
Ask HN: Would Africa be better off if colonizers had stayed longer? - barcelardigit
Sensitive topic I know, but this is the inspiration for the question...<p>The Romans invaded and colonized much of Europe during their conquests, and over centuries their culture rubbed off on the local people, building a foundation for them that helped them transition from tribalism to more advanced forms of political and social organization once the Romans left. The development of Europe was kick-started by the Romans and their colonization of its lands.<p>Similarly, if the European powers had been tolerated and allowed to rule in Africa for longer than they actually did, perhaps their institutions and infrastructure would have served as scaffolding for the local people to use to build better functioning societies in the future?
======
JPLeRouzic
This assumes the African societies were of lower standard than European
societies of mid XIXth century.

I think it was not the case, most European countries were simply horribly
brutal, and it did not stop in the XXth century even after independence.
Someone who was in CDR _after_ the independence told me that Belgians used the
local workforce to build a 65km long montainous road to the west of Kivu.
There were 2000 dead workers. That is what African colonialism and post
colonialism really is.

(edited: Replaced east by west)

------
Piskvorrr
Exhibit A:
[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/South_Africa](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/South_Africa)
\- technically decolonised since 1961, actually continued via apartheid until
1990.

Also - the Romans never actually _left_ (gross simplification ahead): the
empire has split into various smaller entities, all of them considering
themselves heirs of the empire. This was mostly the case of "locals becoming
Romans," far more than "Romans ruling over locals."

[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fall_of_the_Western_Roman_Empi...](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fall_of_the_Western_Roman_Empire)

~~~
nathan_long
Apartheid seems to highlight a big difference here. Romans and Gauls could
fuse into a single local culture, but Europeans were determined to keep
Africans under their thumbs. It's hard to imagine the locals being "better
off" for more generations of oppression.

~~~
akhatri_aus
Actually in the "winds of change" speech, this was one thing the Europeans did
not like - Harold Macmillan seeked equality much to the dismay of the
government in South Africa - later that year they also turned to a republic.
Also in the case of Rhodesia Ian Smith it was considered had committed treason
with his UDI against the wishes in Whitehall.

