White settlement-colonization in East Africa

i don't know in which forum to put this thread, but i think the "before 1900" one is good for it.
What would it take for european whites to colonize eastern Africa? As in, Kenya and Tanzania? I hear that both these countries have a few regions (such as highlands) that are suitable for european or caucasian settlement.
In case such a thing happens, will we see an apartheid-like social situation developing in these countries?
 
Kenya did receive some white settlement OTL. From wikipedia (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/White_people_in_Kenya):

In 1903 there were just fewer than 400 European settlers in British East Africa; by 1912 about 1000. The British government offered 99- and 999-year leases to encourage settlement, as well as land tax exemption into the 1930s. The state also subsidized white farmers' produce so that black smallholders could not compete in open markets. Although large stretches of Kenya at the time were sparsely populated, European colonists ended up settling in one of the most heavily occupied regions, alienating local farmers with the aid of the colonial state. From the beginning, European settlement dispossessed Africans, both through legal and extra-legal means, with a discourse arguing that WaKamba, Gikuyu, and Embu had no title to the land, as they had not improved it or were "nomadic tribes." Many were crowded onto "Native Reserves"; some populations came back to their original homes to be classified as "squatters" and often then served as labor on colonists' plantations. Europeans typically acquired plantation estates covering five hundred acres, most of which then fell fallow. The inexpensiveness of the land (as little as 1d./acre) led to many land purchases by speculators.

Life for Europeans in Kenya during this time would later be immortalised in Karen Blixen's memoir Out of Africa. The presence of herds of elephants and zebra, and other wild animals on these estates drew wealthy aristocracy from Europe and America, who came attracted by big game hunting. Nairobi was sharply segregated. More than 30,000 South Asian settlers came to Kenya from British India, but they were legally barred from purchasing real estate in the White Highlands.
 
i don't know in which forum to put this thread, but i think the "before 1900" one is good for it.
What would it take for european whites to colonize eastern Africa? As in, Kenya and Tanzania? I hear that both these countries have a few regions (such as highlands) that are suitable for european or caucasian settlement.
In case such a thing happens, will we see an apartheid-like social situation developing in these countries?

Honestly I think a major problem for White settlement was that it was the British who got the area, there was simply so many better areas in the empire for working and lower middle class Brits to migrate to. But let's say the Germans got also got Kenya and we avoided The works wars, in that case they could have been end up as the German South Rhodesia.
 
I got an idea for a Hapsburg wank. African colonization in the sage where the Empire is busy find new and creative ways to waste all this money they earned in the golden age. Honestly, what about East Africa is Profitable? Uhhh
 
I got an idea for a Hapsburg wank. African colonization in the sage where the Empire is busy find new and creative ways to waste all this money they earned in the golden age. Honestly, what about East Africa is Profitable? Uhhh
That's a pretty interesting idea. The Austrian was trying to set up outpost in the Indian Ocean in the 18th century, so what if they accidental end up in a conflict with Oman and takes Zanzibar and its mainland upland. When we comes ahead to the Berlin Congress, they end up with Kenya, Uganda, Rwanda, Burundi and Tanzania. The Austrians have a large population and a lot history of settle frontiers. So they end up sending filling their African territories with settlers.
 
Honestly, what about East Africa is Profitable? Uhhh
Sarcasm?

But to answer your question using the countries Jurgen gave, basically all those countries above have to the potential to provide the Habsburg Empire with vast amounts of cash crops (coffee, tea, tobacco, sugarcane, palmoil, rubber(?)), that doesn't even count diamonds, ivory, forestry resources, etc. On top of that if the Austrians hold it to modern day the region has proven large oil and natural gas reserves. Overall it's a windfall for the Habsburgs, and the region provides decent land for European settlement if they channel emigration towards the colonies.
 
Sarcasm?

But to answer your question using the countries Jurgen gave, basically all those countries above have to the potential to provide the Habsburg Empire with vast amounts of cash crops (coffee, tea, tobacco, sugarcane, palmoil, rubber(?)), that doesn't even count diamonds, ivory, forestry resources, etc. On top of that if the Austrians hold it to modern day the region has proven large oil and natural gas reserves. Overall it's a windfall for the Habsburgs, and the region provides decent land for European settlement if they channel emigration towards the colonies.

There were lots of resources, but the problem with East Africa is that one needs to set up stuff. You need working law enforcement, court system, electricity, roads, and all sorts of infrastructure. You either tax the businesses or spend it out of the treasury. In Africa Most of the plantations didn't turn a profit for three decades when the colonies were set up, and it would take even longer to reach the point where accumulated profits reach the resources put. Almost every British African colony that did not involve a cash crop ran at a loss. Diamonds, ivory, copper, tin, coal, aluminum, and even gold were taken from various African colonies... and unless the colony had good soil and a crop, they ran at a damn loss. The oil doesn't even count because the Europeans never got to use it.
 
During the late 17th century Portuguese East Africa was the most profitable part of the empire. Gold in Brazil had not yet been discovered and sugar from the West Indies along with tobacco from Virginia and Maryland had created a slump in Brazil, and settlements of Mozambique exported a large amount of ivory to Portuguese India while buying a large amount of cotton textiles for the subcontinent. Profits for selling Indian textiles to the various Swahili merchants rendered profits of 300 to 400% during the period. Around the 1620s, the Portuguese became aware of the existence of gold in present-day Zimbabwe and attempted to establish "feiras" or trading fairs in the highlands to obtain gold. They also sought to colonise the area with settlers and in 1677 the Portuguese Crown shipped 500 peasants from the Azores to settle along the Cuama (Zambezi), with many dying in the marshy lowlands instead.
 
During the late 17th century Portuguese East Africa was the most profitable part of the empire. Gold in Brazil had not yet been discovered and sugar from the West Indies along with tobacco from Virginia and Maryland had created a slump in Brazil, and settlements of Mozambique exported a large amount of ivory to Portuguese India while buying a large amount of cotton textiles for the subcontinent. Profits for selling Indian textiles to the various Swahili merchants rendered profits of 300 to 400% during the period. Around the 1620s, the Portuguese became aware of the existence of gold in present-day Zimbabwe and attempted to establish "feiras" or trading fairs in the highlands to obtain gold. They also sought to colonise the area with settlers and in 1677 the Portuguese Crown shipped 500 peasants from the Azores to settle along the Cuama (Zambezi), with many dying in the marshy lowlands instead.

The profits for selling the textiles were indeed high, but I think the crown only took 1/8 of it, with the rest of the profits going to various European businesses. This was indeed a profitable colony, but even with the gold, if you cut the crops and the cut the colony gets from it, it goes into the red.
 
There were lots of resources, but the problem with East Africa is that one needs to set up stuff. You need working law enforcement, court system, electricity, roads, and all sorts of infrastructure. You either tax the businesses or spend it out of the treasury. In Africa Most of the plantations didn't turn a profit for three decades when the colonies were set up, and it would take even longer to reach the point where accumulated profits reach the resources put. Almost every British African colony that did not involve a cash crop ran at a loss. Diamonds, ivory, copper, tin, coal, aluminum, and even gold were taken from various African colonies... and unless the colony had good soil and a crop, they ran at a damn loss. The oil doesn't even count because the Europeans never got to use it.
Well to be honest that's the same problem the US and Canada had but if we're following what Jurgen proposed then you've got at least a 100+ years to develop all the things you've mentioned before the other powers even arrive. On top of the fact that you ignore that the Austrians can funnel emigration towards those colonies. Compared to the British whose subjects as Jurgen pointed out had a wide variety of far more pleasant places to be sent to. And as for the oil/natural gas you forgot the part where I said "...if the Austrians hold it to modern day..."
 
Ah I missed the if the Hapsburgs hold onto it to modern day. Funneling extra manpower might help develop the colony.
 
Ah I missed the if the Hapsburgs hold onto it to modern day. Funneling extra manpower might help develop the colony.
Nah you're fine, I was being far too snippy, but with a POD starting in 1775 for the Austrian East India Company it gives a TL plenty of time to start settlement of East Africa by the Habsburgs.
 
Top