Who's up for an African Revolutionary War?

hard call, Ian Smith I guess, in so far as a competent dictator is better than an incompetent one.

Well, this certainly tells us something about the populace of AH.com. Disgusting.

we like people not dying of cholera and AIDS? how Disgusting of us.

Here you are. Note that you fetishize a "competent" dictator and wax so eloquently on how his competence would prevent an AIDS epidemic in Zimbabwe. There is another group of people quite known for valuing efficiency over any sort of moral value- I imagine you'd like them too (and then squirm out of saying so by talking about the Pope or something- he's the head of government in Italy, right?)

Of course, that had nothing to do with the discussion in that thread because it wasn't a choice between Ian Smith's racist government and "cholera and AIDS"- it was between a racist government and two liberation movements. But that's a tough call for you apparently.
 
Of course, that had nothing to do with the discussion in that thread because it wasn't a choice between Ian Smith's racist government and "cholera and AIDS"- it was between a racist government and two liberation movements. But that's a tough call for you apparently.

that fact it isn't for you is amazing, because the poll was meant to be a hard call, the fact you don't see it that way says some very scary things about you.
 

Japhy

Banned
So I would like to do a TL where The British Colonize Africa on the same level that they did the East of America and the African Colonies join together and rebel around the same or shortly after the Americans do.

What are you thoughts and comments on this?

Ignoring the minor disagreement that is taking over this thread...

The question is where in Africa are you going to set them up, whats the reasoning for them being there? In most of the continent you're going to have to deal with Disease (West Africa), Deserts (The North) and Distance (The South). The South's issue is probably easiest to overcome, perhaps if the British beat the Dutch to the Cape, or take it from them? At that point you have to figure out how to get people going down to Capetown which is its own challenge. Especially if the thirteen are drawing immigrants just the same time.

One could go with something akin say to Michael B's Colonization of Southern Africa by the Dutch TL with the British taking more spoils from an Anglo-Dutch War, but that in turn would make an issue out of cutting the Dutch route to their East Indies Colonies so that another curve ball, as thats not something the Dutch will easily give up, they'd trade their whole West Indies setup to protect the sea lane to Ceylon and Batavia. You'd also have to deal with the fact that competing colonies in the Americas and South Africa would lessen total populations in both sets of colonies.

Shorter term POD relative to the ARW would be to go the Draka route, have the British seize Capetown during that final Anglo-Dutch War, and having the Proto-Boers decide for whatever reason that they and whatever poor people you can send to the Cape and whatever outposts are set up between there and Natal before say 1800 should come together and leave the Empire while the British are Distracted.

Besides that there is any sort of development you can get out of settling past Slavers forts on the West African coast or some seizure of Morocco but those would be really pushing the envelope of plausibility, IMHO.

Interested to see what you come up with for your timeline any way you do it.
 
I don't see that happening, just no reason for them to do it.

You don't know much about history, do you? The reasons the Dutch settled down in the Cape was to have a stopping point on the way to Asia- something the British were looking for in the period as well. They wouldn't seize it for the purposes of setting up a settler colony, no- no one did that really.

Plymouth Colony was founded by 102 settlers. it always starts small, and as I pointed out it did grow, 10% of the population today

Are you really this thick or do you just put on an elaborate act to annoy people who aren't completely vapid?

The initial amount of settlement is not what matters. The percentage is not what matters. The mode of colonization, the spread of colonization and the sustainability of those efforts are what matter.

Liberia and Sierra Leone were centered on single settlements. Their numbers were paltry (which is both how they can claim a higher percentage and why they have much smaller borders) They lived not much differently than Indian administrators or Southern planters. They did not settle, they ruled. It is ridiculous to identify them as anything significant in the grand scope of things. The Boers and the British settlers of South Africa clearly were- which is why their former colony had such breadth and width (and funny enough, why they have so much smaller numbers as a percentage even though their numbers are much larger in real terms)

By your standard, Manhattan was at once a colony of Austria-Hungary, Italy and Russia. Argentina, a colony of Italy too. (Man, they sure are prolific those Italians)
 
Here you are. Note that you fetishize a "competent" dictator and wax so eloquently on how his competence would prevent an AIDS epidemic in Zimbabwe. There is another group of people quite known for valuing efficiency over any sort of moral value- I imagine you'd like them too

it also says some scary stuff about you that you hear "hard call" "I guess" and "dictator" as ringing endorsements and signs I have a deep love for the guy, linked up with the bast thing I had to say about him was "well when he was around no body had cholera"
 
It was not asking you to pick between Ian Smith and Mugabe. It was asking whether you supported Ian Smith or the movements that opposed him. The fact that "cholera and AIDS" came to mind for you as an after-effect of beating Ian Smith is pretty scary. The fact that you couldn't imagine Zimbabwe doing well without white rule being sustained is pretty scary. The fact that you don't see anything wrong with that is pretty scary.

Oh and Mandela didn't support Ian Smith- the ANC's military wing actually worked with Mugabe, just in case you try to pull the "I totally have a black friend" move again. Oh and the Bishop isn't an option either- he got to form his group entirely because of the armed groups that preceded him.

EDIT: But whatever, this is completely off track. Earlier British interest in the Cape wouldn't be hard to do- they were already involved in the Indian Ocean trade, even if they were late to the game.
 
You don't know much about history, do you? The reasons the Dutch settled down in the Cape was to have a stopping point on the way to Asia- something the British were looking for in the period as well. They wouldn't seize it for the purposes of setting up a settler colony, no- no one did that really.
yes and if they took it from the Dutch they'd have to fight them for it, the political realities on the ground from 1700 till they did take it just don't support such a war, and I can't think of anything that the Brits would be willing to trade that the Dutch would won't enough to give up the cape.



Are you really this thick or do you just put on an elaborate act to annoy people who aren't completely vapid?
personal attacks are the last stand of those that can't back up what they have to say with facts, also it just reminds me of Bush around '04


The initial amount of settlement is not what matters. The percentage is not what matters. The mode of colonization, the spread of colonization and the sustainability of those efforts are what matter.

Liberia and Sierra Leone were centered on single settlements. Their numbers were paltry (which is both how they can claim a higher percentage and why they have much smaller borders) They lived not much differently than Indian administrators or Southern planters. They did not settle, they ruled. It is ridiculous to identify them as anything significant in the grand scope of things. The Boers and the British settlers of South Africa clearly were- which is why their former colony had such breadth and width (and funny enough, why they have so much smaller numbers as a percentage even though their numbers are much larger in real terms)

By your standard, Manhattan was at once a colony of Austria-Hungary, Italy and Russia. Argentina, a colony of Italy too. (Man, they sure are prolific those Italians)

so what you're saying is they have to act the way you want them to act for it to be colonization? also moving into a city that is in fact already westernized isn't really colonization, though I guess it could be.
 
It was not asking you to pick between Ian Smith and Mugabe. It was asking whether you supported Ian Smith or the movements that opposed him. The fact that "cholera and AIDS" came to mind for you as an after-effect of beating Ian Smith is pretty scary. The fact that you couldn't imagine Zimbabwe doing well without white rule being sustained is pretty scary. The fact that you don't see anything wrong with that is pretty scary.

Oh and Mandela didn't support Ian Smith- the ANC's military wing actually worked with Mugabe, just in case you try to pull the "I totally have a black friend" move again. Oh and the Bishop isn't an option either- he got to form his group entirely because of the armed groups that preceded him.

EDIT: But whatever, this is completely off track. Earlier British interest in the Cape wouldn't be hard to do- they were already involved in the Indian Ocean trade, even if they were late to the game.

I never said I "couldn't imagine Zimbabwe doing well without white rule" I can't imagine Zimbabwe doing well with Mugabe rule, as for Mandela at the time sure I likely would of supported Mugabe too, knowing what I know now no way, I'm not sure how Mandela feels about Mugabe now, if he's still supportive I understand why and if I'd been locked up my a white government for 30 years I might like a fellow warrior too, Mandela is a good man but not a saint I don't see any one as a saint or a monster.

as I said else where, the UK might have wanted it, but political realities kept them from having it, clearly if they could of taken it in OTL they would of (see have the grabbed it during the napoleonic wars)
 
yes and if they took it from the Dutch they'd have to fight them for it, the political realities on the ground from 1700 till they did take it just don't support such a war, and I can't think of anything that the Brits would be willing to trade that the Dutch would won't enough to give up the cape.

They weren't heavily invested in it even by the time they did lose it. So, you're wrong. And probably had no idea in the first place. (Mandela was never a PM)



so what you're saying is they have to act the way you want them to act for it to be colonization? also moving into a city that is in fact already westernized isn't really colonization, though I guess it could be.

No, I'm saying they actually have to colonize. Brits didn't "settle" India just because they had administrators and investments there. Much of Liberia's territory was decided by fiat and treaties about as well-defined as treaties with Native American tribes. They generally neither exerted control nor had a population present in the territory. They didn't settle much outside of Freetown and when they did, it was usually in plantation style set-ups (which within a generation were ruled by educated native proxies so they could return to Monrovia) That is also ignoring the fact that the real numbers going there were a trickle with occasional spurts of forced settlement- immigration in SA was sustainable and came mostly on its own.

Also, it is awfully broad to put Ashkenazi, Poles, South Slavs and Italians in the same boat as the English-speaking Protestants of New York. They definitely were not "Westernized" and were viewed as quite alien by the people of the time. Under your standard, NYC was a colony of every power in Europe (because scale and mode of settlement don't matter)
 
South Africa is the same as Australia? :confused: also Sierra Leone has as many Creole descendants of freed Jamaican slaves as South Africa has whites, and Namibia is 6% white so thats at lest 3 right there (if South Africa is the standard) if Australia is the standard and you need to wipe out the natives for there to be a settler colony than Africa has none and never has.

Calm down and post like a grown up. There is absolutely no reason to get so wound up about whatever you're getting wound up about.

Don't even try and pull the racism card on me. I know how much you like Ian Smith and tinpot apartheid.

Keep this crap out of this thread.

Both of you need to stop derailing other peoples' threads with whatever stupid slapfight you have going on or I'll crack your heads together.
 
the main reasons that the europeans did not do as well in Africa as in the Amercias were that they shared the same dieases as the afric ans and in fact africa had dieases such as dengue fever that the europeans had no restance to. This was the oppsite to the amercias where th european dieases wiped out between 60 and 90% of the locals.
In addition at least at first the european and africian technologies were basicaly on the same level.
 
As to Namibia, what settlement effort pushed the majority Afrikaner whites there?

Namibia does still have a significant German population descended from the pre-World War I settlers, although smaller than the South African white population.
 
So I would like to do a TL where The British Colonize Africa on the same level that they did the East of America and the African Colonies join together and rebel around the same or shortly after the Americans do.

What are you thoughts and comments on this?

ASB. Baring an extremely early POD.
 
The initial amount of settlement is not what matters. The percentage is not what matters. The mode of colonization, the spread of colonization and the sustainability of those efforts are what matter.

I don't know about Liberia or Sierra Leone, but I would say South Africa, Rhodesia, Kenya and Algeria all count as settler colonies. Your argument against the latter three is "sustainability", but had a Steve Biko-type been the liberation leader in South Africa, white flight would have been tremendous and we would think that wasn't sustainable either.

A lasting settler community in Algeria and Rhodesia is certainly possible. Kenya is more of a stretch, but its not ASB for the white community to stay there. It was certainly planned to be a settler colony back in the day.
 
Top