Britain uses South africa as a place to dump convicts

Straha

Banned
So what happens to the world from the late 18th century onwards if Britain uses South Africa as a place to dump convicts on the same scale as Australia? Does this impact sout african politics or do we still see the afrikaners holding on strong nearly to the end of the 20th century?
 
So what happens to the world from the late 18th century onwards if Britain uses South Africa as a place to dump convicts on the same scale as Australia? Does this impact sout african politics or do we still see the afrikaners holding on strong nearly to the end of the 20th century?

Considering the Australian transportees constitiuted 100% of all transportees, to have SA used on the same level demands a doubling in the crime figures, or a reduction in transportation to Oz by 50% :)

Seriously, there's no need for a second set of convict colonies
 
Considering the Australian transportees constitiuted 100% of all transportees, to have SA used on the same level demands a doubling in the crime figures, or a reduction in transportation to Oz by 50% :)

Seriously, there's no need for a second set of convict colonies

Well, I think he was thinking of WI they use SA instead of Australia.

A more populous SA, also a war with the Boer starting earlier.
 

Straha

Banned
I was thinking of Britain deciding to be more repressive on crime and thus have the amount of transportees to send to SA.
 
I was thinking of Britain deciding to be more repressive on crime and thus have the amount of transportees to send to SA.

Then I would propose a series of heavy uprisings accompagnying the industrial revolution in Britain because of a repressive system. Which would get you even more convicts.
And of course larger white population in South Africa, thus an earlier Boers-war because of pressure on the Boers colonies from a larger population. Then we'd see even increased immigration after the end of convict-transports and maybe even resettlements of blacks into reservates to get a fully white South africa?
 
I was thinking of Britain deciding to be more repressive on crime and thus have the amount of transportees to send to SA.
When the Law gives you transportation for stealing a loaf of Bread, it is hard to get more Repressive.
 
I'm not sure this would be wise.
Australia was a big 'empty' continent. Nowhere for them to run to.
In South Africa the boers aren't that far away...
 
I'm not sure this would be wise.
Australia was a big 'empty' continent. Nowhere for them to run to.
In South Africa the boers aren't that far away...

Good point!

It's not that bright to ship some criminals anywhere where they can easily run away, get some weapons, and then can come back on you...
 

Thande

Donor
Basically for this to happen you would have to exclude Australia from consideration because, as said above, it is a better choice for a convict colony than SA. You would also still have to have the ARW happen so America is not a realistic choice (I suppose they could still use Canada but it would presumably inflame the Quebecois problem).

So, how about we use the WI that the Endeavour is shipwrecked in 1770 (as almost happened in OTL) and so Australia isn't discovered until AFTER the first convict colonies have been established in SA?
 
So what happens to the world from the late 18th century onwards if Britain uses South Africa as a place to dump convicts on the same scale as Australia? Does this impact sout african politics or do we still see the afrikaners holding on strong nearly to the end of the 20th century?

The Afrikaners numbers would certainly be increased by escapees and former prisoners (IOW, not Loyal Sons & Daughters of the Empire) unless they proved painfully obnoxious/irrational... and to be honset there is a good chance the various Bantu peoples would also take them in as the Cherokee did IOTL.

If the latter makes common cause with the English against the Afrikaners, this could make for a quite interesting/amusing SA.

HTG
 
Top