Africa: could there be anyother place with so much wide spread proverty, war and destruction then africa at the modern times. Taking over from europes destruction from 1914-1945 period  africa has taken the belt for destroying it self ever since the British and the French where kicked out of control in the 1950-70s period. 

Currently Africa isn't an pleasant place to be in all over the place: you have constant war in many nations, wide spread proverty and disease and destruction of there natural beauty as well in an offset to an population Boom. 

Now for an example of Pre european influence and Post we will take Zimbabwe as an example: Former British colony and was marked as the "Food Bowl" of africa. Now the British abloished Slavely long time ago, but the people of zimbabwe worked the land under the "British Control" and produce huge bouties of crop. But when the British left and Mogabe took over and entitated this equal land removing european land control, it seemed all well and good. Except there has been wide spread crop failures for many many years. An we aren't talking about the last 10 or so years and global warming we are talking an while. If the British where in control there may not be in the proverty now. 

Now my second point is all the wars with Blood diamonds and rebels and civil wars going on in many nations its is pure choas and under European control this wouldn't happen since the European would send in there amies and take care of the situation and bring it under control. But currently you have the US, Russia, France , UK, China all selling guns for diamonds to these nations and its going crazy. 

My 3rd point is that if the British and the Europeans in control, we might of seen Africa become what china is today: heaps of manufacturing because of cheap plentful labour: but because China were able to get them seleves under control like many other asian nations have, they have reaped the benefits of european/american funded manufacturing. Africa has missed out on lots and lots of this because its just not wise because of all the turmoil. 

I still believe that if the British and the French had there strong control of african people: they would of done good jobs over the past 50-70 years. 

Also this may be bad and such, but i wish Empires would make an come back. Boy People are going to look back on these years and say: ehh nothing great really happened there expect for the technological revolution in the 1980-2000s. 

no... it's europeans fault the borders are as they are... many ethnic groups with different goals were placed in the SAME nation. This resulted in the civil wars. If Africans had been able to create their own national boundaries, Africa actually would probably have much less wars, and probably more successful today..

Africa has always been less developed then Europe, that doesn't mean it hasn't been developing greatly the last century.

I think there was little further reason for Europe to hold unto its African colonies as there's plenty of cheap labour across the world.

Also European nations would have little incentive to develop their colonies. Today I believe China has the policy of building roads for instance in developing countries in exchange for mineral resources, however when building those roads they bring in Chinese workers which isn't exactly helping. The same can probably be said about Western developing aid.

i disagree, when new nations were formed they could established there own bondaries, See when it came to such empires as British and the French they didn't have bondiers other than there end of empire area: when it came crashing down nations started wanting freedom and one ethnic group could of said we want this land as our own and would of got it. Example of Point is Pakistan (while not african). the Pakistan didn't exist while in British control: it was the regions Afghanistan and India, and when the British left they gave the pakistani Islam people there own nation instead of leaving it in control of afghanistan and india who nations just formed. 

While your points an vaild, except highlight since its wrong: majority of european colonies got developed. 

Wars are not the only problem in Africa. Diseases, poverty and prostitution are alos one of Africa's major problems.

Oh, come on. Freedom is one of those things that we grant regardless of objective results. Isn't the whole democracy concept based on "I don't decide what's best for you"?

Plus, I don't think that colonialism ever leaves locals in a wealthier position. They generally suffer genocide or become mud poor, even if the country as a whole functions better or becomes more industrialized.

Africa is what it is thanks to Europeans gangraping it for centuries.

I can't see how Africa would had been better under continued European control. The Africans were treated as lesser beings, didn't have the same rights as Europeans and was constantly abused. Africa would be just as poor today because all the wealth would end up in Europe. Diseases would still exist because, well, no one cares about underlings dying and there would be plenty of people to fill the factories anyway.

Wars between nations might not exist but there would still be lots of violence thanks to rebellions, uprisings and whatnot. The Europeans would have to have tons of soldiers on the continent to kick down people fighting for civil rights.

I think the gangraping only lasted a century at max.

That is the period mainland africa was taken into the worldwide web.

Not that there was much to gangrape in the first place, as Africa missed the industrial revolution, except for maybe Ethiopa which Italy managed to occupy only by 1936. 

Remember that in the early days of King Leopold's control, what is today the DR Congo lost about half its population. Europe created African boundaries for geopolitical convenience only (that's why you end up with finger-shaped countries like Benin and Togo)

There are some who speculate that Africa's problem might be that there isn't enough war, at least not enough interstate war. There's nothing going on in Africa to rally the peoples to a single national consciousness, so you just have endless civil war, and the alternative to civil war is a failed state, and not a peaceful, unified, productive one

What many African nations need to look at is India and Indonesia, nations that have formed somewhat of a common identity out of a hodgepodge of ethnic and religious backgrounds. National identity needs to come first, and then the problems will start to disappear one at a time (peace -> economic development -> rising healthcare standards -> rising environmental standards)