>Those places have been far more tolerant before they had colonial Stop right there. Before colonization those lands were dominated by the ottoman empire, whic

>Those places have been far more tolerant before they had colonial Stop right there. Before colonization those lands were dominated by the ottoman empire, which exported "black gold" from there. By which I mean that they'd ride into the villages on horseback, kidnap the young into slavery, to be exported into North Africa, the Middle East or Asia. Similar things happened in India. They left the old or infirm to die of hunger and thirst, wounded and alone. Coming out of ottoman domination, the indigenous population was literally worse off than in the stone age. Colonization, which of course was not free of exploitation, was a massive improvement of these people's situation. Yes it was not perfect, far from it. That is a bit like criticizing George Washington for being a slaver. In the 6 cities in Congo that I visited that were colonized after WWI, the older generation says that the current situation is worse than colonization. In places where the old wars have resumed, like near the Sudan border, it is much worse. Unless, of course, you count the muslim conquest of Africa/Middle East/Asia as the vast bulk of colonization. Then, maybe, you have a point. Before that, during Roman times, Africa (esp. North Africa) was a lot better off than Europe and massively better of than North America. Africa was called the bread basket of Europe in Roman times, although that did not include anything south of the Sahara where we don't seem to really have historical records for. >So a tribe in Africa that lived perfectly fine in a relative balance, Amish style, There is a huge difference between tribal life in a hostile environment and Amish life in contemporary America. In every Amish village you easily find people aged 70 and over, thanks to modern medicine. In regions of Africa were tribal life still exists, you won't find a single soul over 35. In an African village there's lots and lots of easy ways to die, and it's just a part of life there. They are trying to fix this, but it'll be decades or centuries before it's done. If you go outside of villages without backup, nature will kill you. It may be hunger, germs, it may be poison plants (who kill people who think hunger is easily solved), it may be poison snakes, it may be other snakes (you best pray if you die from snake attack, it's poison that kills you), it may be large animals (although they've been hunted to near-extinction in many places, they remainder still kills lots of people), it may be people from other villages (they are not friendly towards one another, though during peace time they'll generally let people who wander off go with a beating or a wound). And if you stay inside of the village, you may still get killed by hunger, thirst, germs or snakes, and there are regular fights for tribal leadership that "usually not everybody survives". Most kids do not live to see their fifth birthday (most are never recorded, and thus not in anyone's statistics). And that's ignoring the larger wars, that are usually between ethnicities, like the Hutu-Tutsi conflict. These wars are uncoordinated, it's just one ethnicity expanding by moving it's outer villages in a particular direction, and they know full well there's exactly one way they can get access to other's hunting/farming grounds. These wars are slow-moving, taking decades to move a few dozen kilometers (because even a village at war, without supplies, still has to farm and hunt while also killing any neighbour they come across). But slow-moving enemies doesn't help you if you don't have intelligence going further than the next village.