[benj111]

I don't think the language thing covers it.

Plenty of European countries have more than one language, only recently got 1 unified language.

You have countries like India that manage to make a cohesive country out of disparate peoples.

That's not to say these aren't contributing factors.

My current 'theory' / observation is that sub Saharan Africa never really had large scale civilisations, I wonder if that colours their conception of what a nation state is. Eg, if you think in terms of tribes. Perhaps that hinders scaling up to something bigger.

[dotancohen]

Why even scale anything up?

If these peoples have been living and fighting and reproducing successfully for millennia, why do Europeans and Americans think it necessary to get group them into states and force them to form large-scale heterogeneous bodies of law? Does that just make it easier to remove the mineral wealth from the continent?

[benj111]

Very true.

Or do they need to develop their own concept of the state, or at the risk of sounding imperialistic, do they need to learn the concept of the nation state?

Broadly speaking I would say having structures larger than a tribe is a net benefit. Whatever form that may take.

[ashwagary]

>Or do they need to develop their own concept of the state, or at the risk of sounding imperialistic, do they need to learn the concept of the nation state?

Western governments need to stop assassinating leaders and toppling democratically elected governments every few years for that to happen. That hasnt stopped and it has a chilling effect, which is the purpose.

[benj111]

When was the last time a democratically elected government toppled or assassinated in Africa by the west?