If European colonialism hadn't happened, then Africa would be a 'forwards' society?

If Europe hadn't colonised Africa, the Black Panther film wouldn't have been made.

Why do some people say that if Europe hadn't colonized Africa, then it would be an industrial, 'forwards-thinking', first-world country? A little bit like the Black Panther film.

Firstly, I want to point out that I think colonialism, and the violence and murders it created, was disgraceful.

My query is this, though: Firstly, Africa was already underdeveloped industrially and economically when the Europeans went in hundreds of years ago....Secondly, it isn't possible to hypothesize alternative versions of history - we simply don't know what would have happened if a particular had not occurred.

No.

Why I don't agree with European colonization and the countless genocides, we don't live in fantasy world if Africa was untouched it would be advance paradise.

There is a reason Africa was taken with ease, it was guns vs sticks. Most parts of Africa where 100's of years behind Europe. Of course European colonization hasn't done Africa any favours, but it didn't stop Africa from being a 'forward society'.

If Europe hadn't colonised Africa, the Black Panther film wouldn't have been made.

Well yes, clearly....I haven't seen the film, I just know the gist of what it's about. You haven't responded to my query, though.

Not quite getting the intended sentiment from the Steve Carrell Gif.

You're correct on your second point.

Your first point is sort of correct in my opinion. Yes they were industrially underdeveloped. But you could only say they were economically underdeveloped if you believed capitalism was a more developed economic system. Some people don't. You could argue that the Europeans were doing an excellent job at butchering each other, so the Africans were the more civilised of the two.

You're correct on your second point.

But you could only say they were economically underdeveloped if you believed capitalism was a more developed economic system. Some people don't. You could argue that the Europeans were doing an excellent job at butchering each other, so the Africans were the more civilised of the two.

You're correct on your second point.

Your first point is sort of correct in my opinion. Yes they were industrially underdeveloped. But you could only say they were economically underdeveloped if you believed capitalism was a more developed economic system. Some people don't. You could argue that the Europeans were doing an excellent job at butchering each other, so the Africans were the more civilised of the two.

Nah. Some people (you know who I mean) love to pretend that the evil white colonists are the reason that the black people in Africa are poor and underdeveloped. But no.

If you take a look at individual case studies by each nation, European intervention and influence has definitely had a negative impact.

Well obviously, I wasn't denying that.

It was often the case that former colonial powers made African countries' economies dependant on their own, France was notorious for this in North and West Africa, and it obviously had a negative impact on their economy.

This doesn't change the fact that African nations were already underdeveloped in the first place, when France and England went in....Of course, Europe's behaviour was morally wrong and I don't excuse it. All I am saying is that the colonialism can't be the original cause of Africa's being behind.

There's also other issues such as the sociological impact of trying to introduce another culture into a different country, which I believe Britain was most guilty of, especially if you look at the impact of apartheid in South Africa as well as the introduction of Christianity into Uganda which has resulted in people adopting some very Conservative and not 'forward-thinking' views particularly with regards to homosexuality.

I never mentioned this, and I wasn't discussing this in particular; African nations had their own spiritual/religious beliefs/practices, as most societies in the world do, before Europe even went there.

However, this is a really complicated and expansive topic, which I feel like I'm not qualified to answer, if you're particularly interested I would recommend reading up on the topic and reading some expert's perspective and analysis

Of course it is, but you don't need to be an expert to look at basic empirical facts and form an opinion. Different experts have different opinions, in any case - especially historians and political philosophers. The entire 'if colonialism had not happened, Africa would be a first world continent today' doesn't seem logical, in light of the two arguments I raised initially in my post.
.

However, this is a really complicated and expansive topic, which I feel like I'm not qualified to answer, if you're particularly interested I would recommend reading up on the topic and reading some expert's perspective and analysis.