Why did the British not attempt to replace the natives in Africa like they did with their American and oceanic territories?

Why did the British not attempt to replace the natives in Africa like they did with their American and oceanic territories?

Beware Cat Shirt $21.68

Rise, Grind, Banana Find Shirt $21.68

Beware Cat Shirt $21.68

  1. 2 years ago
    Anonymous

    Because they already had Aussies and Kiwis post-NA and the Canucks. The frick would you want? An uber bogan super olive-skinned hyper-crazy SA Britbongs in the bush now too?

  2. 2 years ago
    Anonymous

    I'm not sure they ever tried to replace anyone? The British just brought a lot of diseases with them, and the natives strongly resisted being subjects of the crown and would constantly retreat to new territories. I might be completely moronic on this, but I don't think the British intended to genocide anyone. They just conquered their land and the natives would flee somewhere else. If the natives had agreed to stay they'd probably accept it, even though they'd doubtlessly be second class and seen as reformed savages at best.

    • 2 years ago
      Anonymous

      >Why did the British not attempt to replace the natives in Africa like they did with their American and oceanic territories?
      Because the Yankees stopped us, and we would have gotten away with it too, if it wasn't them for them and their damned dog, Germania.

      If we had been given another century, we would have irrevocably changed the demographics of Sub-Saharan Africa. We would cleansed the continent the same way we got rid of the Australian Australopithecus, and the Siberians in North America. We would have herded them away into little reservations, like we were in the process of doing to the Zulu, and the Xhosa and the khoisan and all the others. Even well into the 20th century, tiny little England and our dominions amounting to some 60-70 million people was equal to a whole third of Africa's entire continental population at the height of decolonisation. We could have easily displaced the native population (1950's UN census data tallies the population of Continental Africa at a measily 230 million approximately) if left to our own devices.

      Don't believe me? Look into what we were doing in Kenya, and Tanganyika. We were taking the best lands in the highlands for ourselves to carry on our mission to make the the world England. We came *this* close to securing the world for all time, for better or worse.

      >but I don't think the British intended to genocide anyone.
      It wouldn't have been a genocide, but it definitely was ethnic cleansing.

      • 2 years ago
        Anonymous

        There were better options. Compare the options for a Briton wishing to leave Great Britain in 1600, 1700, 1800, and 1900. The choices only become more numerous as the centuries wear on. The United States was a burdgeoning power in 1900. Why would anyone move to South Africa, Rhodesia, or the East African highlands when they could move to North America or the antipodes? Those African colonies very well may have been settled by Whites in larger numbers had fertility rates remained near their peak for an extra half century. Unfortunately this was not the case.

        Cecil Rhodes did nothing wrong.

      • 2 years ago
        Anonymous

        19th century anglos were unironically the most evil people in history

        Perfidious Albion indeed

        • 2 years ago
          Anonymous

          >win wars
          >you’re evil

        • 2 years ago
          Anonymous

          >19th century anglos were unironically the most evil people in history
          How so?

      • 2 years ago
        Anonymous

        Holy based, imagine how beautiful Africa would be fully white.

        • 2 years ago
          Anonymous

          >Holy based, imagine how beautiful Africa would be fully white.

          Yeah, just imagine...

          • 2 years ago
            Anonymous

            Safer than even the wealthiest black area

        • 2 years ago
          Anonymous

          >Why did the British not attempt to replace the natives in Africa like they did with their American and oceanic territories?
          Because the Yankees stopped us, and we would have gotten away with it too, if it wasn't them for them and their damned dog, Germania.

          If we had been given another century, we would have irrevocably changed the demographics of Sub-Saharan Africa. We would cleansed the continent the same way we got rid of the Australian Australopithecus, and the Siberians in North America. We would have herded them away into little reservations, like we were in the process of doing to the Zulu, and the Xhosa and the khoisan and all the others. Even well into the 20th century, tiny little England and our dominions amounting to some 60-70 million people was equal to a whole third of Africa's entire continental population at the height of decolonisation. We could have easily displaced the native population (1950's UN census data tallies the population of Continental Africa at a measily 230 million approximately) if left to our own devices.

          Don't believe me? Look into what we were doing in Kenya, and Tanganyika. We were taking the best lands in the highlands for ourselves to carry on our mission to make the the world England. We came *this* close to securing the world for all time, for better or worse.

          >but I don't think the British intended to genocide anyone.
          It wouldn't have been a genocide, but it definitely was ethnic cleansing.

          it would be called developed continent

      • 2 years ago
        Anonymous

        Which books can I read to learn about Cecil Rhodes and the colonization of Africa?

      • 2 years ago
        Anonymous

        Marvelous post.

        You are being hysterical if you can't see the difference between a Swede and a Black.

      • 2 years ago
        Anonymous

        >Look into what we were doing in Kenya, and Tanganyika
        What you actually did in these regions was settle uninhabited land in sparsely populated regions while giving the few natives modern medical care and abolishing slavery, causing their populations to grow out of control. You say 230 million is a measily population for a continent, but that's twice what it was on the eve of colonization. Within a generation the landscape went from an open frontier where the population never wanted for land, to a densely populated countryside without any unclaimed land at all. That's why the Mau Mau revolt happened, because all the excess population wanted the land the Anglos had settled.

        Anglos never had any realistic plan to repopulated Africa. It was always about abolishing slavery and curing smallpox and spreading Christianity and the end result was always going to be a billion Africans.

  3. 2 years ago
    Anonymous

    Africa was heavily populated to a degree Canada and Australia wasn't, so genocide didn't make sense and planting a loyal population (which they in fact did in Kenya and Rhodesia/Zimbabwe) could only ever create a culturally distinct ruling class.

  4. 2 years ago
    Anonymous

    Africans farm high yield crops like rice, bananas, yam, millet, peanuts, okra, and sorghum. Their population density was greater than the Americans.

    Africans used iron/steel weapons and rifles on a larger scale.

    Most importantly though, African diseases kill white people like white diseases kill red people.

  5. 2 years ago
    Anonymous

    Native americans had no immunity to eurasian disease. It decimated them and the indian wars were just the final blow. India india was far too populated. South africa is like half white.

  6. 2 years ago
    Anonymous

    whatever you would want more boers for

  7. 2 years ago
    Anonymous

    They never wanted it but if they did, it was difficult enough to penetrate the land, they couldn't even establish commercial routes alongside great rivers in the interior. They had great difficulties in stopping the Arab-Swahili slave trade. It took years before they mapped the area and solved the mystery of the White Nile. And by the way
    Stanley>Speke>Livingstone>Baker>Grant>Burton

  8. 2 years ago
    Anonymous

    >like they did with their American and oceanic territories?
    Source?

  9. 2 years ago
    Anonymous

    because we didnt attempt to replace the natives in fact we armed the natives

  10. 2 years ago
    Anonymous

    There were Anglos in South Africa and the Kenyan mountains.
    Anglos value profits over their own people though, so they also imported Indians and kept the natives around too.

    • 2 years ago
      Anonymous

      >Anglos value profits over their own people though
      is that why they allowed socialist europeans into america that then built troony strip clubs for 8 year olds?

  11. 2 years ago
    Anonymous

    They only had so much of a population surplus.

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *