Africa decolonizes before the Americas

You'll have to keep the Americas under the boot because most of America decolonised before much of Africa was even colonised.

More even Fanco-English wars continue after 1763? With the French and English still an active threat to each other's colonies, independence looks less attractive. Without the USA, the Spanish colonies might also choose to stay loyal.
 
or the other way araund, allow them so much autonomy that they are virtually independent, but are still called a colony. (the americas)
 
I would go with carlton_bachs or candyman82's suggestions, and keep the African colonizatio levels low.
 
I think the Pod has to be around 1700. You need to stop the American independence, because that was what started the proces of decolonisation in the Americas.

It's gonna be difficult, because,at leas IOTL, the patron colonies usually followed was more or less this one: once the colonies had developped to a certain extent, and once the government of the mother-country was percieved more as an obstacle for continuous developpment than as someone who could encourage local developpment (either by providing technology, security or being a trade partner), the push for autonmomy and/or independence startes to gain momentus.

This happened mainly in settlement colonies, but an analogous process occured in the other type of colonies: at first colonisers what resisted, but this resistance often failed due to the technological gap between colonisers and colonised. When locals realised this, resistance stopped for a while (at least openly), and a few of the locals chose to colaborate with colonisers. Once the colonised thought the technological gap had been sufficiently reduced, the push for independence started again (this times based on new "weapons", both technological and ideological).

So, in order to stop the Americas from going independent, you need to reduce their developpment and/or make mother countries being seen as neccesary for the well-being of the colonnies. As carlton_bach has said, if the Anglos see that a push for independence would lead to them being ruled by the French King, they might prefer to stay loyal. The same goes for the river Plate are: if they had to chose between going independent and being conquered by Portugal or staying under the Spanish Crown, they might have chosen the first alternative.

However, this might not be enouigh. You'd need either to strenghten European rule (which would lead in the long run to a very opresive rule), or to make the European colonies independent in everything but in name.
 
I don't get this. Did you mean to say Asia? Pretty much all of America except a few islands and Cuba was independent before Africa was even colonized.

So then he is asking how the decolonization of the Americas could be delayed, long enough so it happens in Africa first.
 
Well, I am not at all sure that there is a reasonable chance for the bulk of the Americas to remain colonies of European powers until Africa has been colonized and then decolonized, but if was possible, I think the necessary precondition would be an English loss in the Seven Years War. Looking at history, the Seven Years war might have ended very Differently if Empress Elizabeth of Russia had lived a year or two longer. If her successor Peter III had not pulled the Russians out of the War, Prussia would almost certainly been defeated. With its chief ally defeated on the continent and France, Spain and Russia allied against it, I suspect that England ultimately would have been forced to negotiate a settlement in order to avoid loosing Hanover. At best, England might have held its North American Colonies, but with their borders defined fairly definitively at the Appalachian mountains.

With the French still entrenched west of the Appalachians and in Canada, and probably continuing to harass the Colonies, the Anglo-American colonists likely would still have been looking to England for protection and as an ally. Thus the chain of events leading to the American Revolution would never have happened.

Now, if the American War of Independence had not occurred, France might have avoided the financial crisis that ultimately lead to the French Revolution. With the lack of the US War for Independence and the turmoil that European Governments experienced during the French Revolution, it is possible that none of the Independence movements in Latin America would have gained traction.

Of course at this point, the NTL is so divergent with OTL, that it is hard to see how things would evolve from there. Science and culture might have developed at a very different rate and in different directions from where it has. Still, this sets up a possible set of preconditions that might allow the Americas to remain colonies for Europe for another 150 years or so.

--
Bill
 
Of course, if the Americas remained colonies then the European powers would have both less resources and less purpose in colonising vast chunks of Africa

Best Regards
Grey Wolf
 
I can see how they might have less reason to move into Africa if the Americas are still colonized, but not that they would have less resources? Ok, Spain maybe, but England, France and others seemed good at finding ways of making their colonies profitable.

In any case, I think they would have expanded ultimately to Africa regardless of the status of the Americas. If not the British or the French, then certainly the Dutch, the Belgians and the Germans... and the British and the French would probably have to get involved just to make sure they didn't get shut out.

--
Bill
 
What if Spain completely dominated North America? That would leave the British and the French searching for other options AND cut off the American Revolution. You could end up with an alt*-American Revolution in South Africa with a similar group of people there, and that nation could expand north, 'freeing' other colonies...

I've stumbled into a Draka scenario, haven't I?
 
I always thought it strange that Europe colonized the americas and was so interested with a land mass across the ocean but Africa was ignored and the rush for it was later, than North America. How about a POD where Europe goes for Africa before it explores beyond the ocean and finds the americas?
 
Its not strange at all when you consider that in the 15th and 16th century, the Western Europeans, particularly the Spanish and the Portugese, were looking for ways to trade with China and other areas of the far East. When the Americas were discovered and it was found that they had lots of Gold (and later furs and favorable climates for growing sugar, tobacco, etc) the race was on.

Africa on the other hand was a tougher nut to crack with tougher diseases and of course the Northern parts of it were dominated by Islam.

--
Bill
 
I can see how they might have less reason to move into Africa if the Americas are still colonized, but not that they would have less resources? Ok, Spain maybe, but England, France and others seemed good at finding ways of making their colonies profitable.

In any case, I think they would have expanded ultimately to Africa regardless of the status of the Americas. If not the British or the French, then certainly the Dutch, the Belgians and the Germans... and the British and the French would probably have to get involved just to make sure they didn't get shut out.

--
Bill

The thing is that until the last QUARTER of the 19th century, European colonisation of Africa was based on getting trading stations for the mostpart - only after the 'hinterland' policy was accepted was the so-called Scramble for Africa enacted and it was mostly about joining your own bits up and preventing another country getting bits that get in between your bits. Most of the additional vast areas were largely irrelevant in themselves, but took effort to colonise

Best Regards
Grey Wolf
 
Top