Even leaving the Sahara alone, Africa is so fucking huge and resource rich beyond any means.
Why did the white man, or even in general, any other retards from Roachistan to Chinkheim, NOT CONQUER THIS CONTINENT SUCCESSFULLY?
I mean, Europe sailed to "America" in 1492, erased 20+ millions of Natives leaving their descendants in some reservates.
Why sailing around half of the globe when Africa is literally in front of our door?
We could have done the same thing there, land at sub-saharan west coast, kill all nig-nogs and create Utopia.
Can someone air why this didn't happen, why all attempts failed miserably?
>inb4 niggers
If you can kill Aztecs, Inka and Maya with 500 Spainlets importing diarrhea, Sub-Saharan people are no competition at all. They were at stone age tier level.
>>139474848
better, your country just been cucked by africans xD
>>139474984
that's another topic, for sure. but not what I started this thread for.
I think disease was a factor, nearly all of those old diseases came from Africa.
>>139475561
this.
it might be resource rich but it's also inhospitable.
large amounts of the first european settlers in africa were killed by disease, and their livestock too.
then there's other issues like droughts, lack of arable land.
Just because it has tree's and grass doesn't mean it's good for farming. Most parts of africa are notoriously difficult to farm, due to bad soil, hence why the natives can't do it.
>>139475561
>>139476093
I can see the disease argument. There are far too less permanent cold areas, meaning disease rich species have no exchange with disease-hostile, cold areas, resulting in diseases having the change to evolve further more.
But bad soil? In Africa?
>>139476613
Arable land doesn't stay arable for very long in Africa, because the amount of water in an area often moves around a lot unless you're near a notable river or a massive lake. The Sahara desert and the Savanna actually shift around a little bit.