Colonialization of Africa

So, let's say the US closes it's borders after the Civil war, perhaps because of UK and French support of the Confederation, leading to a longer, bitterer war, and xenophobia towards those god-damned Europeans. No point in defeating them if you're gonna let them all move in the next year, right?

Anyway, could this direct surplus populations towards Africa enough to lead to large-scale settlements across the continent? I'm thinking draining of marshes, clearing jungles, eventual industiralization, a treatment of the Africans similiar to that the Indians faced in the US (land theft, deportations, reservations, large-scale killing, diseases etc) leading to a pre-dominantly white or at least White-dominated sub-Saharan Africa. Throw in an east-African Israel to that.

Is this plausible in any way?
 
Between 1790 and 1850 US population increased from 4 million to 23 million, even though immigration was only three million. I'm thinking of a similar exponential growth in Africa leading to a swamping of a declining native population (about 80 million at the start of the period).
 
Not really

While this may happen to an extent in South Africa and Algeria, it largely because they are the only places that could really get away with it and the seeds are already sown. I could see some large scale Italian immigration to Libya though.

You still have millions of Africans who aren't succumbing to disease anytime soon while conversly the Europeans would be more vulnerable to disease. Altering the landscape of Africa as you suggest is not easy and cost effective until maybe the 1970's if you push the issue. An African Israel won't work either. It might see some Jewish immigration but the reason Israel was the main destination for so many Jews in OTL is becase not only did WWII scar them and convince them they needed their own nation, to band together, militayr, etc. but it was also in the biblical Holy Land that they are supposed to return to. Basically it was a perfect storm.

Then there is also perception. America had an idealized image as a "land of plenty" in the late 1800's and early 1900's. Africa was the "Dark Continent". Not exactly appealing to immigration.

In short. South Africa, Namibia, Algeria, and Libya probably get a large number of Europeans, but Africa isn't turning white anytime soon. The majority of your potential immigrants will either sneak into America, go to South/Latin America, Austrialia, Canada, or simply stay put.
 
I'd say best to separate the two issues of European immigration to Africa and an African Israel, as although the two are linked, they involve different sets of variables.

While it is possible that an increase of European immigration to Africa could increase the appeal of a Jewish home in Africa, it really depends on who controls the larger Zionist movement. There were two main threads within the movement as it gained strength, one with nationalistic motivations and one with more religious motivations. It was under the leadership of the former, who were more concerned with simply creating a Jewish nation-state than with the location of that state, that most of the negotiations involving Uganda and Argentina and the like took place. A little further down the line, however, the more religious aspects of the movement came into prominence, groups who were more concerned with an Israel than simply with a Zion, if you understand my meaning.
 
I think the point about Europeans' vulnerability to African diseases is important. It's possible that the Europeans could have populated Africa in far greater numbers but they would not have turned it "white." There would have been a lot more fighting as more natives were reduced to starvation through displacement.
 
Not really

While this may happen to an extent in South Africa and Algeria, it largely because they are the only places that could really get away with it and the seeds are already sown. I could see some large scale Italian immigration to Libya though.

You still have millions of Africans who aren't succumbing to disease anytime soon while conversly the Europeans would be more vulnerable to disease. Altering the landscape of Africa as you suggest is not easy and cost effective until maybe the 1970's if you push the issue. An African Israel won't work either. It might see some Jewish immigration but the reason Israel was the main destination for so many Jews in OTL is becase not only did WWII scar them and convince them they needed their own nation, to band together, militayr, etc. but it was also in the biblical Holy Land that they are supposed to return to. Basically it was a perfect storm.

Then there is also perception. America had an idealized image as a "land of plenty" in the late 1800's and early 1900's. Africa was the "Dark Continent". Not exactly appealing to immigration.

In short. South Africa, Namibia, Algeria, and Libya probably get a large number of Europeans, but Africa isn't turning white anytime soon. The majority of your potential immigrants will either sneak into America, go to South/Latin America, Austrialia, Canada, or simply stay put.

I'm even more pessimistic than are you. Italy DID control Libya, and couldn't force Italians to live there, even under the fascists. Tunisia, Algeria, and Egypt were more popular destinations, but even there, you have the problem of those pesky natives, whose military technology is not sufficiently inferior to make this particularly easy. It took Italy 20 years to subdue Cyrenaica, and that required genocide. Then there's the climate, which is a bit hot even for Mediterraneans.

If the USA had closed its borders, everyone would have just gone to Argentina and Canada, and probably to a lesser extent Australia.
 
Between 1790 and 1850 US population increased from 4 million to 23 million, even though immigration was only three million. I'm thinking of a similar exponential growth in Africa leading to a swamping of a declining native population (about 80 million at the start of the period).

Totally implausible. European settlement is not possible before anti-malarial drugs, which are not available until about 1850, and then too expensive for the poor. Quinine woudn't help against the various other problems like sleeping sickness, which would also prevent the use of livestock. Surplus populations will go to available places in South America, Canada, and Australia. The only place in Africa that will probably get a lot of attention is South Africa.
 

Neroon

Banned
I think a potential way for mass European migration to Africa, would have been for Europe to legalize Polygamy. Perhaps some butterflies during the Reformation fly really erratic. Then you'd have lots of surplus European lower-class males, with no chance of getting a wife back hom,e looking to conquer an harem of their own. Now it most certainly would be getting quite ugly, but it would most certainly result in a much whiter Africa.
 

Susano

Banned
Totally implausible. European settlement is not possible before anti-malarial drugs, which are not available until about 1850, and then too expensive for the poor. Quinine woudn't help against the various other problems like sleeping sickness, which would also prevent the use of livestock. Surplus populations will go to available places in South America, Canada, and Australia. The only place in Africa that will probably get a lot of attention is South Africa.
I thought this was only some climate zones. What about the East African Highlands? Granted, people have to get there to know about them first, but there was a reason they were seen as a very good land for white settlement...

I think a potential way for mass European migration to Africa, would have been for Europe to legalize Polygamy. Perhaps some butterflies during the Reformation fly really erratic. Then you'd have lots of surplus European lower-class males, with no chance of getting a wife back hom,e looking to conquer an harem of their own. Now it most certainly would be getting quite ugly, but it would most certainly result in a much whiter Africa.

Not only is that near-ASB Forum creepy, a reformation PoD would make the entire question moot due to butterflies...
 

Neroon

Banned
Not only is that near-ASB Forum creepy, a reformation PoD would make the entire question moot due to butterflies...
When the thought 1st popped into my head thinking about how it would play out also gave me the chills, but nonetheless i think it would achieve the "desired" result.
 
I think a potential way for mass European migration to Africa, would have been for Europe to legalize Polygamy. Perhaps some butterflies during the Reformation fly really erratic. Then you'd have lots of surplus European lower-class males, with no chance of getting a wife back hom,e looking to conquer an harem of their own. Now it most certainly would be getting quite ugly, but it would most certainly result in a much whiter Africa.

Since many colonies were run according to native law, or Europeans were above the law when it came to the natives, polygamy was actually fairly widely practiced in the colonial empires, as were all forms of non-socially-approved sex and liasons. For polygamy to be acceptable in European society in general you'd have to go way earlier than the Reformation. Way, way earlier. Who was the last non-Muslim European to practice polygamy? Even marrying again after being widowed was an issue - the Orthodox church generally only let you have one subsequent marriage, and divorce was pretty much unthinkable.
 

Neroon

Banned
Since many colonies were run according to native law, or Europeans were above the law when it came to the natives, polygamy was actually fairly widely practiced in the colonial empires, as were all forms of non-socially-approved sex and liasons.
I am aware, that many colonial officials and the like had native mistresses, but any children of them were neither considered European nor raised culturally as Europeans. It's the worst clichees about men in a long-term counterproductive way.
Furthermore Europe having Polygamy would not just mean Colonials living Polygamously, but also vastly increase the number of European males willing go to the Colonies since millions who in OTL could find a wife back home wouldn't be able to.
Agreed with you, that you probably need a much earlier PoD than the Reformation. Rome probably. If they'd had it the Christian Church would probably never have forbidden it at all.
And with that far back a PoD - and one having HUGE social implications - debating the Age of Imperialism probably becomes moot.
 

Valdemar II

Banned
Since many colonies were run according to native law, or Europeans were above the law when it came to the natives, polygamy was actually fairly widely practiced in the colonial empires, as were all forms of non-socially-approved sex and liasons. For polygamy to be acceptable in European society in general you'd have to go way earlier than the Reformation. Way, way earlier. Who was the last non-Muslim European to practice polygamy? Even marrying again after being widowed was an issue - the Orthodox church generally only let you have one subsequent marriage, and divorce was pretty much unthinkable.

Interesting enough many Lutheran monarchs practice polygamy, the last Danish king to do so did in the early 18th century, of course this was while polygamy was punished with the capital punishment (the King in 17th which made that law did so while having two wives). Through they usual limited it to two wives. To the whole widowed thing, most common people remarried after being widowed simply because it needed to keep the farm going and the children looked after, it was only rich people which could afford to be unmarried.
 
Top