AHC: More White Dominated African Nations

Most of Spains African colonies are not good candidates.

The Spanish did'nt control Western Sahara in full until the mid 1930's while Rio Muni (the mainland portion of Eq. Guinea) did'nt become a full colony until the beginning of the 20th century (having been a Protectorate from 1885-1900) and was in general not a place Europeans would want to settle due to the presense of a large enough native population, the climate and malaria not being conductive to large scale settlement and the fact it was a de facto slave port into the 1920's.

Now, Spanish North Africa (IE the Rif region) would be a good area for settlement, heck Queen Isabella actually passed a proclomation forbidding it because poor Spaniard farmers were moving there.
Annobón and Bioko (frm. Fernando Po) are also both good candidates, though the former mose so than the latter.




Guinea-Bissau is pretty much a no-go, it was only fully conquered in 1915, by which point it had a good sized native population (est. 440,000) that was still more than a little restive and at the time Portugal did'nt really have alot of people willing to settle (Metropolitan Portugual only having a little under 6 million people) and those that were willing to move primarily went to Brazil and the United States while those willing to settle the colonies went to the islands and Angola mostly.

Cape Verde, which is majority Mestiço (mixed race), and São Tomé and Príncipe, which is ethnically and racially diverse and used to have a sizable white population, are both good candidates to become situations where larger immigration leads to Whites, while a minority, having a majority of power, though this would be different from elsewhere as the white population would be more like 30-40%.

Angola and Mozambique are both good candidates as well.
Mozambique had a long established white population, which at independence was numbered at 350,000 (3.3% of the population) and a large Mestiço minority as well.
Angola originally had a relatively small population (6.6 million in 1975) and was starting to draw in a good deal of European immigration in the mid-20th century onwards, with 360,000 Whites (5.4% of the population) at independence and even today Whites and Mestiços each make-up 2% of the population a pieace.

Just to nitpick, the mixed race people would be mulattos. Mestizos are mixed race people with white and Indian (as in American) ancestry, mulattos have white and African ancestry, as far as I am aware.
 
Just to nitpick, the mixed race people would be mulattos. Mestizos are mixed race people with white and Indian (as in American) ancestry, mulattos have white and African ancestry, as far as I am aware.

Yes and no, while the term did originally mean someone of mixed European and Amerindian descent, and still does mean that in Brazil, in the former Portuguese areas of Africa it's used to denote someone of mixed Portuguese and indigenous African descent.
 
AIUI, the big reason you didn't see a lot more white immigration to Africa was disease -- the Sleeping Sickness being a big one, IIRC. So perhaps what we're really looking for here is earlier medical breakthroughs? (eg penicillin discovered 1897)
 
AIUI, the big reason you didn't see a lot more white immigration to Africa was disease -- the Sleeping Sickness being a big one, IIRC. So perhaps what we're really looking for here is earlier medical breakthroughs? (eg penicillin discovered 1897)

I would put the tsetse fly as another big inhibition to any settlement, African or otherwise. Being able to not die of malaria is nice, but to really take off sooner or later you're going to need livestock.

Though, there are more "Mediterranean" parts of Africa with a tolerable climate for Europeans, such as coastal Angola.
 
I would put the tsetse fly as another big inhibition to any settlement, African or otherwise. Being able to not die of malaria is nice, but to really take off sooner or later you're going to need livestock.

Well conversely, as good as not getting bitten is, if you can hold the diseases (both human and animal) they spread at bay, you're containing the meat of the damage.
 
Surprised there have been three pages and only one mention of Algeria. Algeria seems like a good candidate. The Pied Noir certainly tried for a European dominant state IOTL.
 
Surprised there have been three pages and only one mention of Algeria. Algeria seems like a good candidate. The Pied Noir certainly tried for a European dominant state IOTL.

I'm actually very interested in Algeria as a potential South Africa of the North. That's something I was thinking of potentially utilizing for timeline purposes but I just don't know nearly anything about it.
 
I'm actually very interested in Algeria as a potential South Africa of the North. That's something I was thinking of potentially utilizing for timeline purposes but I just don't know nearly anything about it.
The early posts had someone say that North Africans would not count as white in this scenario, meaning that the chances of a demographic majority when the settlers must come from Europe and are forbidden from marrying the Berbers, Moroccans, Egyptians, and Arabs.
 
The early posts had someone say that North Africans would not count as white in this scenario, meaning that the chances of a demographic majority when the settlers must come from Europe and are forbidden from marrying the Berbers, Moroccans, Egyptians, and Arabs.

It doesn't matter if they're mixed so long as that mix is one that favors European white descent, or otherwise culturally favors it with the people being obviously visually white (a criticism of South Africa was that the Afrikaners, though they looked very obviously white and favored European heritage and assumed themselves to be of White European heritage, were often actually mixed with at least some black ancestry). The point is that this thread is to get scenarios of a certain vibe, and that vibe is one like South Africa, or anything where there is a nation controlled by white people of European descent. The point of disallowing "well, Arabs/Persians/etc are white" is to cut off "well, Arabs/Persians/etc are white" because that's not the point of the thread.

Also, there doesn't need to be a demographic majority. That's the entire point. In South Africa, only a minority were white, but they dominated the society.
 
Libya is probably the best bet

It already had a large European (mostly Italian) population by the outbreak of WW2, and the circumstances were favorable for growing that to an outright majority: very small native population, and a colonial government willing to put a great deal of effort into bringing in many more white settlers - settlers who were less than a day's voyage away by sea or air.

Trying to build up a white population of the scale of South Africa's anywhere else just seems very difficult. Which isn't to say that more white minority governments couldn't have come into being in the right circumstances - look at what Rhodesia's whites were able to accomplish.
 
How about...

Confederacy wins the civil war.... years down the road they head over and take over somewhere on the west coast of Africa? perhaps the usual they join WW1 and gain colonies in ther aftermath?
 
How about...

Confederacy wins the civil war.... years down the road they head over and take over somewhere on the west coast of Africa? perhaps the usual they join WW1 and gain colonies in ther aftermath?

The Confederacy would'nt spend most of its existence trying to keep from faling apart or battling rebellions, they would'nt have the resources or will to do that, plus Europe would outright tell them no and use force to stop it, both to keep Americans 'out of places they don't belong' and because it'd be pretty damned clear their only interest in Africa would be for slaves.
 
It will be into the Caribbean and Central America - its front doorstep.

To be honest I really don't see the Confederacy expanding at all, it's weak and the places it would expand are much stronger and have additional incentive to not lose.

Hell IOTL Americas winning the Spanish-American War was more luck than anything, the government was'nt totally sure we could win and most of Europe thought we'd lose, so a Confederacy that' much less powerful and has internal issues certainly is'nt going to win.
 
To be honest I really don't see the Confederacy expanding at all, it's weak and the places it would expand are much stronger and have additional incentive to not lose.

Hell IOTL Americas winning the Spanish-American War was more luck than anything, the government was'nt totally sure we could win and most of Europe thought we'd lose, so a Confederacy that' much less powerful and has internal issues certainly is'nt going to win.

Even with our largely amateur militia army and tiny navy, the Spanish American War was really a walkover for the U.S.. At the end of the day, our Navy was much more professional and modern, and we had far shorter supply lines to Cuba, Puerto Rico, and even the Philippines than Spain did. We also had the advantage of the support (at least during the war) of restive local populations.

Expansion would be tougher for the CSA, no question. But if they go anywhere, that's where they'd expand, not somewhere in Africa.
 
Top