U.S. CitiesCity-Data Forum Index
Go Back   City-Data Forum > World Forums > Africa
 [Register]
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
View detailed profile (Advanced) or search
site with Google Custom Search

Search Forums  (Advanced)
Reply Start New Thread
 
Old 09-06-2012, 09:48 PM
 
Location: State of Transition
78,792 posts, read 70,607,687 times
Reputation: 76771

Advertisements

Quote:
Originally Posted by green_mariner View Post
I have a theory that Russia had colonized Africa, it would have lasted into the early 1990s, around the same time the USSR broke up. Czar Nikolai had this to say. "In the land where the Russian flag is once
raised, it should never come down".
Well, it came down in Alaska, though peacefully--the US bought the Russians out. The problem had been maintaining supply lines across the Pacific. So if the Russians had trouble with that, they likely would have had a similar problem maintaining colonies in Africa. They were already stretched pretty thin, having to supply communities throughout Siberia.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message

 
Old 09-07-2012, 07:37 PM
Status: "I hate living in Georgia!!" (set 14 days ago)
 
48,220 posts, read 45,519,102 times
Reputation: 15344
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ruth4Truth View Post
Well, it came down in Alaska, though peacefully--the US bought the Russians out. The problem had been maintaining supply lines across the Pacific. So if the Russians had trouble with that, they likely would have had a similar problem maintaining colonies in Africa. They were already stretched pretty thin, having to supply communities throughout Siberia.
Money was a big part of it. The Russian Empire needed the money.

There is one big difference between Alaska and Africa. You can grow alot more things in Africa.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 09-07-2012, 08:33 PM
 
Location: State of Transition
78,792 posts, read 70,607,687 times
Reputation: 76771
Quote:
Originally Posted by green_mariner View Post
There is one big difference between Alaska and Africa. You can grow alot more things in Africa.
Potentially true. But it took colonials a long time to learn how to work with the climate and conditions. Europeans weren't used to working in tropical conditions, they got bogged down (literally) at first, except in more temperate zones, like coastal South Africa, or drier areas, like Kenya. And then there were the tropical diseases, and all. Would it have been worth it to the Russians? At least Alaska had conditions they were familiar with. There are valleys in AK that give bountiful harvests. Not sure if the Russians ever found those environments.

Contemplating yet another European invasion of Africa makes me uncomfortable. History has been bad enough as it is.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 09-07-2012, 08:37 PM
Status: "I hate living in Georgia!!" (set 14 days ago)
 
48,220 posts, read 45,519,102 times
Reputation: 15344
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ruth4Truth View Post
Potentially true. But it took colonials a long time to learn how to work with the climate and conditions. Europeans weren't used to working in tropical conditions, they got bogged down (literally) at first, except in more temperate zones, like coastal South Africa, or drier areas, like Kenya. And then there were the tropical diseases, and all. Would it have been worth it to the Russians? At least Alaska had conditions they were familiar with. There are valleys in AK that give bountiful harvests. Not sure if the Russians ever found those environments.

Contemplating yet another European invasion of Africa makes me uncomfortable. History has been bad enough as it is.
I just had my curiosity. I've always wondered. Russia was always a place that intrigued me as I studied about it. I have recently been studying about the African continent as sort of a means to make a reconciliation with the past. My ancestors were slaves.

I started reading about colonialism. I starting thinking of alot of things.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 09-07-2012, 08:39 PM
Status: "I hate living in Georgia!!" (set 14 days ago)
 
48,220 posts, read 45,519,102 times
Reputation: 15344
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ruth4Truth View Post
Potentially true. But it took colonials a long time to learn how to work with the climate and conditions. Europeans weren't used to working in tropical conditions, they got bogged down (literally) at first, except in more temperate zones, like coastal South Africa, or drier areas, like Kenya. And then there were the tropical diseases, and all. Would it have been worth it to the Russians? At least Alaska had conditions they were familiar with. There are valleys in AK that give bountiful harvests. Not sure if the Russians ever found those environments.

Contemplating yet another European invasion of Africa makes me uncomfortable. History has been bad enough as it is.
Alaska did have a climate Russians were familiar with. However, even the British weren't that familiar with Africa.

Alaska did have the Matanuska-Susitna Valley. Record size vegetables have been known to grow there.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 09-07-2012, 11:42 PM
 
15,045 posts, read 13,641,806 times
Reputation: 6921
Quote:
Originally Posted by jtur88 View Post
Yes, it was adjacent territories. The Russians could walk all the way from Moscow to their settlements in Northern California, and it was Russian-claimed territory all the way. That is what makes them different from Portuguese outposts in Mozambique or the French islands of Tahiti or British India -- all "distant continents" with no pretense that they were simply remote regions of their contiguous empire. For the French and British, each "colony" was simply a seaport, and they made no effort (in most cases) to expand their culture into the hinterlands or create settlements for Europeans to live and prosper in perpetuity.
Are you telling me that if Africa was next door to Great Britain, they would have proceeded with including it into "contigeous empire" and tried to anglosize Africans in the same manner as Russians did it with Native Siberian people?
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 09-08-2012, 06:32 AM
 
4,454 posts, read 5,745,799 times
Reputation: 2186
Quote:
Originally Posted by green_mariner View Post
This only applies to South Africa. Namibia was ruled by South Africa after Germany lost it. Rhodesia was ruled by the UK until about 1980, when it became Zimbabwe.
Rhodesia or Southern Rhodesia was ruled by the UK from the late 19th Century to the early 1960s where White settlement was encouraged and heavily promoted in the UK. Rhodesia became independent from the UK in the early 1960s and even left the commonwealth in protest of the UK government not recognising the White ruled Rhodesian government. Rhodesia reverted to UK rule in 1979 and a year later it became independent, which then became Zimbabwe.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 09-09-2012, 07:58 AM
 
Location: Victoria TX
42,663 posts, read 74,292,936 times
Reputation: 36087
Quote:
Originally Posted by erasure View Post
Are you telling me that if Africa was next door to Great Britain, they would have proceeded with including it into "contigeous empire" and tried to anglosize Africans in the same manner as Russians did it with Native Siberian people?
Yes, as England did with Ireland and Scotland. And as the Normans from France and the Saxons from Germany did before them, into England.

America was not colonized by England. The English Crown established outposts in the Americas and claimed the territories, but the people who formed the European settlement of America were not sent by the English government. They came through private ventures, and created their own settlements, and simply brought their British culture along with them. The Plymouth and Virginia settlements were funded by joint stock companies, owned by private shareholders. They were simply liable for taxes according to the flag that flew over their concessions. England had no use for Australia, except to turn convicts loose in Botany Bay to do as they pleased.

There were, in later years, similar enterprises intended to profit from European settlements in Africa, but few if any flourished. The Boers in South Africa are one such group who settled successfully. They had been brought there by the Dutch East India Company, a multinational ventured that sold stocks publicly. Kenya was settled by the British East Africa Company, a privately funded enterprise aimed at profiting from the opening of Africa by European settlers, which later went bankrupt, but the settlers stayed. The Mozambique Company, which even issued its own banknotes and postage stamps, was funded by financiers from Britain, Germany and South Africa, on concessions from Portugal. Generally, the nations and monarchs of Europe did not "send" settlers out to Africa to open up the continent for the expansion of European nationhood.

Last edited by jtur88; 09-09-2012 at 08:45 AM..
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 09-09-2012, 10:36 AM
 
15,045 posts, read 13,641,806 times
Reputation: 6921
Quote:
Originally Posted by jtur88 View Post
Yes, as England did with Ireland and Scotland. And as the Normans from France and the Saxons from Germany did before them, into England.
I knew that you'd bring this example, but nope, sorry, not so fast.
You are talking "European family" here, that intermingled within its own borders many times, including multiple waves of Scandinavian tribes, settling all over Europe ( and that's who French Normans are, originally,) but we can see different dynamics of relations when it's coming to non-European people, and the US example of Anglo-Saxons sharing the same territory with Africans or native Indians later proves just that. So it doesn't matter, whether the Englishmen were sent by the English government or decided to venture on their own; their culture couldn't assimilate non-European people ( be that Blacks or Native Indians) in the same manner as it could assimilate Europeans of different background, be that Germans or French or Irish or later - Eastern Europeans. ( Seems to be the case even in nowadays by the way.)
Russian culture in its core is more inclusive in this respect to non-European people, because it's more similar to their cultures, but it seems that even Russians know their boundaries as to whom they can assimilate and whom they can't. That's why I was hesitant to say for sure that if they'd had their colonies in Africa, they'd try to russify the local population as they did it with Siberia's natives. On another hand, since they've chosen Abyssinia, and we all know that Erithrea is different from say Central or West Africa, the answer most likely would have been still "yes."
So it's really not about the difference between the "adjacency" of acquired colonies, or their distant location; it's more about the specific mindset and culture of the colonial power.


Quote:
There were, in later years, similar enterprises intended to profit from European settlements in Africa, but few if any flourished. The Boers in South Africa are one such group who settled successfully. They had been brought there by the Dutch East India Company, a multinational ventured that sold stocks publicly. Kenya was settled by the British East Africa Company, a privately funded enterprise aimed at profiting from the opening of Africa by European settlers, which later went bankrupt, but the settlers stayed. The Mozambique Company, which even issued its own banknotes and postage stamps, was funded by financiers from Britain, Germany and South Africa, on concessions from Portugal. Generally, the nations and monarchs of Europe did not "send" settlers out to Africa to open up the continent for the expansion of European nationhood.
I have no idea why you are talking about South Africa.
Isn't it the country of apartheid, the ultimate example of the fact that Western Europeans and Africans do not mix very well to say the least, thus proving my point?

Last edited by erasure; 09-09-2012 at 10:45 AM..
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 09-09-2012, 12:02 PM
 
Location: State of Transition
78,792 posts, read 70,607,687 times
Reputation: 76771
Quote:
Originally Posted by green_mariner View Post
Alaska did have the Matanuska-Susitna Valley. Record size vegetables have been known to grow there.
I've heard they can even get two harvests there, not sure.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.

Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.


Reply
Please update this thread with any new information or opinions. This open thread is still read by thousands of people, so we encourage all additional points of view.

Quick Reply
Message:

Over $104,000 in prizes was already given out to active posters on our forum and additional giveaways are planned!

Go Back   City-Data Forum > World Forums > Africa
Follow City-Data.com founder on our Forum or

All times are GMT -6.

2005-2019, Advameg, Inc. · Please obey Forum Rules · Terms of Use and Privacy Policy · Bug Bounty

City-Data.com - Archive 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35 - Top