ITT we talk about the Race for Africa

>>3162501
>Why not the 17th or 18th century
To many diseases which could kill horses and poorer equipment for exploring and dealing with natives (guns were a big part of subduing the natives especially the maxum gun) and the Ottomans also had a presence in the North.

>What was so profitable in keeping control despite slavery being illegal
Resources and strategic locations for refuelling or moving around the world or lucrative trade routes. Also many nations did not profit from their colonies as they often put in much more then what they actually got out

>Where there actual wars fought there
Boer Wars
Mau Mau rebellion
German East Africa company wars in Tanzania
Rif War
Various other rebellions

>>3162501
north africa was dominated by muslim slavers and competent ottomans who were relatively modern, technologically.
sub-saharan africa has disease up the ass and many had been traded guns in exchange for slaves much earlier.
additionally the riches of africa weren't as apparent or of use; coal, oil, rubber, deep-mining for industrial minerals weren't as needed or were otherwise useless until the 19th century.

>>3162519
>Also many nations did not profit from their colonies as they often put in much more then what they actually got out

What? Colony budgets were rock bottom as fuck.

>>3162501
Europeans dindu nuffin, they wuz good boys.

>>3162559
Colonization in general cost the state more money than they ever got back. In almost every case Colonization was the state operating as a security force for private interests operating in the territory who reaped the bulk of the reward from the treasure and lives the state expended to exert control over a certain patch of land.

>>3162519
Why were there actual wars fought* is what I meant to say.

Why fight over cucked land

>>3162583
Because the costs of immanent colonies are so low because

>private entities helped cover many of the costs it.
>You don't need to investing a populace of niggers beyond the bare minimum.
>native taxation helped pay the cost of anything needed

colonies aren't about netting a profit first and foremost because "profit" is incredibly vague and in comes in many forms.

>>3162664
The yearly budget for colonial Malawi was the street sweeping budget for Glasgow for example because all you really need is to pay the civil servants down South and some buildings here and there for your whites.

Colonial budgets don't tell the full story since White officers often got paid on commission.

Quinine and steam boats were required to navigate the interior. White death rates in the Congo stayed very high through the 1890s. Also, Ottomans held the North more firmly earlier on.

As for wars, there was like 12 different multi year insurgencies in the Congo Free State.

As for slavery, some colonies still used it without calling it such. In the Congo slaves were used as Porter's for every Outpost. The Force Publique armies were mostly composed of Black slaves fighting other Blacks.