U.S. CitiesCity-Data Forum Index
Covid-19 Information Page
Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > History
 [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)
 
 
Old 07-14-2011, 02:16 PM
 
11,178 posts, read 11,056,004 times
Reputation: 7382

Advertisements

Think about it Europeans first saw Northern africa. Northern africa is a desert, back then they assumed there was no resources in the desert so they never settled it. simple
Rate this post positively Quick reply to this message

 
Old 07-17-2011, 10:21 AM
 
Location: Maryland
18,591 posts, read 17,476,860 times
Reputation: 6375
Quote:
Originally Posted by samusaran253 View Post
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
The Ottoman Empire may have been a factor in North Africa but in subsaharan Africa the environment was the biggest deterrent to large scale white settlement. One hundred degrees in the shade would not have appealed to the fair skinned Europeans. Not to mention the disease factor that helped the Euros vanquish the Indians in North America worked in reverse in Africa. There the Africans had developed immunity and structured their societies to minimize exposure to deadly diseases. The Euros would walk a couple miles into the interior and drop dead from yellow fever or malaria.
Rate this post positively Quick reply to this message
 
Old 07-19-2011, 01:49 PM
 
5,510 posts, read 5,060,458 times
Reputation: 1693
You're really batting a thousand.

Quote:
Originally Posted by EdwardA View Post
The Ottoman Empire may have been a factor in North Africa but in subsaharan Africa the environment was the biggest deterrent to large scale white settlement.
Not surprisingly, you're just talking out of your @zz and ridiculously believe what exists only in your imagination takes precedent over the empirical based work of historians and archaeologists.

What deterred large scale Euro immigration was the same thing that deterred the warrior Amazigh and Arab tribes; the kingdoms of Ghana, Mali and Songhai; the Portugese, and the Moroccan Arma; warrior tribes who were well adept in using an environment well suited to guerilla warfare, in order to protect their most coveted treasure trove of gold.

Quote:
Originally Posted by EdwardA View Post
One hundred degrees in the shade would not have appealed to the fair skinned Europeans.
Funny, how do you then explain the many Portugese mulatos that existed from the Atlantic all the way to the Indian Ocean areas, not to mention the problems the Portugese had with their sons who decided to go native and turn their guns on the mother country.

Quote:
Originally Posted by EdwardA View Post
The Euros would walk a couple miles into the interior and drop dead from yellow fever or malaria.
The only thing that has dropped dead, is your own already dubious credibility.
Rate this post positively Quick reply to this message
 
Old 07-19-2011, 10:50 PM
 
Location: .....
956 posts, read 1,026,351 times
Reputation: 602
Quote:
Originally Posted by EdwardA View Post
The Ottoman Empire may have been a factor in North Africa but in subsaharan Africa the environment was the biggest deterrent to large scale white settlement. One hundred degrees in the shade would not have appealed to the fair skinned Europeans. Not to mention the disease factor that helped the Euros vanquish the Indians in North America worked in reverse in Africa. There the Africans had developed immunity and structured their societies to minimize exposure to deadly diseases. The Euros would walk a couple miles into the interior and drop dead from yellow fever or malaria.
Advances in healthcare (immunizations) allowed outsiders to travel deeper and deeper into the African interior very early into the Scramble for Africa. How else do you think missionaries were able to get into the interior regions of the Congo, Rwanda, Uganda, Nigeria, etc? More so, Mozambique, Angola, Namibia, Kenya, Zambia, Zimbabwe, and South Africa were all originally intended to become white-dominion ruled settler colonies. In fact, they all experienced a large positive net migration of white settlers from Western Europe in the height of their colonial regimes... what say you? I think you should stick to the P&C forum...

Portuguese East Africa
Portuguese West Africa
South-West Africa
White Kenyans
Rate this post positively Quick reply to this message
 
Old 07-20-2011, 02:26 PM
 
5,510 posts, read 5,060,458 times
Reputation: 1693
Quote:
Originally Posted by kovert View Post
The Ibadi Amazigh of the island of Jerba, situated near modern southern Tunisia and Tripolitania, were able to fend off the Spaniards twice. Once during 1510 and again in 1590.

What's interesting is that Nasr credits the Ibadi Amazigh and although there was contact with the Ottomans, Nasr portrays the victory largely as a result of local initiative. The Ibadi Amazigh of Jerba also were able to maintain their independence from the Ottomans longer than the Barbary coastal mainland.

This is quite impressive given how during this same period, with the exception of the later Saadians, the Iberians and Ottomans blasted away resistance quite easily due to their muskets and cannons in North Africa.

The question is how were the Ibadi Amazigh able to get their hands on arms and fight off the Spaniards and Ottomans, while the other North African areas were blown to smithereens.
I was browsing through UNESCO V.5 and it appears the rulers of Borno, beside Lake Chad, were able to obtain rifles in the early 15th century. It didn't say where they got them from though. More mysteries indeed.
Rate this post positively Quick reply to this message
 
Old 08-04-2011, 12:33 AM
 
3,806 posts, read 5,517,176 times
Reputation: 3308
Perhaps the Europeans weren't that interested in conquering Africa. Think about it.

In the Americas the Spanish blundered into major holdings because Cortez disobeyed orders to establish a trading post and decided to go replace the local rulers instead. Meanwhile the French started a few trading posts and had some explorers running around in the woods, but they never really settled their colonial holdings on the mainland. The English kept cutting deals saying they would limit expansion. As late as George II or George III the English government said with every intention of enforcing that they would not allow settlers past the Appalachians.

In India the major powers all had trading cities for a long time. The British East India Company ended up building mercenary armies and ruling parts of the country (and eventually the whole thing) because the Mughals proved too weak to protect BEIC caravans. In Japan and China the western powers only sought trading posts and cities on the coast even though they were at times clearly capable of taking huge chunks if not the entirety of these countries as their own.

This is not to downplay some of the Africa kingdoms, but simply hanging out in trading posts on the coasts largely seems to follow the other attempts Europe initially tried when coming into new lands.

In addition to this take a look at the Megatransec of the 1990s. Even with modern equipment and medicine crossing virgin forest in Africa is ridiculously difficult, and that was in an environment where the risk of hostile human attack was very low.
Rate this post positively Quick reply to this message
 
Old 08-29-2011, 12:15 PM
 
5,510 posts, read 5,060,458 times
Reputation: 1693
Quote:
Originally Posted by kovert View Post
Interesting point I came across reading through Nasr's Maghrib text once again.

The Ibadi Amazigh of the island of Jerba, situated near modern southern Tunisia and Tripolitania, were able to fend off the Spaniards twice. Once during 1510 and again in 1590.

What's interesting is that Nasr credits the Ibadi Amazigh and although there was contact with the Ottomans, Nasr portrays the victory largely as a result of local initiative. The Ibadi Amazigh of Jerba also were able to maintain their independence from the Ottomans longer than the Barbary coastal mainland.

This is quite impressive given how during this same period, with the exception of the later Saadians, the Iberians and Ottomans blasted away resistance quite easily due to their muskets and cannons in North Africa.

Furthermore John Ogilby, who wrote his text on Africa in 1672, mentions that the Amazigh of the modern Jabal Nefusa, also Ibadi, not only had their own muskets, but that they were strong enough to overwhelm rival Amazigh and Arab tribes, not to mention the Ottomans in many a battle.

Tully likewise mentions that the Amazigh (though she just refers to the natives as Moors and Arabs) of the mountains were just as powerful and influential as the Ottomans were on the coast and the Ottomans relied on their support and goodwill. The names of the most powerful tribes clearly indicate that they were of the Ibadi Amazigh of Jabal Nefusa.

The question is how were the Ibadi Amazigh able to get their hands on arms and fight off the Spaniards and Ottomans, while the other North African areas were blown to smithereens.

My guess would be through Venetian and other Italian traders along with the international Jewish trading networks (the Ibadi were relatively tolerant of Jews and there were sizable communites of Amazigh Jews in Nafusa and Jerba, probably the only non-Ibadis in those areas).

This just demonstrates there are still many unknown stories yet to be told and works along the lines of what Cook did for the Saadians of Morocco on upgrading their martial capabilities MUST ALSO be done for the Zawawa of the Kabylie mountains; the Ibadi Amazigh of Matmata, Jabal Nefusa and Gerba; the tribes of Cyrenica like the Siwa/Zuwiya; the Hawwara of Upper Egypt and the northern Sudan; and of course the veiled Amazigh of the Sahara.
Quote:
Originally Posted by kovert View Post
I was browsing through UNESCO V.5 and it appears the rulers of Borno, beside Lake Chad, were able to obtain rifles in the early 15th century. It didn't say where they got them from though. More mysteries indeed.
Following up on the Ibadi Amazigh of Jerba island, it appears they did have access to firearms much earlier than other North African, as this account (courtesy of N. Matar) reveals. It also appears, they had a relationship with the Nefousa Amazigh tribes of the Tripolitiana mountains.

The question remains as how come they were able to access firearms so early and how widespread they were in the more eastern Maghrib.

Last edited by kovert; 08-29-2011 at 01:10 PM..
Rate this post positively Quick reply to this message
 
Old 08-31-2011, 08:16 AM
 
Location: Brooklyn
40,051 posts, read 31,821,556 times
Reputation: 10541
Quote:
Originally Posted by samusaran253 View Post
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?
The Portuguese began colonizing Africa in the 16th century. And the Dutch followed soon after.

But the vast majority of Africa remained virtually unknown to most of the rest of Europe, so it's not really surprising that colonization didn't begin in earnest until late in the 19th century.

If everyone is into speculation, here's something interesting we could all speculate upon: suppose several of the kingdoms that thrived in Africa--Mali, which was quite powerful, comes to mind--had built navies...and began colonizing Europe in the 15th and 16th centuries.
Rate this post positively Quick reply to this message
 
Old 09-07-2011, 02:11 PM
 
5,510 posts, read 5,060,458 times
Reputation: 1693
Quote:
Originally Posted by kovert View Post
I was browsing through UNESCO V.5 and it appears the rulers of Borno, beside Lake Chad, were able to obtain rifles in the early 15th century. It didn't say where they got them from though. More mysteries indeed.
Quote:
Originally Posted by kovert View Post
Following up on the Ibadi Amazigh of Jerba island, it appears they did have access to firearms much earlier than other North African, as this account (courtesy of N. Matar) reveals. It also appears, they had a relationship with the Nefousa Amazigh tribes of the Tripolitiana mountains.

The question remains as how come they were able to access firearms so early and how widespread they were in the more eastern Maghrib.
Latest update: I have reread Cook's gunpowder text and it does mention that the Hafsid dynasty of Tunisia (descendants of the Masmudi Amazigh governors from the Almohad empire) did have European mercenaries as well as an infrastructure to locally support the production of firearms, at least as late as the 1470's.
Rate this post positively Quick reply to this message
 
Old 09-13-2011, 03:32 PM
 
Location: Maryland
18,591 posts, read 17,476,860 times
Reputation: 6375
Quote:
Originally Posted by africanboy View Post
Advances in healthcare (immunizations) allowed outsiders to travel deeper and deeper into the African interior very early into the Scramble for Africa. How else do you think missionaries were able to get into the interior regions of the Congo, Rwanda, Uganda, Nigeria, etc? More so, Mozambique, Angola, Namibia, Kenya, Zambia, Zimbabwe, and South Africa were all originally intended to become white-dominion ruled settler colonies. In fact, they all experienced a large positive net migration of white settlers from Western Europe in the height of their colonial regimes... what say you? I think you should stick to the P&C forum...

Portuguese East Africa
Portuguese West Africa
South-West Africa
White Kenyans
Let's see in Kenya white settlement was confined mostly to the temperate highlands. The rest of the places you linked settlement was primarily along the coasts. The fact of the matter is that disease and climate did a lot to deter European encroachment into Africa.

Part of being a missionary is going to places which are off the beaten path so the prescence of a missionary base in the interior means little. That's where they had to go to spread the word of God or whatever. Many Europeans came down with malaria and yellow fever before the advent of immunization making large scale white settlement such as what existed in South Africa or Rhodesia untenable.
Rate this post positively 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.


 
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 > General Forums > History
Similar Threads

All times are GMT -6.

© 2005-2021, Advameg, Inc. · Please obey Forum Rules · Terms of Use and Privacy Policy · Bug Bounty

City-Data.com - Contact Us - 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, 36, 37 - Top