What if there was a development of an extensive mulatto race in certain African colonies (probably Portuguese) not unlike the mestizo/zambo/mulatto/etc. populations in Latin, especially South, America?
What if there was a development of an extensive mulatto race in certain African colonies (probably Portuguese) not unlike the mestizo/zambo/mulatto/etc. populations in Latin, especially South, America?
It could be done either with Portuguese or Spaniards.I've been toying with the idea of Spain absorbing Portugal around the early 1500s, in a timeline where Columbus never sails across the Atlantic.
The Spanish inherit a colonial empire in the making around Africa and into the Indies. Imagine if all of Iberia had focused towards the east instead.
South Africa becomes a very import keystone in the Spanish Empire. It's climate is similar to Southern Europe, and gold is discovered early on. What eventually forms there is a mix of Brazil and Latin America, except of course in South Africa.
Actually, the coloureds are major ethnic group in western South Africa. They are a mix of the dutch/huguenot settlers with the native khoi people(there is as well coloureds from malay background), most of them speak afrikaans. They are the proof that the white afrikaners lived just fine with the natives before the great trek.
Yeah... no. Afrikaners ejected and killed the khoi people very, very often even before the British got there. Just becuase they had sex with the native women and fathered a few children, which were then more often than not ostracised in the society doesn't mean that afrikaners lived 'just fine' with the natives originally.
Just as fine as the iberians in America. It's hard to think in a racial utopia by the 1700's.
One reason was that they sent entire families to settle their colonies, while the French and the Iberians sent single men. In the latter case, rather than exterminate everyone, the settlers find it preferable to at least keep the women around and take them up as wives.Why are the Anglo-Americans and Germanics so much more brutal colonizers than the French and the Iberians?
A bit iffy due to the sheer number of blacks already there. In America both whites and blacks were being imported so there was a moderatly more even mix.
For race mixing in Africa your best bet is between Asians and whites.
One reason was that they sent entire families to settle their colonies, while the French and the Iberians sent single men. In the latter case, rather than exterminate everyone, the settlers find it preferable to at least keep the women around and take them up as wives.
That is because they where voulnerable to small pox, while the average bantu african was more resitent to it than the average european.Actually, the coloureds are major ethnic group in western South Africa. They are a mix of the dutch/huguenot settlers with the native khoi people(there is as well coloureds from malay background), most of them speak afrikaans. They are the proof that the white afrikaners lived just fine with the natives before the great trek.
But if you are looking for a latin country, there is Cape Verde. It's not in continental Africa, but around 70 percent of the population have a mixed background.
The spanish conquest of america was the biggest ethnocide of the history of mankind. The situation of the indians in the spanish colonies was MUCH worst than any kind of european serfdom, witch, by the way, barely existed in the colonial powers.
In the spanish part of America, the natives were subdued by a system of quasi-slavery. I'm not an expert in the colonial spanish america, but the Encomienda system was so bad that it was almost the same system used with the jews and the muslims after the reconquista. A spanish guy translating the Popol Vuh or an aztec becoming a saint does not proof that the situation of the indians were like the situation of european peasants, I'm sorry, that sounds really naïve to me.
It was not papal bulls what protected natives in Spanish America, it was Spanish Common Law (the Leyes de Indias). And if you killed an indian and you were brought before a royal officer you should expect a harsher punishmen than if you killed a castillian (you may say that royal officers suffered abuse by encomenderos, that there were even royal officers killed by encomenderos, but again think about the situation of the communications in the XVI-XVII centuries).Even with the papal bulls "protecting" the natives of America, in colonial Brazil, the portuguese never managed (or never really wanted) to stop the indian slavery. That is, actually, a big chapter in brazilian history, try to read something about the Guarany Wars, the Bandeirantes or even the Beckman's Revolt.
Ah, only for the record: There was african slavery in ALL parts of Latin America.
The Spanish America was far from a paradise but the legal and real situation of the natives was much better than in most colonial systems of the era and after that. As for the ethnocide, I suppose that explains that for instance 80% of the population in Mexico or Peru is from native origin whereas in the US, Brazil or Canada it is...
It was not papal bulls what protected natives in Spanish America, it was Spanish Common Law (the Leyes de Indias). And if you killed an indian and you were brought before a royal officer you should expect a harsher punishmen than if you killed a castillian (you may say that royal officers suffered abuse by encomenderos, that there were even royal officers killed by encomenderos, but again think about the situation of the communications in the XVI-XVII centuries).
Of course there was african slavery in all parts of the Americas. But a slave in Spanish America had a better treatment than in English America or in Brazil. Please look for the first person to grow wheat in the Americas or for Fort Mose (and the Capitán Menéndez). An african slave could become a full free person in spanish America (and being treated in the same way as a white, indian or black commoner).