History Community ~ All Empires Homepage


This is the Archive on WORLD Historia, the old original forum.

 You cannot post here - you can only read.

 

Here is the link to the new forum:

  FAQ FAQ  Forum Search   Events   Register Register  Login Login

Forum LockedWhy Europeans failed to settle Tropical Africa

 Post Reply Post Reply Page  <1234 5>
Author
Mayra View Drop Down
Janissary
Janissary
Avatar

Joined: 15-Jan-2007
Location: brasil
Status: Offline
Points: 29
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Mayra Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 22-May-2009 at 13:45
Originally posted by pikeshot1600 pikeshot1600 wrote:

Originally posted by pinguin pinguin wrote:

Originally posted by Parnell Parnell wrote:

P.S- I would have thought the climate and 'Tropical Africa' where the same thing. Its certainly what I meant anyway. I fully realise more was holding Europeans back than mere irritating sunburn.
 
Malaria and other tropical diseases did. Perhaps those same diseases stoped other people from comming, as it could had happened with Arabs or Indonesians (from Madagascar)
 
Oh, come on, now....The Brits were able to accumulate the British Empire because of gin and tonic and lime.  Everyone knows that.  Malaria hadn't a chance against the G & T.
 
Is it five o'clock yet?
 
 
LOL LOL you cracked me up. It's true...maybe thats why when I was in Nigeria I had such a thirst for Lime Schweppes...I'm enjoying this thread, good one Pinguin. I certainly can see how european origin settlers would not be able to handle the climate. If you think brasil is extreme conditions, just go to africa. It will kick your butt and hand it back to you faster than you can say uncle. Just drinking the water alone could off you in a month, not even talking of malaria, snakes, black flies, all kinds of fun things.


Edited by Mayra - 22-May-2009 at 13:46
"Great spirits have always encountered violent opposition from mediocre minds."
" I have no particular talent. I am merely inquisitive". Albert Einstein
Back to Top
pinguin View Drop Down
Editorial Staff
Editorial Staff
Avatar

Joined: 29-Sep-2006
Location: Chile
Status: Offline
Points: 7508
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote pinguin Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 22-May-2009 at 13:53
Originally posted by Al Jassas Al Jassas wrote:

Hello Pinguin

South America was conquered in what? 50-60 years. It had as much population as europe when the Spanish came yet Pizzaro with a couple of hundred conquistadors ended the entire Inca empire.

Again. You are very badly informed, perhaps because you haven't studied the sources but only the stereotypes shown on TV, particularly those BBC dramas about the conquest.
 
(1) Fact, some societies falled easy, specially the larger ones. However, half Hispanic America and half Brazil never got into the hands of Spanish or Portuguese.
 
(2) People like the Sioux, the Apache (just to follow pop culture), natives of the Amazon, the Jibaroes, the Mapuches, etc. were never under European rule. Even more, the uprising of natives were common, like the one of Tupac Amaru in the 18th century.
 
(3) Spaniards didn't conquered the Aztec and Inca Spaniards with 100 people! They were lucky there were deep divisions in Mexico and Peru at the time, and they incorporated thousands of natives to theirs forces.
 
Originally posted by Al Jassas Al Jassas wrote:

On the other hand most of North America was either one huge forest, one huge swamp or one huge desert, all were simply unenhabitable and too big to control. The native population never suffered a campaign as large as that suffered by their cousins in the south plus the Dutch and English were more of a cooperation mood with the natives than confrontation. Plus they knew that sooner of later disease will end them and it did.
 
That's absolutelly bull. Sorry to say it. The worst genocide of Amerindians happened in North America.
 
Originally posted by Al Jassas Al Jassas wrote:

In Africa things were totally different. Africans were fighters, they had iron which wasn't with the Native americans, they had experience and some organization.
 
North Africans, of course were organized. They had the same skills the rest of Eurasia. We are talking here about tropical Africa, where not even the horse was used. They had iron, yes, but they didn't even had swords!
 
Originally posted by Al Jassas Al Jassas wrote:

European diseases didn't kill them en masse as they did to Amerindians.
 
Did you see the video up there? Or it is that you just entered the discussion afterwards.
 
Originally posted by Al Jassas Al Jassas wrote:

Only when modern weapons came did Africa became open and even then, europeans didn't dare kill Africans to open the country to europeans and by this time the appeal for settlement in the already well settled Americas was stronger.
 
Europeans didn't invade tropical Africa before because they considered it worthless as a land. Not because they were afraid of Africans at all. After all, they controlled the societies of West Africa and the traffic commerce of slaves right into central African territory.
 
Originally posted by Al Jassas Al Jassas wrote:

 
There were mass settlements however, In Algeria the europeans were about 16% of the population while in South Africa they were about 20%.
 
 
Algiers is not in tropical Africa. Europeans have moved to the Maghreb since prehistorical times. Carthage was in North Africa! The Maghreb was a Roman province!  No tricks. we are talking about why Europeans didn┬ít settle in tropical Africa.
 
With respect to South Africa, Khoisan people suffered the same than Amerindians in the matter of European diseases. Europeans colonized that region of South Africa with relatively easy.
 
Originally posted by Al Jassas Al Jassas wrote:

 
These countries had lots of resources that appealed to europeans much more than Central africa.
 
 
That's true. The better lands are in South Africa, not in tropical Africa, and from there you can control mining.
 
 


Edited by pinguin - 22-May-2009 at 14:22
"He who attempts to count the stars, not even knowing how to count the knots of the 'quipus'(counting string), ought to be held in derision."

Inca Pachacutec (1438-1471)
Back to Top
pinguin View Drop Down
Editorial Staff
Editorial Staff
Avatar

Joined: 29-Sep-2006
Location: Chile
Status: Offline
Points: 7508
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote pinguin Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 22-May-2009 at 13:55
Originally posted by Carcharodon Carcharodon wrote:

..Not the whole of Africa. The Italians could not counquer Ethiopia, in fact they actually got severely beaten in the battle of Adwa in 1896.
 
I don't think Ethiopia is considered "tropical" Africa as in the video above. Besides, Ethiopia has been part of the Eurasians chains of commerce since the beginning of history.
"He who attempts to count the stars, not even knowing how to count the knots of the 'quipus'(counting string), ought to be held in derision."

Inca Pachacutec (1438-1471)
Back to Top
pinguin View Drop Down
Editorial Staff
Editorial Staff
Avatar

Joined: 29-Sep-2006
Location: Chile
Status: Offline
Points: 7508
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote pinguin Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 22-May-2009 at 13:57
Originally posted by Mayra Mayra wrote:

...
LOL LOL you cracked me up. It's true...maybe thats why when I was in Nigeria I had such a thirst for Lime Schweppes...I'm enjoying this thread, good one Pinguin. I certainly can see how european origin settlers would not be able to handle the climate. If you think brasil is extreme conditions, just go to africa. It will kick your butt and hand it back to you faster than you can say uncle. Just drinking the water alone could off you in a month, not even talking of malaria, snakes, black flies, all kinds of fun things.
 
Indeed. I haven't been in the tropics, but people tell me the conditions there are really terrible. And I am talking about the Americas.
 
"He who attempts to count the stars, not even knowing how to count the knots of the 'quipus'(counting string), ought to be held in derision."

Inca Pachacutec (1438-1471)
Back to Top
Mayra View Drop Down
Janissary
Janissary
Avatar

Joined: 15-Jan-2007
Location: brasil
Status: Offline
Points: 29
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Mayra Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 22-May-2009 at 14:15
LOL KAKAKAKAKAKAKAKA!
Yeah. Here in bahia state in brasil we have over 45,000 cases of dengue so far this year and over 70 death I think. It has been raining for over one month almost straight. There are alligators showing up in city center and here where I live poisonous snakes are coming n to the peoples houses there is so much rain. They want to get cozy? I just spent 3 days in fever on the bed with a strange virus that only affected my lower back, nothing else. There are so many ways here to lose your health. I already took medicine for amoebas twice in less than a year, for worms you must basically at least twice a year. Rich and poor all must treat for worms as they are spread even by inhaling. Doesn't matter your hygiene or diet tho it can help you to wash hands and have good sanitation, try to bleach your fruit and vegetabel.  For my friends in nigeria it is worse as they get malaria all the time. I don't even want to know about the worm problem there, here is bad enough. Ones that get under your skin and burrow, others that make like a road map as they travel and itch like crazy.
"Great spirits have always encountered violent opposition from mediocre minds."
" I have no particular talent. I am merely inquisitive". Albert Einstein
Back to Top
Carcharodon View Drop Down
Baron
Baron


Joined: 04-May-2007
Location: Sweden
Status: Offline
Points: 479
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Carcharodon Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 22-May-2009 at 14:28
Originally posted by pinguin
<DIV>I don't think Ethiopia is considered tropical Africa as in the video above. Besides, Ethiopia has been part of the Eurasians chains of commerce since the beginning of history.</DIV>[/QUOTE pinguin
I don't think Ethiopia is considered tropical Africa as in the video above. Besides, Ethiopia has been part of the Eurasians chains of commerce since the beginning of history.
[/QUOTE wrote:


 
Parts of South Africa are not so tropical either. And the Ethiopians are still Africans, that defeated the Italians.
 
Parts of South Africa are not so tropical either. And the Ethiopians are still Africans, that defeated the Italians.
Back to Top
pinguin View Drop Down
Editorial Staff
Editorial Staff
Avatar

Joined: 29-Sep-2006
Location: Chile
Status: Offline
Points: 7508
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote pinguin Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 22-May-2009 at 14:31
Originally posted by Carcharodon Carcharodon wrote:

...Parts of South Africa are not so tropical either. And the Ethiopians are still Africans, that defeated the Italians.
 
Read the thread and see the movies first, please.
We are talking why Europeans didn't settled in Tropical Africa. Caucasians settle in Etiopia, the Maghreb or South Africa with no trouble at all. Moving to tropical Africa is another matter.
"He who attempts to count the stars, not even knowing how to count the knots of the 'quipus'(counting string), ought to be held in derision."

Inca Pachacutec (1438-1471)
Back to Top
Carcharodon View Drop Down
Baron
Baron


Joined: 04-May-2007
Location: Sweden
Status: Offline
Points: 479
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Carcharodon Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 22-May-2009 at 14:36
Originally posted by Mayra Mayra wrote:

LOL KAKAKAKAKAKAKAKA!
Yeah. Here in bahia state in brasil we have over 45,000 cases of dengue so far this year and over 70 death I think. It has been raining for over one month almost straight. There are alligators showing up in city center and here where I live poisonous snakes are coming n to the peoples houses there is so much rain. They want to get cozy? I just spent 3 days in fever on the bed with a strange virus that only affected my lower back, nothing else. There are so many ways here to lose your health. I already took medicine for amoebas twice in less than a year, for worms you must basically at least twice a year. Rich and poor all must treat for worms as they are spread even by inhaling. Doesn't matter your hygiene or diet tho it can help you to wash hands and have good sanitation, try to bleach your fruit and vegetabel.  For my friends in nigeria it is worse as they get malaria all the time. I don't even want to know about the worm problem there, here is bad enough. Ones that get under your skin and burrow, others that make like a road map as they travel and itch like crazy.
 
I have a friend who participated in archaeological excavations up in the rainforest of Middle America. He was infested with some flies that lay their eggs under his skin. Then these eggs became larvae and crawled under his skin. Still when he left he had these things crawling in him. Sometimes they just surfaced as flies and flew away. The last of them he needed help from a doctor to remove.
Back to Top
Cryptic View Drop Down
General
General


Joined: 05-Jul-2006
Location: United States
Status: Offline
Points: 901
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Cryptic Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 22-May-2009 at 15:45
Originally posted by pinguin pinguin wrote:

 
That "shock and awe" idea is more fantasy than reality. No "shock and awe" stop Polynesians to kill Captain Cook. In the Americas is false as well.
Shock and Awe produced by "Guns, Germs and Steel" was very real. As Al Jassas mentioned, Pizarro brought down the entire Incan empire with a few hundred men. Cortez, with a few more men, did the same with the Aztecs. The pueblo Indians of the American Southwest were conquered and gradually assimilated by small Spanish surveying parties. 
 
In North America, the shock and awe produced by later waves of Europeans was not overwhelming.  Even still, the initial waves of small numbers of Europeans (English farmers or French voyageurs) were able to leverage their shocking "Guns, Germs and Steel" to a huge advantage.
 
As you mentioned, the shock and awe did wear off (Captain Cook) but how many Europeans were needed to take New Zealand from the Moaris? Now move to Africa, the natives have steel (to a degree), and they are at least familiar with the concept of guns (from Arab traders) and may even have a few of their own. European germs are not as lethal. The result is a lot less shock and awe in the early days and the potential for a lot more resistance to direct land siezure for mass settlement.
Originally posted by pinguin pinguin wrote:

(1) Fact, some societies falled easy, specially the larger ones. However, half Hispanic America and half Brazil never got into the hands of Spanish or Portuguese.
(
In both cases, that is because the Europeans did not want direct control over all the territory. As a result, they never made a direct effort to conquer it


Edited by Cryptic - 22-May-2009 at 16:00
Back to Top
pinguin View Drop Down
Editorial Staff
Editorial Staff
Avatar

Joined: 29-Sep-2006
Location: Chile
Status: Offline
Points: 7508
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote pinguin Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 22-May-2009 at 16:00
Originally posted by Cryptic Cryptic wrote:

.. Now move to Africa, the natives have steel (to a degree), and they are at least familiar with the concept of guns (from Arab traders) and may even have a few of their own. European germs are not as lethal. The result is a lot less shock and awe in the early days and the potential for a lot more resistance to direct land siezure for mass settlement.  
 
Of course tropical Africans knew Europeans alread. They were busy changing slaves for rum, textiles and guns, at the coasts of West Africa. Small bands of Moors used to attack Tropical Africa at will, without much resistence. Europans established in West African coasts and had no problem to control populations hundred of times more numerous than themselves.
 
After a coward attack on boer colones in Zululand, that killed 300 men, women and childred, a bunch of Boers took revenge and killed thousand of Zulues in a boring afternoon. No problem at all. Iron spears were no match for good gunfire. See the movie.
 
But, the idea that Europeans were scared of tropical Africans military power is simply ridiculous.
 
Originally posted by Cryptic Cryptic wrote:

..
...In both cases, that is because the Europeans did not want direct control over all the territory. As a result, they never made a direct effort to conquer it
 
That's false. Spaniards tried during 250 years to invade Mapuche territory. They were crashed back. That's not the only case of sucessful fight. Natives had learned European tactics and had horses by that time so were even in military terms. It is not strange then that the U.S. military knows some of the best fighters of that country are American Indians, no others.
 


Edited by pinguin - 22-May-2009 at 16:14
"He who attempts to count the stars, not even knowing how to count the knots of the 'quipus'(counting string), ought to be held in derision."

Inca Pachacutec (1438-1471)
Back to Top
Cryptic View Drop Down
General
General


Joined: 05-Jul-2006
Location: United States
Status: Offline
Points: 901
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Cryptic Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 22-May-2009 at 16:11
Originally posted by pinguin pinguin wrote:

 
After a coward attack on boer colones in Zululand, that killed 300 men, women and childred, a bunch of Boers took revenge and killed thousand of Zulues in a boring afternoon. No problem at all. Iron spears were no match for good gunfire. See the movie.
We are now talking about advanced rifles firing bullets. The African technology was able to cope with earlier guns of the Europeans (muskets).  Meanwhile, the Native American technology could not. This bought the Africans several centuries.
Originally posted by pinguin pinguin wrote:

Europans established in West African coasts and had no problem to control populations hundred of times more numerous than themselves.
They didnot directly control the populations at all. Instead, they had to work in partnership with dominant African tribes.  
Originally posted by pinguin pinguin wrote:

But, the idea that Europeans were scared of tropical Africans military power is simply ridiculous.
"Scared" is too strong a word. Rather, Native Americans were the easier targets. Africans and their indigenous technology, could put up just enough resistance to make the Europeans look for those easier targets. The easier targets were also more vulnerable to European "Shock and Awe" and this made things that much easier.


Edited by Cryptic - 22-May-2009 at 16:57
Back to Top
Carcharodon View Drop Down
Baron
Baron


Joined: 04-May-2007
Location: Sweden
Status: Offline
Points: 479
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Carcharodon Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 22-May-2009 at 16:48
Originally posted by pinguin pinguin wrote:

 
Read the thread and see the movies first, please.
We are talking why Europeans didn't settled in Tropical Africa. Caucasians settle in Etiopia, the Maghreb or South Africa with no trouble at all. Moving to tropical Africa is another matter.
 
In this qutoe you just talk about Africa and how it was conquered by Europeans:
 
Originally posted by pinguin pinguin wrote:

 
As I said, the case of the Zulues is extraordinary, more than the regular attitude. After 1850, Africa was conquered by small groups of European adventurers, heavily armed, who use and abused the African populations for theirs own benefit, whitout massive resistence.
Belgians, British, Frech, Portuguese, Italians, Germans, all took chunks of Africa for themselves with minimal effort.
 
 
Back to Top
pinguin View Drop Down
Editorial Staff
Editorial Staff
Avatar

Joined: 29-Sep-2006
Location: Chile
Status: Offline
Points: 7508
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote pinguin Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 22-May-2009 at 16:50
Originally posted by Cryptic Cryptic wrote:

...
We are now talking about advanced rifles firing bullets. The African technology was able to cope with the Europeans early to advanced muskets.  The Native American technology could not.   This bought the Africans several centuries
 
Africans didn't cope with Europeans! They didn't resist. Millions were shipped overseas as slaves and nobody could stop it.
 
Originally posted by Cryptic Cryptic wrote:

...
They didnot directly control the populations at all. Instead, they had to work in partnership with dominant African tribes.  
[QUOTE=pinguin]
 
Partership? As master and employee, of course. The European ruled the coasts.
 
[QUOTE=Cryptic]...
I think "scared" is to strong a word. Rather, Native Americans were the easier targets. Africans and their indigenous technology, could put up just enough resistance to make the Europeans look for easier targets that were far more vulnerable to European "Shock and Awe".
 
Natives were easier target? Lol. There were hundreds of times more Europeans that died in combat in the Americas that in Africa. That's absolutely nonses, and false.
 
All coastal Africa, from Senegal to Mozambique was already at European hands for centuries.  Besides iron points, there wasn't indigenous technology enough to stop Europeans at all.
 
The Zulus is an extraordinary case of resistence, but wasn't by no mean, the standard in tropical Africa.
 
The only things that stopped them from settling tropical Africa it was the weather and the germs.
 


Edited by pinguin - 22-May-2009 at 16:52
"He who attempts to count the stars, not even knowing how to count the knots of the 'quipus'(counting string), ought to be held in derision."

Inca Pachacutec (1438-1471)
Back to Top
Cryptic View Drop Down
General
General


Joined: 05-Jul-2006
Location: United States
Status: Offline
Points: 901
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Cryptic Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 22-May-2009 at 17:28
Originally posted by pinguin pinguin wrote:

Originally posted by Cryptic Cryptic wrote:

...
We are now talking about advanced rifles firing bullets. The African technology was able to cope with the Europeans early to advanced muskets.  The Native American technology could not.   This bought the Africans several centuries
 
Africans didn't cope with Europeans! They didn't resist. Millions were shipped overseas as slaves and nobody could stop it.
 
Africans shipped millions of Africans overeseas. Nobody wantd to stop the slave trade becasue it was mutually beneficial to the two equal (relatively) partners invovled in it. Africans were able to cope with Europeans using sailing ships, muskets and swords.  They were not able to cope with Europans using rifles, steamships, artillery.  Native Americans could not do either one.
Originally posted by pinguin pinguin wrote:

 
Natives were easier target? Lol. There were hundreds of times more Europeans that died in combat in the Americas that in Africa. That's absolutely nonses, and false.
 
All coastal Africa, from Senegal to Mozambique was already at European hands for centuries.  Besides iron points, there wasn't indigenous technology enough to stop Europeans at all.
That is because the Euroepans were directly settling America and there was more contact. Africans restricted the Europeans for centuries to coastal trading agreements. Early Europeans could not get enough shock and awe leverage to make direct settlement easy. They then went looking for easier targets. And yes, there was more fighting.  


Edited by Cryptic - 22-May-2009 at 17:37
Back to Top
pinguin View Drop Down
Editorial Staff
Editorial Staff
Avatar

Joined: 29-Sep-2006
Location: Chile
Status: Offline
Points: 7508
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote pinguin Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 22-May-2009 at 17:34
Africans didn't stop Europeans. Just show me a case when Europeans tried to invade an African territory and the natives stopped them. You bass your comments in prejudice and pop culture, only. Just show me evidence that Subsaharan Africans defeated Europeans during the 16th century.
In the case of Amerindians, I am sure you aren't aware of natives riding horses and attacking Europeans with cavalries.
 
Anyways.


Edited by pinguin - 22-May-2009 at 17:39
"He who attempts to count the stars, not even knowing how to count the knots of the 'quipus'(counting string), ought to be held in derision."

Inca Pachacutec (1438-1471)
Back to Top
Cryptic View Drop Down
General
General


Joined: 05-Jul-2006
Location: United States
Status: Offline
Points: 901
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Cryptic Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 22-May-2009 at 17:57
Originally posted by pinguin pinguin wrote:

Africans didn't stop Europeans. Just show me a case when Europeans tried to invade an African territory and the natives stopped them. You bass your comments in prejudice and pop culture, only. Just show me evidence that Subsaharan Africans defeated Europeans during the 16th century.
They stopped the 16th Europeans by restricting them to trade treaties run from a few huge fortifications.  There were no battles because just when the Europeans were going to start direct settlement "operations", easier targets appeared in the Americas.  The direct settlement efforts were then focused on the Americas where the "shock and awe" elements were more effective. It was a natural progression.
 
p.s. You have a very idealized view of the Native Americans and their capabilities.


Edited by Cryptic - 22-May-2009 at 18:11
Back to Top
pinguin View Drop Down
Editorial Staff
Editorial Staff
Avatar

Joined: 29-Sep-2006
Location: Chile
Status: Offline
Points: 7508
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote pinguin Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 22-May-2009 at 18:06

The Americas had better lands than Africa. It was just a matter to pick the ship and moving there. That's why Europeans of the 16th century weren't interested in invading Africa. Europeans that went to Africa just were there temporarily for business. They didn't bring women with them either, because they didn't want to stay forever there.

The Americas, in the other hand, had excelent lands and a wheather similar to Europe.
 
P.D.: you keep saying Europeans had some sort of superiority on Native Americans. That's not true. The simple fact is that the lands of the Americas looked a lot more promised that ecuatorial Africa, and for Europeans a lot more healthy as well.
 
In fact, Europeans never settled in Northern Australia or in the Yukon in great numbers either. Too bad weather.
"He who attempts to count the stars, not even knowing how to count the knots of the 'quipus'(counting string), ought to be held in derision."

Inca Pachacutec (1438-1471)
Back to Top
Cryptic View Drop Down
General
General


Joined: 05-Jul-2006
Location: United States
Status: Offline
Points: 901
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Cryptic Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 22-May-2009 at 20:00
Originally posted by pinguin pinguin wrote:

The Americas had better lands than Africa....
Ok, I can concede that there were several factors in why the Europeans did not transfer population to tropical Africa.
 
These factors are...
-Existance of easier targets (same 15th century weapons, ships and horses produced shock and awe in the Americas, but only commanded respect in tropical Africa)
-Population density: More numerous and less awed Africans could put up more resistance.
-Climate: American climate was better for Europeans. But.. the Europeans did move into Brazil, Venezuela etc.
-Germs: European germs impacted Americans, African germs impacted Europeans


Edited by Cryptic - 22-May-2009 at 20:08
Back to Top
Mayra View Drop Down
Janissary
Janissary
Avatar

Joined: 15-Jan-2007
Location: brasil
Status: Offline
Points: 29
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Mayra Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 22-May-2009 at 20:01
 
[/QUOTE]
 
I have a friend who participated in archaeological excavations up in the rainforest of Middle America. He was infested with some flies that lay their eggs under his skin. Then these eggs became larvae and crawled under his skin. Still when he left he had these things crawling in him. Sometimes they just surfaced as flies and flew away. The last of them he needed help from a doctor to remove.
[/QUOTE]
 Whoaaaaaa  Carcharodon ! That tops any story I can come up with about foot long asciroides etc., having a whole fly just come right on out thank you and take off flying is pretty convenient use of the host species ahahahahahahah. I hope he got them all out...
"Great spirits have always encountered violent opposition from mediocre minds."
" I have no particular talent. I am merely inquisitive". Albert Einstein
Back to Top
Mayra View Drop Down
Janissary
Janissary
Avatar

Joined: 15-Jan-2007
Location: brasil
Status: Offline
Points: 29
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Mayra Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 22-May-2009 at 20:04
here is a link to something that talks of the prophecies of the white man coming and the amerindians being decimated by foreign illnesses. Maybe Pinguin you want to start a thrread on the widespread white man phrophecies so many tribes had, so why couldn't they band together, too little too late.
"Great spirits have always encountered violent opposition from mediocre minds."
" I have no particular talent. I am merely inquisitive". Albert Einstein
Back to Top
 Post Reply Post Reply Page  <1234 5>
  Share Topic   

Forum Jump Forum Permissions View Drop Down

Forum Software by Web Wiz Forums® version 11.10
Copyright ©2001-2017 Web Wiz Ltd.

This page was generated in 0.125 seconds.