Post by zarahan on Dec 25, 2017 0:31:34 GMT -5
Africa, Uncolonized: A Detailed Look at an Alternate Continent
bigthink.com/strange-maps/africa-uncolonized
Great alternative history and model thought exercise.
I think it is basically correct. Arab Muslim hegemony would
hold sway over a large part of the continent. This was so during the
early period of European colonial domination. The Ottoman Turks
were the big dogs of the Islamic world and had suzerainty over the
strongest, most populous, states on the continent overall, such
as in Egypt, and several of the coastal North African states back in
the day.
Some native powers held their own, such as isolated Ethiopia, but Islam
was expanding as the dominant force on the continent- in the North of course,
the West, and in the East as in the Swahili states and the Arab dominions
of the coast. From there, and via the North African desert zones, tens of millions
of African slaves were shipped to Arab lands.
Given Africa' weaknesses based on geography and climate -such as the destructive
tse-tse fly that killed off both people and load-bearing animals, or difficult soils
that hindered large scale agriculture in grain crops like wheat, rice etc staples
of the mass populations of Eurasia, or the smooth coastlines that killed location of
good natural harbors, or the many rivers blocked by cataracts and sandbars (hindering
mass transport by water), outside enemies or conquerors, not having these disadvantages,
quickly took advantage. Even the great Nile River cannot be navigated from deep in the
continent all the way to the Mediterranean, being split up and chopped up and blocked
by numerous cataracts, raids etc- contrast with the easy rivers of Eurasisa- the Yangtze,
Volga, Rhine etc, allowing much easier bulk transport of men and materials, or the broad
belt of the Mediterranean, a massive highway of knowledge, tech, plants etc from outside
Europe into Europe to copy and borrow). Pioneering Africa's geographic handicaps provided
no such mass pathways to acquire the tech, knowledge and materials in bulk, as the Europeans
and Asiatics enjoyed.
Horses for example, and all their associated tech could move easily over the East-West
climate axis from Asia into Europe, to the immense benefit of Europeans. Any such attempt
to most of Africa not only ran up against unfavorable climates but devastating killer pests
like the tse-tse fly. Advanced knowldege, tech, plants,animals etc could move easily in bulk
down major rivers of Asia or Europe, not to mention the Medit. No such favor extended to
Africa with its blocked rivers and smooth coastlines. Nobody ever gave anything easy to Africa,
not even nature. Which makes it all the more nauseating when you hear lying
right wing propaganda bout how "easy" tropical African have had it- why all dey gots to
do is pick pineapples and bananas for an "easy" life, until de white man showed up.
Given all this, aside from a few exceptions, it is inevitable that large parts of Africa
would be dominated by big dogs from the Eurasian heartland outside- Arab big dogs,
Southern Europeans, or Northern Europeans. But Africa is not unique. Large parts of
Europe at one time were dominated by outside big dogs- the Islamic big dogs to the south,
who even raided into northern Europe and at one time had one million European slaves
under chain, or Asiatic big dobs via the Mongols that swept across large swathes, on
into Poland and Hungary and poised for more until derailed by internal problems, or
Turkish big dogs that held sway for centuries in Eastern and Central Europe.
Everyone likes to beat up on Africa as this unique basket case, but alleged European
"role models," were themselves bowing down at various times, to outside non-European
hegemons.