As with the presumption that the entire nation benefited from slavery, the idea of a net national gain from colonization is largely a myth. While some individuals and organizations profited greatly (and others went broke or died attempting to exploit, profit from, or even help Africa and its people), there is not much evidence to support the idea that the African colonies were a source of financial gain for the mother countries. Bismarck considered them a strategic liability. When Germany finally entered the imperialist game and aquired some colonies, he told a British official "We have just given you hostages". When presented with a map of Africa showing territories ripe for German acquisition and colonization, he replied, "Your map of Africa is very nice, but my map of Africa is in Europe. It shows France here, Russia there, and Germany between them, and that is my map of Africa." With a strategic threat of that magnitude, you'd think that any source of additional revenue or personnel or raw materials would have been welcome, but instead, the Iron Chancellor seemed to have considered colonies a luxury to be indulged in by nations without more urgent problems close to home. And he had a point, as the German commander in Africa during World War One was never defeated, and never surrendered. In spite of his success defending Germany's African possessions, they were all confiscated at the peace conference, because Germany failed to win in Europe, which was all that really mattered.

In any event, colonies were established for a wide variety of reasons that made sense to the people giving the orders at the time, but which did not translate into profit. For instance, missionary groups eager to proselytize might petition the government to open up or expand a colony to allow them to do so under protection, or pressure the government to send troops to rescue missionaries who were trapped or threatened by the natives. How does one put a value on the degree to which such actions enriched the mother country? Likewise for a mineral company that wanted to mine in a certain area, inducing officials to set up a fort nearby, from which the mine and its workers, as citizens of the home country, would receive protection from hostile locals. The officials or parlimentarians who approved such uses of resources might find their campaign coffers enhanced, and the company might make a fortune off their endevour, but would the taxes recouped by the government cover the outlay of military resources and administrative costs? Other colonies were claimed for military purposes. In the late 19th century, the dominant strategic theory Alfred Mahan's idea of naval power, which required aspiring powers to establish ports and naval bases around the world, to enable their navies to operate far from home. National prestige also required the defense and retention of colonies which had outlived their original purposes, or which had not proved as profitable as assumed when acquired. A lot of people valued how much of the world map they could color in the same shade as their homeland, no matter the costs of maintaining the bureaucracy and military needed to make those claims a reality.

Also in regards to the whole community paying, as in the case of slavery, it is important to remember that there were WARS during the period of exploitation. A non-insignificant point to the American reparation question is that the region which practiced slavery did want to be a part of the USA, and waged a four year long war against the United States. Why then should the United States then pay for reparations for the actions of a state that waged war against the US over that very issue. It's not unlike demanding that the Western Allies of World War Two pay reparations for the Holocaust. Going back to the question of European colonies, how much did Germany benefit from a wealthy England (if one assumes England's wealth was due to the extent of its colonial empire)? What about during the Protestant revolt and Thirty Years War, which on the Catholic side was heavily financed by Spanish gold from the New World? Should Sweden, the Netherlands and Germany pay reparations for colonization as fellow European beneficiaries of that wealth? To what degree are the combatants of World War One guilty of sharing in the enrichment of their enemies from their colonies? Do the UK, France, Belgium, the Netherlands & Italy owe Tanzania because they shared in the theoretical wealth Germany obtained from that colony? Does Germany owe reparations for the supposed wealth those five nations took from their colonies like South Africa, Libya, Somalia, Sudan, Congo etc?

Apart from all those issues, in some ways, the worst damage done to Africa was not by culture-destroying missionaries, rapacious harvesters of biological and mineral resources, or brutal military occupiers, it was by Africans educated in European universities in all the latest fashionable and progressive economic and political theories, many of which have since been discarded, or rejected, or proven impractical in practice, but which those men brought home and put into play when left in charge of a nation-state that was independant by fiat. Or the attempts by Europeans to impose their own institutions that had evolved from centuries of practical experience and were based on established traditions and values, on countries that lack the traditions, cultural tendencies or experience to make those institutions work. Modern industrial states require considerable human capital that was unavailable in Africa for a variety of reasons. Democracy requires a certain degree of informed political awareness and mutual identification, which is simply absent in some countries, which were created out of administrative zones by Europeans, rather than along the boundaries inhabited by actual populations. It would be like a variety of space aliens conquering Europe for several hundred years, then abruptly leaving, telling Europeans to govern themselves with all the ray guns and flying saucers they introduced. But the new nations left behind have nothing to do with European borders and traditions, like say a "North Central European Republic" that includes Denmark, the tips of Norway & Sweden, northern Germany & northwestern Poland, Benelux & Normandy. And they are all supposed to get along with one another and act like one unified nation. Oh, and all the politicians are former native employees in the alien administrations all from the Polish portion, and we are SURE that they are going to fairly administer such a country, and not at ALL in favor of the Poles first, hind teat for everyone else. Darfur and Rwanda happened because peoples who have historically hated one another ended up inside the lines drawn on their continent by outsiders. The ethnic, religious and cultural makeups of most post-colonial African states makes Yugoslavia look like a model of unity and homogenity (and even peaceful inter-ethnic tolerance) by comparison. Another problem from the first world's dealing with Africa has been foreign aid, much of which goes no deeper into the country than the pockets of corrupt officials, further empowering their regimes to remain in charge and keep looting the country to buy Mercedes and ski lodges in Switzerland at best, and to put to death the populations of their tribal enemies at worst. Where does such aid come into play? Are the investments and developments of African infrastructure made by European governments or companies or even philanthropists not worth anything? Should those be taken out of the dues of reparations? Or should the aforementioned inadvertant harm caused by well-intentioned meddling be added to the bill?