Effects on decolonization, if more people immigrate to colonial Africa.

When I say people, I mean not just Europeans, but ALSO Arabs, Indians, East Asians etc. How does more immigration affect decolonization? Would the immigrants aid in decolonization or make it harder. What would the demographics be and what would be the effects? I am thinking that this would affect the British and Portuguese colonies the most.
 
Last edited:
People like Idi Amin did some pretty terrible things to Indians in Uganda. Likewise during the Zanzibar Revolution (which probably wrecked Zanzibar's chance of ever becoming an important player ala Singapore), the revolutionaries slaughtered Indians and Arabs in the streets en masse. While I'm not sure of the specifics, I wonder if they did so with such impunity because Europeans would put up far more of a fuss than India/Pakistan or an Arab state might. I think a lot of the time, the immigrants from Asia were regarded as collaborators in colonialism. For Arabs/Indians in East Africa, there's also the link with the historic Arab slave trade there. From what I get at, if the Chinese are the "Jews of Southeast Asia", then the Indians are/were the "Jews of East Africa"--and anti-Indian propaganda in parts of Africa (Uganda, and not just Idi Amin) has similar themes to antisemitism. This invited quite a bit of dislike for them in those countries. I couldn't imagine more of them would really affect the process of decolonisation--if anything I'd suspect they'd give a stronger voice for a stable process, even though some Asians did play a role in decolonisation.

For more Europeans, they only have a few places where they'd settle in any real numbers. Malawi and Kenya are the best places, so maybe all of Rhodesia gains independence as one white minority state instead of just South Rhodesia, or Kenya also adopts a Rhodesian type of white-minority rule.
 
My best guess is that you need World War One to butterfly away, at least in so far as it results in no loss of an entire generation, massive debt and the beginning of the unravelling of the colonial system. My thought would be that you get pressure to emigrate, especially if the post-industrial transition begins earlier, and if the USA cools on immigrants then you have more Europeans looking for a new "frontier" of opportunity. If that gets you more productive farming with surplus cash crops for export, a rising standard of living, hard currency to buy farm equipment, pesticides and fertilizers, then a transition to local industry to supply same, farms that support urbanization and industrialization, increased education, the population boom will level off, more mixing in cities with higher educated populace and less unstable economics should get you less conflict, lead to greater democracy and ultimately majority rule in mixed ethnic nations that are stable, productive and modernizing. That was perhaps the promise of colonization, whether you get all those stars to align versus a model of exploit the resources to support the home country is up to you.
 
My best guess is that you need World War One to butterfly away, at least in so far as it results in no loss of an entire generation, massive debt and the beginning of the unravelling of the colonial system. My thought would be that you get pressure to emigrate, especially if the post-industrial transition begins earlier, and if the USA cools on immigrants then you have more Europeans looking for a new "frontier" of opportunity. If that gets you more productive farming with surplus cash crops for export, a rising standard of living, hard currency to buy farm equipment, pesticides and fertilizers, then a transition to local industry to supply same, farms that support urbanization and industrialization, increased education, the population boom will level off, more mixing in cities with higher educated populace and less unstable economics should get you less conflict, lead to greater democracy and ultimately majority rule in mixed ethnic nations that are stable, productive and modernizing. That was perhaps the promise of colonization, whether you get all those stars to align versus a model of exploit the resources to support the home country is up to you.

The US did cool on immigration, and European immigrants mostly went to Latin America and Australia. Most of Africa is too tropical for whites--sure, so is a lot of Latin America, but those were long established societies and the bulk of the immigration there went to the Southern Cone. Not societies that basically exist because the European colonialists say so that were established on top of the old system only decades (if that) earlier.

But as I said, Kenya was the best place in sub-Saharan Africa that didn't see too much white settlement thanks to the climate. Parts of Tanzania too. Rhodesia could've had far more white settlers, especially outside of South Rhodesia. Much of Katanga is also pretty good climate-wise, not to mention the resources, although it's rather remote. Transition to majority rule could be tough, if OTL Rhodesia and South Africa are any indication.
 
The US did cool on immigration, and European immigrants mostly went to Latin America and Australia. Most of Africa is too tropical for whites--sure, so is a lot of Latin America, but those were long established societies and the bulk of the immigration there went to the Southern Cone. Not societies that basically exist because the European colonialists say so that were established on top of the old system only decades (if that) earlier.

But as I said, Kenya was the best place in sub-Saharan Africa that didn't see too much white settlement thanks to the climate. Parts of Tanzania too. Rhodesia could've had far more white settlers, especially outside of South Rhodesia. Much of Katanga is also pretty good climate-wise, not to mention the resources, although it's rather remote. Transition to majority rule could be tough, if OTL Rhodesia and South Africa are any indication.

Admittedly I ignored the emigration to anywhere but Africa, but your points are well taken. Is the climate that off putting? I was raised in the temperate Midwest USA and live now in the desert Southwest, although Air Conditioning is certainly part of why we all remain, it is not that hard to adapt if you are motivated. Did Africa fail to attract more Europeans simply because it is too hot, too buggy, to dry or too wet? And in failing to get sizable settlement did it remain too alien? It would appear that the coming of air conditioning was far too late to encourage immigration aside from any other reason. In spite of the climate, did Europeans prefer places already populated by fellow Europeans? And does this assume that more Europeans would have made Africa "better"?
 
Admittedly I ignored the emigration to anywhere but Africa, but your points are well taken. Is the climate that off putting? I was raised in the temperate Midwest USA and live now in the desert Southwest, although Air Conditioning is certainly part of why we all remain, it is not that hard to adapt if you are motivated. Did Africa fail to attract more Europeans simply because it is too hot, too buggy, to dry or too wet? And in failing to get sizable settlement did it remain too alien? It would appear that the coming of air conditioning was far too late to encourage immigration aside from any other reason. In spite of the climate, did Europeans prefer places already populated by fellow Europeans? And does this assume that more Europeans would have made Africa "better"?
I mentioned that Europeans weren't the only immigrants, there should also be Arabs, south and east Asians as well, who especially with Indians and Arabs they should be used or be able to more easily able to adapt to the climate than Northern Europeans. I am not sure about Southern Europeans, since it seems they tan and thus adapt to hot weather more easily than Northern Europeans who are more likely to burn. I don't know can anyone clarify this?
 
Admittedly I ignored the emigration to anywhere but Africa, but your points are well taken. Is the climate that off putting? I was raised in the temperate Midwest USA and live now in the desert Southwest, although Air Conditioning is certainly part of why we all remain, it is not that hard to adapt if you are motivated. Did Africa fail to attract more Europeans simply because it is too hot, too buggy, to dry or too wet? And in failing to get sizable settlement did it remain too alien? It would appear that the coming of air conditioning was far too late to encourage immigration aside from any other reason. In spite of the climate, did Europeans prefer places already populated by fellow Europeans? And does this assume that more Europeans would have made Africa "better"?

Yes, to a certain extent, but the disease environment is also a huge part of that. Notice how few European immigrants to Brazil went to the Northeast or interior compared to the Southeast and South. The tropics were historically a grave of Europeans (the Dutch in Indonesia, for instance) in large part because of the disease environment. This was still an issue into the early 20th century.

Because it failed to attract Europeans (outside of a few exceptions which I mentioned above), other Europeans didn't want to go. It's probably doubtful in any case that they'd ever make up any real amount of people outside of the major cities, so this isn't like Rhodesia or South Africa where there's many white farmers. They'd be almost universally a commercial class living there for business opportunities and helping run the colonial government.

More Europeans might shift the position of Africans down in the bureaucracy, since there would be less need to hire the natives to run the place. But there still would be plenty of Africans.

I mentioned that Europeans weren't the only immigrants, there should also be Arabs, south and east Asians as well, who especially with Indians and Arabs they should be used or be able to more easily able to adapt to the climate than Northern Europeans. I am not sure about Southern Europeans, since it seems they tan and thus adapt to hot weather more easily than Northern Europeans who are more likely to burn. I don't know can anyone clarify this?

Which is probably part of the reason why their are so many Indians in East Africa, though the main ones being that both were subjected to British rule and India is pretty close. Italians extensively settled in Libya, but also even in their part of East Africa, but mainly in the cities (the majority lived in either Asmara or Mogadishu). But a desert environment (or Meditterranean, even, in Libya) like those places is easier to deal with than the tropics. Less diseases.
 
Cecil Rhodes lives passed 1902 and realizes his dream of a Cape Town to Cairo railway the source of most of the labour force to build is from India.
New towns and cities come into existence along the railroad route which have a large Indian population at first for the building the line then for its maintenance.
The project is seen not only exerting British control over the interior of their African territories and the resources there but also binding the subcontinent more firmly into the Empire.
 
Cecil Rhodes lives passed 1902 and realizes his dream of a Cape Town to Cairo railway the source of most of the labour force to build is from India.
New towns and cities come into existence along the railroad route which have a large Indian population at first for the building the line then for its maintenance.
The project is seen not only exerting British control over the interior of their African territories and the resources there but also binding the subcontinent more firmly into the Empire.
For all my hatred of colonial empires ,especially space filling empires that paint the map one Color, there's always been this appeal to me for their mega projects in an H.G Wells or Jules Verne kind of way. Like the Cape to Cairo railway and other projects.
 

BlondieBC

Banned
Admittedly I ignored the emigration to anywhere but Africa, but your points are well taken. Is the climate that off putting? I was raised in the temperate Midwest USA and live now in the desert Southwest, although Air Conditioning is certainly part of why we all remain, it is not that hard to adapt if you are motivated. Did Africa fail to attract more Europeans simply because it is too hot, too buggy, to dry or too wet? And in failing to get sizable settlement did it remain too alien? It would appear that the coming of air conditioning was far too late to encourage immigration aside from any other reason. In spite of the climate, did Europeans prefer places already populated by fellow Europeans? And does this assume that more Europeans would have made Africa "better"?

Africa had several issues that made it less desirable than North American, parts of South America and Australia. So to the why

  • It is simply easier to settle empty or emptier land than to remove natives.
  • Disease. In the worst Malaria areas, up to 25% of Europeans would die from this disease each year according to some sources I have read. You then add in Yellow fever, etc.
  • These two factors make it where the early migration and population was not if in Africa. And people always like to settle near people like them (same culture).
  • Now back to Malaria. Even if you have the genetic resistance, you still lose about 25% of productivity to this illness.
  • Lack of enthusiasm in supporting white immigration to Africa.
  • By the time the better areas started to fill up, the birth rate in Europe was falling.
  • WW1 gutted the population growth trends in Europe.
So it really was a series of factors that retard African settle colonies. Now more Europeans would have made Africa different. Better is a value judgement. Just as the Italian migration to Argentina changed Argentina, how much this is "better" is just an open question.

You will never get an Africa that is majority immigrant. You can use any of series of POD's that will give you an immigrant dominated country. For example, if you give Germany early enough control of a colony with a good climate (Angola, Rhodesia, etc) and internal support in Germany for funding said colony, you will divert a decent percent of Germanic migration to this colony. And if small enough and especially if avoid WW1, you can get a much more Germanic African nation.
 

BlondieBC

Banned
I mentioned that Europeans weren't the only immigrants, there should also be Arabs, south and east Asians as well, who especially with Indians and Arabs they should be used or be able to more easily able to adapt to the climate than Northern Europeans. I am not sure about Southern Europeans, since it seems they tan and thus adapt to hot weather more easily than Northern Europeans who are more likely to burn. I don't know can anyone clarify this?


While darker skin does help in sunnier climates, it is not the cause. It is the lack of resistance to tropical disease. There is also an issue with tropical soils in many cases. Due to higher rain levels locking up critical nutrients, the soil does not work a well for agriculture. This can be solved by modern science and fertilizers. But again it is a timing issue. By the time we get good enough farm science, WW1 had ended much of the European migration.
 
While darker skin does help in sunnier climates, it is not the cause. It is the lack of resistance to tropical disease. There is also an issue with tropical soils in many cases. Due to higher rain levels locking up critical nutrients, the soil does not work a well for agriculture. This can be solved by modern science and fertilizers. But again it is a timing issue. By the time we get good enough farm science, WW1 had ended much of the European migration.
So, let's avoid world war 1. That's what alternate history is for, isn't it.
 

BlondieBC

Banned
So, let's avoid world war 1. That's what alternate history is for, isn't it.

Then you get

  • Continued Indian migration to British East Africa and any other place the UK needs a lot of labor.
  • Germany had been increasing its rate of investment in colonies. While still at tiny levels compared to the overall budget, it there were noticeable improvement in the colonies. Also, Germany might have succeed in purchasing part of Angola. Southwest Africa is small enough to become a "white" colony. Angola has some settlement potential.
  • Libya will turn Italian. A lot of this will be Italian immigration. A lot will be the local become "Italian" for various reasons. The same type of stuff happens in Algeria for the French.
  • Presumably we will continue to have a lot of out migration from Russia, Italy, and Austria-Hungary. Here we get into more of non-African issues. Will the USA or South America decide to limit immigration? If so, then we can think about where this flow will go to. Some area in Africa is possible.
 
Then you get

  • Continued Indian migration to British East Africa and any other place the UK needs a lot of labor.
  • Germany had been increasing its rate of investment in colonies. While still at tiny levels compared to the overall budget, it there were noticeable improvement in the colonies. Also, Germany might have succeed in purchasing part of Angola. Southwest Africa is small enough to become a "white" colony. Angola has some settlement potential.
  • Libya will turn Italian. A lot of this will be Italian immigration. A lot will be the local become "Italian" for various reasons. The same type of stuff happens in Algeria for the French.
  • Presumably we will continue to have a lot of out migration from Russia, Italy, and Austria-Hungary. Here we get into more of non-African issues. Will the USA or South America decide to limit immigration? If so, then we can think about where this flow will go to. Some area in Africa is possible.
So, how would Africa look like by now in 2016. I am assuming that decolonization might not happen, but it could go the way of the British dominions, in that they are basically independent nations, that are apart of some organization that vaguely ties them to the former mother nation.
 

BlondieBC

Banned
So, how would Africa look like by now in 2016. I am assuming that decolonization might not happen, but it could go the way of the British dominions, in that they are basically independent nations, that are apart of some organization that vaguely ties them to the former mother nation.

Too many variables to know. Based on avoid WW1, there could be 200-300 million more people of European origin. And these people could be almost anywhere from a Europe with a much bigger population to many more whites in the Western hemisphere. There is also the side that whites tend to reduce birth rates of natives by taking resources, and they also tend to increase the death rate of blacks. So we could also be looking at 10's of millions fewer blacks. It might be a 100 million plus. So you can end up with lots of scenarios. I think a European North Africa is a given, and this is mostly a religious and cultural issue. In Africa, you likely end up with more countries with the demographics of South Africa. And you have a chance for a white majority country, especially if it is small. So for an example, make the Cape provenience a separate country. It will be much easier for the Cape to be majority white than all of South Africa. And South Africa would be easier to be majority white than a Greater South Africa.

And then we can get into how much intermarriage you have. A modern example is that Brazil has a much different history with its blended population than if it have had more of a South African type policy. Or think of South Africa. If the coloreds had been consider white under Apartied, it is a much different history.

So beyond some broad potential trends, it is hard to say.
 
Too many variables to know. Based on avoid WW1, there could be 200-300 million more people of European origin. And these people could be almost anywhere from a Europe with a much bigger population to many more whites in the Western hemisphere. There is also the side that whites tend to reduce birth rates of natives by taking resources, and they also tend to increase the death rate of blacks. So we could also be looking at 10's of millions fewer blacks. It might be a 100 million plus. So you can end up with lots of scenarios. I think a European North Africa is a given, and this is mostly a religious and cultural issue. In Africa, you likely end up with more countries with the demographics of South Africa. And you have a chance for a white majority country, especially if it is small. So for an example, make the Cape provenience a separate country. It will be much easier for the Cape to be majority white than all of South Africa. And South Africa would be easier to be majority white than a Greater South Africa.

And then we can get into how much intermarriage you have. A modern example is that Brazil has a much different history with its blended population than if it have had more of a South African type policy. Or think of South Africa. If the coloreds had been consider white under Apartied, it is a much different history.

So beyond some broad potential trends, it is hard to say.
How would Africa look linguistically? In my limited understanding, I would think that British Africa looks like Peru and Bolivia linguistically, while French, Italian, German and Portuguese Sub Sahara Africa look like Mexico and Brazil linguistically. What would be the situations of the Natives? Would Africa be comparable to Latin America in terms of culture mixing?
 
The same type of stuff happens in Algeria for the French.

It's unlikely that Algeria will become majority French has the bulk of pied-noir migration from Europe had stopped by WW1. I've once read that some more may have happened had WW1 not happened. But at the most we're looking at 1.5M pied-noirs instead of the 1M of OTL. A not insignificant difference, but one that won't mean much unless France invests in lifting the natives living standards as well.
 

BlondieBC

Banned
It's unlikely that Algeria will become majority French has the bulk of pied-noir migration from Europe had stopped by WW1. I've once read that some more may have happened had WW1 not happened. But at the most we're looking at 1.5M pied-noirs instead of the 1M of OTL. A not insignificant difference, but one that won't mean much unless France invests in lifting the natives living standards as well.

Looking at data a few years ago, it looks like that 10-20% of the minority group per generation will flip to the majority group if allowed. Does not matter if it is Romanians becoming Hungarians or Poles becoming German. So it would have flipped by now.
 

BlondieBC

Banned
So, how would Africa look like by now in 2016. I am assuming that decolonization might not happen, but it could go the way of the British dominions, in that they are basically independent nations, that are apart of some organization that vaguely ties them to the former mother nation.

If above 30% white, I think New Zealand or Australia are good examples of where the empire ends up. The difference will be instead of NATO, it will some British defensive alliance. And instead of NAFTA or the EU, it will be a British lead trade zone. Same for French colonies. Smaller colonial powers like Germany are harder to call.
 
Top