Majority White-European African country?

It's not too hard if the country is small enough.

How come there aren't more mixed race people in Africa, like there are in Latin America?
 
It's not too hard if the country is small enough.

How come there aren't more mixed race people in Africa, like there are in Latin America?

Larger and more disease resistant native population, less migrants from outside, the time in which most of Africa was colonized was a post slavery and less rapey time.
 
It's not too hard if the country is small enough.

How come there aren't more mixed race people in Africa, like there are in Latin America?

Because unlike Latin America, most African colonies had neither slavery nor large-scale white settlement. South Africa (or rather, the Cape Colony) did have these two and it does have a large population of racially mixed people.
 
Larger and more disease resistant native population, less migrants from outside, the time in which most of Africa was colonized was a post slavery and less rapey time.

Not to mention that tropical Africa was a highly unhealthy environment for people of European descent. The death rates for Europeans stationed at the African slave trading ports were startlingly high - so high that the crew was more likely to die on the average European slaving ship than the cargo.
 
Alexander the Great survives, settling in Alexandria and focusing his efforts there. Egypt is more thoroughly Hellenized, both culturally and genetically.
 
Regarding mixed-race populations, South Africa's coloureds are the most notable due to their large number (4.5 million). As mentioned before, this is due to the earlier colonisation.

Cape Verde is another example, there the majority of the people (2/3) are of mixed European and African heritage. In Angola too there are perhaps 200,000 mixed-race individuals. In that country they form much of the country's political ruling class (MPLA). Sao Tome and Principe also has a significant proportion of its population being of mixed African and European heritage.

There is a theory that racially mixed societies generally occurred as the result of few European women accompanying men to the colonies. This was overwhelmingly the case in colonial Spanish America. In Brazil too, only 1/10th of the settlers before 1700 were Portuguese women. Once the numbers of European women reached that of European men, the mixed race numbers decreased rapidly as people tended to marry their own kind.

The Portuguese colonies in Africa tended to be the most racially mixed with little institutional racism and until the 1940s, Angolan mesticos played an important economic role in the country, especially in cities like Luanda and Benguela where they often served as middlemen between the Europeans and Africans. However, beginning in the 1940s, the Portuguese government sought to bring more European settlers to Africa and the position of the mesticos as the was eroded by 1974. Also, settler men tended to outnumber women 2 to 1 until the 1940s in Angola, so this often meant that Portuguese men had no choice but to marry with an African or Mestico woman. However, this would quickly change as seen below.

Females as a percentage of Europeans entering Angola vs Mozambique
1943-1949 36% vs 40%
1950-1959 41% vs 43%
1960-1969 49% vs 46%
1970-1974 51% vs 50%

In the other settler colonies, such as Southern Rhodesia and Kenya, the ratio of women to men in the European settler population reached parity or near parity much earlier (1920s). Also, the institutional racism found in those colonies discouraged race mixing. This meant that Southern Rhodesia had only around 6,000 coloureds in 1951 and 15,000 by 1969.

Ratio of Europeans to Mixed Race
Southwest Africa (1970) 3 to 1
Angola (1974) 4 to 1
Mozambique (1974) 5 to 1
South Africa (1970) 6 to 1
Southern Rhodesia (1969) 15 to 1
Kenya (1962) 16 to 1
Belgian Congo (1958) 22 to 1
Northern Rhodesia (1961) 36 to 1

One interesting thing to note above is the position of Namibia, it had a large mixed race population including the Rehoboth Basters, coloureds who had migrated northward from Cape Colony beginning in the 1870s. Finally, if we look at the Belgian Congo and Northern Rhodesia these two territories were different from the traditional settler colonies. Most Europeans here either worked for large companies (mining or agricultural comopanies) with ties or were missionaries or administrators. They often came to Africa with their families and there was little race mixing because of this. In the case of the Congo, many resembled expats more than settlers as they'd often return to Belgium after a few years.
 
Not to mention that tropical Africa was a highly unhealthy environment for people of European descent. The death rates for Europeans stationed at the African slave trading ports were startlingly high - so high that the crew was more likely to die on the average European slaving ship than the cargo.

This is true mostly of the coastal areas, especially in West Africa. The areas considered health and disease free tended to be in South Africa (with the exception of Coastal Natal and the area around the Limpopo River and the lowlands in the border with Mozambique. Because the Western and Northern Cape areas had "healthy" climates the relatively small European population was able to increase a rapid rate.

The other areas suitable for earlier European colonisation were often too far from the coast for Europeans to know about or bother settling. These include the highlands in Kenya/Tanzania, Ethiopia also those in Zimbabwe, Malawi and Angola. The desert areas of southern Angola and Namibia would be suitable for earlier European settlement due to lack of disease.

By the 1950s when the largest number of Europeans came to colonies, places like Dakar and Leopoldville had large European populations (30,000 and 20,000, respectively by 1959). Luanda itself had 126,000 Europeans by 1970 and its a relatively humid tropical city. The discovery of quinine and vaccines along with air-conditioning made these areas habitable for Europeans.
 
Nice posts Viriato!

I especially like the Brazil-analogue in Southern Africa. As you said such a country would probably have quite a large effect on overall global politics and history.
 
The Rhodesias really are rather different, being the last gasp of British imperialism, as mediated via the South African experience. The developers really had clear plans as to how they wanted the colony to be organised from day 1.

It would be interesting to see a British colony of some sorts on the western coast of Africa, pre 19th century, like the Mozambique colonies. I bet there would be a lot more mixing.

NZ is interesting, as intensive British settlement only occurred after 50 or so years of European contact. So whilst many non Maori men formed relationships with Maori women before settlement, once settlement occurred, it happened very quickly, with the vast majority of settlers arriving in a 30 year period. Home Islands women being an important targeted sector by the settler government.
 
Top