Why were the colonial powers so shit at creating nice, stable borders along ethno-cultural-linguistic, economical and religious lines EDITION.
>yfw multi-ethnic states in 2016
Who /nationalist-decolonization/ here?
>tfw exploding Brits cry about "muh terrorism".
In most places creating neat little nation states is impossible, as ethnic boundaries are not clear lines. There's usually a border zone where villages of two or more different ethnicities/cultures can be found. There'd always be people on the 'wrong' side of the line.
That said, there's plenty of nations with a plurality of ethnic/cultural groups who haven't failed - borders aren't nearly as much of a determining factor in stability as you might think.
You fool, I can't hear you over the sound of how peaceful the world is right now.
>Why were the european powers so shit at creating nice, stable borders along ethno-cultural-linguistic, economical and religious lines?
I will freely admit that the middle east was ducked up but there is not much that could have been done in Africa without a large investment that would result in the loss of a lot of money by the home governments, which is the opposite of what they are supposed to do. There weren't clear nationalities to divide the countries to divide into and in a large way the nationalities of Africa are by product of the colonization process.
Didn´t they lose like alot of their troops inside their own borders to the Houdinis?
Hell, last time I checked those khat-chewing arabs in sandals had managed to capture a bunch of SA villages close to the border before the ceasefire.
All they have to do is give up their pseudo-nationalist biases. Differences are artificial. Differences are made up by Anti-Yugo-Imperialists.
Balkan has to /yu/nite again, and never betray itself again. Yugoslavia is rightful, nationalism is poison.
Give me one reason Yugoslavia shouldn't exist.
>inb4 bourgeois manipulated opinions
>pro tip: /yu/ can't (live apart)
Because the structures were already in place, and the people initially in power aren't exactly going to give up that power. It would take a coup to change power, and a war to change territory. And there have been plenty of both.
Post-colonial states were successors to colonial client states whose borders were designed with external control in mind. These states had vast internal divisions by design, not by coincidence.
>These states had vast internal divisions by design, not by coincidence
I think you're retroactively assuming a massive amount of foresight among those controlling colonial policy in Africa
>In 1870, only 10 percent of Africa was under European control; by 1914 it had increased to 90 percent of the continent, with only Ethiopia (Abyssinia) and Liberia still being independent