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

a reply to: James1982
You cannot equate the massive kill off of the native Americans to anything else in world history (they had no chance to be enslaved or assimilated; just annihilated).

a reply to: sweets777
District 9.

originally posted by: vethumanbeing
a reply to: James1982
You cannot equate the massive kill off of the native Americans to anything else in world history (they had no chance to be enslaved or assimilated; just annihilated).

Ok? I didn't say anything otherwise in my post, what's your point? The OP wants to know why in the US the native population was wiped out and almost completely replaced by the colonists, where as in Africa the natives are still by far the majority population.

My answer was that different goals were at play on US territory, and in Africa. The US's goal was to replace the native population in America. The Europeans in Africa for the most part just wanted to leech off the current population, not replace it. That is why the native population remained strong in Africa, yet was almost wiped out in the Americas.

What you said isn't even being debated or argued against by me so I'm not sure what else to say?

a reply to: James1982
I take that as "nothing more needs to be expanded; grow an argument non-existent upon (to be said) about said subject".

originally posted by: vethumanbeing
a reply to: James1982
I take that as "nothing more needs to be expanded; grow an argument non-existent upon (to be said) about said subject".

I'm sorry, your words just aren't making any sense to me, I guess we'll have to end our discussion here seeing as I cannot understand you.

Quick caveat: The "taking over" of say, the continental United States was done by Americans, not Europeans (though yes, these Americans were of European descent). In fact, The Royal Proclamation of 1763 was intended to prevent settlers from encroaching on more Native territory and this partially fueled the eventual Rebellion. So the "taking over" was conducted by Americans of European descent.

Why did the European settlers/descendants in Africa not supplant the native population in Africa. It probably has to do with large tracts of barren land, malaria, etc. The US on the other hand, was largely a agricultural wet dream, so why not take it from the natives?

originally posted by: James1982
originally posted by: vethumanbeing
a reply to: James1982

vhb:You cannot equate the massive kill off of the native Americans to anything else in world history (they had no chance to be enslaved or assimilated; just annihilated).

James2982: Ok? I didn't say anything otherwise in my post, what's your point? The OP wants to know why in the US the native population was wiped out and almost completely replaced by the colonists, where as in Africa the natives are still by far the majority population.

There was no value in the Native American for the potential slave owner; they were/ARE a unique people that would NEVER allow themselves to be enslaved and so could not be sold to other nations in say the 1730s (they would have to be 'captured' first and those attempting would most likely die). The U.S. government couldn't enslave them anyway after 1863; as that practice was abolished during Lincolns Presidency (the civil war). Instead, tried to get them to assimilate. That didn't work either as they have a history of their own; (many) very territorial tribes, other than the great Sioux Nation not getting along (murdering each other) and was pointless.

James1982: My answer was that different goals were at play on US territory, and in Africa. The US's goal was to replace the native population in America. The Europeans in Africa for the most part just wanted to leech off the current population, not replace it. That is why the native population remained strong in Africa, yet was almost wiped out in the Americas.

Native Americans would never have allowed themselves to be used by European immigrants (they were upon their lands). They were tricked into trading with them. The U.S. with massive migrations repelled them off their lands with volumes of white people. Not sure Africa is the land of milk and honey, other than its gems, wildlife and was a thriving slave trade in human beings (not the finest hour of human history). I think the environment is very harsh for anyone not indigenous to it and why the white man has not overtaken it; the U.S. on the other hand had everything as far as a reasonable climate and tremendous resources (agricultural) plus the potential its massive land mass had to offer.

originally posted by: Phallacy

Phallacy:

Quick caveat: The "taking over" of say, the continental United States was done by Americans, not Europeans (though yes, these Americans were of European descent). In fact, The Royal Proclamation of 1763 was intended to prevent settlers from encroaching on more Native territory and this partially fueled the eventual Rebellion. So the "taking over" was conducted by Americans of European descent.

When was slave ownership in England banned (had to be around this period in time) and as you say caused the American Revolution that ended in 1776.

Phallacy: Why did the European settlers/descendants in Africa not supplant the native population in Africa. It probably has to do with large tracts of barren land, malaria, etc. The US on the other hand, was largely a agricultural wet dream, so why not take it from the natives?

Include massive numbers of those of European decent having superior technology. That and lacing blankets for trade with small pox, introducing alcohol into their communities (of which they are allergic just as some other oriental peoples are); destroying their food source; the Buffalo/bison. There is the other; the Federal Troops; Calvary.

There are a bunch of history theorists nutters on this topic.

Learn something new everyday from you people. Yeah Malaria,denge fever,west nile etc didn't help the Europeans with populating the African continent. In brazil,argentina,mexico, dominican republic the europeans intermarried with the local populace and gained the immunity/resistance from local diseases,fungi and parasites.

Its like a american going to Europe and getting bubanic plague. You would be helpless but someone there with a natural resistance has a decent chance of surviving(with adequate medical care).

originally posted by: John_Rodger_Cornman
There are a bunch of history theorists nutters on this topic.
Learn something new everyday from you people. Yeah Malaria,denge fever,west nile etc didn't help the Europeans with populating the African continent. In brazil,argentina,mexico, dominican republic the europeans intermarried with the local populace and gained the immunity/resistance from local diseases,fungi and parasites.

Its like a american going to Europe and getting bubanic plague. You would be helpless but someone there with a natural resistance has a decent chance of surviving(with adequate medical care).

History theorists, name them. As far as infectious diseases go, many have to die before immunity happens. You are saying this is the natural course? There never occurred one for TB (within your theory). Intermarrying works, but hasn't so far for Syphilis, cholera, Dengue fever, Ebola, (viral diseases). As far as parasites go, boil your water. What is your point (we should intermarry) and all hospitalizations will cease; fairy tail. In Europe people drank beverages that were of the distilled or boiled nature, never directly from a well.

I dont think it can be overstated how dangerous the tropical african diseases were to white people.
The mortality rate for I believe a netherlands sailor/soldier who was stationed in coastal tropical africa was 50% per year
Millions of young men looking to make some money were killed by disease by being sent out to these tropical places

It also cannot be overstated that disease wiped out most native americans. They farmed, slash and burned and had cities. When colonist started going inland the land had much larger forest than pre-1492.

Africa also was not colonized as much because there were already a lot of people there, which is not what colonist want. They want cheap/free open land. Combine this with the fact the crops europeans grow may not be as suitable to the soil.

Combine this with the fact the ideal place existed for migrants to go, The United States. Why go somewhere's else when an ideal government with no king exist and it has a decent climate. And it has a similar culture to the one the migrant left.

a reply to: jellyrev
Yes, the modern day U.S. Marine has to have at least 20 shots (inoculations) against all sorts of pathogens/disease.
It boggles the mind that any European traveling in the 1800's in Africa survived; unless drinking Gin with quinine.

originally posted by: vethumanbeing

originally posted by: John_Rodger_Cornman
There are a bunch of history theorists nutters on this topic.
Learn something new everyday from you people. Yeah Malaria,denge fever,west nile etc didn't help the Europeans with populating the African continent. In brazil,argentina,mexico, dominican republic the europeans intermarried with the local populace and gained the immunity/resistance from local diseases,fungi and parasites.

Its like a american going to Europe and getting bubanic plague. You would be helpless but someone there with a natural resistance has a decent chance of surviving(with adequate medical care).

History theorists, name them. As far as infectious diseases go, many have to die before immunity happens. You are saying this is the natural course? There never occurred one for TB (within your theory). Intermarrying works, but hasn't so far for Syphilis, cholera, Dengue fever, Ebola, (viral diseases). As far as parasites go, boil your water. What is your point (we should intermarry) and all hospitalizations will cease; fairy tail. In Europe people drank beverages that were of the distilled or boiled nature, never directly from a well.

I said resistance with adequate medical care you would have a good shot at surviving. Not full immunity where it doesn't matter.

With no resistance at all it can be a death sentence without modern antibiotics and medical knowledge/technologies(like clean no preservative non-laced vaccines and antivirals compounds).

a reply to: jellyrev

Good point.

Makes alot of sense. United States had a western culture that was very similar to western europe. United States had a climate that made growing wheat,corn,barley,oats, etc easier.

Nice reply.

They did colonise, took as many resources as they could then used divide and quit to start wars with Hutus and Tutsi's to help aid them leaving.

Most countries such as South Africa and the former Rhodesia (now Zimbabwe) were ruled by the mintory whites, who denied non-whites basic rights or votes, as was the same in most countries in the continent.

Roughly 60million have died in the fallout:
Here's a brief article outlining how Belgium destroyed Rwanda (just as the other nations did to their own colonies).

NSFW: Very violent extreme footagw of people being murdered by having tyres soaked in oil placed round their neck and set on fire - but a true depiction of the horrors that occured. - Part 3 of this series - topdocumentaryfilms.com... The Monkey in the Machine and the Machine in the Monkey - starts around 4minutes.



Direct quite from the film from a UK company: featured around 8 mins into the same documentary/video

'In the last week 500,000 have been killed, unarmed women and childrenl have been raped and murdered. Villages have been burnt down. Just today over 60 men were burned alive after being soaked in petroleum.

Throughout this time we have considered only one question 'will this hurt the day to day running of our company'

We are pleased to announce this weeks events will have no effect on our mining operations and are indeed no concern to us'.

The US actions pale in comparison to what us europeans did.

Film of the head of the companies speach to video that starts at 8mins.

originally posted by: John_Rodger_Cornman

originally posted by: vethumanbeing

originally posted by: John_Rodger_Cornman
There are a bunch of history theorists nutters on this topic.
Learn something new everyday from you people. Yeah Malaria,denge fever,west nile etc didn't help the Europeans with populating the African continent. In brazil,argentina,mexico, dominican republic the europeans intermarried with the local populace and gained the immunity/resistance from local diseases,fungi and parasites.

Its like a american going to Europe and getting bubanic plague. You would be helpless but someone there with a natural resistance has a decent chance of surviving(with adequate medical care).

History theorists, name them. As far as infectious diseases go, many have to die before immunity happens. You are saying this is the natural course? There never occurred one for TB (within your theory). Intermarrying works, but hasn't so far for Syphilis, cholera, Dengue fever, Ebola, (viral diseases). As far as parasites go, boil your water. What is your point (we should intermarry) and all hospitalizations will cease; fairy tail. In Europe people drank beverages that were of the distilled or boiled nature, never directly from a well.

I said resistance with adequate medical care you would have a good shot at surviving. Not full immunity where it doesn't matter.

With no resistance at all it can be a death sentence without modern antibiotics and medical knowledge/technologies(like clean no preservative non-laced vaccines and antivirals compounds).

Now there is the problem of putting oneself in harms way (the risk, the why and the reward). You are not thinking about the moral challenges.

originally posted by: John_Rodger_Cornman
a reply to: jellyrev

Good point.
Makes alot of sense. United States had a western culture that was very similar to western europe. United States had a climate that made growing wheat,corn,barley,oats, etc easier.

The United States did not have a defending Army is all; just Native Americans trying to preserve their territories (LIFESTILE). There is nothing honored or NOBLE in what "a western culture (similar to western Europe)" did to an indigenous people. Shame on you.

Why didn't they takeover Africa? Africans were not as peaceful as American Indians. Tribes were way backward and some of them will attack with poison. To make things worst Europeans were at constant Civil War at each other. Europeans were also attempting to get to China instead due to the Silk Road trade bringing all them Silk and riches. Europeans were fighting each other the most. Why fight low tech Tribes when you have bigger threats like Men with Cannons and rifles?

The same reason why US or Britain didn't touch China internally after occupying Hong Kong.
You don't want to make more enemies when you have other competition. Britain and other nations could not takeover Africa because they were constantly at war each other destroying each other and losing man power.

Africa is also mostly jungles and forest full of strong predators like crocodiles in water. Unlike the African Tribes. American Natives did the peaceful way which helped the British map North America to take it over. Also African population was way bigger than North American population. Check out the slavery of black people being brought all over the world by the Europeans. You don't see that many Native Americans/Indians slaves. This proves taking over Africa would be a lot harder, just like today.

a reply to: makemap
Of four great nations; the English, Spanish, Dutch and French; still, with considerable effort could not conquer this continent.