l mean just from a neutral perspective l think you could se quite alot of parellels between post colonial Africa and post roman Europe.
Same break down of unified governing order leading to the rise of hundreds of petty tyrant kings.
Same technological backsliding with previously common ammendities like roads and water systems falling into disrepair and ruin.
Same wars and genocides following the collapse along religious and ethnic lines.
Why are modern historians so alergic to looking at post colonial africa through this lens??
lt doesn't infer any genetic or intellectual inferiority on the part of Africans. After the romans left Britian the island lost the technology of running water for centuries; that didin't make the english genetically inferior to italians.
Why would pointing out Africans lost electrical infrastructure after the end of European colonization be any different?
Why is it so hard to just admit post-colonial africa is LESS develop then it was when the europeans left???

>>17798484 (OP)
Can't call it a dark age if QoL and human development metrics still are increasing.

>>17798497
Relative to the period of colonization??

>>17798484 (OP)
>Same technological backsliding with previously common ammendities like roads and water systems falling into disrepair and ruin.
Port Gentil had no road to it during the French era despite being a key port in the area. Now it does have a road connecting said port to the rest of Gabon, decades after French rule (and local rule).

>>17798505
Definitely yeah.

>>17798484 (OP)
How would the post ww2 economy even work for these colonies? Their economies were already gimped and tied to the metropole as is and any real reform movement was always dead in the water or choked out by the settler lobby. One deacon in Kenya back in I think the 30s told people to treat their African workers better and he got threats and angry letters despite being a part of the church lol.

>>17798484 (OP)
>Why are modern historians so alergic to looking at post colonial africa through this lens??

Because that's incompatible with the agenda currently being pushed.
You'll have to wait a few centuries for this topic to be accurately analyzed.

>>17799322
>Because that's incompatible with the agenda currently being pushed.
You think critique of post independence rule or general government policy doesn't exist? What this weird ass narrative thing you are trying to push exaxtly? Technically colonial rule is harder than analyze since you have to be multilingual and fly to both Europe and Africa to actually research it.

>>17798484 (OP)
>whites built a few things exclusively for the whites living there so that makes enslaving, plundering and murdering you okay
Why are chuds like this?

>>17800755
whites were actually the people that that stopped all the slavery and plundering.
You're welcome.

>>17800783
>whites were actually the people that that stopped all the slavery and plundering
Lmao this logic always made little sense. More so since slavery just turned to other forms of forced and bonded labour and "plundering" got replaced with other forms of coercion and theft.

>>17800755
For people the hypothetical idea of being able to power trip innways they couldnt do back home or have a state do it for them is enough to make them cook hands free. You could be 4th gen urbanized educated and literate subject and have your status stripped from you and/or your descendants or exiled away from home if you say the "wrong things". In this case being an educated African or biracial guys was a toxic status because it placed you innthe crosshairs of the government and the settlers.

>>17800796
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Slavery_Abolition_Act_1833

British taxpayers paid for this until 2015

>>17800832
And that doesn't really negate what I said. Let's not forget the captive markets and being dragged into two world wars.

>>17800832
Ok, and?

>>17800832
How is that of importance to most of the colonies exactly? Indians and Chinese were still shipped around as coolie slaves. Slavw owners got some free years of labour before they were legally forced to release any owned slaves as part of the agreement

>>17798484 (OP)
It's hard to "admit" things that aren't true
Almost every African is better off than under the colonial occupation, with the exception of people getting killed by bandits and terrorists working for western countries to control natural resources. The less crakkka meddling, the better off Africa is.

>>17798484 (OP)
Africa's dark age
>Africa's dark age began: Circa 48000 BC
>Africa's dark age ends: Circa 1880 AD, with the scramble for Africa
>Africa's New Dark Age begins: March 6th 1957, with the first act of the wave of post-war decolonization
>Africa's New Dark Age ends: ????

>Africa's da-a-aaaaghhh... a-A-AAACK!

West africa dark ages started with the collapse of the songhai empire

European travelers who visited west africa during the 15th and 16th descriptions sounds nothing like africa after the end of the songhai

>>17800862
It's nice that your wife's boyfriend lets you use his computer while he's otherwise engaged.

>>17800632
The current narrative being pushed is that European colonial rule is the reason behind Africa's civilizational failure.
It's an obvious lie, but that's useful to legitimate the ongoing African mass immigration to Europe.
And as long as this lie is prevalent, we can't have any serious analysis on the overwhelmingly positive effects of colonial rule on the continent, and the disaster that the hasted decolonisation was for Africa.

>>17800755
>whites built a few things exclusively for the whites living there

Whites built virtually every major city that now exist in Subsaharan Africa, and this even though settler colonialism wasn't even a thing outside of Rhodesia and South Africa.

>enslaving
European colonialism is what (temporarily) ended slavery, that had been a thing in Africa since the dawn of mankind.

>land is brutally colonised and exploited for decades, sometimes centuries
>colonial powers extremely clumsily and haphazardly pull out completely, sometimes following violent conflict, often leaving behind power vacuums that criminals and bandits can fill

>hmmm. sure is weird that things seemed to get worse
god you people are fucking retards

>>17800891
>legitimise
>hastened
not trying to get at you, but it's worth using the right words the next time you post this.
>captcha: NDAWN

>>17800872
>European travelers who visited west africa during the 15th and 16th

No such thing.
If you're talking about the Mali Empire, very few outsiders visited it, and most were arabs.
Ibn Battuta said it was a shithole where ritual cannibalism was still a thing.
Ritual cannibalism was no longer a thing in that area when European colonizers arrived there in the late 19th century, so it seems that as bad as 19th century West Africa was before colonial rule, it was still not as bad as it used to be in the era of the Mali and Songhai Empires.

>>17800913
>very few outsiders visited it, and most were Arab slave traders.
FTFY

>>17800898
>Whites built virtually every major city that now exist in Subsaharan Africa
Most of the infrastructure is new (as in post independence), or were slums. Unless you want to claim those slums too.

>this even though settler colonialism wasn't even a thing outside of Rhodesia and South Africa.
No it eas super prevalent outside of settler colonies too. Everything was built to either expedite the movement of resources and labour or to help the military penetrate deeper into the land.

>that had been a thing in Africa since the dawn of mankind.
Lol slave or slave like conditions have existed everywhere for ages. To somehow state what you said like it is some revelation is pretty silly.

>>17800916
>White colonists build cities
>welcome blacks into their city, their economy, and their society
>Whites decolonize, leave their African cities
>Blacks turn the White Man's cities into slums
>"Hmmm, I bet the white people did this!" t. You

>>17800901
>hmmm. sure is weird that things seemed to get worse


OP is not saying post-colonial Africa was worse than the absolute mad max tier hell on earth that was going on there before Europeans took over.
He's saying it was worse than during the 80 years timespan during which Europeans were (according to you) "brutally exploiting the place".

>>17800891
>that's useful to legitimate the ongoing African mass immigration to Europe.
Most migrants arent African lol.

we can't have any serious analysis on the overwhelmingly positive effects of colonial rule on the continent
Lol what overwhelmingly positive. The fact that literacy rates skyrocketed after decades of colonial rule is lost on you.

>the disaster that the hasted decolonisation was for Africa.
Europe broke itself after 2 world wars. Don't need a third world war that takes place in some malerial jungle in the tropics. The system was never capable of reform

>>17800923
>"I AM OUTRAGEOUSLY BUTTHURT AND NOT CONCERNED WITH REALITY!!!!!!!!!!!!!"
>t. you

>>17800932
You aren't helping your case lol.

>>17800921
>the absolute mad max tier hell on earth that was going on there before Europeans took over.
Which part exactly?

>>17800937
It's cute that you can still pretend you aren't a hyperemotive maniac.

>>17800923
>Most migrants arent African lol.
Most illegal migrants to Europe are from Africa

>Lol what overwhelmingly positive. The fact that literacy rates skyrocketed after decades of colonial rule is lost on you.
It also skyrocketed during colonial rule, especially since it started from virtually zero.
You don't seem to realize just how backward precolonial Subsharan Africa used to be.
During these 80 to 60 years of European rule, several dozens of modern cities spawned where only primitive huts villages stood before, basic technology was introduced, basic medicine was introduced (making the child mortality rates drop massively), written languages were introduced, slavery, ritual cannibalism and human sacrifices were abolished...

>>17800940
I don't think he is actually able to understand that. The dumb fuck probably believes that Wakanda was actually a documentary.

>>17800919
>>White colonists build cities
Using African and Indian labour.

>welcome blacks into their city, their economy, and their society
That's like me breaking into your house and making you pay me rent for you to have the privilege of sleeping in the shed.

>Blacks turn the White Man's cities into slums
Slums were pretty much an intentional part of the system. Easy place to procure labohr within the cities, easy to create and move around, dont need to deliver urban services to them because that was reserved for a limited few of the colonial elites on top of several forms of spatial segregation. It's not exactly rocket science since similar systems like these have happened in rural/urban landscapes . Its not even exactly exclusive to colonialism either since similar systems have happened within the metropole, prior to it and after

>>17800949
>SlUmS aRe ToTaLlY nOrMaL u GuIsE!!!!!!!11
Is that mask starting to slip?

>>17800940
>It also skyrocketed during colonial rule, especially since it started from virtually zero
Many places had it barely in the double digits, some had it in the singles. The idea that colonialism was needed as an engine to spread literacy doesn't really work out right. Especially when some powers had pretty ass literacy rates relative to their peers (Iberia).

>During these 80 to 60 years of European rule, several dozens of modern cities spawned where only primitive huts villages stood before, basic technology was introduced, basic medicine was introduced (making the child mortality rates drop massively), written languages were introduced, slavery, ritual cannibalism and human sacrifices were abolished...
And you seem to be assuming that everyone in Africa was within the same condtions. If Asia and Europe and the New World all had extremely varying condtions of settlement and organization within the continents, what makes you think Africa was the same?

>>17800937
>Which part exactly?

The entirety of it.
Pic related is Mali, arguably the most civilized area of precolonial Subsaharan Africa, before white people took over.
In the rest of the continent it was the same shit but worse.
In the Congo area you had tribal wars, mass slavery and cannibalism.
In Dahomey you had mass slavery, genocides, mass human sacrifices...
The whole continent was Mad Max.

>>17800950
Considering they occurred everywhere in history they aren't unusual. Slums creation can accelerate pretty quickly due to negligence (during and after colonialism) but they arent permanent. Granted the erosion of slums is a very long and arduous process.

>>17800953
I feel like I've seen this exact pic before.

>>17800961
>SLUMS ARE TOTALLY NORMAL YOU GUYS!
>DO NOT NOTICE HOW THE NEW ARRIVALS ARE TURNING YOUR PREVIOUSLY LOVELY NEIGHBOURHOODS INTO SLUMS
>THIS IS ALL ACCORDING TO PLAN!
That mask just keeps slipping, doesn't it?

>>17800953
Aw shit you means humans can be warring and expansionist assholes? Also weird if you to leave out that Dahoney was an organized state or that the warfare in Congo wasnt exactly "random".

>>17800967
Pretty sure I also seen OP's pic before
Or maybe that just Mbutu Effect...

>>17800919
>white colonists build themselves cities using indigenous labour
>have to house them somewhere, slums develop
>whites attempt to control decolonisation, failure means war
>failing that they loot, burn what they can't carry and run
>"uhhh their fault"

>>17800971
And you still managed to get even more triggered. Chuds truly are a wonder.

>>17801279
Not the guy you replied to but man....you're just writting your own fanfiction here.

>white colonists build themselves cities using indigenous labour
White colonists built modern cities in a place where only primitive huts villages existed.
This was done using European knowledge and technology as well as local low skilled labour.
These cities were in most places not "for white people" as settler colonialism wasn't really a thing outside of Rhodesia and South Africa.
Some white workers did live temporarily in these place to run the administrations and organize local development, but they were never the majority of the population of these cities.
>have to house them somewhere, slums develop
Slums developed at the periphery of the major cities built by Europeans because these developed cities attracted a massive amount of local Africans from the surrounding areas, who wanted to enjoy the modern infrastrucres and technology brought by European colonizes, as well as the better paid jobs that were avaiable in these developing cities.
Some were housed in proper housing in the modern parts of the city, but the influx was so massive that those that couldn't find proper housing started building "slums" (usually just the usual precolonial style villages of huts) in the outskirts
>whites attempt to control decolonisation, failure means war
>failing that they loot, burn what they can't carry and run
This whole part is pure fantasy.
The vast majority of Subsharan Africa obtained independence without war, and even in the few places that saw a war of independence, the cities and infrastructures brought by European colonization were mostly intact when Europeans left.

>>17798484 (OP)
No, arguably this is the brightest things have looked for the continent ever. I'm not much of an Afro-optimist, but it's true.
>Same break down of unified governing order leading to the rise of hundreds of petty tyrant kings.
Only in some very particular instances. Though corruption is rampant.
>Same technological backsliding with previously common ammendities like roads and water systems falling into disrepair and ruin.
Vast majority of colonial Africa did not have either water or electricity. The number of people in the continent with those amenities has substantially increased.
>Same wars and genocides following the collapse along religious and ethnic lines.
Actually there's very little evidence for that in post-roman europe. As for Africa, that's a constant before, throughout, and after colonization.
>Why are modern historians so alergic to looking at post colonial africa through this lens??
It's contructed to lionize colonialism, something no one but Chuds and Afrikaners have a particular interest in.

>Why is it so hard to just admit post-colonial africa is LESS develop then it was when the europeans left???
That's factuall incorrect.

>>17801362
Yeah OP's last sentence is an exaggeration.
At the time of independence in the 1960s, Africa was much more developed than it was before European rule started in the 1880s.
Nowdays in the 2020s, Africa is a bit more developed than it was in the 1960s when colonial rule ended.

The truth is that, except in some specific areas or fields, Africa didn't really go backward after independence.
However, the rate of development massively decreased, especially compared to the 40s and 50s when it had started increasing impressively.
So while it's incorrect to say that Africa is now less developed than it was at independence, it is however true that it is way less developed than it could be if colonial rule had lasted a few decades longer.

>>17798484 (OP)
Whenever I ask someone to explain how colonial Africa was better than pre colonial they can never explain what was better.

>>17801420
Abolition of slavery, cannibalism, human sacrifices and tribal warfare.
Introduction of medicine and modern technology, resulting in massive drops in child mortality rates.
Introduction to proper cities and clothes.
Introduction of basic education (even if not universally available), end of the utter isolation of Subsaharan Africa from the rest of mankind.

>>17801420
Read the text on the pic of this post >>17800953 it might give you an idea.
Even before whitey even built anything, it already felt so much better under his rule that hundreds thousands of africans were seeking refuge in the areas under european control.

>>17800950
>>17800971
Slums are a perfectly normal example of what happens when urban populations explode (due to newfound prosperity in urban centers) while the government is still building out capacity to expand service to the population. Even in India, there are people living in slums who have basically jerry-rigged their own utilities while the city governments slowly build out and clear said slums to replace them with soulless highrises

>>17801454
>>17801438
So you are still doing this bit with the exact same pics?

>>17801397
>At the time of independence in the 1960s, Africa was much more developed than it was before European rule started in the 1880s.
The gap was narrower prior to colonialism because the base condition everywhere in the world was low. After independence in the 60's the gap was way way wider because either tech transferring occurred (even if it was to further environmental or labour exploitation regardless of empire or colony), major education and polciy reforms in major states, or places that were able to remain sovereign were able to make key development jumps by consulting with Western experts and start start the steps or pull of industrialization. In many places in Africa like Southern Africa or Congo, the way you mined or employed farm workers with colonial labour did not really change at all because laborer costs were so low that you could brute force things throw throwing people at it instead of pursuing things like efficiency or upskilling labour.

>Nowdays in the 2020s, Africa is a bit more developed than it was in the 1960s when colonial rule ended.
People actually have access to cars, smartphones, tech, education and growing percentages of consistent electricity. Like if the gap between the 60s and now in a developed state like Canada was massive, imagine that in a place where people went from designated labour underclass to being able to get a degree at a university or be more than just a another grunt.

>>17800953
You do know the French used African corvée labour right? I'm not sure what point you are trying to make. No one here said they had no wars.

>>17801438
>Abolition of slavery, cannibalism, human sacrifices and tribal warfare.
None of this actually stopped under colonial rule.
>Introduction of medicine and modern technology, resulting in massive drops in child mortality rates.
This manifested after decolonization.
>end of the utter isolation of Subsaharan Africa from the rest of mankind
Already deeply connected for centuries before the 1800s.

>>17801638
>The gap was narrower prior to colonialism because the base condition everywhere in the world was low
That depends on what areas you are comparing.
In 1880, the civilizational gap between Subsaharan Africa and, say, Polynesia or Papua, would indeed by pretty narrow.
However, the civilizational gap between Subsaharan Africa and Europe was massive. Much greater than it is nowdays between these two regions.

>People actually have access to cars, smartphones, tech, education and growing percentages of consistent electricity.
Yeah, the dynamic that was started when European colonialism took these people out of prehistory continued (albeit at a slower pace) after colonialism ended.
Still, there is less of a difference between an era when 20% of the population has access to cars/electricity/telephone and an era when 60% of the population has access to these, than there is of a difference between an era when none of the population can even imagine these things existing and an era when 20% of the population has access to them.
Don't act like starting the dynamic from scratches isn't more grounbreaking than merely continuing it.

>>17801794
>None of this actually stopped under colonial rule.
Slavery went from massively widspread in precolonial Africa, to very marginal during and after colonial rule.
Tribal warfare was extremely common in precolonial Africa and basically disappeared during colonial rule.
It came back to some extend after the independences, but nowhere near the same extend as before colonial rule (mainly thanks to the large and strong multiethnic states that Europeans created, and that lefties love to blame for the few tribal conflicts that remain, while ignoring the fact such conflicts were much more prevalent when each tribe was its own state).
As for cannibalism and human sacrifices, they pretty much entirely disappeared as the result of colonial rule.
>This manifested after decolonization.
It started during colonial rule and continued after colonial rule ended.
>Already deeply connected for centuries before the 1800s.
Not really.
Only some coastal areas had some extended contact with the outside world, that mainly consisted in selling prisoners of wars as slaves in exchange for items Africans themselves were not advanced enough to produce on their own.
Africans from the interior had no idea of even the most basic geography of the world (things as simple as other continent existing).
Even some coastal tribes theorized than white people were living in the sea and weird stuff like that.

>>17800755
Don't worry. Jews built a few banks and are not taking western civilization for a drive off of a cliff.

>>17800783
No, they didn't. They started the Trans-Atlantic slave trade which made it worse than it had ever been before. They escalated things.

>>17801866
>Slavery went from massively widspread in precolonial Africa, to very marginal during and after colonial rule.
It's still very widespread to this day. While on paper efforts were conducted in practice little changed.
>Tribal warfare was extremely common in precolonial Africa and basically disappeared during colonial rule.
Eh, partially I'll give you that to an extent.
>As for cannibalism and human sacrifices, they pretty much entirely disappeared as the result of colonial rule.
You just don't know anything about current Africa do you now?
>Only some coastal areas had some extended contact with the outside world, that mainly consisted in selling prisoners of wars as slaves in exchange for items Africans themselves were not advanced enough to produce on their own.
The sahel doesn't exist, of course. Neither did the horn of Africa, apparently.