If there was no colonialism...would Africa been on the same level

>>1506913
Please leave.

My guess is they would be still at feudal stage

>>1506913
>WE COULDA BEEN KANGZ N SHIT

>>1506913

Not even close.

It's hard to say what level of development even Europe would be on without colonialism

They'd be better off in some regards, but no

>>1506938
The reason Europe was able to enact colonialism is because they were so much more advanced..


To answer the OP, Europe was already surpassing Africa around the 1400s and the gab furthered ever since...Africa would of been much more developed without colonialism, but no where near the level of Europe, its not a racial statement..its a true statement

>>1507096
Europe was surpassing Africa way before that

but at the same time Asia was surpassing Europe for millennia

File: Scramble-for-Africa-1880-1913.png (157KB, 2311x1142px) Image search: [Google]

157KB, 2311x1142px

>>1506938
Africa was barely colonized until the end of the 19th century, by that time, European countries were already the most advanced. Earlier Asian and American colonies had a much bigger impact, they put European countries in a good position in international trade which would make way for the industrial revolution.

African colonization was more about just prestige and a few rare materials like rubber, economically it didn't help the colonizers too much. Germany for example had almost no colonies and still became the biggest economy in Europe by the start of WW1.

Is there much documentation about the immediate effects of decolonization on specifically the governments of Africa?

What were the concessions made to the colonizing powers? Were they outrageous and impossible to achievable like in Haiti or was a rather relaxed deal where it was just a clean break?

Ethiopia is just about the only sub-Saharan nation I have any respect for, as a genuinely intriguing country with a fascinating history.
Otherwise, I suppose the Kingdom of Benin was about as advanced as black civilisation ever got, and even that practised slavery, human sacrifice, etc.
All things considered, I agree that the Middle East, Mughal Empire, Japan and China were well ahead of Europe in many aspects until the late Middle Ages.
Even speaking as objectively as possible, I believe European societies achieved the highest level of art, science and technology and have maintained their position at the top of that table for 500-years.

>>1506913
It would be even further behind because colonialism was a very powerful developing force. The fact the sudden decolonisation contributes to stagnation is irrelevant.

In the same way that being conquered by rome was beneficial to europe, so european colonisation has been beneficial to africa

>>1507105
Saying Asia surpassed Europe is a bit misleading. In many areas, China was ahead. Its neighbors less so. They were also only ahead in specific areas they weren't ahead in everything.

They also had several technology crashes before simply ceasing all notable advancement, for some reason thinking they'd invented everything already. And then Europe shows up with cannons that make Chinese cannons look like firecrackers and they have the gall to say European cannons were inferior. Then they promptly got their ass handed to them in a very short, very one sided war. Fuckin Chinks man.

>>1507591
*Fuckin Qings man

>surpass
>ahead

These words assume an "end" to which some people are closer. This paradigm is called unilineal evolution and has been rejected by the scientific world. What are some solid pieces of evidence that certain subsistence styles, types of art, methods of reasoning or sciences are objectively "better" than others across the board? This is the only way to justify saying "more advanced" since "advanced" assumes a known end goal.

A brick house with straight lines may not be the best dwelling in a rainforest. Highly literal artistic renderings of bodies may not convey the meaning a Congolese woodworker desires.

>>1509487
shh this is a thinly veiled /pol/-thread bruh

>>1506913
This is obviously bait, but no, they wouldn't.

>>1506913
No. Geography, biology, and race.

>>1506913
it is incredibly unlikely that to civilizations with no contact just happen to be at the same technological level by chance

>>1509487

Obviously a highly detailed and correct rendition of the human body that took years of study to achieve in art is more advanced than the poopsmears of a downie, even if he fully realised his aims in the poopsmear.

>>1509487
a simple way of comparison is military power.
if a civilization A can wreckcivilization B, it is better

>>1506924
>please leave my safespace

Wu wuz gonna be kangz and she-it, eventually

>>1507558
Ive always wondered why europe and the associated west had done so well compared to other places. Ive heard it claimed that due to constant warring, technological advances were in higher demand, which makes sense. However, i dont really buy that Africa and Asia and pre european Americas were all peaceful and shit.

>>1509609
No.

>>1510685
Access to the near infinite ressources of the Americas is my bet.

>>1509532
mostly geography and sociology though.

>>1511252
I suspect it might be a centralization of several different competing powers that encouraged variety of tactics and confrontations (nomads, vikings, turks, etc) rather than single, large states that faced only internal strife with the occasional outsider force that overpowered them (Gunpowder Europeans to Americans, Mounted Mongols to Asia).
If you only face internal stress, especially from conservative factions that wish to forever remain in the status quo, the research and adaptation of new sciences and technologies will be difficult, as tradition will seek to remove "modern" influences. If you've got a rival empire that could very well conquer you (but you've got an alliance with a separate power who would defend you), you're still going to build up your power and war technology in the case that they do invade.