Anonymous
10/12/12(Fri)18:06
No.6260399

Anonymous 10/12/12(Fri)18:06 No.6260399

Probably more wars and genocide.

Anonymous
10/12/12(Fri)18:07
No.6260407

Anonymous 10/12/12(Fri)18:07 No.6260407

Just a whole lot of tribes that Nat Geo Wild would pan their helicopter cameras over.

Anonymous
10/12/12(Fri)18:09
No.6260422

Anonymous 10/12/12(Fri)18:09 No.6260422

Replies: >>6260515

>>6260370 (OP)
> muh colonialism
it would probably be much more shit

Anonymous
10/12/12(Fri)18:13
No.6260463

Anonymous 10/12/12(Fri)18:13 No.6260463

Replies: >>6260480 >>6260514

>>6260370 (OP)
probably with the same wars, they are fighting since ever
and the america would be a really poor continent, slavery was used to built a lot of things here

Anonymous
10/12/12(Fri)18:17
No.6260480

Anonymous 10/12/12(Fri)18:17 No.6260480

Replies: >>6260514 >>6260644

>>6260463
>tfw the most successful part of the US is the North, where slavery was illegal
I don't know much about slavery in the rest of America, but the US would still be successful.

Anonymous
10/12/12(Fri)18:20
No.6260505

Anonymous 10/12/12(Fri)18:20 No.6260505

>>6260370 (OP)
Gabon looks a little bit like texas

Anonymous
10/12/12(Fri)18:22
No.6260514

Anonymous 10/12/12(Fri)18:22 No.6260514

>>6260463
>slavery was used to built a lot of things here
In Brazil that is.
>>6260480
The north has slaves, just because it abolished earlier than the south doesn't change that fact.

Anonymous
10/12/12(Fri)18:22
No.6260515

Anonymous 10/12/12(Fri)18:22 No.6260515

>>6260422
Actually, the more colonized the countries were, the better they were off.

Anonymous
10/12/12(Fri)18:26
No.6260540

Anonymous 10/12/12(Fri)18:26 No.6260540

File: 1350080771496.jpg-(7 KB, 255x197, images-2.jpg)

history of colonization / no history of colonization

Rus.
10/12/12(Fri)18:30
No.6260567

Rus. 10/12/12(Fri)18:30 No.6260567

The Arabs also had Sub-Saharan slavery. Although it wasn't as many as the ones who were brought into the States, it accumaleted for quite a lot of Africans who were taken away.

The real issue was that the European powers divided the countries without regarding the ethnic groups. Countries in Africa that have two big ethnic groups -- or many small -- are the ones who're having a lot of conflicts. I'm not saying a Macchiavelian solution is fit (e.g. one "destroys" the other), but perhaps create some new borders? Then again, we'll have to see if there'll be a new conflict with the new states, like South Sudan.

Anonymous
10/12/12(Fri)18:32
No.6260590

Anonymous 10/12/12(Fri)18:32 No.6260590

File: 1350081168340.jpg-(26 KB, 350x444, 1343268077913.jpg)

The obvious advantage would be that Africa would have had more natural borders now. That would likely bring the ethnic cleansing down considerably.
Also it might have caused the few advanced civilisations that sub-Saharan Africa had to survive and develop themselves in a better way.

But the drawbacks would probably been bigger:
-Slave traders usually took the strongest people along with them, causing the gene pool to change for the worse.
-Lack of own trading fleets would have left Africa a science deprived shithole even worse than today.
-Lack of western powers would have probably made it easier for Islamic nutters to spread deeper into Africa.
-Natural resources and lack of trading stations would have made it considerably harder to reach the east Indies, making the economic growth in 17th century quite harder. Also, it would have meant that Europe would have developed slower because of a lack of economic incentive.

Regardless, Africa would still have been shit. And they would have been raped regardless of slave trade too, because of their massive natural resources. And it was usually the Africans themselves that sold slaves to Europeans, so that sociological impact was quite slim.

Anonymous
10/12/12(Fri)18:35
No.6260609

Anonymous 10/12/12(Fri)18:35 No.6260609

Replies: >>6261558

It would probably be dominated by a few superpowers like Ethiopia, Benin, Kongo and Asanteman.

Anonymous
10/12/12(Fri)18:36
No.6260622

Anonymous 10/12/12(Fri)18:36 No.6260622

It would be even shittier than it is now.

Anonymous
10/12/12(Fri)18:39
No.6260644

Anonymous 10/12/12(Fri)18:39 No.6260644

Replies: >>6260678

>>6260480

Slavery wasn't illegal in the North and the civil war just abolished slavery in rebelling states.

~suomynonA~
10/12/12(Fri)18:43
No.6260678

~suomynonA~ 10/12/12(Fri)18:43 No.6260678

>>6260644
The Federal government wanted to outlaw slavery in every state, all of the southern states and some of the union states still had slavery when the civil war started, it is the reason why West Virginia for example exists. After the union victory slavery was abolished completely.

Anonymous
10/12/12(Fri)19:19
No.6261029

Anonymous 10/12/12(Fri)19:19 No.6261029

Emancipation proclamation required the freeing of slaves in newly occupied Confederate territory. The war directly caused the 13th and 14th amendments, freeing and guaranteeing the rights of ex-slaves respectively, to be signed to prevent another conflict like this over slavery. So basically, the Civil War ended slavery in America.

also the only "Northern" states that had slavery were Kentucky, Missouri, Maryland, and I think Delaware

Anonymous
10/12/12(Fri)20:12
No.6261558

Anonymous 10/12/12(Fri)20:12 No.6261558

>>6260609

Not Nigeria?

Anonymous
10/12/12(Fri)20:14
No.6261572

Anonymous 10/12/12(Fri)20:14 No.6261572

>>6260370 (OP)
>implying colonialism wasn't inevitable, in one form or another