How come when Africans were colonized they weren't almost wiped out like Native Americans?
>>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.
White people weren't interested in moving into that shithole.
There were also a shitton more Africans than there were Indians.
>>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.
>>551702
Africans were more numerous and had contact with the rest of civilisation(also contact with all their diseases).
At the same time it seems that they were more resistant to hard labours than indians were, which is especially meaningful in case of Caribbean.
Also, the colonization of Africa started in the late 1800s and ended in the mid 1900s, while the equivalent in the Americas started in the early 1500s and ended in the early 1800s.
So, you are looking at a period of 50-100 years of colonization in Africa (depending on the country), while you are looking at a period of 250-300 years in the Americas.
>>551738
What if for some reason they decided to do this?
>>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.
>>551713
this. all other answers are dank memes or people taking out of their asses.
>>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.
>>552988
Like in the Southern part was an real attempt of getting settlers done.
>>551702
Go to East Los Angeles and tell me "Native Americans" were wiped out.
>>551702
Africans are a robust race. Red Indians are gracile.
>>553422
>Go to East Los Angeles and tell me "Native Americans" were wiped out.
North American natives have very little in common with Central American natives or Mexicans.
It's like comparing English and Russians genetically/culturally/linguistically just because they're vaguely of the same skin color and were related many millennia ago.
>>553608
Uto-aztecans are found from Idaho to El Salvador and are in fact interrelated.
>>551702
They wanted the Africans to work.
England did the same thing with the natives in Canada. They didn't enslave them simply because it's nearly impossible to have slave trappers. Far easier to just pay them in trinkets.
Later on when Europeans settled the area they did away with the Indians who disliked their plans, same as they did with the blacks in South Africa.
>>553624
in the same manner as English and Russians are related, yes.
>>553608
Hint: there were far more Mexican Indians 500 years ago than "Red Indians". There was no genocide.
>>553593
holy shit
this is some next-level stupidity
>Natives
>Wiped out
Just go to Peru or Bolivia.
>>553714
This is a false equivalency, it's more like the Uto-Aztecans are Indo-europeans.
The fact that all of the first 10 answers weren't "disease" makes me sad.
>>551702
Disease.
90% of native Americans died within 100 years of Jamestown from common diseases like small pox (this is well before the dubious smallpox blankets of the 19th century).
Africans actually had immunitis to most European diseases and more so i.e Malaria kept Europeans from the heart of Africa until the late 19th century.
>>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.
most attempts prior the 1800s to colonize deep into africa failed due to various tropical diseases, malaria especially.
average lifespan for a European in those areas was barely a year
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.
>>551702
Didn't The Italian Empire want to make Libya and Ethiopia ethnicly Italian?
>>551702
Sub Saharan Africa is a crazy amount of diseases making it suicidal to colonize compared to North America.
>>555853
Yeah. Dunno about Ethiopia though.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/4th_Shore
>>551702
Well, as long I understand there aren't that many white europeans in Amazon rainforest either
>>552868
>all other answers are dank memes or people taking out of their asses.
Way to keep an open mind about things there Anon.
