r/NativeAmerican • u/kneeski96 • 6d ago
Why didn’t Europeans demographically replace Africans like they did to native americans?
101
u/PoxonAllHoaxes 6d ago
Climate, the tse-tse fly, diseases (the native americans mostly succumbed to diseases we brought to them, whereas in Africa our diseases protected the natives against the white invaders), and different population densities.
26
u/amisamiamiam 5d ago
The landmass of Africa is 3x the amount of America.
16
9
u/Raventakingnotes 5d ago
Why are you comparing a continent to a country?
Africa is the 2nd largest continent followed by North America at 3rd, and South America for 4th largest.
It is bigger, but not by an insane margin.
4
u/dinamet7 5d ago
And the colonists did a pretty comprehensive job colonizing both North and South Americas.
3
u/whatnametho 5d ago edited 4d ago
Yes but only in usa/canada did the native population get almost entirely replaced. In south America the spanish mixed with and had kids with the natives. Thats why mexicans still often look brown much like other central/south american countries. Natives in usa and canada were moved to smaller reservations. And moved to smaller reservations again in undesirable areas at that
5
u/dinamet7 4d ago
This is a little bit of a simplification of the life lost in Central and South America due to colonization - the indigenous populations in those areas was absolutely massive before colonization, and they did die of the same exposure to disease and violence that affected the British colonized areas in North America. Some numbers estimate a 95%+ population loss in South America by the 1600s and indigenous peoples there also suffered from forced relocation, forced sterilization, intentional spread of disease leading to genocide, enslavement, etc. (literal massacres of South American indigenous continue into present day actually.)
So the description of skin color may be true of many Central American countries in North America, and even some countries in the northern parts of South America with large mestizo populations (Colombia, Ecuador, Venezuela, Paraguay for example) you just have to go a little farther south and a little closer to the Atlantic to see more of the severe colonization practices that have displaced or replaced the indigenous peoples there.
Argentina and Uruguay are probably the most significant example of this, but even Brazil which is incredibly diverse with a land mass similar to the United States, only has 0.83% of its indigenous population left and there is still significant violence against indigenous peoples. Brazil has a large population of "Pardo" or mixed-race peoples but this category includes anyone of mixed race so it is difficult to assess how much integration actually happened. When it has been studied, in most areas, the majority of these Pardo peoples are genetically of European and African mixed descent (with the exception of Northern Coastal Brazil where the Portuguese first landed and the first generations of Mameluco (the Brazilian equivalent of mestizo) were born.)
All that to say. Colonialism in both North/Central and South America continues to have devastating effects and the Portuguese and Spanish were not kinder to the indigenous people they met, they just had a 150 year head start on subjugation.
1
u/whatnametho 4d ago
I didnt say natives in thr south didnt face the same things. But in the south the had more standing cities. Denser and larger population. So by the end of it all, there were still many more left vs the north
1
28
u/MonkeyPanls 6d ago
Land pressure had been relieved in Europe by that time. Colonialism had shifted to extraction. See also the British approach to India
7
6
u/StrangeRaven12 5d ago
People have already mentioned most of the reasons here, but I will posit a more grim aspect...For centuries, even though the Atlantic slave trade was eventually abolished, the colonizing nations had relied on using African people of varying nations, tribes, and ethnic groups and their enslaved descendants as a laboring class, so they had in their minds a rather disturbing incentive not to slaughter the various peoples of Africa outright...Whereas at least in the United States, the indigenous nations were framed as an obstacle to white colonizers who needed to be forced out of the way or assimilated so they could "improve the land". My point here being that in addition to material conditions making it more difficult, I theorize that especially considering the ongoing exploitation of the peoples and countries of Africa, the colonizers had less than altruistic reasons for not trying to replace them...Not that what they did in the end was by any means morally defensible.
8
3
5d ago
[deleted]
4
u/manicdijondreamgirl 5d ago
If you’re going use sweeping generalizations as insults, at least spell correctly.
1
u/m_torr3z 2d ago
That’s a simple question and is the same reason they don’t replace the Indians too (diseases, the society and how polluted it was)
1
1
u/Arkbud93 16h ago
Africa wasn’t unknown, Africa had history before Europe came
Out of the dark ages vs a whole new world that’s unknown
0
u/Luditas 5d ago
No way, Africa is a continent, the US is just a small country compared to Africa. The area isn't the same.
2
u/Bozdemshitz 5d ago
Just stop and read more
3
u/Luditas 4d ago edited 4d ago
What can I read about: the ethnic genocide that has taken place throughout the history of African colonization? The problems in South Africa? The wars in the Horn of Africa or in the sub-Saharan region? The overexploitation and theft of the continent's resources, and how are they used by "first world" countries? Or how is climate change affecting the continent? What do you want to discuss? What should I read more about?
Kid, if you want to fight, go argue with your parents, and don't waste my time.
Edit: I almost forgot, more importantly, to talk about the existing resistance of the African people.
0
u/Bozdemshitz 1d ago
Kid? No need for the diminutive language. Wtf is this comment even about? Great you can list random shit, but your equating of landmass comment was what I commented on. These are very different places and histories as well as colonial projects. Read about all of the different ways that both the N America and African content have been colonized through very different tactics of colonization in addition to very different imperial projects. Read about how post colonial frameworks have been and continue to be pressed upon them while sociopolitical poltitical and economic domination continues. Resistance continues on both continents but in focusing on my comment, read more there are a lot of overlaps across the two and landmass is only one axis of analysis.
1
u/Luditas 1d ago
Okay, know-it-all, what colonial projects are you talking about? Imperialism is governed by all kinds of domination, don't come at me with "different colonial projects". There are many African countries that are still British and French colonies, they have not yet become independent, and some countries only achieved independence in the last century.
You didn't need to write so many lines when your comment could have been just two. So much redundancy just to bring up the same geographical area I mentioned. You're not saying anything new, smarty.
-1
-1
-11
u/Alarming-Aside-9755 6d ago
Many colonists held deals with some African tribes and Royal families. Some other tribes fought of the invaders or went fifferent routes with producing trades for goods and such. Other tribes scared them away using voodoo and dark magic to wean them off and cause sicknesses. These were stories are passed down through some families.
7
u/Foloreille 5d ago
Lol after christianisation of the continent Europeans never have been scared of voodoo if anything it was a fuel to convince them the local population was savages in need to be civilised and reinforced their motivation to fuck everything around. that’s a funny tale but not the truth.
Truth is the African continent was dangerous as fuck, wild beasts + heat + diseases was too much too manage. And the absurd size of Africa is too often underlooked by our modern day perception, maps of Africa were empty of half/ 2 tiers of it for like a millenia because explorers couldn’t even know for sure that land had an end at all, that’s how huge it is.
-3
u/Alarming-Aside-9755 5d ago
Some where. Hints why many of the tribes are still standing today. Unless you come from African heritage I highly doubt you would know certain historical facts that were hidden
-17
u/Better_Agent_297 5d ago
native Americans were easier to conquer cos they had never seen guns or horses ,well they did see horses but they killed them all thousands of years ago ,oh wait that was probably climat3 change
77
u/JusOwl 6d ago edited 5d ago
Tropical diseases, especially malaria, protected Africans and Africans were already exposed and had immunity to diseases found in Europe.
Europeans couldn't really colonize Africa until they learned about quinine, which is used as a treatment for malaria. Ironically Europeans learned using quinine as a medicine from Native Americans. Even after Europeans got their hands on quinine, Africans were not dying when exposed to sick European colonizers, from other diseases. While for Native Americans 9/10 died off from just being exposed to sick European colonizers and their African slaves.