The problems in Africa are often blamed on the boundaries of countries that were put in place by the colonials. I can understand that this probably is the case in many instances.
It kind of almost proves that Africans are no different to Europeans, in that "soort soek soort". Verwoerd understood this concept, which is why he tried to, in a warped kind of way, divide our country up into a lot of little nations were similar people dominated each "country". It was a way of preventing conflict by separating people that have different cultures and value's, which Verwoerd confused by adding in the skin colour issue.
It could have worked out if it was done in a fair manner, and not massively tilted towards helping the white race. In the latter years of apartheid this tilt was actually lessoning, and massive amounts of effort in resources were poured into uplifting black people, unfortunately mostly in the "homelands" and not in South Africa (the white mans country)
Really good infrastructure was being put in place in the homelands, excellent hospitals, well built suburbs. It was an incredible example of socialism at work. I doubt this country will ever achieve that level of efficiency again, in terms of rapid and sustained quality development.
But I'm rambling now. My point is the boundaries. What boundaries would have been put in place if the colonials/settlers, whatever you want to call us, never had an influence in this regard? Some Africans say putting a boundary between different nations is a European thing. Maybe Africa would have ended up a boundary less continent. I can't grasp how that would be advantageous.
Would the Matabele and Shona have just got along, the Zulu and Xhosa. Would these nations not care about the nice land in the others territory, never try to take it away. Would Africa have become one nation, united purely by the colour of their skins. All interbred, gladly mixed their cultures, religions, and be one big happy "we all love one another" African people.
I think Africans are just like Europeans though, they would have separated on the basis of culture, beliefs, whatever other thing that differentiates human beings. Without proper set boundaries, there would be constant conflict, constant arguing as to who owned what. In "mixed" countries you would always have the strongest "similar" people groups forcing their rules and ways on the weaker groups.
The only peace would be achieved if the groups were separated, and boundaries set in which each group could look after its own interests. So, in my opinion, separation and boundaries are means to achieving peace. Just human nature, no racism, or any other discriminating factor. Humans that are different, just don't by nature want to be forced upon each other.
I believe without colonists (us whites) the boundaries would have been set as well. In South Africa I bet they would have ended up being similar to those set by the apartheid regime. We would have had a country dominated by Vendas, one by Zulu, another by Xhosa. Who knows, but there sure as damn would not have been one country, called South Africa.
Look north at how colonial boundaries were altered, by division, not by expansion. Northern and Southern Rhodesia became Zimbabwe and Zambia, etc. Africa had no great American dream of becoming the United States of Africa. The American situation is absolutely and completely different to the African situation.
The USA is a pretty uniform society in its diversity, Africa has very little uniformity besides skin colour, Africa is much like Europe were there are clearly different nations with their own boundaries. There is very little unity in skin colour, a Frenchman will have a heart attack if you say he's the same as an Englishman.
So to the Africans who think the "European" thing of setting boundaries between "different" groups of people is a bad thing, please offer a viable alternative. I promise you, no boundaries will not be the answer. If you think it is, I'd like to ask how. To me common sense does not have racial boundaries.