WI Brazilian settler colony in modern Namibia?

Browsing through a few threads of South America colonies [that is colonies owned by South America] the general agreement was that Brazil was the most likely nation out of them all to establish colonies. What if they did? What if Brazil had established presence in Southwest Africa prior to the Berlin Conference and was allowed to keep this colony? If Brazil was able to establish such a settler colony, what are the chances they would be able to hold onto it?
 
If they find the diamonds and stay out of European affairs, plus don't treat the natives like subhuman, they could still have it today.
 

Lusitania

Donor
Namibia would of been right under Angola and it would of linked Angola to Brazil also.

As for allowed to keep it. It depends on the Europeans who looked down on all. The original idea by the Germans for the Berlin conference was that it would just be Britain, France and Germany and all of Africa be split between them. It was then decided to include those countries that already were there Portugal and Spain plus adding Italy. So maybe they allow Brazil to join on simply acknowledge Brazil’s claim.
 

Lusitania

Donor
If they find the diamonds and stay out of European affairs, plus don't treat the natives like subhuman, they could still have it today.
Unfortunately considering that Brazil was one of last countries to ban slavery (after the Americans) not sure about treating natives fairly. They be same as all others.
 
Unfortunately considering that Brazil was one of last countries to ban slavery (after the Americans) not sure about treating natives fairly. They be same as all others.

Didn't Namibia have a very low amount of natives if I recall? At least compared to the rest of Africa?
 
Any ideas on what the Brazilians might name the colony? I was going to go with Costa de Esqueleto, but that doesn't sound too welcoming for a settler colony.
 
Related idea - what if, following the 1807 invasion, the Portuguese royal family remained in Brazil, or (some of) Portuguese influence in Africa transferred to the South American empire?
 

Lusitania

Donor
Any ideas on what the Brazilians might name the colony? I was going to go with Costa de Esqueleto, but that doesn't sound too welcoming for a settler colony.
The area known as Walvis Bay was orrigonally named “ O Golfo de Santa Maria da Conceição“. Só sticking with Portuguese name would of been an early idea
 
Last edited:
you need a reason why. Brazil was having a hard time filling up it's own borders, so they don't need a settler colony. They mostly exported raw goods. they sent tobacco/rum to 'Angola' and imported slaves which a low population namibia doesn't need/can't provide. Going to be costly, which Brazil can't afford.
It also is going to make the Portuguese nervous, as they'd probably see it as designs on 'Angola'.
I'm all for WI's, but they need some semi-plausible purpose.

As for treating the natives right, NO ONE (not even the high and mighty British hell bent on eliminating slavery in name only) treated the blacks nicely.
 

Lusitania

Donor
True, but some were objectively worse than others. Compared to the Belgians in the Congo, the British were saints.
Sorry but there were no saints in the treatment of those the wealthy and powerful considered below them. Then you take a white man to Africa and all blacks underneath him so he has power.
 
Sorry but there were no saints in the treatment of those the wealthy and powerful considered below them. Then you take a white man to Africa and all blacks underneath him so he has power.

That's not what I'm saying [and has nothing to do with the WI]. I'm saying that you can't just blanket all European colonizers as equally bad. Small were objectively worse than others; which in turn means some were better than others. They were all bad, but you simply cannot compare the atrocities in the Congo Free State to those done in say, Kenya.
 
"Brazil was the most likely nation out of them all to establish colonies."

????

Technically this is true. The other South American countries had zero chance of establishing colonies in Africa. The chance of Brazil establishing colonies in Africa was slightly greater than zero, so it is true that Brazil was the most likely South American nation to establish colonies in Africa.

However, Brazil has a huge amount of tropical territory in South America, that was either underpopulated or populated by indigenous people primitive enough to be pushed aside, that had all the rubber, gold, and other resources that they could want. They had absolutely no reason to establish a colony in Africa. The United States never did, for similar reasons, despite participating in the Berlin conference.

If you need Brazilian colonies in Africa, the POD is to manage the break with Portugal so that Brazil winds up with Angola and Mozambique for whatever reason you can come up with. Also, the Portuguese expanded their African territories in the nineteenth century, and didn't go into the diamond rich areas of Namibia, since they were annexing the diamond rich areas of what is now part of Angola.
 

Lusitania

Donor
That's not what I'm saying [and has nothing to do with the WI]. I'm saying that you can't just blanket all European colonizers as equally bad. Small were objectively worse than others; which in turn means some were better than others. They were all bad, but you simply cannot compare the atrocities in the Congo Free State to those done in say, Kenya.
Yes in the context of historical treatment to Africans by Europeans there are examples that are better than others. The major issue is that we continue to look at these treatments with a modern day view point which means all of them suck.
 
Yes in the context of historical treatment to Africans by Europeans there are examples that are better than others. The major issue is that we continue to look at these treatments with a modern day view point which means all of them suck.

That's BS, you simply cannot apply modern culture, morality, or thinking to historic events and people. Doing this makes almost every single human being alive before 1900 a racist, sexist, abhorrent scumbag. It makes Isaac Newton, Galileo, and Socrates idiots, because looking at their thinking with a modern day view point makes them sound like idiots. Looking at history while ignoring the historic context is just dishonest; some colonies were, for the time, extremely kind to the natives, but compared to modern time, still horrible.

And again, just because two things suck, doesn't mean they are necessarily comparable. Stealing a car and murdering someone are both crimes, but grouping the perpetrators in one group isn't fair. We get it, the Europeans were not nice people, but not all of them were evil either.
 

Lusitania

Donor
That's BS, you simply cannot apply modern culture, morality, or thinking to historic events and people. Doing this makes almost every single human being alive before 1900 a racist, sexist, abhorrent scumbag. It makes Isaac Newton, Galileo, and Socrates idiots, because looking at their thinking with a modern day view point makes them sound like idiots. Looking at history while ignoring the historic context is just dishonest; some colonies were, for the time, extremely kind to the natives, but compared to modern time, still horrible.

And again, just because two things suck, doesn't mean they are necessarily comparable. Stealing a car and murdering someone are both crimes, but grouping the perpetrators in one group isn't fair. We get it, the Europeans were not nice people, but not all of them were evil either.
I understand your comments but I believe you are fighting a loosing battle because all historical events and figures are today being viewed differently. That is especially true in North America. So if you live in another place.

I on the other hand look not at just the actions of the individual but in context of the time he lived.

Case point in Canada there is several people criticizing Canada first prime minister for actions and what he said about natives. While in today’s context they are wrong, they were consistent with attitudes of others in similar circumstances and positions of power at that time. But that does not stop people today from condemning him and just like in US there was a statue of him removed from one part of Canada.
 
Top