European Colonies in Africa Federalizing

Jun 2013
6,395
USA
#1
Portugal attempted (too late) to make Angola, Mozambique, and Portuguese Guinea as parts of actual Portugal as opposed to simply colonies (like Alaska is to the United States for example). This didn't work and they gained independence. But could other European countries have attempted to slowly federalize some of their colonies via referendum to their Empires as overseas territories or would any effort be in vain?
 

Futurist

Ad Honoris
May 2014
21,194
SoCal
#2
Portugal attempted (too late) to make Angola, Mozambique, and Portuguese Guinea as parts of actual Portugal as opposed to simply colonies (like Alaska is to the United States for example). This didn't work and they gained independence. But could other European countries have attempted to slowly federalize some of their colonies via referendum to their Empires as overseas territories or would any effort be in vain?
Wasn't Algeria (or at least the northern, coastal parts of Algeria) officially considered to be a part of France?
 
Aug 2014
1,170
Portugal
#5
Spain has cities in North Africa as well as the Canary Islands.

I am not sure if Madeira island, a Portuguese autonomous region is seen as Africa.
 
Aug 2014
1,832
Huntington Beach CA
#6
Portugal attempted (too late) to make Angola, Mozambique, and Portuguese Guinea as parts of actual Portugal as opposed to simply colonies (like Alaska is to the United States for example). This didn't work and they gained independence. But could other European countries have attempted to slowly federalize some of their colonies via referendum to their Empires as overseas territories or would any effort be in vain?
It's not a matter of "it didn't work" as much as Portugal having to divest itself of it's Overseas Territories as an admission price to join the EU. The European Economic Community which became the EU was set up as a community of Euroopean homelands. Retaining non-European colonies raised the obvious issue of migration to the mother country from those integrated colonies which would make free migration to the rest of Europe problematic. As originally planned, Europe was to basically have "grand apartheid" with it's former colonies, not be a community of empires with unrestricted migration from underdeveloped colonies or former colonies. So those nations had to become independent whether they wanted independence or not. Frankly, there was little or no difference between the "grand apartheid" European nations practised in Africa and what South Africa did, (Britain and especially France repeatedly intervened in former African colonies now tied by Americas style "indirect imperialism" the same way South Africa intervened on occasion in Lesotho, and particularly, Angola). save that South Africa clung to "baaskaap" white supremacy too long and delayed independence for it's "bantustans" until the consensus of world opinion had shifted against it in the 1970s. Had South Africa given it's bantustans "independence" in 1965 at the same time the UK gave Botswana, Swaziland and Lesotho independence it is very likely that those former bantustans would have been internationally recognised while still being dependent on South Africa much as Latin American nations were under the thumb of the US. Civil rights for African descent people were nowhere near as recognised in the early 1960s as they would be five to ten years later.
Which is to say that independence and "self-determination" have never been what their rhetoric cracks them up to be. Independence and an end to overt colonialism has always served the apparent interests of mother countries and the US more than the peoples of the colonists who were basically cut adrift. There has always been an element of "keeping Europe white" involved in decolonisation.