Fletcher Christian @ #34:

Yes, colonial boundaries were arbitrary and capricious. Most were established by the Conference of Berlin in 1894 based on very imperfect maps, often with lines drawn by people who had never been to Africa. The Belgian Congo, for example, was defined as all the land draining from the left bank into the Congo River. Since the Congo does not make a closed loop, that leaves space for dispute in the south. Much more importantly, it aggregates several hundred tribal and linguistic groups with no unifying feature at independence other than the desire to be as rich as the colonizers who lowered the flag and departed at midnight.

Things might have been made right upon independence from European powers, but the first point of the charter of the Organization of African Unity was to retain the colonial boundaries. Several wars were fought to make changes (Biafra and Cameroun were examples) but generally the colonial boundaries remained.

As for leaving too soon, I was in Kenya in the early nineties when they were holding their first truly contested election. When it resulted in absolutely no change (and we declared that the elections were essentially fair although seriously skewed in terms of infrastructure at the disposal of respective political parties) the losers began to speak openly about wishing they were still a colony. It was easy at that remove in time to talk that way; thirty years earlier many of the same people (Oginga Odinga the most outspoken) were talking out of the other side of their mouth. Now Oginga’s son Raila is “sharing” power with erstwhile opponents.

In truth, the French had figured out about a decade earlier that their ex colonies were costing more than they were worth unless one factored in the “prestige” of maintaining the French Union and the French Franc Zone. They were working to reduce all manner of financial and administrative ties.

And yes, social relativists have questions to answer. F