A Whiter Africa

East Africa is the key. Western European agricultural practices can be applied to the East African region in a way that they cannot in most of the rest of Africa, (including most of OTL South Africa). In OTL it never got that huge a level of settlement because it was too difficult to get to.

This is not true. One of the reasons why slavery in East Africa was so hard to eradicate is that sleeping sickness makes use of animal power impossible, so transport of goods had to be by human (slave) porter. The only areas suitable for European settlement and agriculture are limited to a couple of upland plateaus, which can't support too much population.

Also, by the time our technology and medical knowledge had advanced enough to make large-scale settlement possible, we had abandoned genocide as a legitimate way of freeing up territory - which would be necessary to accomplish your goal.
 
There is something in the back of my Mind about Portugal finally encouraging Population Movements to Angola and Mozambique in the post WW2 Era.
And was successful till the Troubles began in the 70's.

A program of African Colonization Following [due to] the loss of Brazil.



Italy winning it's 1895 War with Ethiopia may butterfly away Italian Libya. If all Italy's Colonization efforts go into the Horn, Whe could have a Large Italian Nation there today.

In general Europeans didn't settle in areas with huge non-White populations when America was available. The only areas of Africa where large-scale settlement occurred was in areas with nice climates like South Africa, Tunis, and Algeria. Even given the proximity to Italy, very few settled in N. Africa compared to America. It seems unlikely that any more than a handful of settlers would care to move to a poor country like Ethiopia rather than America. Italy controlled Eritrea from 1884, yet the number of settlers that moved there was only in the thousands, and most of them were support services for the garrison.
 
This thread is starting to take on a disturbing and kind of racist tone.

But wouldn't you require some disturbing solution to get this to succeed?

Population transfers of the sort a Whiter Africa entails requires untold suffering that makes the Belgian Congo look like a picnic.

(Like, if you put more Europeans in Algeria, where do the Muslims go?)
 
When I read about white settlers in Africa and someone mentions 'serfs' upthread, I start to think Draka...


Purely for purposes of the thread, what if native Africans lacked the immunity to European diseases in the same manner as native Americans. Maybe the Sahara is more of a barrier to communications between North Africa and the South.
 
When I read about white settlers in Africa and someone mentions 'serfs' upthread, I start to think Draka...


Purely for purposes of the thread, what if native Africans lacked the immunity to European diseases in the same manner as native Americans. Maybe the Sahara is more of a barrier to communications between North Africa and the South.

Still wouldn't happen.

There was too much coastal travel up and down both the eastern and western coasts of the continent. And this is before the Europeans came. Asia had been coming back and forth to the east coast of Africa for centuries, so even if disease was blocked on the west coast, it would come to/from Asia, then travel to/from Europe anyway.
 
When I read about white settlers in Africa and someone mentions 'serfs' upthread, I start to think Draka...


Purely for purposes of the thread, what if native Africans lacked the immunity to European diseases in the same manner as native Americans. Maybe the Sahara is more of a barrier to communications between North Africa and the South.

The Sahara isn't at all a barrier - it's a conduit.
 
But wouldn't you require some disturbing solution to get this to succeed?

Population transfers of the sort a Whiter Africa entails requires untold suffering that makes the Belgian Congo look like a picnic.

(Like, if you put more Europeans in Algeria, where do the Muslims go?)

You would probably need a disturbing "solution", but I don't think we need to use phrases like "dump their Jews".
 
You would probably need a disturbing "solution", but I don't think we need to use phrases like "dump their Jews".

Agreed. This is an alternate history site, we can discuss horrible 'Final Solution'-esque things without using hostile language.

As for the main content of the thread, I think it could be feasible to change events so that you got a significantly larger white population in the bits of Africa that are suitable to European settlement, but I doubt it'd ever be a truly large proportion of the total population. What I'd be interested in, potentially, is a South Africa with a European plurality.

If things really got bad in the Americas for some reason, and given the absurdly huge birthrates of European colonists in some places, it might be possible to do that. How would the struggle against apartheid develop if forty percent of the population was 'white'? Would the country be divided into 'white' and 'black' portions?
 
You need to bear in mind here that pre 1950s/60s much of Africa was a LOT whiter.
Lower black populations are of course a part of this but a lot of white people did lead Africa with the independance movements and various nasty regimes that followed.
You could get it done rather simply with some easy things providing you get them to stay (longer lasting colonialism with a much nicer landing at least).

Maybe for instance a earlier AIDs epidemic. And perhaps a more deadly disease.
This mainly strikes the poorer segments of the population i.e. black people. So the whites become a larger percentage.

Also on the other end of the scale perhaps you could make the whites less succesful.
IOTL the first settlers were frontiersmen and once these get settled they tend to have lots of kids.
The following generations though...they lived in their big houses with all their servants. Very upper class.
People who often in the modern world (though of course not always) don't have many kids.

Perhaps some sort of gold rush (not nessesarily gold) somewhere in Africa in the 50s. Lots of people moved around the world at this time...Africa could be open if it was more stable.
 

Hendryk

Banned
You would probably need a disturbing "solution",
Indeed, we're probably talking about deportation and/or forced relocation. In fact, there may still be refugee camps in Tunisia and Morocco where the grandchildren and great-grandchildren of displaced Algerian Arabs languish in a legal limbo. Kind of like Palestinians in OTL, and the issue would probably, as in OTL, be a festering sore.
 
I like the idea mentioned above of an early AIDS epidemic. Perhaps make this a butterfly of the 'Europe sends its '30s refugees' post?

Also, as far as a 'gold rush' in Africa, the obvious resource is Central-South Africa's vast diamond reserves. I think tying the Diamond Rush (discovered by traveling nomadic Roma refugees? Could the depression make thousands flock to Botswana and Congo to try to grab at the imagined wealth rather than the OTL riding the rails?), refugee deportation (Started by Algiers) and AIDS (Increased rate of transportation and population transfer in West Africa lead to it spreading out of whatever jungle den it lurked in much earlier than OTL) would be a neat idea. Lots of interesting places to go for a timeline, and appropriately semi-dystopic as well.
 

Vault-Scope

Banned
I have thought about some religious groups deciding they would build their very own utopia somwhere outside of Cap Town in the late 1600s or early 1700s.


But how about much earlier?

Roman empire launches expeditions along the eastern coast of africa, they found areas south of the equator free enought of diseases to be habitable and natives doesn´t proove to be too much of a problem. Some shipes might be left behind, since there are a number of women in these shipes, survivors are able to found a small colony.
When christian takes over(christian emperor declares his intentions to convert all of europe), era of general decadence begins or when barbarian invasions begins, some Romans decides they are going to take refuge in those southern lands.
As dark ages begin for europe, refugee settlements survives and in time, prospers.
1000 years later, there are european population naturally immunised against african diseases (alternatively, medecine have developped much earlier among the desendents of the refugees).
Limited trade with India and south america(known as Atlantis ;)) is discovered when a cyclone forces a convoy of shipes sent toward west africa deep into the Atlantic.
1500 years later, Neo-Roman are more numerous than europeans. There are not only europeans, there are native africans, some mixed populations and even some populations from south america (much of Atlantis have become Neo-Roman provinces and local civilisations have become client-states)!
 
Top