If whites would've kill 90% of native african population

>>3093565

Sure, look at South Africa and Rhodesia. Shit, Zambia is doing significantly better since they took on so many white farmers fleeing Zimbabwe

>>3093565
Undoubtedly, just look at South Africa and Rhodesia before collapse. Or indeed Australia, New Zealand or any other white settler colony. However, the propensity for mass slaughter and abuse required for such a project has only ever been found in the German.

File: 1499751176327.jpg (150KB, 372x574px) Image search: [Google]

150KB, 372x574px

>>3093565
Honestly, probably yes.

There's some real shitholes in terms of climate, mosquitoes, malaria etc. in Africa, but NA and Australia aren't without difficult terrain either...so I think a majority white Christian culture, ideally with the same sense of purpose as in NA, could probably have used all that space and those resources similarly to NA and Australia.

But what I'm not sure about is whether killing 90% of the Africans wouldn't cause some really hurt feelings.

1. Leftover population: If you actively kill them (rather than have them collapse due to disease), any survivors will be unlikely to cooperate much. At this point 100% may actually be favourable.

2. Depending on which era we're talking about, your home population may not approve.

3. Neighbouring cultures (Looking at the middle east, what with the Ottomans for example) may not approve; perhaps even demand a slice of the cake.

4. The settlers themselves might disapprove of the means, turning this new continent-spanning colony against its parent countries.

Generally speaking, most of these would not be a problem in an era without mass media, political correctness and strong muslim powers.

This all probably sounds very /pol/, and this is likely a /pol/ thread to start with, but there you go...this is my honest estimate.

>>3093582
Why is that american wearing spanish cloths

>>3093597
I don't know, ask Texas.

>>3093568
Zambia does well because of mining and being in the copper belt as well as being a stable economy for the region with a smooth transition into democracy comparatively. White farmers from Zimbabwe aren't the reason for that.

>>3093565
Presumably.

Indonesia, too.

Of course. If Africa was filled with white people the other white people of the world wouldn't fuck with it over and over again.

>>3093647
Weren't the bloodiest wars of all time fought between white people?

>>3093597

its a southwestern thing

>>3093568
Those countries didnt lose 90% of their population though did they

To answer OP i think only the south and coast lines would have done well, the center would be either very depopulated or like south america

File: 1463687907721.png (30KB, 1775x214px) Image search: [Google]

30KB, 1775x214px

>>3093565
They probably would have done ok. African conditions don't completely prevent civilizations from existing. It's just that it is the real life equivalent of a level 99+ dungeon and all players including Africans had to start from level 1 and move up. Europe is balanced enough for proper leveling up so they had time to max out their characters and get the good loot. So African players can't go through a single quest with their unleveled characters without getting roflstomped by the AI(diseases, drought, fauna, bad terrain). Then some eurotrash player comes in with a "Frostmourne the Obliterator" Sword (firearms) and with buffed up health (crop variety/irrigation), resilience (modern medicine), and dexterity (modern transport tech) because he got to go through dungeons which were actually balanced and solos the whole fucking thing. Then he kills the African player and calls him a nigger in chat and tells him to "git gud".

>>3093568
>Sure, look at South Africa and Rhodesia.
You mean despotic countries where they purposefully pushed like 90% of the population into squalor and then pretended it wasn't their own fault and that it wasn't happening? The ones which fell apart while the entirely black run countries immediately adjacent to them did just fine?

>>3093570
>Undoubtedly, just look at South Africa and Rhodesia before collapse.
>They did great if you ignore the fact that they failed!

>>3093565
China would still colonize it

>>3093570
>However, the propensity for mass slaughter and abuse required for such a project has only ever been found in the German.
Give this man a shekel

>>3093712
>You mean despotic countries where they purposefully pushed like 90% of the population into squalor and then pretended it wasn't their own fault and that it wasn't happening? The ones which fell apart while the entirely black run countries immediately adjacent to them did just fine?
>Angola
>Malawi
>Mozambique
>just fine
WEW. I'll give you Botswana, but that's it.

>>3093773
Botswana is doing good because of diamonds and a low, homogenous popularion.
Namibia is doing well because, unlike ZA and Zim, the land redistribution failed and most of it is still owned by whites. Not many realise that Namibia is whiter than South Africa.

>>3093840
>Botswana is doing good because of diamonds and a low, homogenous popularion.
>They don't count as doing well because they had factors working in their favor.