh inbreeding
what an idiotic joke.
have you taken a good look at an inbreeding global map?
>muh IQ
It's proportional to economical superiority and stability. Avg IQ in China and "Japan" was 60-70 in the 19th century.
Same shithole as today, maybe worse.
Your family tree is knotted, cletus
I know my father and my grandfathers on both sides. How about you Black person?
>father and my grandfathers on both sides.
That's because they're the same person you inbred balogna sandwich with mayo eating troony.
white troony hands made these posts.
I mean, shit hadn't changed from 10,000 BC to 1880 AD when it comes to architecture.
So I think it's safe to assume they'd still live naked in huts.
False, obviously
Yeah, we don't know for sure they had already invented mudhuts and loinclothes in 10,000 BC
For all we know they may have been living like literal monkeys
You're not funny. Come up with something that's actually clever and not just an attempt at being edgy.
without whites which is a plus
maybe if youre a noble savage moron
yeah, the haitians must really love those mud cookies.
who brought them to Haiti in the first place and later blockaded them for 200 years , you dumb cracker?
If we're going off of OP's map and only saying colonization after 1880 didn't happen, then South Africa would probably be more white than it is today, not less. The Boers had already established themselves in the region, and their numbers would be a whole lot higher without the Boer Wars and forced relocations. The British Empire also extended its protection to a lot of Bantu tribes to counterbalance the Boers... something they wouldn't have enjoyed in this scenario.
it would, at the very least, have borders more based on language instead of the clusterfrick it got
>languages
Anon any kind of European style nationalism with a large linguistic component was absolutely foreign to Africa, it would be evolutions of traditional structures and it would be smaller but j average, but stateswould absolutely not follow language
so you're admitting that multiculturalism is bad for a country?
Africans didn't vote for their borders. Most of the time, not even the chiefs or kings did, since no Africans were present at the Berlin conference.
Most of the continent except Ethiopia would be ruled under Islamic theocracies. Arabs would have continued settling throughout East Africa and the Congo, and they would have replaced the native Bantu populations and formed a large Afro-Arab race. Meanwhile, West Africa would be ruled by Black Muslim ethnic groups such as the Fulani and the Wolof
Whatever happened to Mali?
Morocco along with some Spanish mercenaries marched across the Sahara and pushed West Africa's shit in. The region never really recentralized and recovered.
Africa being completely uncolonized is a pipe-dream. Actually, make that Africa not being colonized period, is a pipe dream.
But if Africa had been left relatively untouched (say, suppose colonization started much later or it proved more difficult to exploit its resources or access the interior), it would have ended up sort of like Papua New Guinea in the 1970s.
Even if there was never an official Scramble for Africa, Portugal would have kept exploring and claiming the interior to connect their colonies Angola and Mozambique. Without any British backstabbers in the mix, they could have actually accomplished their Pink Map plan.
Liberia would have also become a lot larger. They originally claimed a lot of interior regions, but were pushed back by the British and French.
Most of central Africa would have become Muslim. The western muslim african empires would have expanded slowly but surely.
Western european colonialism , especially British colonialism. came at just that moment that halted a great deal of Mali's expansion and were especially paranoid about Sudans Mahdist uprising hence their later intervention. European policy of christinization came hand in hand with colonial consolidation. In the european belief system faith is seperated beatween Abrahamic religions and weak heathen paganism. Europeans were in fact freaking out quite a lot about Islams rapid expansion in western Africa. But at the same time they didn't undertand at all how many indigenous belief systems co-existed with Islam , and so they did their best to eraze it all. The Yoruba for example were prosperous , and infact more democratic than any european nation at the time.
they'd continue being the same shithole they were before being colonized.
I think you know white boi
I'm not a historian but I do think some parts would be quite nice today is some areas. Most of it would probably still be poor but there would be a few decently successful states.
Best areas would be Sahelian West Africa to an extent, Gulf of Guinea, and Swahili coast area. Honestly the Horn would probably still shoot itself in the foot in this timeline. Hard to say though because you can't just pretend colonialism didn't happen due to its massive global effects over centuries
Unironically thinking that any Subsaharan country would be better off now if colonialims hadn't happened is being uneducated or brainwawhsed.
It brought shitons of advancement and had basically no negative effect besides hurting the pride of locals (or more accurately, of their descendents).
At most a few states may have managed to eventually get as "successful" as some are now, but better most definitly not.
>It brought shitons of advancement and had basically no negative effect
fricking lol
>Unironically thinking that any Subsaharan country would be better off now if colonialims hadn't happened is being uneducated or brainwawhsed.
Cope
>It brought shitons of advancement
This is possible without colonization you dimwit, have you never heard of trade? Treaties? Diplomacy?
>had basically no negative effect besides hurting the pride of locals (or more accurately, of their descendents).
Nevermind you're actually moronic
>At most a few states may have managed to eventually get as "successful" as some are now, but better most definitly not.
Literally what I said
Morocco was bigger than this
I would argue that the Ottomans, Moroccans, Hausa, Somalis, and Swahili/Zanzibaris were a form of colonialism from the Arab world
There would be less guns, paved roads, books, buildings, and electricity. It would unironically be paradise.
Guns arrived there before colonization.
Nigs had been exchanging their brothers for guns ever since the 16th century.
16th-19th century West Africa was basically a bunch of neolithic apes killing each others with modern European guns despite being naked and living in prehistorical mudhuts.
What is it with historians and calling every savage country bigger than New Jersey an “Empire”?
illiterate subsistence farmers living in mud huts
it would still suck, but not as much.
Muslims would take longer but still conquer thye entire continent, maybe 50 years later than european christians did. Black folk would have been fully genocided or forced to convert. Their descendants in america would be grateful to the slave trade that saved them and fully assimilate.
Mind you this is what should have happened in the current timeline too, if not for the slave trade they would be stuck in africa and trying to cross the atlantic themselves. They certainly wouldn't get to use the internet to ape out and colonize the humanities field with their grievance studies.
The same as it has always been. Possibly worse.