PC: Wiping Native African Population

Status
Not open for further replies.
It's not possible. There's just a lot more Africans than there were North Americans.

That wouldn't help them if the Europeans really wanted it.

But that's the point where the idea will fail: the Europeans don't want that. In the Congo free state a large portion of the population died - but without the exploitation of the population it will be difficult to make money.

Therefore, as stated above, there might be regions where massive white immigration and forceful "evacuation" of natives may lead to the discussed result. The shores of the Med, parts of East African highlands, large parts of Southern Africa may become "white". To have the same effect as in North America, you'd need comparable immigration numbers. Libya and Namibia are easy because a small number of settlers can drive out the natives. The Maghreb would need millions of colonists, as would South Africa (you'd need enough immigrants to replace the natives in the mines!).
 
Define your scope. Everything south of Sub-Saharan Africa?

Theoretically , if , by some dint of several rather nasty PODs , the Europeans nations develop a colonial doctrine similar to Lebensraum , rather than the White Man's burden or Civilizing mission , then this could happen over the course of several decades.

That is , if such an attempt was made over several decades.

It is worth noting though , that the Native Americans and Aborigines had far lower population levels , and inhabited lands far more hospitable to European colonization.

I'd think that the scramble for Africa would need to be limited to two , or perhaps three European nations at most for something as horrific as that to approach plausibility though . If the atrocities of Belgain Congo were replicated on a near continental wide scale , and the nations involved in Colonization were both few , and ruled by absolute monarchs , or at best , Prussian style Constitutional Monarchies , it might be possible , provided that the ones seating on the throne are like Leopold of Belgium ,or worst.

Please bear in mind that both Australia , and much of North America was controlled as one political unit , and that the public outcry over the destruction of native populations there , for various reasons were much more muted than the outcry in Europe over Belgian Congo.

Hence , I propose a few PODs. Note that this likely would result in a rather grim-dark , dystopic world.

Let's say that the Napoleonic Wars eventually die down in the favor of the French , with Europe divided into French , and Russian sphere of influences. I think with enough PODs , it might be within plausibility (though not a very likely scenario) .

The result is a Europe governed largely by semi-autocracies , that develops the hallmarks of what we would recognize as Dictatorships. Let's assume that the Industrial Revolution develops at the same rate in Autocratic Napoleonic Europe (but one where the rule of law and institutions and urbanization is much more advance than Czarist Russia).

Let's assume that it's only slowly liberalizing as Napoleonic Europe begins conquering Africa in a fit for Colonial Glory , starting in the mid 19th Century. The process is extremely brutal , and with a still tightly neutered press and censorship in the motherland , much of it goes undocumented. Belgian Congo writ large breaks out throughout Napoleonic Africa occurs south of the Sahara . Tens of millions are killed , to the general ignorance of the European populace.

Perhaps , during this period , a bloody Muslim revolt , and a Ottoman-Napoleonic France war breaks out. The Ottomans looses , and the Muslim revolt is put down with astounding massacres. Many French , Spanish and Italian settlers in North Africa are massacred at the start of the war. Public opinion consequentially looks the other way , when the Muslim North African population is subjected to numerous massacres . Indeed , public opinion demands revenge. The Emperor complies. Economic pressure, massacres , mass expulsions and force conversion very much reduces the Islamic population in North Africa to a shrinking , persecuted minority. North Africa , is subjugated decisively , but at an appalling human cost.

Perhaps a second war is fought between the British and Napoleonic France in the late 19th Century , over something very similar to the Fashoda Crisis . During this period , there are numerous uprisings in Sub-sahran Africa . Nevertheless , Napoleonic Europe wins after several years of brutal fighting, and puts down the rebellions with great brutality.

Afterwards , Eugenist in Napoleonic Africa captures the ear of the Emperor , and much of his court , and large sections of the senate. With propaganda , and tales of murders of Imperial Citizens ringing in the ears of the general European population , and several business interests in the Empire in support ,the Emperor decides to implement the equivalent of a final solution on the African continent , South of the Sahara, near the turn of the 20th Century .

By 1930 , the process is complete. Nearly 90% of the pre-colonial African population is destroyed , by mass expulsions , deliberately induced famines , de-facto Slavery , Genocide (called Clearances) , concentration camps and more.

By the time a new Emperor seats on the throne , it's too late for the native Sub-sahran Africans. Malaria treatment , antibiotics and medicine has made much of Africa livable . There are large European populations in the Highlands , and South Africa. In the other , less hospitable parts, geologist have made numerous discoveries of valuable minerals , while the European timber industry has begun the first stages of deforesting central Africa.

By the fifties , a second wave of colonists - laborers , technicians , engineers, miners , surveyors in the employ of European mining and logging concerns have swamped previously uninhabitable parts of Africa (from a European perspective). In this second wave , more dispossession occurs to the remnants of the Native Africans. The survivors are crowded into slumps of Great European colonial cities, or working for slave wages at the most menial , dangerous jobs in European owned and operated Gold , metal , Diamond and other precious stone mines.

It's only in the 70's and 80's , as a result of a falling Imperial birth rate for people of European descent, that the proportion of Indigenous Africans as part of the African population south of Sahara begins to climb again , but from an extremely low base of 1-2 %. .

As for North Africa , the population has largely been assimilated. Those that have not been killed , or forced into the Sahara (or flee to the Sahel) have largely become French speaking , and Catholic. Islam in the Magherb is a memory , obliterated during the 19th Century.

To this day , the rest of the Islamic world still distrust the Empire for that. The atrocities of the Maghreb and Sahel are still rallying cries for fanatical Islamic Fundamentalists . Recent terrorist activity in Europe has repeatedly referred to the lost lands of not just Al-andalus , but also the Maghreb.

The Empire is locked in a Five way Cold war between the British Empire , the Americans , Russians , and Chinese. The Council of Nations comprises of the same five members as the UN security council of OTL: France , Britain , USA , Russia and China. The world is significantly less democratic , and human rights less emphasized (if the butterflies haven't warped that concept , or replaced it with another ). Four out of the five are still Monarchies. The fifth is nominally a democracy , but Oligarchical (in this TL , the gilded age never really ended , but simply evolved). These are the five wealthiest and largest nations on Earth. The Great Game is still played today in the hosts of more minor states between each Nation - Iran , parts of South America , a Pan-Arab Hasemite Monarchy , a Greece where the Megali idea has suceeded beyond all expectations (thanks to Russian and French meddling in Ottoman affairs ), Siam , Japan ....

MAD is still in effect , more so in this OTL.

It's not a pleasant TL. But this not a pleasant question.

But it's plausible? Maybe even likely . with enough PODs. You just need Anti-biotics , Quinine , a single , or at most two or three colonizers in Africa , earlier discoveries and exploitation of natural resources in Central-Africa like Diamonds , and oil in Nigeria , etc....

Most of all, you need to retard the development of liberalism , the concept of human rights , civil society , and slow down the gradual diminishment of the powers of Monarchs in Europe , while allowing Industrialization to continue at a perhaps slightly slower pace.

In other words , the OP proposes a scenario that can only mean a more dystopic world than OTL.
 
Shut up, Ridwan Asher, you know nothing about me

Not everyone needs your sarcasm

I guess I was to harsh, but our beloved Republic needs the golden divine blessing that is sarcasm :D


First, the very idea of entertaining with genocide is disturbing. You should at least more considerate to other's sensitivities when you're bringing up something like this next time, instead of implying that you cheerfully enjoying it, regardless of you actually are or not.

Second, some basic factors like I've pointed out before should be absolutely considered, especially when we're talking within the context of the whole Africa. Excluding Northern African shores and Souther Africa, the continent is hardly livable for Europeans at best. Advernt has made a real appreciation-worthy effort complying to your demand here, but I'm still skeptical.
 
I guess I was to harsh, but our beloved Republic needs the golden divine blessing that is sarcasm :D


First, the very idea of entertaining with genocide is disturbing. You should at least more considerate to other's sensitivities when you're bringing up something like this next time, instead of implying that you cheerfully enjoying it, regardless of you actually are or not.

Second, some basic factors like I've pointed out before should be absolutely considered, especially when we're talking within the context of the whole Africa. Excluding Northern African shores and Souther Africa, the continent is hardly livable for Europeans at best. Advernt has made a real appreciation-worthy effort complying to your demand here, but I'm still skeptical.

Like I said , it's plausible scenario in my opinion , but not likely . It depends strongly on many factors on the European continent itself for Belgian Congo to become standard colonial policy for all Africa South of the Sahara.

Two in particular stands out : a more Autocratic Europe (where Leopolds could get away with far more) , and preferably , a more united European continent. Coupled with the natural resources potential of the African continent being found slightly earlier than in OTL , earlier Quinine and faster advance of medicine , a retarded development of the concept of Human rights , and a single African colonial power and this scenario becomes a grim possibility.

Needless to say , this is Africa screw , but it IS plausible - I think it's unfair to call this ASB , but justified to call this not too likely , and requiring several kinds of PODs and factors to be in place before Belgian Congo and the Holocaust and the Lebensraum engage in a three way orgy to birth that abomination.
 
First, the very idea of entertaining with genocide is disturbing. You should at least more considerate to other's sensitivities when you're bringing up something like this next time, instead of implying that you cheerfully enjoying it, regardless of you actually are or not.

Who the frak entertaining and cheerfully enjoying this? I'm not
My motivation is like someone asking about what the Spanish did with their Conquistadors, or when Russia expand itself to the Pacific
I'm being objective
Off topic, the Republic has too many sarcastic people who just do that, being sarcastic and think everyone will laugh with their "joke" which very arrogantly thought.
Are you one of them?
 
Last edited:
Who's entertaining and cheerful about this?

I guess it was my misunderstanding then. It's just that I know you like Nazi and aren't that mindful about their genocidal tendencies.... Generally people tend to stay away from genocides unless it has a direct causal relations with the main topic in discussion, instead of being the main topic of discussion. Or at least when someone is being genuinely curious, one should not be so morally indifferent about the whole consequences of the scenario being posited (though it's not necessary to be overtly sensitive), and also demonstrate that you're being genuinely intellectually curious. It can prevent you from offending general people's nerves aside from the very moody ones.

I have to admit that I personally like Africa and interested about its culture and its allohistorical potentials, and always have been rather sad that they are being dismissed rather intolerably too frequent, and very seldom receive the appreciations they deserve. I have to admit I was being rather personal back then.
 
Off topic, the Republic has too many sarcastic people who just do that, being sarcastic and think everyone will laugh with their "joke" which very arrogantly thought.
Are you one of them?

If those are sarcasms, then my jokes are divine revelations.
 
anw_rev, I guess I should tell you, just seeing the title you gave your thread made me immediately look to the left for a lock and to wonder how quick the author would be banned!

I've never reported a thread, so I'm not even sure just how to do so. I generally don't believe in that kind of thing, believing the remedy for free speech one doesn't like is more free speech. I'm glad you got some such responses!

Because a big exception in my mind to the "let the discussion settle the hash of the wrong-headed" dynamic is speech that ties in to movements that have deep and powerful roots and have wrecked enormous havoc; clearly sometimes a nasty idea doesn't dry up and die due to mere exposure to air and light! Sometimes it grows into a big mean monster.

White supremacy and exterminationism in general are two examples that pretty much head the list; combining them in one thread title is a big red flag.

So if I were you I'd be thankful to Ridwan Asher for providing much-needed balance that makes this thread a discussion and not a major exhibit of why the guy that posted it should be shut down.

Advernt--interestingly if disconcertingly, when I was doing a bit of research to respond to another thread quite a long time ago that was similarly eliminationist and bigoted in concept (someone wanted to know if North Africa could be made "Christian," by which they clearly meant of European descent, no consideration in the discussion being given to the possibility native North Africans would convert) and I was trying to find evidence for the possibility French democrats might come around to the idea of freedom of religion as a basis for a culturally and politically French but diverse Greater France without extermination (or forcible religious conversion)--it seemed that in Algeria on the whole, the native population got more protection and respect from various autocratic regimes than when France was actually functioning as a Republic. Louis Napoleon in particular had the romantic notion he might be accepted as some kind of King-Protector by the Islamic native peoples, and it was his military government that tried to keep some kind of balance between the European colonists and the people who had been living there before.

I found it disturbing but unfortunately all too plausible that majority rule in France tended to lead to worse outcomes for the Algerians. Mind, I still think that perhaps the native Algerians might have found champions on the Left, especially since the colonist politics veered sharply to the Right. But it would be a very long shot, politically speaking.

Vice versa, while your scenario of autocratic-run genocide is unfortunately not totally implausible, I do think an autocrat would be in a better position than a republican legislature and executive responsible to both said legislature and the voting population in general to have a rather nuanced policy, one where he is indeed exterminating some native peoples in some places, but meanwhile protecting and fostering relations with others elsewhere. Even given a general fashion for white-supremacism, eugenics, and so on, this mainly means the ruler would be highlighting his exterminationism but keeping his protectionism quiet.

But a republican united Europe, on the scale of a plausible surviving Napoleonic autocratic one, is pretty hard to imagine! So as you said, there would be rivalries between European nations and these would mudsling each other with accusations of brutality--which probably would be all too easy to make, and for the other side to rejoinder in kind. So you get the dynamic more like OTL.

As for the disease factor, I think you underestimate it a bit. Pouring in millions of European colonists might indeed help "lick" the problem--because the vast majority of those herded into various plague zones would indeed sicken and die, but perhaps a handful would survive--these would be the ones with the best immunity. So, eugenics, mission accomplished--sort of!

But of course even an Emperor of Machiavellian wit, Orwellian power, and Stalinesque ethics would probably reconsider the policy of routing Europeans into such environments after the first few waves were decimated (except perhaps as a sink or prison for "undesirables"). These zones would examples of places where Imperial policy adopts its Dr Jekyll face instead of Mr Hyde and merely manages relations with the established natives instead of pushing them aside. Even in a totalitarian regime, meanwhile, rumor still operates as a form of news, and any enthusiasm the regime drums up for the crusade into the Dark Continent will probably dry up as whispered word gets back of just how Dark it is for European invaders!
 
That of course depends. In my scenario , Central Africa is only penetrated and settled only after the early 20th Century , where such diseases become much less of an issue . Before that though , Mega Congos would be sufficient to decimate the native population . True , the result is that large areas of Africa would remain uninhabited , or sparsely inhabited till the thirties , if not the fifties.

But the scenario of waves of European colonists being slaughtered by African diseases is only plausible in a pre 1900 setting , in my opinion. More likely , even a Stalinsque leader would abandon the project of re-settlement in the most inhospitable areas of Africa. But , come the twentieth century , assuming that the various diseases of Africa can be counteracted against by then , and come to discoveries of diamond , oil , timber resources and more , and I'd expect settlement throughout previous "plauge" zones within Africa.

You just need an autocrat of a largely united Europe , with a POD of 1789 , with the same attitudes as Leopold without pesky public opinion , or the conscience of his own government and international (effectively European ) opinion to check him. Two or three of such leaders , with reigns spanning a few decades each will reduce Native Africans ( be they Bantu speaking peoples , Swahillis , etc , etc) to a minority by the point Europeans are able to settle in Central and West Africa , and parts of East Africa , and technology has made settlement , even if it's restricted to mining towns , economically feasible (via the exploitation of Natural resources).

To be honest with you , my hands hovered above the report button at anw_rev's post.

But , the short answer is : if you want continental scale genocide (ie: regions the size of the Sahel , China , the Indian sub-continent , Western Europe , etc) in a 20th Century setting , you need autocrats , and undisputed control of the region. In fact , autocracy is not necessary . If the region is hospitable to your colonists , and your control is undisputed , then such displacements can occur , as it did in North America and Australia.

Indeed , it boils down to whether the public will object , and whether their objections matter if so. The public did not object in North America or Australia in any great numbers , did they ? Neither were the public in a position to object during the Holomodor , the Holocaust , and other genocides by autocracies.

But it's worth noting that even today , in Much of South America , descendants of the native population still forms the majority. I think it's true especially in Mexico , Peru , and more.

North America and Australia is the anomaly here , truth to be told.

Actually , human history can get very depressing at times when considering things such as this. But we are capable of truly nastily horrific , nauseating things , so to deny it is silly. But still , such a topic has to be spoken in with great tact , and neutrality , it's flame baitable unless everyone in this conversation agrees to be civil. The internet being what it is.....

To prevent genocides , just accomplish the opposite of the list. Incentive , Autocracy , no concept of human rights , racial and/or religious intolerance and a source of hatred , or at least a cause for neglect.
 
That wouldn't help them if the Europeans really wanted it.

It wouldn't have help them live pleasant existences, but it would help them, as a race, to survive.

Population of Native Americans in North America at contact: 2 million

Population of Africa at 1850: 100 million and growing fast

Even Hitler 'only' killed 12 million in the Holocaust. And that was in an area he had absolute control over, with a police state, a compliant majority of the population and mid-20th century levels of technology.

To get here you'd need somehow need all the colonial powers of Europe to embrace Naziism, spend all their resources on conquering every part of Africa, building industrial railways and death camps, in a continent where white men dropped like flies from malaria and other diseases. And even then it would take over a century without collapse from imperial overstretch.

It's Alien Space Bats.
 
As much a burden the people of black race are for their genetically inherent backwardness and non-productivity, there are many problems lies against any attempt to achieve their destruction as an entity

I'm aware this wasn't meant sincerely, but you should probably communicate that a little more clearly in a thread as contentious as this one.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top