>let's split this one giant colony we have into tens

>>1856980
French West Africa and Equatorial Africa had administrative divisions. They basically correspond with the current african countries.

Why is multiculturalism upheld as some holy ideal in Europe and the United States but redrawing Africa's borders along strict ethnic and tribal lines considered the only way progress can be possible?

Really makes me think.

>le oh my dear, ze le United States iz forzing us to releaze our coloniez!
>oh well, not our le, how you say, le problem, anymore lol

>>1856994
And for what purpose was that division included in decolonization?
Btw, why were those administrative divisions made like so and not some other way? Mali has nothing to do with the ancient African Kingdom of Mali.

>>1857005
I don't think they should have taken "ethnic and tribal lines" into account. Essentially because there really weren't any.
They shouldn't have added any borders at all. Why make it into various tiny countries anyway? Instead of just one giant country? What's wrong with that?

>>1857015
>asking countries that could barely contain themselves from imploding due to shoddy admnistration to form a single over-arching country

I can't see this going wrong at all.

>>1857023
Yeah, cause it totally didn't go wrong the way things went.
Not giving it any borders would've actually been a much better idea. In case the country could hold together, it would currently be an actual powerhouse (at least in that region) with some actual weight in world politics. Not to mention you could send money from place x to y all within the same country.
In case it wouldn't hang on, who cares. If one bit were to split apart, it would be their own fault, their own making, their own country/state. Makes much more sense to me than the current arbitrary division.
Sorry for my shitty English btw.

>>1857031
>In case the country could hold together,
Except it wouldn't. These countries were plagued with seccessionist movements to the last one of them, to the point that the CIA had to return to aid the Congo in retrieving provinces that had seceded.

There's no way in hell you could have that state hold together.


>If one bit were to split apart, it would be their own fault,
Except that by breaking away, they would incite everyone to imitat them.

And no worries for the English. I'm not a native speaker either so I don't care for your mistakes (and you don't even make any in this post).

>>1857008
It was called French Sudan or something like that, not Mali. A lot of african states changed their names to something more prestigious when the got independence. You say modern Mali has nothing to do with the medieval kingdom, but at least there's border some overlaping. Check fucking Ghana.

>>1857051
>Except it wouldn't.
Okay, who cares? Still worth the try.
>Except that by breaking away, they would incite everyone to imitate them.
Why would this be a bad thing? Better to have movements of secession and state division from the people that actually live in those places than from stupid frenchie generals, no?

>>1857031
>In case the country could hold together
First of all, this "if" is too big.

>it would currently be an actual powerhouse (at least in that region) with some actual weight in world politics

Second, nobody except maybe some africans (not even all of them) wants or wanted this to happen.

>>1857058
>from stupid frenchie generals, no?
Erm, rude.

And otherwise I wouldn't know. You'll agree that this is all purely speculation, hence why I'm not particularly to delve into the subject with more thought, since historical speculation is always a bit idiotic.

>>1857055
Ghana is ridiculous too. You didn't answer my questions, btw, but that's ok.

>>1857064
Why not? They're complete shitfucks as it is. No one gives two shits about them. I think it's better to invest in one giant shitty country with lots of varied resources than in twenty shitty pieces of shit with nothing going on.

>>1857058
You're forgeting that the only africans with the means to be significant in any way politically were part of the very same french colonial structure that created those territorial divisions.

>>1857069
You seem to believe that Africa being prosperous is, for some reason, a good thing for someone outside of Africa.

>>1857070
A few dictatorial people from the place is still better than a few foreign generals, imo.

>>1857075
Not good, just better than the way things are.
Conjecture doesn't really matter anyway, like that french anon said, anyway. I really just want to understand why this happened the way it did.

>>1857085
>just better

No, it's worst. Don't you know or understand that France still has interests on the area and that, in fact, they would've kept most of those colonies if that would've been feasible? You yourself said " it would currently be an actual powerhouse (at least in that region) with some actual weight in world politics" and I don't get how you came to the conclusion that the french or the europeans would want this to happen. It's harder to practice neo-colonialism in a country with weight in world politics. Tell me why an european metropoli would want his former subjects to be strong.

>>1856980
They should have just embraced diversity.

>>1857100
Okay so this basically happened because France didn't want their former colonies to be too powerful? Makes lots of sense, actually. Thanks, this is what I was looking for.