Africa never destroyed itself.  Decolonization in Africa never really happened and that's the real problem.

Africa is such an amazing continent.  I don't know if you've ever been, doesn't sound like you have... but it also depends on where you go.  Just because there are problems in Libya, Cote D'Ivoire, DRC, etc. doesn't mean the whole Continent should be considered codemned.  Africa is HUGE and VARIED, a lot of people don't know that.  Instead of pointing out all the wars, I encourage you to try and understand WHY these wars are going on... things will get very interesting once you dig.

Everything you said about Zimbabwe isn't really true.  The media will never tell you this, but Mugabe respected the Lancaster House Agreement - even with it's unfair and completely biased 'willing buyer, willing seller' policy.  When the Labor Party came to power in the UK, they reneged on the agreement, Mugabe did what was the right thing to do and gave the land back to the people who's birthright it was to own it - the native, indigenous African people.  The media condemnation fell on Mugabe hard - myths about misgovernment, the land going to cronies, etc.  The reality is, the farmers who were given control of the land did a great job with it.  If anything burdened food production and the overall economy it was the crippling sanctions imposed on Zimbabwe from the British and French.  Zimbabwe's main opposition party is even funded by the British.  They meddle so much in Zimbabwean affairs it's not even funny.  The Brits still think Zimbabwe is a colony - and that's just a microcosm of what's goin' on in the whole continent.

With the blood diamonds, you're on the right track.  Think about Charles Taylor.  How the hell does he escape from a US prison, ends up in Liberia, and then becomes president of the country?  How the hell does that happen?  Obviously something shady went on there.  He was a gangster for capialism... taking control of diamond mines so one of the few diamond trading/cutting companies could take control.  This too is an example of what is going on all over Africa.

Comparing China to any African state isn't really accurate.  After China's century of humiliation, they went into a self-imposed isolation.  They only recently emerged as the potential powerhouse they are today.  No African state could have ever afforded to do that.  Firstly, under European rule, all of the economies became monolithic, specializing in only one or two cash crops.  Places like Ghana even had to import soap... something that can easily be made there.  Once "decolonization happened", there's no coincidence that you saw the rise of the World Bank and IMF.  Providing these countries loans they could NEVER hope to pay back, saddling them with debt, which opens the door for imposing BRUTAL neo-liberal economic stipulations (reduce spending on education, healthcare, social programs, etc and open the borders to multi-nationals, privatization, free markets, etc).  The vast majority of African heads of state are not only corrupt, but they don't even control their own economies.  This is called neo-colonialism.  This is why Africa isn't the economic powerhouse it should be in this capitalist society.  All of the resources are extracted and shipped right to the West - JUST LIKE during colonial times.  NOTHING HAS CHANGED.

You still think that if the British and French still had control that things would be better?  I think you're severly misguided, but it's not your fault.  That paternalistic, European mentality is rampant in many places even today.  However, if you read the literature, and play close attention, you'll realize that France never gave up their colonies.  They're still  in control of ALL their former colonies with the exception of Algeria and Guinea.  You could argue Madagascar, Morocco, and Mauritania too... those are iffy though.  You see, Charles De Guale set out to give French colonies semi-independence.  They would keep bases in these countries, still intervene when they felt like it, dabble in domestic politics to make sure their man gets in office, and control trade.  The Ivory Coast had two flare ups within the last ten years.  The French army directly intervened BOTH TIMES.  The French case is the most obvious and transparent.  And all of their former colonies are still woefully dependent and nowhere near as well off as you think they would be.  So this disproves your point wholeheartedly.  The British on the other hand, always ruled through indigenous intermediaries.  So their influence isn't as transparent in the slightest.  But it definitely exists... especially in places like Kenya and Tanzania.

And I laugh at the notion of you wanting empires to come back.  The US is a mighty imperial empire and it might seem all good to you because you probably live in the US or live in a country that is Western and/or friendly with the US - I don't know.  But if you lived in a place that suffered from imperial war-mongering and lived in fear of being bombed or invaded by an empire, you'd def change your mind.  Where you stand on issues depends on where you sit. 

Well said.  A lot of people overlook this fact.

No they didn't. 

All they would do is build a mine or a factory somewhere where there was an abundant supply of a raw material, build a road or train track from said sight, and have that road or train rail lead to an extraction point on the coast - which would have a rudementary port. 

That's it.

And that's not development.

I'll start off by saying that forest-spirit is exactly right.

The only problem I have with your post though, non-gravity, is that the gang-raping never ever stopped.  It's still going on 'til this day.  That is a fact.

Secondly, Ethiopia is one of the least developed African nations.  Seriously.  The Industrial Revolution only happened in Europe - the rest of the world was colonized by Europe.  When countries were autonomous, they played catch up to develop their nations.  This hasn't really happened in most of Africa for obvious reasons.

And the Italian so-called "occupation" of Ethiopia was a disaster.  It was really only an occupation of Addis Ababa, Dire Dawa, Harer, Mekele, Axum, and Adwa (along with some points in between).  The Ethiopian resistance was in firm control of the countryside.

I meant that in an age where pretty much the entire world was divided up in empires Ethiopia imported just enough industrial age military power to remain independent.

On my map in 1910 the only other nations in Africa or Asia that remained independent seem to have been Liberia, Afghanistan and the once mighty China. 

Oh, ok, yes... that's true for the first Italian invasion in 1896.  Ethiopia under Menelik II had one of only two modern armies on the African continent at the time. 

The second invasion in 1936 showed how ill-equiped Ethiopia had become.  Italy commited all kinds of war crimes, dropping mustard gas and the like from above, and had no trouble routing the standing Ethiopian army.  In fact, Ethiopia had a pathetic Air Force and a few African Americans went over there to help out with the piloting duties.

Wasn't until the patriots in countryside took up arms that the Italian army was fought to a stalemate.

Kinda depends on your definition of better.

Imagine a factory comes into a local neighberhood, pushes all other businsses out so that everyone has to rely on the factory, the factory mistreats these people, forces them to work long grueling hours and pays them with "Company money" forcing them to buy everything they need from them. 

Then eventually the people force the company out... but now there are no buisnesses and they're having trouble getting people back.

Are they worse off?  Maybe, but largely due to the factories original fucking up of the local landscape... in the long run things will be better.

Prostitution in itself can hardly be considered a major problem can it? I mean you could argue that it spreads HIV but very little of the HIV in Africa is due to prostitution...

Also Africa would probably be better off if it had never been colonized. Independent nations would have adopted Western technology and eventually advanced on their own. No saying what it would have turned out like, but I doubt it would be as bad as the current situation with arbitrary borders causing massive ethnic strife.

Question: Was Africa better under European Control?

Short Answer: FUCK NO!!!

Europe still has total control of Africa.