Could more immigration from Africa to South America lead to faster development there.

After reading a lot of threads on the US, it appears that the cheap labor brought to the nation, thanks to massive immigration from Europe, was one of the factors that allowed it to grow strong. Meanwhile, South America didn't get as many immigrants from Europe, or any other areas in general, due to its distance from Europe and Asia, which made travel more expensive, not to mention the heat is a bit too much for Europeans.

Africa on the other hand is much closer to South America and they can endure the heat, so South America isn't as undesirable for them. The only problem is that Africa mostly tribal and so travel agencies are unable to set up negotiations for taking people abroad. Later Africa is colonized and so I would think that free movement is curbed for the natives.

Perhaps with a few POD's that have Africa like it was in Malé Rising, where Africans have small kingdoms like those in India and have African princes treated like Indian princes , with more respect and diplomacy rather than just outright conquest, can lead to Africans immigrating like how Asians did.

At this point, people would debate on how African immigrants could develop South America earlier, just like European immigrants did to the US, and also South America ,but at lower numbers. But I would think that just like unskilled Italian and Irish immigrants led to a lot of development along with Chinese immigrants, who built the transcontinental railroad but were unfortunately banned from immigrating leader. These three immigrant groups came from uneducated backgrounds where they mostly acted as agriculture workers or peasants. Once they reached the new nation, these immigrants would be put to work in construction and other jobs that were usually not found in their home countries until later.

And so with all this info, do you guys think that African immigrants to South America, especially to Chile, Argentina, Uruguay, and Brazil could lead to faster development there as well as increasing wealth?
 

Deleted member 67076

The thing is, Africa does not have the population to make migration from that region a viable alternative (having less than half the people of Europe as late as 1950), nor would the frankly racist governments of South America at the time wish for a larger African presence in their nations.
 
There was indeed a lot of European immigration to at least part of South America: Argentina, Uruguay and Southern Brazil. In relation to the population, Argentina even recieved a greater percentage of immigrants than the US (between 1880 and 1930). Distance from Europe was not a problem after the 1860ies.
 
Brazil had the policy of "whitening" of the population in the late 19th century, where it invited many European immigrants from Italy, Germany, etc. to increase the percentage of the White population in the county.

That speak for itself about the possibility of "African immigration" here.
 
Travel agencies? Is that a joke?

Anyway, lots of Europeans immigrated to South America. Mainly, it's where all the European surnames came from. Argentina, Uruguay, and Chile in particular saw a lot of immigration from Europe in the post-colonial era. But a bigger obstacle is the cheap labor itself. One of the reasons that North America had a greater demand for cheap labor is because all of the American Indians in NA were largely wiped out. The effect wasn't so drastic in SA, so there is already a lot of cheap labor. Hell, the whole system of peonage comes from Latin America.

Then there's the fact that SA just isn't as hospitable to people as NA. Large parts of it are covered in jungles, subject to disease, with agriculture ravaged by tropical weather patterns.
 
Top