Why did the scramble for Africa start so late? I find it strange

What'd be the point of conquering them when African chiefs are already selling your slaves in droves, which at the time was the only raw material Europeans could foresee bein in Africa?

Meanwhile they knew about the gold and ore in the Americas.

Not to mention sub saharan Africa being a malaria-infested shithole. the Scramble for Africa started specifically BECAUSE of the effective treatment for malaria becoming available.

literally no point

for the longest time it was pointless shithole, like Antarctica today

>>1815871
This.

https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/white_man%27s_grave

>>1815813
Because obviously it was in the portuguese sphere of influence and the Spanish were not allowed to go there (and where btfo when they tried either way). And the portugoese had a trade empire via trade outposts and didnt colonize shit.

>>1815894
Hello joao

>>1815849
What if you don't have to buy slaves but you can sell them yourselves to the Americas. Imagine if some European power conquered the Slave Coast. They could have gotten filthy rich from the slave trade. Plus they would also have had tons of ivory and some gold from modern day Ghana.

>>1815908
Too much trouble. You can give the local nignog boss some cheap stuff and get enough slaves practically for free.

>>1815908
Too much effort in that for the conquest to be warranted. You should realize that the meagre payments owed to native chiefs were already earning white traders a fortune, and as long as it prevailed amongst them that no one would try to make a grab for slave monopoly in seizing the Ivory Coast, the those traders were content with only trading.

>>1815871
>>1815893

The only two faggots that get it. Sub-Saharan Africa has the resources to be economically on par with colonial subjects of America, but Malaria -- specifically the most severe strain of malaria -- made it unfeasible for either large scale settling by whites or for the use of punitive force by white armies to enforce colonial rule.

When milder forms of malaria (more cold resistant than the severest form) eventually spread to the Americas via colonizing Europeans, that began the use of indentured servitude and eventually African Slavery to shore up a labor force that was continually being heavily attrited through disease. With Africans having a better resistance to Malaria, they eventually replaced indentured servitude all together and became predominant in malaria infested regions (see the Southern States of the 13 Colonies).

But since whites had a much higher mortality rate from the more severe strains of malaria in Africa than the milder ones they brought with them to America, it's no coincidence that African colonization by whites began in earnest in the late 1800s when medicine could effectively begin to treat malaria.

>>1815813
Africa is a hellhole for anything that didnt evolve to survive in it like us white people, so much disease, parasites, and shitty tropical trees in the way, so much mud, and worse of all the fucking nigger tribes.

>>1816363
For reference:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Plasmodium_falciparum <--- Most severe strain which causes most deaths and found primarily in Africa.

The rest of them:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Plasmodium_vivax
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Plasmodium_ovale
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Plasmodium_malariae
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Plasmodium_knowlesi

Aren't those confined to Equatorial Africa though?

OP was mainly inquiring about the Ivory and Gold coast, which to my knowledge (but could be very wrong) aren't as severely afflicted with these

>>1816401
Sorry, meant for >>1816363

>>1815813


Most of inland africa was hard to get to, and there were tons of diseases fucking up non-natives. It just wasn't economically viable until much later, and often wasn't economically viable at all.

>>1815813
The Portuguese were in the Congo pretty early like 1500s. Part of the problem was disease, malaria really hit white people hard when they went south.

File: Portuguese rifleman, 16th cent.jpg (486KB, 989x1320px) Image search: [Google]

486KB, 989x1320px

Africa wasn't like the Americas where the natives died of disease (it was the other way around, see >>1816388). Plus, Africans actually had stuff like iron weapons and in many areas horses, so Europeans couldn't actually project their power far into the interior (see the Portuguese in Zimbabwe and Angola) and rarely tried to in the first place, due to disease and the fact that the main export from Africa, slaves, were easily obtained through trade. Also aside from the Cape where people did settle early, temperate European crops won't grow in sub-Saharan Africa.

Colonization was only made possible by modern medicine and industrial technology (maxim guns, steamboats, railroads, etc), and was only made attractive when the demand for slaves was replaced by a demand for industrial resources such as rubber. Demand for slaves was most easily met when African regions were chaotic and dis-unified, while demand for resources was more easily met by stable societies with organised labour and developed infrastructure. Most well organised societies along the African coasts like the Kongo had been completely destroyed by the slave trade in the 17th and 18th centuries, so Europeans had to go in and impose 'order' themselves to extract resources most efficiently.

>>1816401
The ivory and gold coasts are both tropical and filled with disease. Only the far south of Africa was really attractive to European settlement.

>>1815813
Malaria, cooperative locals (can buy slaves, gold, etc), better land in Americas/Asia.

File: 12936_2011_Article_1959_Fig2_HTML.jpg (229KB, 1025x774px) Image search: [Google]

229KB, 1025x774px

>>1816401

P. falciparum afflicts those areas today as well (see map), though it needs to be pointed out that areas where P. falciparum is endemic today may not have been the case during the colonial period. Not to say that there is a big controversy whether P. falciparum actually did or did not afflict those areas during the colonial period, but that I personally do not know of evidence which proves one way or another. Based off of the modern day range of P. falciparum, it's not really a stretch in my opinion for it to be the same back then.

https://malariajournal.biomedcentral.com/articles/10.1186/1475-2875-10-378

French conquest of Madagascar 1895
15,000 men
25 soldiers killed in combat
6,000 soldiers dead of malaria, dysentery and typhoid fever

African diseases are to white people what European diseases are to red people

>>1818290
short, sweet, and to the point

>>1818290
Fun fact when Euros saw Natives settling far form water they thought they were stupid. that was until they tried settling near rives and got btfo at that time.

Also cutting down forest is not a good idea since who knows what disease you unleashed to the world.

>>1818641
>Also cutting down forest is not a good idea since who knows what disease you unleashed to the world.
How does that work exactly?

>>1818774
I'm not sure if this is what he meant, but its a well known fact of epidemiology that a virus or bacteria must not be too good at killing their host or else it will die before having transmitted the disease to anyone else. Due to the isolation of hunter gatherers in sub-saharan africa it has been speculated that there have been numerous diseases that had the potential to wipe out humanity but went extinct when they killed off an entire tribe before it could be communicated.

File: The City of Benin.jpg (215KB, 1157x900px) Image search: [Google]

215KB, 1157x900px

>>1815813
Africa was a hard place to colonize for 16th Century Eurocunts. Not only do you have people familiar with metal and even firearms, banish the fact that they also outnumbered you, but you fucking died of tropical diseases.

A lot of zoos and gardens in Europe started as tropical research centers to find ways on how whitey can live in the jungle with a fair chance of surviving. And even then during the 19th century you still have Europeans succumbing to dysentery and malaria.

Which is why from the 16th century to the 18th century, much of the European-iFrican relationship was based on trade. Coastal cunts benefitted from this the most.

>>1818774
Infected animals, pests etc leave the jungle then infect other places. Zika forest in Uganda has 70 species of mosquito and they all carry you typical tropical concotion of diseases as well of ones given names by the locals like o’nyong-nyong, Bwamba, spondwei, btaya, chikungunya and Kasokero.

O'nyong'nyong virus for example hit 2 million people in the 1959-1962

Uganda has Zika forest (home of the Zika virus)
Also I remember I heard that on top of certain stuff outright killing the victim fast some the people have resistances like Zika after living with it for decades (Brazil has it's own strain but it got hit with the African one so no resistance recently which they have dealt with amazingly). Others the people have a social mechanism to deal with infected people like isolation.

I always wonder why the americas were conquered before africa
t. dumbass

>>1818903
>some the people have resistances
Want your mind blown even more?

Take a wild guess why Africans or those with African ancestry are the major individuals to get Sickle Cell Disease.

>>1820571
Well yeah, this was known for quite some time. Sickle Cell improves survival in a hostile, malaria infested, tropic environment. You can't just breed something like that out over a couple generations, it takes millennia.

File: 23423243432432.gif (876KB, 500x281px) Image search: [Google]

876KB, 500x281px

>>1818903
>o’nyong-nyong, Bwamba, spondwei, btaya, chikungunya and Kasokero