By the countries that occupied them in the 1800's
European colonial powers primarily used geographical features such as rivers and mountains to draw new boundaries for African countries during the Scramble for Africa in the late 19th and early 20th centuries. In many cases, these boundaries were drawn with little regard for the cultural, linguistic, or ethnic makeup of the local populations, leading to tensions and conflicts that persist to this day.
The Red Sea and the Suez Canal separate Africa from Asia, while the Mediterranean Sea separates Africa from Europe. These bodies of water serve as natural boundaries between the continents.
All depends on the state, who settled there, etc. Most states, however, are small and compact though, meaning there is easy access and control over it. Some states for whatever reason, whether it be resources or just power, the land has an irregularity and becomes weird. Such would be flordia, which is a prorupt state.
Most state boundaries are not straight line segments because they often follow natural features such as rivers or mountain ranges, historical boundaries, or treaties between different groups or nations. These boundaries were typically drawn to reflect a combination of physical and cultural factors that shaped the development of the area.
Many of Africa's straight line boundaries were created during the colonial period by European powers without consideration for local ethnic, tribal, or geographic distinctions. This led to arbitrary divisions that do not align with natural boundaries or cultural groupings, contributing to ongoing political and social challenges in the region.
Lolwut.
states!
The African political boundaries were drawn without regard for ethnicities. Apex
Simply put, no. Geometric political boundaries effectively separate 2+ pieces of land/territory, but not the people. Take Africa for example. Since Africa's borders were arbitrarily drawn by the British, they didn't take the hundreds of tribes in Africa into consideration. Plenty of Africans were in the same tribe but they were living, and being separated by, the borders.
Africa is a good example of geometric boundaries. When Europe had control over Africa around 1884, boundaries were drawn according to Europe's egotistical desires. Tribes, cultures, and historical ways of life were not taken into account when the borders were created, creating much conflict between native peoples. Conflict and instability are common with geometric boundaries because usually outside forces with selfish desires determine these.
Examples of superimposed boundaries include the boundaries created by European colonizers in Africa during the 19th century, such as those in Nigeria and the Congo. These boundaries were often drawn without regard for pre-existing tribal or ethnic divisions, leading to conflicts and challenges in governance.
Geometric boundaries
European colonial powers primarily used geographical features such as rivers and mountains to draw new boundaries for African countries during the Scramble for Africa in the late 19th and early 20th centuries. In many cases, these boundaries were drawn with little regard for the cultural, linguistic, or ethnic makeup of the local populations, leading to tensions and conflicts that persist to this day.
They led to unstable goverments
poorly drawn maps cause them to argue about boundaries
83
The new boundaries caused confusion and conflict.