Powerful Africa settler colony

[flaris]

Have there be 9-10 nations in Sub-Saharan Africa that are 80-90% European settlers without genocide of Blacks. These countries can be part of their home nation.

These countries must have high first world standard conditions and have a powerful industry by modern day standards.

The POD has to be after 1850s and can't all be a big wank of one country in Europe

 

[Hrvatskiwi]

Sud-West Afrika (Namibia) is very likely to become majority European if it retains German rule.

Continued French colonisation of Algeria. (and shearing off the rugged Berber areas can make the official colony of Algeria less non-European.

I've heard Kenya was close to becoming majority non-African (due to projected demographic data).

Libya also could've easily become majority Italian (google: 'Fourth Shore').

If the Cape was administered separately from the rest of South Africa, it could be majority white too.

If, for some reason, European Jews were sent to Madagascar, then they could outnumber (or slaughter, or both) the Malagasy. Similar for if a Jewish state had been set up by the British in Uganda.

so that's 6 so far (since the Uganda/Madagascar things are pretty much mutually exclusive)

 

[ChineseDrone#48295857]

The easy way out here would to be to have small, city-state European colonies on the African coast that grew out of earlier trade posts.

 

[BlondieBC]

Avoid WW1. This gets you many areas that look like South Africa if you get right (plausible) immigration pattern.

To get your 80% without genocide, just simple continuation of OTL policies, you need second policy. Instead of trying to hold huge areas (whole colonies), you hold selected areas with concentrated settlement. So almost all whites in German East Africa go to Rwanda, push out natives. Whites take 1/3 of Angolian Highlands. Whites take tea region of Kamerun. Germans keep only southern half of SWA which seems like today is more than 25% white. Zulu areas excluded from South Africa. etc.

 

[eliphas8]

Thats remarkably difficult, maybe if you lowered that number to 55-60% white settler you'd have better luck but it's next to impossible to get those kinds of numbers without genocide of the black population.

 

[Faeelin]

Av
To get your 80% without genocide, just simple continuation of OTL policies, you need second policy. Instead of trying to hold huge areas (whole colonies), you hold selected areas with concentrated settlement. So almost all whites in German East Africa go to Rwanda, push out natives. Whites take 1/3 of Angolian Highlands. Whites take tea region of Kamerun. Germans keep only southern half of SWA which seems like today is more than 25% white. Zulu areas excluded from South Africa. etc.

Who is going to farm the tea in Cameroon?

 

[Will Kürlich Kerl]

Who is going to farm the tea in Cameroon?

Coolie trade.

 

[Faeelin]

Coolie trade.

So these colonies will be sustainable because the Africans are ethnically cleansed and the Europeans import Indians to work the plantations?

Oh, this is great.

 

[eliphas8]

Coolie trade.

So basically this in no way achieves the goal outlined in the OP. Because European plantation owners and Indian slave labor does not make a white majority. If anything it makes an Indian majority.

 

[JimTheB]

So.... forcibly removing african populations out of white-designated areas into places already occupied by others so that they have to fight for the land? Or out into land that nobody else wants, possibly because it's infertile? Sounds like attempted genocide at least.

 

[GoldenKhanate]

Ottomans expand their empire along the East African coast. These areas were frequented by Arab merchants and the Ottomans controlled Arabia for much of their history so it may be plausible. The Ottomans import European slaves into these colonies. European slaves would include Slavs captured by Crimean Tartars and Western and Southern Europeans captured by Barbary pirates. Eventually the European population outnumbers the native and Arab/Turk population.

 

[Will Kürlich Kerl]

Or England could get some outposts in Africa and send Irish slaves over there, whom will eventually outnumber the natives.

 

[Faeelin]

Or England could get some outposts in Africa and send Irish slaves over there, whom will eventually outnumber the natives.

How would they do that?

 

[HeavyWeaponsGuy]

Ooh, threads on this subject are always so interesting, I never go away without having learned something.

The easy way out here would to be to have small, city-state European colonies on the African coast that grew out of earlier trade posts.

The amount of these that would actually be viable would be pretty modest. The Angolan coast is about as far north as European settlement can safely extend before the advent of quinine and other medicinal advances historically made around the time of the OTL Scramble for Africa (a reason for its occurrence really), and even with malaria brought under control, things like the tsetse fly and associated maladies (namely the sleeping sickness) are going to make colonization a nightmare, and more importantly, expensive.

Even if the settlers don't die, good luck setting up basic infrastructure without cattle and horses (both of which are affected by the tsetse fly) to do the heavy lifting.

The best candidates for this sort of thing are places that are already fairly lowly-populated. The more arid portions of Southern Africa (i.e. OTL South Africa and Namibia) are prime candidates for this, as others have said. They can (and did) sustain European settlement far before other parts of Sub-Saharan Africa. Pastoral, nomadic peoples in-general, are something that after a certain point will be extremely vulnerable to the expansion of European colonies (and thus sedentary settlement).

 

[funnyhat]

So.... forcibly removing african populations out of white-designated areas into places already occupied by others so that they have to fight for the land? Or out into land that nobody else wants, possibly because it's infertile? Sounds like attempted genocide at least.

That would technically be ethnic cleansing and not genocide.

 

[HeavyWeaponsGuy]

That would technically be ethnic cleansing and not genocide.

Moving people to land that cannot support a large population explicitly so that European settlers can gain control of the best land is basically a very slow genocide.

 

[Alternate History Geek]

Ooh, threads on this subject are always so interesting, I never go away without having learned something.



The amount of these that would actually be viable would be pretty modest. The Angolan coast is about as far north as European settlement can safely extend before the advent of quinine and other medicinal advances historically made around the time of the OTL Scramble for Africa (a reason for its occurrence really), and even with malaria brought under control, things like the tsetse fly and associated maladies (namely the sleeping sickness) are going to make colonization a nightmare, and more importantly, expensive.

Even if the settlers don't die, good luck setting up basic infrastructure without cattle and horses (both of which are affected by the tsetse fly) to do the heavy lifting.

The best candidates for this sort of thing are places that are already fairly lowly-populated. The more arid portions of Southern Africa (i.e. OTL South Africa and Namibia) are prime candidates for this, as others have said. They can (and did) sustain European settlement far before other parts of Sub-Saharan Africa. Pastoral, nomadic peoples in-general, are something that after a certain point will be extremely vulnerable to the expansion of European colonies (and thus sedentary settlement).

You forgot the Sahara and the North African coast.

 

[Kaptin Kurk]

Well, South Africa was a good candidate for a white settler colony largely because (according to the historical record) it was only settled by the farming Africans tribes shortly before the Europeans arrived. (The lighter skinned (in truth or tradition) hunter gather people - the Khoisan - were there, but they had a lower population density, and indeed, it was in their lands that the original Afrikanners were able to settle.)


Just examining the history of African and Asia (and South America) I'd say that completely displacing the population of even relatively primitive farming peoples was beyond the ability of European colonisits. Indeed, the only places that European colonisits replaced the population, OTL, seems to have been where Hunter Gathers dominated, the Virignian and Maryland colony indians being the exception, and this was done at the height of diseas advantage.

 

[machine3589]

Moving people to land that cannot support a large population explicitly so that European settlers can gain control of the best land is basically a very slow genocide.

Not by the legal definition. If the land can support NO population whatsoever, which implies the population was purposely sent there to die off completely, then it is an act of explicit genocide. If, however, the land can sustain part, but not all of them, then is it "just" a crime against humanity.

 

[HeavyWeaponsGuy]

You forgot the Sahara and the North African coast.

I was speaking strictly on Sub-Saharan Africa. Saharan Africa doesn't hold much of great value for a European colonial empire. Most of North Africa barring Egypt, which is too densely-populated to be considered a viable target for settler colonialism, is of marginal value. Algeria is valuable since it can grow grain, but without some serious settlement for years on end from the metropole, any presence in Algeria will ultimately be futile.

Libya is overrated on here as a colonial possession in my opinion, Libya's oil isn't commercially-viable (or even able to be extracted) until the advent of oil-drilling techniques that came out in the 1950's historically, before then, the place is little more than a hunk of desert with some narrow bands of arable land near the coast and a handful of decent ports useful for logistics and not too much more than that. Libya is certainly not the Malaya-style colony with massive amounts of rich resources that would pay for itself. And without much to justify an investment made in it, how would Italy or anyone else attract settlement?

Not by the legal definition. If the land can support NO population whatsoever, which implies the population was purposely sent there to die off completely, then it is an act of explicit genocide. If, however, the land can sustain part, but not all of them, then is it "just" a crime against humanity.

Aye, though I wasn't speaking by the legal definition (always did seem a rather silly distinction to make in my view).