Would African problems be fixed (or atleast diminished) if the borders of newly independent countries were drawn along the ethnic (or in cases of countries like Nigeria ethnoreligious) lines? I know some countries are so ethnically diverse that even this would not work but i am asking in general. How many of the African wars and instability were caused by majority of african countries being multiethnic and at constant internal tension?
Pretty much yeah
However the Powers That Be don't wanna have to wrangle 10,000 puppet dictators instead of 50
And do you REALLY think the puppets in charge right now want to lose territory and resources?
The resulting countries would be too small.
Not that the current borders are perfect, but there has to be some attempt to build a confederation between tribes for strategic reasons.
This map is kinda inaccurate
For example my tribe is Akyem but as Twi speakers we consider ourselves one big Twi nation. And the Yoruba tribes further east stopped their tribal slapfights decades ago. They're just Yoruba now.
The entire south half of Ghana aside from Eweland would be one country.
>Would African problems be fixed (or atleast diminished) if the borders of newly independent countries were drawn along the ethnic (or in cases of countries like Nigeria ethnoreligious) lines? I know some countries are so ethnically diverse that even this would not work but i am asking in general. How many of the African wars and instability were caused by majority of african countries being multiethnic and at constant internal tension?
The problem lies in national state idea. It is an alien concept that is absolutely incompatible with the social organization of most societies in the world. And even in the West, it had only dismal and disastrous results.
In this case, many are multiethnic states, that lack a common identity, a common language and common interests. The best way out is the autonomy and the return to the pre-colonial forms of organization (tribes, clans) that shelter an effective control of the population, while containing the expansion of the state apparatus.
Western management model, in which the state assumes all conceivable roles, is a disgrace to the civilized peoples, and a plague to the least developed.[/spoiler]
Assume they were, originally drawn up around ethnic lines, and only around land controlled by those ethnicities, similar to how we draw ancient maps. What happens as those ethnicities grow? They want more land. They'll move into uninhibited land first, but eventually there will be wars over territory until some major power gains control over anlarge portion of the continent, or natural nations are formed. See, basically, the entire history of the world everywhere forever. It's a natural progression.
Also, it ignores the fact that the rest of the world wants thoae resources too, and is better at getting them. Even if Europe stays out, China is going to fuck Africa hard.
>The Mirandese language (autonym: mirandés or lhéngua mirandesa; Portuguese: mirandês or língua mirandesa) is a Romance language belonging to the Astur-Leonese linguistic group, sparsely spoken in a small area of northeastern Portugal, in the municipalities of Miranda do Douro, Mogadouro and Vimioso. The Portuguese Parliament granted it co-official recognition (along with the Portuguese language) for local matters on 17 September 1998 with the law 7/99 of 29 January 1999.
The posters saying language should be the basis are right; if you were to base African nations off of their ethnicity then every few square miles of land would be its own country.
But there are greater language families across different distinct regions. If you based the national borders on those, then you'd still have more, smaller countries than what it currently is, but they'd be of feasible size and - more importantly - united.
I know he's become a meme philosopher thanks to Metal Gear, but Emil Cioran's right about language being our true fatherland. In many ways, language IS culture, distilled to its purest form.
tl;dr Africa should be split up based on language families to alleviate inter-culture warfare, which would allow the whole continent some time and space to breathe and maybe develop without fear of decimation around the corner.
There are 40k Romani in Portugal for a start, which is quite a bit for a small country. Also "there are now estimated to be 260,000 immigrants from Russia, Ukraine and Moldova in Portugal, half of these illegal."
That's not even counting the hundreds of thousands of immigrants from former Portuguese colonies who may or may not be ethnically Portuguese. I mean, it's like Britain getting flooded with Australians, Canadians and Americans.
Eritrea did a pretty good job uniting the various tribes and cultures under one nation.
Of course Eritrea is a totalitarian shithole so they're better at nation-building than most countries.
>Would African problems be fixed (or atleast diminished) if the borders of newly independent countries were drawn along the ethnic (or in cases of countries like Nigeria ethnoreligious) lines?
Imagine you're cutting one ethnicity from the river/watersource in this way. Think what will happen next.
Multiculturalism causes conflict sometimes. It depends on which cultures you're talking about mixing and whether they jive together or not.
The right wing party line of "multiculturalism is always bad and causes war no matter what" and the left wing party line of "multiculturalism is always good and is progressive no matter what" are both wrong. There are no absolutes in mixing and matching cultures. Sometimes you get great results that are better than either of the predecessors, and sometimes you get wholesale destruction.
If you count shit like Occitian liberation movement supported by whole 4k people as a joke then there's none.
If you are actually sensible person then you can name Norway, Poland, Czech Republic, Slovakia, Hungary, Austria, The Netherlands, Slovenia, Italy...
>WW1 was caused by multiculturalism
Not in the slightest, it was caused by empires scrambling for Africa and Germany wanting their share. Austria and Hungary were multiethnic for literally hundreds of years and only after WW1 it suddenly became a "problem" to justify breaking up the empire.
Japanese have no right to judge who's nigger and who's not after their act of niggerdom in 20th century.
Mengele was a freak, but Mengele was alone. Gulags were shit, but you could survive them. Unit 731 was both organised hell and not an incident created by a single freak.
>Austria and Hungary were multiethnic for literally hundreds of years and only after WW1 it suddenly became a "problem" to justify breaking up the empire.
Austria-Hungary was called just Austria and Hungary had no autonomy until 1848. It had very liberal policies when compared to Germany(Kulturkampf) but still numerous nationalities like Poles, Czechs, Slovenes, Croats etc. demanded autonomy and didn't get it.
>What is the Slovak Uprising
>What is the Hungarian Revolution
>What is the entire fucking 1848
The internal tension was colossal through the last few decades. The only reason why empire even made it through the 19th century was that the government was willing to make slight concessions.
Pretty much the only nations that did not call for dissolution of the empire as a whole were Czechs and Hungarians, and Czechs abandoned that stance after they were fucked over with Hungarian Compromise.
And was part of Austria later on, with no special autonomy until they've started huge rebellion that had to be put down by Tzar of Russia. Then some special rights were given. Then after Austria suffered crushing defeat from hands of Prussia, Hungarians rebelled once more, country changed its name to Austria-Hungary and became quasi-federation of Austria and autonomous Hungary.
>What is the Slovak Uprising
Irrelevant event composed of 5000 combatants, half of them being Czechs and Italian mercenaries. Curiously enough most Slovaks fought for the Hungarians in that conflict.
Tigrinyas own the nation with the other groups having much less power except some Tigre.
Others are either neglected or made the bitch of the government and that also applies to Ethiopia aswell but Ethiopia does it even more blatantly
On /int/ legit Japs are kinda treated like the kid that says stupid shit and everyone laughs at.
The shitpost but due to the prior statement people just brush it off as "lol them Japanese and there horrible English"
Just let them fight each other and annex territory for several centuries without interference like europe did, until you get a handful of large states / whatever stable balance of power.
In the mean time trade with whichever states are around indiscriminately but don't provide aid. This is more beneficial for both them and us.
Levy sanctions not against african states which disagree with your policies / human rights, but against >non-african< states which violate the non-interference protocol.
Of course, this kind of genuinely constructive foreign policy is completely anathema to geopolitics.
I have an unironic solution to this issue. Let them fight. War will solve their border issues. Centuries of war in Europe pounded out the boundaries between tribal factions, which developed into confederations, then to kingdoms, and then empires. After the empires clashed and fell, they went to the pseudo-nation-state formed from common linguistic groups and common peoples forming moderately sized nations together.
Africa has not had this development. For there to be a lasting peace and a lasting development in Africa, instead of trying to force modernization on them, we should let them develop. The only other way to get the lasting peace and development from the continent would be through mass extermination and relocation of the population, which is more difficult than it's worth, and also immoral.
Give them modern weapons, let them fight it out at an accelerated pace. They will do everything they can to either come together to deal with threats or make themselves threats to other factions. They will grow and develop. If we had just left them alone, the Zulu would have grown to such a degree that they would have either wiped out and assimilated many other tribes or the weaker tribes would have allied to crush them. In North America, you saw the development of confederations of tribes before the Europeans came. In South America, you saw these consolidate into empires.