It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Why didn't the europeans take over the continent of africa like they did in the americas?

page: 2
9
<< 1    3 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jun, 24 2015 @ 05:42 PM
link   

originally posted by: John_Rodger_Cornman
Why didn't the Europeans take over the continent of Africa like they did in the Americas?

How many wars in the United States have American Africans have participated in?



There were a lot of reasons.

One of the most critical is the cited malarial and other disease problems inherent to much of sub-Saharan Africa. The indigenous population was mostly resistant to it, as they are today. But the Europeans could not handle it before the 20th century.

It wasn't until the late 19th century that effective anti-malarial measures and drugs were created, hence opening the path.

I learned about this from Jeffrey Sachs and global development experts.




posted on Jun, 24 2015 @ 06:50 PM
link   

originally posted by: John_Rodger_Cornman
Why didn't the Europeans take over the continent of Africa like they did in the Americas?

How many wars in the United States have American Africans have participated in?



I'm not sure what point you're trying to make with this, but the Europeans did take over the African continent. Have you really not studied "The Scramble for Africa"? From the late 1880s to the early 1920s, Europe conquered all of Africa except Liberia (an American "colony") and Ethiopia (which defeated the invading Italians). Look up the atrocities committed in the Congo under Belgium's King Leopold. Here's a 15 minute video to get you started:


However, the African people forced the Europeans out during the Cold War (which was really a series of regional wars where the oppressed natives revolted against their colonizers). Some countries in Africa were given their freedom because the European imperial power simply couldn't afford to keep them. But others faced massive armed resistance & civilian disobedience until they were forced to leave. As an example, roughly 1.5 million Algerians died in their war of independence from France. And Zimbabwe's current President Robert Mugabe was the leader of one of the largest rebel groups against the British.

Here are 2 links which show when each African nation regained independence.
A Chronological List of Independence Dates for Africa.
Decolonization of Africa

As for the part about African Americans fighting in US wars. Is that a trick question? As an example, my African American grandfather fought in WW2 in a segregated unit under Patton. My African American uncle fought in Vietnam & my African American cousin fought in Desert Storm. On the other hand, there was a thing called racism which stopped "black" people from being a part of "white" institutions until desperation kicked in (like when the Confederacy finally started letting African Americans fight in the war because they were about to lose).



posted on Jun, 24 2015 @ 08:50 PM
link   
I recall watching a documentary entary that said eeti ated figures of the size of the native American population before being bumped off by settlers was intentiolly played down by the US government historians ... And continues to be to this day.. I don't know the exact figures but I was told the indigineojw population of north american was at least as big as the population of europe.



posted on Jun, 24 2015 @ 09:02 PM
link   
a reply to: funkadeliaaaa


Well the French and Indian Wars as they are know to some just turned the whole north east North american native pre war structure on its head. The western tribes were nomadic for the large part..



posted on Jun, 24 2015 @ 09:03 PM
link   
a reply to: mbkennel

Exactly, its about disease, the book 1491 proposes that there may have been 90million indigenous peoples living in north and south America prior to Europeans arriving, and that most of these people were wiped out by disease, which is quite astounding. Imagine if these people had been more resistant to disease, the continent would certainly have turned out quite different.
www.amazon.ca...



posted on Jun, 24 2015 @ 09:23 PM
link   

originally posted by: passit
a reply to: mbkennel

Exactly, its about disease, the book 1491 proposes that there may have been 90million indigenous peoples living in north and south America prior to Europeans arriving, and that most of these people were wiped out by disease, which is quite astounding. Imagine if these people had been more resistant to disease, the continent would certainly have turned out quite different.
www.amazon.ca...


1491 is a very very good book that everyone should read to gain understanding about the history and anthropology of the Americas, especially pre-Colombian.



posted on Jun, 24 2015 @ 09:42 PM
link   

originally posted by: John_Rodger_Cornman

originally posted by: amazing
They Did. Here's a list of European colonialism in Africa.

Morocco - 1912, to France
Libya - 1911, to Italy
Fulani Empire - 1903, to France and the United Kingdom
Swaziland - 1902, to the United Kingdom
Ashanti Confederacy - 1900, to the United Kingdom
Burundi - 1899, to Germany
Kingdom of Benin - 1897, to the United Kingdom
Bunyoro - 1897, to the United Kingdom
Dahomey - 1894, to France
Rwanda - 1894, to Germany
Oubangui-Chari - 1894, to France
Ijebu - 1892, to the United Kingdom
Bechuanaland - 1885, to the United Kingdom
Merina - 1885, to France
Egypt - 1882, to the United Kingdom
Zululand - 1879, to the United Kingdom
Fante Confederacy - 1874, to the United Kingdom
Basutoland - 1868, to the United Kingdom
Comoros - 1843, to France
Algeria - 1830, to France
Zanzibar - 1503, to Portugal


Why didn't they populate those countries like in the Americas?

That is what I am asking. The Americas have been colonized by the British,Spanish,Portuguese and french. They have a large population here.
Why not in Africa?


Well they did take over the governments and commit mass genocide in many cases and then put up controlling apartheid white supremeist governments. But they didn't like the resources or climate so nobody moved there. They moved to the America's with more, at that time, resources and better climate and shipped the Africans over there for their slaves.



posted on Jun, 24 2015 @ 10:34 PM
link   

originally posted by: Greathouse

originally posted by: DISRAELI
a reply to: amazing
I took the OP to mean "taking over" in the sense of "supplanting the previous population".
On that definition, it's a reasonable question.

They did that too. But instead of killing them they shipped them off to South America, the Caribbean and North America .

Slaves, why colonize, just hunt and capture the indigenous people as valuable resources (free labor) and sell them on the open market. The diamond trade has picked up though, the Chinese are all over it. Any idea of now (the uselessness) of conquering nations for Tea or Coffee, Nutmeg, Cocoa, cinnamon, rubber plants, sugar cane (those days are over). Maybe conquer a land for its uranium or wild unicorn population.
edit on 24-6-2015 by vethumanbeing because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 24 2015 @ 11:17 PM
link   
back in the old days they used to send lots of trouble makers and undesirables off to those 'uncharted' territories, probably still happening somewhere for unclear reasons



posted on Jun, 25 2015 @ 01:45 AM
link   
a reply to: John_Rodger_Cornman

they did the whites have run south africa for years there is almost more white people in south africa
than blacks lol didnt u ever see that morgon freeman movie about soccer lol



posted on Jun, 25 2015 @ 01:58 AM
link   

originally posted by: sweets777
a reply to: John_Rodger_Cornman

they did the whites have run south africa for years there is almost more white people in south africa
than blacks lol didnt u ever see that morgon freeman movie about soccer lol


Sorry, had to log in to respond to this. This is completely false. "White" people make up roughly 10% of South Africa. "Colored" people (the legal term for multiracial people) make up another 10%. "Black" people (the legal term for people who are 100% African native) make up roughly 80% of the population. This is why the "black" people have been in control of South Africa since Apartheid ended & they were finally allowed to vote.

In fact, here are the actual numbers per wikipedia:



South Africa asks people to describe themselves in the census in terms of five racial population groups.[143] The 2011 census figures for these groups were Black African at 79.2%, White at 8.9%, Coloured at 8.9%, Indian or Asian at 2.5%, and Other/Unspecified at 0.5%.[5]:21

en.wikipedia.org...



posted on Jun, 25 2015 @ 02:00 AM
link   

originally posted by: blacktie
back in the old days they used to send lots of trouble makers and undesirables off to those 'uncharted', probably still happening somewhere for unclear reasons

Australians WILL rule this earth eventually because years ago; England thought it best to send its worst and most creative criminal elements to this isolated continent. Thought it was a REALLY GOOD idea (not knowing how resourceful the BEST of THEIR misguided idea "HOME GROWN" criminal mind sets/GENIOUS CREATIVE pathology can be). Free thinkers that remind me of the originators of the US Constitution.
edit on 25-6-2015 by vethumanbeing because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 25 2015 @ 02:30 AM
link   
a reply to: vethumanbeing

True ..
.

Of course many of those were Heinous crimes, like stealing a loaf of bread to feed your starving children. Swearing at a soldier. Disagreeing with the Government. or being Irish in London.

Bad, serious crimes.....

Id be More worried of the 100s of 1000s of convicts sent to the American colonies for 100+ years before Australia was even "discovered" by the British....They were the first convicts and the worst of the worst...as history has shown.
Rebelling for Independence, biting the hand that fed.
Expansionism, Nuclear Bombs and the only nation to use them...Vietnam, ALL the middle East problems, the black slave problem, pollution...well you know the list goes on.

Yes those first really BAD London convicts sent to America , have a lot to answer for.
edit on 25-6-2015 by gort51 because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 25 2015 @ 05:12 AM
link   
Perhaps because most of the first white explorers to the area had this nasty habit of getting high fevers and dying from organ failure? Australia's climate is not the same as Europe's but they still supplanted the locals here.



posted on Jun, 25 2015 @ 07:38 AM
link   

originally posted by: vethumanbeing

originally posted by: Greathouse

originally posted by: DISRAELI
a reply to: amazing
I took the OP to mean "taking over" in the sense of "supplanting the previous population".
On that definition, it's a reasonable question.

They did that too. But instead of killing them they shipped them off to South America, the Caribbean and North America .

Slaves, why colonize, just hunt and capture the indigenous people as valuable resources (free labor) and sell them on the open market. The diamond trade has picked up though, the Chinese are all over it. Any idea of now (the uselessness) of conquering nations for Tea or Coffee, Nutmeg, Cocoa, cinnamon, rubber plants, sugar cane (those days are over). Maybe conquer a land for its uranium or wild unicorn population.


In many cases the Europeans and Muslims didn't have to come in and hunt the Africans. Certain African tribes enriched themselves by hunting the others to sell. It was unhealthy for the Europeans and Muslims to do it because of the endemic diseases.



posted on Jun, 25 2015 @ 09:29 AM
link   
The differences that mattered most:

a. no contact-shock mortality. Africa was not at all isolated from Eurasia like North America was, thus the Africans did not 90% die off from 'contact-shock' i.e. sudden exposure to 5000 - 10,000+ years worth of evolved diseases, like the Native Americans did.

b. Africa is gigantic. It is bigger than the US, China, and India combined.
The True Size of Africa



posted on Jun, 25 2015 @ 12:00 PM
link   
Although you are not wrong, it's ironic that ultimately it looks like those of Native descent will outnumber European Americans.
Mostly from an influx from Mexico and South America where extermination and concentration camps didn't have as complete an effect. You can also argue that people born here are "native" as well.
a reply to: DISRAELI



posted on Jun, 25 2015 @ 06:58 PM
link   
originally posted by: gort51
a reply to: vethumanbeing


gort51: True ..
.
Of course many of those were Heinous crimes, like stealing a loaf of bread to feed your starving children. Swearing at a soldier. Disagreeing with the Government. or being Irish in London.
Bad, serious crimes.

'Dickensonian' fables? that describe a truism he witnessed and wrote of.


gort51: Id be More worried of the 100s of 1000s of convicts sent to the American colonies for 100+ years before Autstralia was even "discovered" by the British....They were the first convicts and the worst of the worst...as history has shown.
Rebelling for Independence, biting the hand that fed.

That was also a bad idea; "indentured servitude" was bound to fail.

gort51: Expansionism, Nuclear Bombs and the only nation to use them...Vietnam, ALL the middle East problems, the black slave problem, pollution...well you know the list goes on.
Yes those first really BAD London convicts sent to America , have a lot to answer for.

I don't blame them, just the system they obviously ran circles around.



posted on Jun, 25 2015 @ 07:02 PM
link   
originally posted by: ketsuko
originally posted by: vethumanbeing

ketsudo: They did that too. But instead of killing them they shipped them off to South America, the Caribbean and North America .


vhb: Slaves, why colonize, just hunt and capture the indigenous people as valuable resources (free labor) and sell them on the open market. The diamond trade has picked up though, the Chinese are all over it. Any idea of now (the uselessness) of conquering nations for Tea or Coffee, Nutmeg, Cocoa, cinnamon, rubber plants, sugar cane (those days are over). Maybe conquer a land for its uranium or wild unicorn population.



ketsudo: In many cases the Europeans and Muslims didn't have to come in and hunt the Africans. Certain African tribes enriched themselves by hunting the others to sell. It was unhealthy for the Europeans and Muslims to do it because of the endemic diseases.

Yes. Who owned the ships that were 'leased' to transport them?
edit on 25-6-2015 by vethumanbeing because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 25 2015 @ 07:37 PM
link   
Jesus ATS... how many posts in this thread and most of you are still not even understanding the OP's question. He/she has repeated it several times and still you cannot understand what he means be "take over" It's really not that difficult.

As one of the few people actually answering the OP's post:

I think the reason the US almost completely replaced the native population was because it became its own sovereign nation. In Africa the Europeans never split off to make their own separate nation in the same way that was done with the US. Even south America is more like Africa in the sense that the Europeans didn't replace the natives to the degree that the US has done, and again that's because the largely remained colonies instead of the Europeans declaring their colonies new sovereign nations. While South America still has plenty of European Genetics floating around most of the population today is either native or a mix of native and European.



new topics

top topics



 
9
<< 1    3 >>

log in

join