Why did it take so long to colonize Africa?

Seriously, the Europeans sailed across the ocean in 1492 and colonized the Americas (prior to 1492 actually, if you count the Vikings), but they couldn't colonize the continent directly below them until 400 years later? That doesn't make sense, the only reason I can think of is that the great Ottoman Empire kept them at bay. But seriously, why did it take them so long?

1800


1914

Agent 1337 said:

That doesn't make sense, the only reason I can think of is that the great Ottoman Empire kept them at bay. But seriously, why did it take them so long?

Click to expand...

I'm highly amused at how you consider a very good cause for it, but in the next very sentence, say "... but seriously" as if it's ridiculous.

Well, it is rediculous, at least for a large portion of Africa.

Uhhh... It didn't?

Disease is the number one reason that jumps to mind.

Disease. Natives. Trade ports. Unessential.

When Africa finally was fully colonized, much of it was more of a drain on the colonizers rather than being profitable. With a few notable exceptions, most of everything in Africa that the Europeans wanted was better acquired through trade with the native population. A better question would probably be why did they bother to colonize the interior of Africa at all, of which there were a plethora reasons, though many of them were quite stupid (the idea that they needed to civilize the population, overestimating resources, etc).

I would also note that the map isn't exactly representative of the situation. While significant swathes of territory were claimed, many coloured areas were not colonised and were actually quite similar to Africa on that map, with a few trading posts on the coast and nothing inland.

On that 1800 map, Louisiana was essentially uninhabited outside of the far south (with New Orleans). Spain's northern territories are largely the same (namely the later Mexican cession and Texas). More the same for Alaska. For the British, the Hudson's Bay Company has some posts on the coast, then not much outside of Nova Scotia, New Brunswick and the St Lawrence Valley with Southern Ontario only starting to get settled in the previous 20 years.
So, while a lot of territory was claimed, much was similarly colonized as Africa.

Well, it's not entirely true that Africa was late to be colonized -- the Europeans maintained trading posts on the coast for centuries.

The problem is, Africa was a terrible place to go compared to the Americas. Before the Industrial Era, few Europeans saw any reason to head into the interior; there were nasty natives, diseases, harsh climate conditions, and (in some areas) tense jungle or terrain that required rivers to traverse. The Europeans could easily obtain the few goods they needed (pre Industrial Era) such as ivory and slaves through trading posts on the coast. When the Industrial Era came, the Europeans realized Africa had untapped resources that could fuel the mother nation's industry; plus, military and medical advances made taming the continent easier.

Plus nationalism needed to vent someplace, and Africa was a good target for that.

say1988 said:

I would also note that the map isn't exactly representative of the situation. While significant swathes of territory were claimed, many coloured areas were not colonised and were actually quite similar to Africa on that map, with a few trading posts on the coast and nothing inland.

On that 1800 map, Louisiana was essentially uninhabited outside of the far south (with New Orleans). Spain's northern territories are largely the same (namely the later Mexican cession and Texas). More the same for Alaska. For the British, the Hudson's Bay Company has some posts on the coast, then not much outside of Nova Scotia, New Brunswick and the St Lawrence Valley with Southern Ontario only starting to get settled in the previous 20 years.
So, while a lot of territory was claimed, much was similarly colonized as Africa.

Click to expand...

This. To add, much of what remained to be "colonized" in the far interior really didn't initially go through that many dramatic changes when it was finally formally integrated, except for the fact the claims were officially recognized by the other powers. Many of the same leaders of the African tribes even stayed the same, they just sort of agreed to European rule formally, often times through very loose treaties that could be interpreted pretty broadly. Before official "colonization" many of the areas in the interior did have missionaries, explorers and traders dealing with the native populations already and this became the basis for why many of the claims were recognized. Essentially, if a European nation already had traders and explorers running around an area, even if it was comparatively small amount (and it usually was), it was more likely their claim would be recognized if no other power was doing the same there.

Of course, as time went on, European influence did become more real, but in the very rural areas, unless something was an important outpost of some sort, it wasn't even exactly direct all the time. The reason that you can go to a fairly rural village in say the Central African Republic, and still have a decent chance of meeting somebody that has rudimentary knowledge of French isn't necessarily because of direct French control of that area, but rather the disproportionate amount of influence of the French controlled cities on outlaying areas. This is why European influence might seem quite high today, at least in the terms of official languages or something. It isn't that everybody speaks French or English, but finding somebody that does isn't that difficult and it's often times it is the most unifying trait between several areas of African countries.

Karalysia said:

Disease. Natives. Trade ports. Unessential.

Click to expand...

Europe itself didn't have the means to enforce large territorial empires in Africa before the late 19th century. Railroads, telegraphs, modern medicine and machine guns changed a lot of things.

bombshoo said:

A better question would probably be why did they bother to colonize the interior of Africa at all, of which there were a plethora reasons, though many of them were quite stupid (the idea that they needed to civilize the population, overestimating resources, etc).

Click to expand...

Markets, cheap manpower, cheap natural resources, but mostly prestige and to keep the territories out of the hands of their rivals.

say1988 said:

I would also note that the map isn't exactly representative of the situation. While significant swathes of territory were claimed, many coloured areas were not colonised and were actually quite similar to Africa on that map, with a few trading posts on the coast and nothing inland.

On that 1800 map, Louisiana was essentially uninhabited outside of the far south (with New Orleans). Spain's northern territories are largely the same (namely the later Mexican cession and Texas). More the same for Alaska. For the British, the Hudson's Bay Company has some posts on the coast, then not much outside of Nova Scotia, New Brunswick and the St Lawrence Valley with Southern Ontario only starting to get settled in the previous 20 years.
So, while a lot of territory was claimed, much was similarly colonized as Africa.

Click to expand...

Definitely. I laugh sadly when maps seem to show the entire island of Java under the control of the Portuguese and then the Dutch before the mid-18th century, or where it is claimed that India was colonised by the Portuguese in the 16th century.

Also, what bombshoo said.

taillesskangaru said:

Markets, cheap manpower, cheap natural resources

Click to expand...

Though I will say they way overestimated the value of said things. These seem more like an argument to justify colonization for prestige reasons, rather than a reason in their own right in most cases. One of the notable exceptions would be rubber from the Congo Free State (which wasn't even exactly a colony). They basically used slave labor to make it work, and the market fell out on that fairly quickly.

bombshoo said:

Though I will say they way overestimated the value of said things. These seem more like an argument to justify colonization for prestige reasons, rather than a reason in their own right in most cases. One of the notable exceptions would be rubber from the Congo Free State (which wasn't even exactly a colony). They basically used slave labor to make it work, and the market fell out on that fairly quickly.

Click to expand...

Yes, but they didn't know that would happen. And many African possessions did eventually became valuable (Rhodesia for minerals, French Africa for manpower, and so on). It was still part of the argument that led to colonisation, and in the mid-20th century it became a central part of the argument for those in favor of keeping the colonies, and even more so after World War II when there were grand plans to use African resources for rebuilding in Europe and bind the colonies more closely economically and politically with the metropolis.

taillesskangaru said:

Yes, but they didn't know that would happen. And many African possessions did eventually became valuable (Rhodesia for minerals, French Africa for manpower, and so on). It was still part of the argument that led to colonisation, and in the mid-20th century it became a central part of the argument for those in favor of keeping the colonies, and even more so after World War II when there were grand plans to use African resources for rebuilding in Europe and bind the colonies more closely economically and politically with the metropolis.

Click to expand...

Very true, it is often easy to forget that hindsight is 20/20.

Of course using African resources to rebuild Europe after WWII is an overly optimistic way of looking at colonies, but it is easy to see why that argument woukld make sense from their point of view.

Disease, insects, poor soil and various native animals all contributed. Local peoples were less of a concern. The most obvious reason beyond the environmental is that the region was deemed poor by early expeditions and best left to rot in uncivilized mess. It can especially be seen that the Portuguese, some of the earliest to make established trade with the natives in west Africa, were dumping off worthless crops and animals in exchange for relatively small numbers of slaves or other local goods. Most of the African colonization came about not for economic reasons, but for political maneuvering. Hell Bismarck himself said Germany shouldn't waste their time with Africa, and that was only a handful of years before the Berlin Conference.

To expound upon what I said earlier, the coastal bits of Africa worth taking were taken, some by the Portuguese before any serious American colonization.

Yui108 said:

To expound upon what I said earlier, the coastal bits of Africa worth taking were taken, some by the Portuguese before any serious American colonization.

Click to expand...

The Portuguese were really the only European power with a territorial empire, inland or coastal, with the exception of the Dutch and later the British in Cape Colony, in sub-Saharan Africa before the 19th century. The map in the OP is misleading as Europeans were for the most part confined to coastal forts.

taillesskangaru said:

The Portuguese were really the only European power with a territorial empire, inland or coastal, with the exception of the Dutch and later the British in Cape Colony, in sub-Saharan Africa before the 19th century. The map in the OP is misleading as Europeans were for the most part confined to coastal forts.

Click to expand...

Well aside from the Spanish adventures in Morocco. But how does this contradict what I said?

I read in the recent book 'Atlantic' that one factor was that until around the 15th century, Europeans did not know how to sail around Africa. The coast and the currents defeated the attempts of a people who sailed by keeping the coasts in sight. Ships couldn't get past the Western bulge of Africa until they had learned to navigate out into the open ocean around the dangerous area.