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

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? All of them

On March 5, 1770, Crispus Attucks and several other patriots from Boston protested the British curbing of civil liberties in their Massachusetts colony.
During a scuffle with British soldiers, Attucks and several others were shot and killed. Although independence had not yet been officially declared, many consider Attucks the first American casualty of the Revolutionary War.
The Boston Massacre greatly helped to foster colonists’ spirit of independence from Great Britain. More than 5,000 blacks — both slave and free — would later take up the cause and fight for America’s independence. Unfortunately, freedom for most of them would have to wait.

www.army.mil...

Probably because Africa was already mostly explored and colonised (at least the north).

a reply to: John_Rodger_Cornman
For people used to a European climate, there were few attractive areas for settlement, apart from South Africa.
Anyone who wanted to migrate could go to America, Australia, New Zealand.
So European interest in Africa tended to be in terms of trade and control of resources. In the case of nineteenth-century Britain, protecting the sea-route to India.

a reply to: John_Rodger_Cornman

I assume you are excluding the Portuguese, British, Dutch, French and German colonies in Africa ? And not taking into account the bush wars, Zula wars and the two borer wars .

If that is your position then Yes the Europeans did not take over Africa .

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

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.

a reply to: John_Rodger_Cornman

answer to question one, they did. Belgium British french German Italian Portuguese and Spanish were the main players with Denmark, Sweden, Finland and Holland with some smaller trading and political interest. basic modern history.

Because just like nowadays affluent white people of that day were scared to cohabitate with large populations dark skinned folk...

a reply to: DISRAELI

Good point.

Learn something every day.

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?

Dbl

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 .

a reply to: John_Rodger_Cornman

Population density and germs.

In North America: indigenous populations were heavily pre-massacred by microbes and so when European colonists came in numbers there were few indigenous people, and even fewer in organized societies which could put up a fight. The small and nice ones were rolled over, and the fierce ones were massacred by colonists having accurate, inexpensive rifles. (late 1800's firearms vs 1500's firearms)

In some of South and Central America: indigeneous populations were substantially higher, and they mixed and bred with European colonists and their slaves and servants.

In Africa: the indigenous diseases were worse than the European diseases and kept Europeans without immunity out for a long time, and other than South Africa, the climate was too different.

originally posted by: Greathouse
Dbl

Historians estimate between 2-11 million people where kidnapped.

discoveringbristol.org.uk...

If that is true why didn't the Europeans colonize the African continent like the Americas? Africans of European decent is a pretty small population in Africa. Why?

originally posted by: Greathouse
"I took the OP to mean "taking over" in the sense of "supplanting the previous population".

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

Perhaps you need to look up the meaning of the word "supplanted".
The non-European populations of Africa have NOT been supplanted. They are still there and in a majority.
The Europans have NOT taken the place of the indigenous population, which is what happened in North America.

a reply to: John_Rodger_Cornman

They did colonize the African continent in the same way Europeans colonized the American continent . They settled along the coast and took the best areas while raping and pillaging that of resources .

Not to mention that the areas they preferred where similar in climate and growing patterns along the The same latitudes from the equator .


And another poster also brought up that 90% of native Americans were killed after European contact through disease .

source

a reply to: John_Rodger_Cornman

Lions and tigers and elephants oh my!

a reply to: mbkennel

Also the geography. The Americas had better geography for widespread colonization and development methods of the day. Africa in general was geographically much more hostile to it. The rivers were not easily navigable (lots of rapids and waterfalls). The terrain did not lend itself as easily to infrastructure. What resources there were that could be used at the time did not demand widespread colonization to use.

originally posted by: Greathouse
a reply to: John_Rodger_Cornman

They did colonize the African continent in the same way Europeans colonized the American continent . They settled along the coast and took the best areas while raping and pillaging that of resources .

Not to mention that the areas they preferred where similar in climate and growing patterns along the The same latitudes from the equator .


And another poster also brought up that 90% of native Americans were killed after European contact through disease .

source

No. The majority of the population in Africa is still African. In the Americas the majority of the population is of European decent.