What if Spain colonized all of Africa instead?

Just a fantasy: what if Spain ignored the New World and conquered Africa instead?

**

Spain would have probably taken all or most of Africa.

**

The different African races would be mostly Spanish mulattoes, with a minority white Spanish elite and a minority black African underclass.

The term "black African" would have a different meaning: one who is unmixed. The mulattoes would range from the likeness of black mulattoes (like the Somalis and Oromos of East Africa) to light mulattoes (like the Touareg of North West Africa and the Moors of Mauritania).

Once again, in each and every African nation, wealth and race would correlate. The white Spaniards would be wealthy and live in secured neighborhoods, away from the impoverished black Africans who would live in ghettoes. The mulattoes would fill up the range from poverty to affluence, most living a middle-class existence.

**

The main religion-denomination of Africa would be Catholicism.

But Catholicism would only dominate in places where Islam has not been firmly planted unlike Saharan Africa, Zanzibar and Somalia.

Africans are more religiously devout than other races, and tend to interpret scripture more literally than other major race-groups, even after mixing with other races generation after generation.

** 

The formal language would be Castilian Spanish. But the spoken first languages of many of the African nations and countries would vary.

At home, the Spaniards would speak something close to Castilian Spanish; the mullatoes would speak an Africanized Spanish dialect; and the black Africans would hold on to their native language, borrowing sparsely from Spanish.

For the Africanized Spanish dialects, many of the everyday words would be borrowed from the pre-native languages.

And the grammar of the pre-native language would influence the grammar of the local Spanish dialect. Little can be done to counter this. "Me guan a" is Jamaican patois for "I am going to" and "I be's" is African American Vernacular for "I am".

Perhaps Spanish-African blend languages would develop, but nevertheless the formal language would be Castilian Spanish.

**

This would have been good for Africa. Why?

**

The British never mixed with their subjects, and kept their distance from them, while building (for themselves and not for the natives) basic infrastructure, but still educating the natives in English.

The French made citizens of their subject natives, as French citizenship is based on ideas and values, and not race or nativity.

But the Spanish mixed with their conquered natives and imposed their language and religion on them. Though tragic, this would have been better for Africans.

And Spain has been under numerous civilizations: under the Romans, under the Vandals, under the Moors, under the Spanish crown, under a constitutional monarchy, and a few others. In each, its culture has thrived and its people have prospered.

The Spaniards practice Catholicism: a civilization-building denomination of Christianity, with a paternal authority, a simple and coherent set of morals, and an established philosophy of God.

The Spaniards speak Spanish, a breakaway dialect of Latin, which is one of the most refined languages to have ever been conceived and developed.

**

It is hard for Africans to admit this:

**

There have been only a handful of civilizations throughout black Africa, all but one having been established by mulatto races: Nubia, Kush, Axum, Timbuktu, Songhai and Ghana.

Nubians were mixed with ancient Egyptians and later Bedouin Arabs; the Habeshas of Axum were mixed with Yemeni Sabaceans and Himyarites; and the Hausas of the Songhai mixed not only with local tribes, but many of them show mulatto features from non-Africans. The Ashanti's of Ghana, as I am aware, were not mixed with a non-African race.  

**

Almost all of the African languages are anything but refined, and reflect the lack of abstract thought, typical to Africans.

The more refined languages, like Amharic, Tamasheq and even Arabic, originated from outside black Africa.

Most of the African languages are horrible to listen to (except Hausa and a few others), especially with the characteristic loud and deep voice of an irate man or woman. In addition, they are not useful for formal expression or vivid description.

**

Black Africans are not technic: they do not develop highly advanced tools, and simple things like a light switch and electricity itself are foreign to Africa. What they enjoy as modern technology was brought over and established by European colonizers and Asian investors.

For this reason, Europeans were easily able to colonize all of Africa, except for Abyssinia. The colonizers were thousands of years ahead in military equipment. The British, armed with rifles and armed vests, faced time after time spears and hide shields. The African warriors were very brave and very fierce, but they were outdone by superior technology and strategic planning.

**

Wherever there are black diaspora, there are mulattoes. And mulattoes have always been on top of the pure blacks. And always above the mulattoes were Indians, whites and East Asians.

It is more beneficial to be a mulatto than a full black. Wherever you look, mulattoes are richer and more easily become middle-class. The Unites States, Haiti, Mauritania, South Africa, the Arab world, and on and on, show this example too obviously to deny outright.

**

It's only a fancy, but Africa is far better off with foreign influence and mixture than without it.