The problems with decolonization in Africa

What do you mean by "propaganda"?

Africa is in very bad shape. People die of HIV and other disseases by the millions. Life expectancy declined from 55 to 40 in less than a decade. Most countries have negative growth. Population explosion booms without control. The continent is full of violence and civil wars. People dies of hunger. It is the most analphabet region of the planet.

Good question. Right off the bat, I can think of some benefits: they'd still be growing their own domesticated crops, which are highly suited and very productive under African conditions but not very good for export (Europeans don't like to eat African grains and cereals ... it's estimated about 2000 domesticated plant species have vanished since heavy colonization began in the 1800s). So their food supply would be a heck of alot more stable, since imported grains and crops tend to be highly vulnerable to some of the African conditions, resulting in periodic famines.

But I think the overall answer kind of depends on what you mean by "colonization" and "better". If it's just not the European powers, well then the Muslims colonize it (as they did most of North and East Africa) and exploit it economically, with probably a similar result (its not as if places like the Sudan are much better off than the rest of Africa). If it's just that there's only economic involvement, and no colonization, then you have a situation like today where they're just exploited for resources without even getting the benefits (roads, schools, etc) that go with colonization. If it's like there's a wall separating Africa from the rest of the world - no colonization, no economic interaction - then African civilizations like Mali never develop, and there's no exploitation but no development - the Africans would be like the Papuans or Amazonian tribal groups. Which might not be so bad, depending on your perspective. But I can't think of any plausible scenario in which Africa can come out as a developed, prosperous continent.

That's kind of up to us, the people of the present day. We could do that, if we had the will.

Well, Mali, at least, was built on trade with both the Muslim and European world. Empires practically never rise in isolation. This is as true for the civilizations of Asia, Europe, and the Americas as it is for Africa - they are all products of trade, diffusion of ideas and technology, etc.

Again, it's the same old, same old. They said the same thing about mining, cotton farming, and the Green Revolution, all of which impoverished Africa rather than enriching it. 

Well, also countries like the US and Russia are rich, and they subsidize their farmers with billions of dollars, both in direct cash handouts and infrastructure projects that benefit farmers. Because they are so heavily subsidized, they can bring their produce to market much more cheaply.

Another problem is that the native cereal crops of Africa are now mostly extinct, or are not desired by other cultures, who prefer the cereal crops they are used to, like corn, wheat, and rice. These crops are not well-adapted to African conditions.

Not all of Africa has this problem ... in fact, some areas of Africa are among the richest in the world in terms of watered land. For instance, Uganda has excellent water and soil resources. The DRC (Congo) has massive precipitation and more thunderstorms than any other place on the planet, and supports a rainforest second only to the Amazon. Kenya has the Great Rift Valley which is incredibly fertile and well-watered. 

Even in Canada, our cash crops (eg soybeans, tomatoes, etc - not wheat) are dependant on cheap labour in the form of guest workers, and we're a rich, highly industrialized country and a major agricultural exporter.