If Africa's borders looked like ethnic groups, it would look like this

[The Odum of Ala Igbo]

Yeah Italy was a trash ass military. No offense but Ethiopians got lucky. This is why I give Africans like the Somalis, Asante, Mandinka and Zulus credit because they went up against REAL European powers like the French and even British and resisted for a very long time giving them both hard battles. Especially the Asante with the British...

Also, the Igbo kept the British busy for 30 years of non-stop fighting.

 

[The Odum of Ala Igbo]

Yeah Italy was a trash ass military. No offense but Ethiopians got lucky. This is why I give Africans like the Somalis, Asante, Mandinka and Zulus credit because they went up against REAL European powers like the French and even British and resisted for a very long time giving them both hard battles. Especially the Asante with the British...

All praise to the Mahdist Sudanese (despite the shyt they did to Sudanese Coptic Christians and Ethiopia) @Misreeya

 

[Trajan]

the japanese didn't and they kept them out. organization is key, guns back then were not that better than swords and spears.

You're ignoring the power of geography. Africa has always been divided because of this. The northern half is cut-off from the rest by the Sahara which is about the size of the US. Then in the rest of the continent there are not any navigable rivers because most rivers abruptly end in a waterfall after every so often. Therefore trade, movement and the exchange if ideas was severely restricted. This also meant that no dominant culture that takes in its neighbours and which could potentially have spearheaded resistence emerged.

You can't expect disparate groups some of whom did not know of each other's existence to organise into one.

On the other hand, Japan is a homogenous island nation without any natural barriers between its people and are therefore united in ethnicity and culture. Organisation is much easier.

 

[The Odum of Ala Igbo]

You're ignoring the power of geography. Africa has always been divided because of this. The northern half is cut-off from the rest by the Sahara which is about the size of the US. Then in the rest of the continent there are not any navigable rivers because most rivers abruptly end in a waterfall after every so often. Therefore trade, movement and the exchange if ideas was severely restricted. This also meant that no dominant culture that takes in its neighbours and which could potentially have spearheaded resistence emerged.

You can't expect disparate groups some of whom did not know of each other's existence to organise into one.

On the other hand, Japan is a homogenous island nation without any natural barriers between its people and are therefore united in ethnicity and culture. Organisation is much easier.

Also, Africa was underpopulated until the 20th century because of disease and the slave trade.

 

[010101]

nikkas was beefing before colonialism too jahahahahaa
colonialism is tribalisms baby same way all nations are the children of the motherland

*

 

[MrPentatonic]

The remnants of tribalism is still very much embedded in our culture and psyche too

 

[69 others]

I think your misconception of pre-colonial Africa is off.

First, Africa is a big continent. Before Europeans conquered it you can find human organizational relationships ranging from hunter-gatherer Khoisan in the Kalahari all the way to organized states such as Benin, Ethiopia or Almoravid North Africa.

Even organized states like the Asante Empire were felled by Europeans.

i'm aware that africa vary in level of societal organization but let's be honest there was nothing comparing to japan by the time europeans made contact. the Asante empire was a recent upstart by that time and they were just conquering other tribes, they didn't have enough time to really create a really homogeneous or powerful empire. when europeans got to japan they had cities with more people than most European cities.

 

[Remote]

No they are not. Africans were only colonized to begin with because of ethnic disunity. That is what still exists in Africa today.

Patently false.
Stop trying to absolve european colonial powers like they didn't collude and break up the continent for themselves for resources and strategic benefit.

 

[69 others]

You're ignoring the power of geography. Africa has always been divided because of this. The northern half is cut-off from the rest by the Sahara which is about the size of the US. Then in the rest of the continent there are not any navigable rivers because most rivers abruptly end in a waterfall after every so often. Therefore trade, movement and the exchange if ideas was severely restricted. This also meant that no dominant culture that takes in its neighbours and which could potentially have spearheaded resistence emerged.

You can't expect disparate groups some of whom did not know of each other's existence to organise into one.

On the other hand, Japan is a homogenous island nation without any natural barriers between its people and are therefore united in ethnicity and culture. Organisation is much easier.

i'm aware of that that why i mentioned west africa. it's one of the most densely populated parts and i feel it had the greatest chance of creating a significant homogeneous organized society

 

[Samori Toure]

Patently false.
Stop trying to absolve european colonial powers like they didn't collude and break up the continent for themselves for resources and strategic benefit.

European colonialism? How about Arab colonialism of North Africa? The Arabs enslavement of Africans lasted longer. Tribalism and slavery went hand in hand and it existed before Europeans ever stepped foot there.

 

[NoGutsNoGLory]

I think what he said still applies. Europeans didn't conquer/occupy Japan until 1945. Perry's arrival in Japan only spurred Japan to industrialize.

Nobody wanted Japan tho. Africa has resources which everyone wants to this day.

 

[Bawon Samedi]

Why do people act like Africa should have always been united Was Europe always united no and they still aren't. And Africa is larger and culturally more diverse than Europe. Hell were the ethnic groups of the Americas united? No, each ethnic had their OWN cultures and civilizations. Why is it only Africa that people say "but WHY WERENT THEY UNITED!?"

 

[EndDomination]

I think what he said still applies. Europeans didn't conquer/occupy Japan until 1945. Perry's arrival in Japan only spurred Japan to industrialize.

They chose trade over colonization, Japan didn't have a whiff of a prayer when Perry returned from China

 

[EndDomination]

That being said, "unity" requires a lot of things that an entire continent of peoples simply did not have.
The UK couldn't even fully unify until rather recently, Africa is a continent, made up of such a massive variety of people, language, cultures, biomes, etc. what hope is there, or was there ever for "unity?"
We haven't advanced that far as a collective "human race" for full unity, we can't even get the most developed states to unify their people toward progress.

 

[Remote]

European colonialism? How about Arab colonialism of North Africa? The Arabs enslavement of Africans lasted longer. Tribalism and slavery went hand in hand and it existed before Europeans ever stepped foot there.

And?

How does this discredit the fact that European colonial powers drew self-serving lines on the ground that split up existing ethnic groups and lands?
If the Sioux fought the Pawnee indians, does that somehow erase the US taking over lands and redistributing that population?