This is damn near the top of my "Alternate history what ifs" i'd ask about if I had a machine that could run simulations.  That and "What if the size of the world was more well known in the 1400's.  IE, what would North America look like if people didn't settle there.

No, as much as I love traveling to Europe they are the ones who ruined countires like China, India and all the countries in Africa. They were the richest countries but then Europe stole everything they had and then there were the slaves.

China basically avoided being colonised and India stands as one of the few examples of a country to come out of being colonized with a population largely of native people and do alright. In most of the other previous colonies that are now doing well the native people were made a minority through war or disease.

India has native people? I am half sikh and half christian I don't know much about India, never went there either but I don't think it has native people. We in Canada call them first nations or aboriginals and they are not really Indians. Columbus mistaked the native people for Indians that's all I know.

That may be the most confusing post I've ever read.

Native people are the people who lived in the country before colonisation. In India this would be the Indian people. Nearly all of the Indian population are from one of the Indian ethnic groups.

Yes, better for the Europeans at least. I don't think the Africans much like being under Europe though.

I think it depends on the nation. Some nations like South Africa I think seem to be thriving just as strong as when they were under Colonial rule. While other nations like Zimbabwe have gone to hell. The white farmers who ran the farms were well educated and trained farmers usually from families that had farmed for generations. These farmers knew how to grow crops and keep the land irrigated and furtile. But when Zimbabwe pretty much kicked them out they gave inexperianced civilians farming land and expected them to do just as good as the europeans.

Also in many African countries European countries were the only thing keeping them stable. The Europeans united the countries they were in control of. However when the Europeans left they became reluctant to intervene. Today Europe remains afraid of intervening in Africa, heck the UN doesn't even like sending troops they prefer the African Union handling African operations.

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..!

The point is irrelevant because the empires could not be maintained and thus we never will know what it would have been like if they persisted.

@ OP,

(I'm going to presume you mean Subsaharan Africa only). You raise valid points but problem with your argument is  too one sided. For example the idea of a nation state is quite alien to Africans, this was imposed on them by their European colonial masters. Also a lot of the ex colonies are still quite recipient to their former colonial masters influence. Ivory Coast/France, Sierra Leone/Britain etc. And Africa wasn't developed for the benefits of Africans, it was developed for the benefit of European nations which benefitted tremendously from exploiting Africa.

Africa hasn't destroyed itself in the same way Europe did during the World Wars and also while it has recieved a lot of aid, it can't compare to the Marshall Aid Europe got straight after the end of WW2. Also the loans it recieved had high interest rates attached and the people suffered while the Dictators who borrowed the money lived in a life of luxury. It was very irresponsible lending done on purpose by Western institutions to make a killing on interest rates even though the people of the country had nothing to do with it. Normally if a bad debt has occurred it's up to the individual to pay it back or declare bankruptcy not his friends or family etc. But in African dictarshops, the Dictator would borrow money from the World Bank, then default, so the IMF would come in and say right since you can't pay it back we will lend you money but on the conditions you accept the high interest rates and cut back on public services in your country, increase your own interest rates and taxes and pay us back on time using your taxpayers money otherwise we will keep charging you penalties and your debt will increase and be made worse. And to make matters even worse they would force Corporation tax down and leave the country to even more exploitation.

Also in order to gain independence, Africa either had to fight for it which proved costly or there were a lot of conditions attached such as taking on the debt of their former colonial masters. Furthermore after the end of WW2 Europe wasn't really in a position to keep it's former colonies, it might have made it worse. And being colonised meant Africa counldn't go through an industrial revolution like Europe did they wouldn't be allowed to.

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