Why did it take so long to colonize Africa?

[GoodGame]

More lucrative than slaves for mining and growing sugar cane in the New World? Surely not...

Besides, the actual trapping end of that fur trade was upheld by the North American natives themselves, trading it for all kinds of European manufacture. Which was why by 1640 we got the phenomenon of the "Beaver Wars".

The west African states got into large scale slaving because the Europeans hove into view with this tremendous new demand for labout to exploit stuff what they had found in the New World, and so were sucked into a European dominated globale trade network. Something similar happaned to the native Americans along the N Am east coast, as European demand for fur allowed them to enter into the same trade network, at another end. Again a huge surge in demand made in Europe radically changing the baseline for traditional trapping. Afaik in neither case was large scale settlement necessarily involved, at least not in the 17th c.

But I don't think we're saying "North America or Africa?" in this thread, we're saying "Why not more than just coastal trade in Africa before North America?". Slaves come from Africa regardless of whether or not Europe actually colonizes Africa, which isn't in debate. And regardless of how the fur trade perpetuated (indian-trained euro trappers, or through trade with natives), we had to have a presence to get in on in.

So I'd say there is still grounds to say that Fur was highly lucrative and polarized European interest in North America over Africa, simply because what the Europeans wanted from Africa (labor) at the time could be gotten from coastal trade without establishing themselves on the African interior themselves.

 

[say1988]

So I'd say there is still grounds to say that Fur was highly lucrative and polarized European interest in North America over Africa, simply because what the Europeans wanted from Africa (labor) at the time could be gotten from coastal trade without establishing themselves on the African interior themselves.

That can't be right since the fur trade was primarily based on coastal posts or the outer edge of colonized territory early on and later just a few minor posts. Even Quebec was actively colonised not to support the fur trade but to counter the English colonies (the fur trade was actually not very profitable at the time and the colonies only survived through military spending).

The major differences are the extent of white colonies (primarily in the US and Latin America) and the fact that the Europeans claimed large and unoccupied territories.

More likely is that the viable lad was largely unpopulated once disease went through allowing for colonists to better sieze and hold land. While a decent European army could beat African natives in most cases, a local militia would have much mroe trouble in Africa. Further, the diseases made a settler colony less viable in Africa.
Lastly the existance of far more European style polities in Africa was likely a reason that nobody ever claimed the vast interior like they did in North America.

 

[Verbose]

But I don't think we're saying "North America or Africa?" in this thread, we're saying "Why not more than just coastal trade in Africa before North America?". Slaves come from Africa regardless of whether or not Europe actually colonizes Africa, which isn't in debate. And regardless of how the fur trade perpetuated (indian-trained euro trappers, or through trade with natives), we had to have a presence to get in on in.

So I'd say there is still grounds to say that Fur was highly lucrative and polarized European interest in North America over Africa, simply because what the Europeans wanted from Africa (labor) at the time could be gotten from coastal trade without establishing themselves on the African interior themselves.

As say1988 said, the fur trade had nothing to do with European settler colonialism. The French, Dutch and Swedes trades the crap out of Nort America in furs as fast as they could, but never really went for settler colonisation. England did. Having the spare population to send was crucial of course, but the furs were a non-issue for the English settlers. What made English colonies different from the French, Dutch of Swedes was that they didn't just want furs, they wanted land, more and more it, eventually lots, and not for trapping but for planting crops, logging etc. The North American fur trade could have played out with nary a white face peeking more than a mile inland, because that was how it was played. The English multiplied and ventured inland in no way because of that trade.

 

[Apeman]

well, answer is simply:
what better to colonize, this:

Spoiler :

or this:

Spoiler :

So, firstly they fight for colonies in America/Asia and then, when great powers realized that they can't get new position in colonies like at firsy pic, they started to share colonies like at 1 pic.

 

[say1988]

That is just terrible. while there are parts of the Americas and Africa like the pictures, there are the opposites as well. Much of Africa has far better climates than Newfoundland and Quebec and outside the North most of Africa is not desert.

 

[BuckyRea]

That is just terrible. while there are parts of the Americas and Africa like the pictures, there are the opposites as well. Much of Africa has far better climates than Newfoundland and Quebec and outside the North most of Africa is not desert.

True dat. But there's other considerations. Africans in most the pleasant areas for colonization tended to have enough domesticated animals that they had as many immunities as the filthy germ infested scabby mouthed Europeans when they showed up and said "hhhhhowdy, let's hug and trade." Do that to iAmerican Indians enough and you open up all sorts of arable land for colonization. Germwise, Africans could give as good as they got.

Another thing making Africa and America non-ceteris parabus was that those harsh American places like Newfoundland and Quebec had critical timber resources and were close to excellent fishing spots--all the better to fatten up the little European babies with. They're also, traveltimewise, closer to the hungry parts of Europe than Africa is.

 

[say1988]

Yeah, I was simply arguing against his one point. However I would note that Quebec was money pit for the French government. As a settlement colony New France was maintained almost entirely because the English had colonies and France wanted to have some of their own both for prestige and to hopefully threaten the English/tie up resources in times of war. There was no other reason for there to be much more than a few fur trading posts once the difficulties and costs became apparent. But even many of the early settler colonies were in relatively difficult climates.

 

[Apeman]

That is just terrible. while there are parts of the Americas and Africa like the pictures, there are the opposites as well. Much of Africa has far better climates than Newfoundland and Quebec and outside the North most of Africa is not desert.

Yes, there are opposittes too, but this pictures represent common climate this parts of world.
Quebec? If you think that -25 C it is SOO cold, so I suppose that you live somewhere in tropics

 

[say1988]

The tropics of Southern Ontario where that temperature is normal?

The fact is that such temperatures were hard for initial colonization. It takes time to build homes and stockpile food and fuel and if you don't save enough you are in serious trouble.

Yes, there are opposittes too, but this pictures represent common climate this parts of world.

No they don't. Most of Africa is not a desert. That is the equivalent of saying a tundra is representative of North America (both represent a large proportion of the northern region of the continents).

 

[Princeps]

They occasionally managed to buy weapons (even cannons) from europeans, and could repair some components, but not produce the whole thing (especially the barrel)

You folks seem be under the impression that early firearms spread because they were more effective than traditional infantry weapons. This is not exactly true. Early firearms spread because they were "every man's" weapons. A matchlock warrior isn't more effective on the battlefield than a trained bowman, but its infinitely more cost effective to train them.

A matchlock is extremely simple to produce, maintain, fix and operate: you just need to know how to shape metal, and the metal doesn't need to be high quality. You can shoot rocks if you need too.

Cannons are actually even simpler. A cannon doesn't need to be top notch bronze cast tube that is so expensive that people would dive into deep water shipwrecks to retrieve them. A cannon can be made out of wood; sure it might last only for only a single battle, and sure it might not tolerate the same pressures, but nevertheless it works for defenders who have a steady supply of wood. They were used by South American natives as well. Even if you could not get your hands on a matchlock, you could get cannons as long as you knew the composition of gunpowder.

So yes, in my opinion the idea that hostile natives (combined with difficult terrains) might have slowed down foreign colonists, even their armies.

 

[Karalysia]

They were used by South American natives as well.

Are there accounts of use of wooden cannons by them? Is it possible that it wasn't rockets? Because the Indians and Chinese use bamboo tubes to fire rockets.

 

[Apeman]

The tropics of Southern Ontario where that temperature is normal?
No they don't. Most of Africa is not a desert. That is the equivalent of saying a tundra is representative of North America (both represent a large proportion of the northern region of the continents).

Umm, maybe I expressed incorectly. Yes, they don't (of course Africa is not ALL desert), I mean that climate in Africa is more unusual and worse for european people.

 

[North King]

I'll reiterate disease (both in terms of African diseases keeping out Europeans and European diseases wiping out Native Americans and making the land easier to claim), and also the so far somewhat understated fact that Europeans weren't really controlling nearly as much as they claimed to control.

In 1800, Southern Mexico and Peru were firmly under European control, as were the coasts of Brazil, La Plata, and the North American colonies. In a lot of the interior? Less so. In, say, the Louisiana territory, only tiny pieces of land (around New Orleans and a few interior trading posts) were occupied at all. The Hudson Bay Coast? Same. Utah? Even less; hell, the Spanish were already losing their grip on the northernmost frontier at this point. But other European powers explicitly recognized Spanish claims on the interior, and so the maps usually get drawn that way.

It is true that European settlement proceeded much more quickly on the Eastern Seaboard of North America, and La Plata, than in most of Africa. "Climate" as a reason for this is sort of on the right track, but mostly wrong. Call it "ecology" instead. European plants and animals were able to colonize these areas much more effectively than jungle climates -- not just because of climate, but because there were usually far fewer competitors in temperate climate zones. Temperate ecologies usually transplant a lot better than tropical ones.

If you're a European and looking to colonize, are you going to go into the land of yams and learn how to harvest them from some African tribe on the Niger, or are you going to go to Georgia, where the peach trees are literally so thick that they are becoming problematic? Endless supplies of fruit or some wacky kind of not-potato?

On top of that, animals and pretty plants you bring along are likely to thrive wherever you stick them. Look at Europeans introducing Old World songbirds into the Americas, just because they sound familiar. Basically, the North American continent or Argentina are going to end up looking and sounding and smelling and tasting a lot more familiar to
European settlers than your average Congolese trading post.

The choice was usually pretty clear-cut.