Was Africa better under European Control?

[Mr Khan]

Joelcool7 said:

In the end I think if European countries hadn't been forced out, rather transitioned power over 5-10 years. Then Africa would be a far better place then it is now. But African countries were sick of Europe and wanted them gone, when they forced them out they only hurt themselves.

Now rather then 5-10 years of transitioning power from Europe, Africa has to grow and mature itself. I don't think the whole blood diamond issue would have occured under European control but these acts were driven by greed and hatred not the lack of europeans. I am sure unrest would have occured in parts of Africa whether European countries remained or not.

Honestly I think Africa is growing. Democracy is being demanded in many Northern countries and equality and rights are being demanded. Governments are beginning to learn how to run their economies and agriculture is going to be improved as well. The African Union is beginning to re-unite Africa and deal with the wars and unrest.

I think 50 years from now Africa will be civilized and a much better place then they are today. We just need to give them time.

My suggestion to the world would be to invest in stable African countries, the UN should invest way more money into the African Union. Africa could produce enough food to feed itself and export if foreign companies were to invest everywhere possible. The world could also avoid buying products from warlords and tyrants in turn helping moderate leaders take control.

Africa needs help, but as I said earlier you can't simply cure Africa. Africa isn't a country their are many countries. If we help those countries meet their potential then Africa itself will be lifted out of poverty, war etc...etc..!

Africa did transition out generally. The idea to abandon Africa took root at the end of World War II, but took as few as 12 or as many as 25 years to take effect, just that Europe didn't give a damn about developing Africa in the interim