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.
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?
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?
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...
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?
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 .
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
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
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
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.