>>551702 The Africans were immune to European diseases? Unlike the natives, Africans were in close promity with Europeans/Middle Easterners. They also didn't want to take and settle on the lands in Africa but rather exploit the resources.
>>551702 Africa wasnt isolated from the rest of the world like America is. They got their diseases much like everyone in asia and europe got. Hell they were a pretty good source of deadly diseases themselves. What killed native americans mostly was them getting in contact with multiple deadly diseases that europeans had grown resistant to.
Besides disease issues (Africans not especially susceptible to European disease, and Europeans being very susceptible to tropical African disease) most of Africa wasn't suited to European crops. It's no coincidence that it's the southern tip, with the most temperate climate, that was most heavily settled by Europeans.
>>552775 Depends on the region. Most African kingdoms would have put more of a fight than any Native American population, but probably still lost nearly all battles. Most Africans would be enslaved within a couple of decades. The problem would come when settling and maintaining the settlement afterwards, which would be absurdly expensive for Europeans, and could lead countries to bankruptcy and to abandon the colonies. This would put the settlers in trouble and direct conflict with the black population..
Diseases like Malaria would cripple Europeans, while leaving Africans more or less unaffected, so the black slaves in certain countries could revolt and take over again, which would usually lead to Haiti-like sanctions on their economy. In countries where diseases are not enough to let blacks make a come back, you would have Apartheid situations.
African hunter-gatherers and semi-nomads would have been pushed to rougher and rougher environments until nearly dying out. Then Europeans would settle. These countries would have a horrible relationship with their black neighbors.
>>552775 Pretty unlikely. The power really did try to bring settlers and and gave them so much benefits and handouts and free shit but very few came.
There people would leave the comfort of their own lands, people and society which gave them a standard of living they are accustomed to live in a disease filled and where the utilities are utter shit, infrastructure is pretty weak or heavily restricted to certain areas and you pretty much are bordered in to the areas the government had control in or actually took care of.
Even if you are some poor guy in the UK why would you leave your home to be poor in another country in Africa and start all over again. Most of the shit that the settlers could get were already taken, society has already been cemented so you can't really make a huge status gain since the settler high class has already been cemented.
>>554080 To my knoweledge, there is no actual solid evidence smallpox blankets were used by anyone.
Some anon said Cortes tried using them and I've heard conflicting reports about whether or not a British officer carried out the distribution of smallpox blankets or simply suggested their distribution, but that's it.
Because the land wasn't worth settling en masse. Only places like Southern Africa seemed suitable for settling - places like Rhodesia, South Africa, and Namibia (before the world actually noticed wtf the Jerries were doing). That's why Africa can't actually function - it a shitty place geographically for humans. Not because they're nignogs.
All trademarks and copyrights on this page are owned by their respective parties. Images uploaded are the responsibility of the Poster. Comments are owned by the Poster.
This is a 4chan archive - all of the shown content originated from that site. This means that 4Archive shows their content, archived. If you need information for a Poster - contact them.
If a post contains personal/copyrighted/illegal content, then use the post's [Report] link! If a post is not removed within 24h contact me at email@example.com with the post's information.