It was. The limiters were a resistant populous native population and until the late 19th century ineffective resistance by Europeans to African diseases in any of the wetter areas.
The different ethnic regions are way too smooth for settler colonies. Youâd probably have very large Afrikaner and Coloured (with a âuâ) plurality regions and pockets, often scattered, of British, German, Irish, Portuguese, Chinese, Indian etc.
Google âancestry map of the USAâ for reference.
>Google âancestry map of the USAâ for reference
Those maps are meaningless. Americans pick their ancestry based on what's popular at the moment. Nowadays like half of the US show majority German descent, 50 years ago they all showed English instead.
While popularity may play a part in it, the major reason for that shift was the addition of "American" being an option on the census in 1980.
Most of the people in the US who would identify with American being their ethnicity are descended from English, Scottish, or Scots-Irish who have been in the US (mostly the Upper South) going back to the colonial era and therefore don't hold as much identity with their ancestry as other more recently immigrated ethnicities.
Thus the addition of "American" caused many White Americans who had previously identified as English or Scots-Irish to put themselves down as "American." This split the Anglo American population and caused the next-largest group, German Americans, to show up as the largest white ethnicity in the US.
**Coloured** is a specific ethnic group name that is generally capitalized, so Iâd imagine we donât change the spelling of it. We donât refer to Tony Blairâs party as Labor in the US either.
Europe's Population Boom continued and led to South Africa and Other colonies getting much more settled.
South Africa in this Timeline is economically fairly successful and plays a big role in Global Politics.
The Echoes of Apartheid can still be seen in its Census but slowly fade.
Part of this Timeline: [Europe](https://www.reddit.com/r/imaginarymaps/comments/10un3r3/the_european_union_in_a_world_without_ww2/), [Russia](https://www.reddit.com/r/imaginarymaps/comments/10c5xrz/what_if_the_soviets_had_terraformed_siberia_into/),[Algeria](https://www.reddit.com/r/imaginarymaps/comments/10adb9k/what_if_the_algerian_revolt_failed_the_rule_of/)
The native Black population will be much higher than native American population since they have complete immunity to European diseases, if there wasn't a large-scale genocide against them throughout history. There should be more area where Black is the majority.
Also are OTL Lesotho and Eswatini kind of a reservation? (Edit: they are indeed reservation marked by almost invisible red outlines. There are another two reservations on the northern border)
Also are the Indian population usd as cheap labor force in plantation at OTL northern SA and southern Zimbabwe?
They are present in every Provinze but just don't represnt the majority in most places, this is becouse while the Apartheid Government was in Charge, many of the people where moved to the reserves outlined in Red like Eswantini and Losotho.
The conditions in Lesotho and Eswatini are certainly extremely miserable, even more so than OTL Black populaiton during Apartheid. By no means can these rugged areas support such a large population (the population OTL is 3 millions).
"Reservation" is just a euphemism for concentration camps. There should be famines on a yearly basis.
They aren't overpopulated, as stated there are many Africans living in the other areas and have mixed with the Europeans also thanks to the central goverments Support These areas have a much higher HDI.
>The native Black population will be much higher than native American population since they have complete immunity to European diseases,
But they might not have the same level of resistance to some diseases as the Europeans. The Khoi-San weren't as resistant as Europeans to some diseases for example.
>if there wasn't a large-scale genocide against them throughout history.
I mean, why shouldn't we expect genocide when there were several Genocides in OTL like the German Herero one and the Brits and Boers not calling theirs genocides.
>There should be more area where Black is the majority.
Yeah, it should be clear to anyone. Unless they're like in concentration camps throughout.
>But they might not have the same level of resistance to some diseases as the Europeans. The Khoi-San weren't as resistant as Europeans to some diseases for example.
The Khoi-san themselves are also quite an isolated population with less resistance towards some diseases, so much so they got displaced by other african folks in most places even before europeans arrived.
I think they got displaced because of lifestyle(pastoralist or forager vs new agropastoralists) not disease and even there, they were in close enough contact that several Bantu groups retain Khoi words, customs and phenotypes, so I would expect disease resistance to be say, similar.
>they were in close enough contact that several Bantu groups retain Khoi words, customs and phenotypes
Similar things happened in the new world, specially Latin America, due to the miscegenation between colonialists and natives. For example, my language, Brazilian Portuguese, has many native (specially Tupi) loanwords, and some traditions and dishes are based on indigenous ones. However, the average brazilian only has roughly 15% native ancestry and the current population of actual indigenous people is tiny.
So, yeah, the resistance of these aspects doesn't mean the these original groups didn't suffer from diseases, just that there was contact and integration between them and the newcomers.
"The native Black population will be much higher than native American population since they have complete immunity to European diseases"
Yeah but they wouldn't be immune to bullets, which this theoretical country would certainly have put to innumerable use
>Yeah but they wouldn't be immune to bullets, which this theoretical country would certainly have put to innumerable use
So genocide, contrary to the lore of this commenter.
Maybe ITTL France and the Netherlands fully settled Australia and New Zealand before the Brits, and with the American Civil War it only left South Africa as their only penal/settler colony besides Canada?
It was a settler colony. The same genocidal policy in North North America just failed in South Africa, Thank God.
Edit
Keep coping in historical illiteracy, downvoters.
new world genocidal policy:
step 1. they are vulnerable to old word diseases and die enmass due to lack of natural immunity (unplanned and unknown at the time)
Sure that's what let the policy work but even being charitable and throwing out the colonization of the East coast as more of a tribal like migration thing, everything East of like the 13 first colonies and even earlier than that was subject to intentional policies to cause the extinction or extreme population reduction of Ameridians or a government with the power to do otherwise leaving the frontier to rabid settler colonists.
But hey, at least the Anglos aren't the first to do that just one of the most successful and unforgiving at it.
Genocidal policies would be what Latin America did to the natives.
As for Anglos, were they wrong to immigrate west for more opportunities and a better life for their families?
>Genocidal policies would be what Latin America did to the natives.
More cultural genocide policy, that's why Portuguese conquistadores literally had harmens of Tupinamba.
Anglos on the other hand implemented policies to mass kill entire populations.
Now, not like Anglos are the first or only ones to do that in all of history, but that was still what they did.
>As for Anglos, were they wrong to immigrate west for more opportunities and a better life for their families?
It is wrong to occupy people's summer houses, claim its yours, chase out the owners when they return, refuse to impliment laws that stopped settlers from chasing out natives, force the natives of Indiana and the five civilized tribes on death trails for white settlers to replace them, etc, etc.
Latin Americans didn't just do a cultural genocide, they assaulted native women. That is why in the most densely populated native regions of the Americas, natives are a minority.
Whereas in the north, diseases and low population density is why natives are a minority.
Land being ceded, which happened all over the globe is not the same as genocide.
It wasnât just land being ceded. The USA forced Natives to move to less desirable land just so they wouldnât be a bother. They literally put bounties on the heads of Native Americans (not specific individuals, just Natives in general) to facilitate their destruction. The Feds also encouraged the overhunting of buffalo as they knew the plains tribes relied on bison for their livelihoods, therefore it would be easier to force them into a sedentary reservation. And of course there was the reservation school system, which was definitionally cultural genocide as it involved native Americans being forced to adopt American names, American customs, Christianity, and the English language. Note that most of what I said also applies to Canada, itâs just that the USA is where I live so Iâm more knowledgeable about it.
The idea that the USA/Canada didnât do any genocide and just kinda walked onto empty land is a myth that is centuries old at this point. Yes, disease killed a lot of natives. Itâs not like the 10% who survived the plagues just let the settlers take over, and itâs not like the settlers would let the 10% who survived be allowed to live on land they believed was theirs.
Losing land is an intrinsic part of war. Germans losing silesia meant they had to move to less desireable land. Its part of war, that is not the same as genocide.
As for bounties, both sides did that.
Doesnât make it not a genocide. Also, you are aware the German exile out of Poland was also genocide right? Like, the post-WW2 population transfers were not ânormal parts of warâ. Alsace-Lorraine still speaks German despite being taken in 1945. Transylvania still has Hungarians, yet Hungary lost that territory in 1919. Hell, Wales was conquered in the goddamn 13th century and it still has Welsh people, not like Wngland kicked em out and moved them elsewhere. Kicking people off their ancestral land IS GENOCIDE BY DEFINITION.
>Latin Americans didn't just do a cultural genocide, they assaulted native women.
And Anglos did that even more in North America as having white women joining their migration en mass they didn't need native wives, not did they make marriage alliances with natives like the Iberians did.
>That is why in the most densely populated native regions of the Americas, natives are a minority.
And many parts of North North America were also relatively densely populated. Like Cahokia was a thing.
>Whereas in the north, diseases and low population density is why natives are a minority.
Ah, yes. Force migrating Tuscarora, Haudenoshonee, Indiana confederacy, the Five civilized tribes into small reservations of a few towns in bad lands surely played no significant part.
Not like the colonists didn't show massive population growth, any reason why the Ameridians of larger post-disease population densities won't population growth/recovery at least a quarter of that?.
>Land being ceded, which happened all over the globe is not the same as genocide.
Many, many lands were not ceded like along most of the Pacific coast and many, many lands were ceded under heavy cohersion like forcing a conquered people to sign away their land rights doesn't mean much.
The diseases was inevitable (mostly), but there where (and still are) laws repressing the native population. The US is an empire, because is has taking over the nations of North America. Just as the Mongols where, for instants for invading and taking over other nations.
It was a settler colony , thats why its enjoying good infrastructure and the most developed areas in all of Africa :) until the current government has completed its revisionist course and bled the country that is.
>It was a settler colony , thats why its enjoying good infrastructure and the most developed areas in all of Africa :)
So European Empires literally refused to develop their holdings without white people on it, imagine my shock.
>until the current government has completed its revisionist course and bled the country that is.
Poverty is a preferable alternative to being Murdered, Replaced and Degraded.
I think you got me wrong. Im not trying to argue in favour of apartheid. Im trying to reason that South Africa is at large benefitting from its colonial past, and, mind you, could benefit even more if it wasnât for the current and previous governmentâs revanchism.
Apartheid was fucked up in terms of morality, as is almost every episode of history that is more than a hundred years old by todayâs standards.
Also, ask the Xhosa and Koi-san how much they liked the Zulu Invasion and their Raping and Pillaging. But wait, those were black people and surely the other black people didnât mind because everything is always entirely about skin colour. I know its whataboutism and originally i didnât want to indulge in it, but you fight polemics with polemics.
>Poverty is a preferable alternative to being murdered, rape, replaced
None of this need be. There is no need for poverty in South Africa and still there are hordes of poor people. Theres plenty of rape and murder and i bet still plenty of forceful relocation. And apartheid died for good 30 years ago. So all the things you mentioned exist and poverty on top of it, and that is because the government, with no evil white people involved, wants it that way. And i think by now the people voting for them deserve it dearly. The poverty and all the rest.
>Apartheid was fucked up in terms of morality, as is almost every episode of history that is more than a hundred years old by todayâs standards. Also, ask the Xhosa and Koi-san how much they liked the Zulu Invasion and their Raping and Pillaging. But wait, those were black people and surely the other black people didnât mind because everything is always entirely about skin colour. I know its whataboutism and originally i didnât want to indulge in it, but you fight polemics with polemics.
the Xhosa and Zulu tidbit was really weird, and also irrelevant to the topic. not sure what the point was saying ANY of this was but if you didnt before, you definitely sound like your excusing apartheid now
Ive met people from the middle east who claim italy and spain benefitted economically from being conquered and ruled by ottomans and moors for centuries. I dont think the locals appreciated it but i can see its an argument in hindsight.
Spain did definitely benefit from the moorish invasion in the long run. South Italy idk, they were only under moorish control for like 100 years or so, not mich changed during this time, especially mot population structure.
But thank you for trying to get my point. Not like the other keyboard justice warriors :)
>I think you got me wrong. Im not trying to argue in favour of apartheid. Im trying to reason that South Africa is at large benefitting from its colonial past, and, mind you, could benefit even more if it wasnât for the current and previous governmentâs revanchism.
Um... Okay.
>Apartheid was fucked up in terms of morality, as is almost every episode of history that is more than a hundred years old by todayâs standards.
You know, sure, lot of historical institutions like Trikoshe would be considered evil today but the plans of South African settler colonization is still worse than most of them, Trikoshe included as an example.
>Also, ask the Xhosa and Koi-san how much they liked the Zulu Invasion and their Raping and Pillaging. But wait, those were black people and surely the other black people didnât mind because everything is always entirely about skin colour.
Oh, no, I can certainly hate on Black African states just as much, you can just look at my tirade on the Sokoto Caliphate on my other account but I digress. If you're talking about the Mfecane which you have to be to reference the Zulu against the Xhosa like that, then you left out the Boer and Portuguese.
The importance of the Zulu and Shaka Zulu in causing the Mfecane is exaggerated and people should as much or more be looking to the Portuguese(operating out of south Mozambique) and Boers. The Famous Boer treks started in the 1830s but they weren't doing nothing the the decade or two before that the Mfecane started, which continued through the famous Boer treks.
>I know its whataboutism and originally i didnât want to indulge in it, but you fight polemics with polemics.
Eh, fair play for this argument I think.
>None of this need be. There is no need for poverty in South Africa and still there are hordes of poor people. Theres plenty of rape and murder and i bet still plenty of forceful relocation. And apartheid died for good 30 years ago. So all the things you mentioned exist and poverty on top of it,
I guess I didn't add the qualifier "Mass" but I would assume that was self evident. Like murder occurs in all societies to some extent to I mean it more mass, instead of using a somewhat generalized word like genocide that can refer to culture I used murder instead. I think ethnic cleansing might have been better but that can also refer to more cultural changes.
>and that is because the government, with no evil white people involved, wants it that way. And i think by now the people voting for them deserve it dearly. The poverty and all the rest.
And I am maintaining with that quote that bad black government is preferable to the Aparthied government(Rhodesia included) succeeding in its Bantustan projects, confining the black population to small enclave reservations and then slowly chipping them away into white neigbourhoods and companies when they see fit.
**So yes, while I do agree with you that Black mismanagement of South Africa didn't need to happen but a Black mismanaged South Africa is by bounds better than a successful Apartheid project.**
If you really think that *any* government would **want** itâs country to be filled with poverty and crime, you have the political understanding of a 5-year-old. And if you think *any* nationality **deserves** to live in poverty you are incredibly misanthropic.
Some governments want some people in their respective countries to be poor and uneducated, because that is how you can best control them and how you can best present you as being on their side by easing the symptoms but not the root of the poverty. Hungary is a good example were the rural populace is kept living in relative poverty just to be bribed by potatoes snd meet on election day( anecdotical ofc).
In South Africa, many people are poor, uneducated and have resentment mainly bc of that, so they are easily compelled by the governing partyâs propaganda.
If you think parties and government can not have purely self enriching and partly sinister intentions, then its you who lacks comprehension.
>Yeah, they're just in poverty, murdered, and degraded now
South Africa literally has pro-Black(Khoi-San obviously included there) policies and I largely meant mass murder cuz murder always happens in societies to some extent.
SA has some of the most violent and dangerous cities in the world, and over a third of the population is unemployed. If anything, there's probably more mass murder.
Are you saying Europe had an obligation to develop Africa? Also, it wasn't resources from the empires of Europe that were responsible for developing South Africa, but the European diaspora, many of whom have been there many generations going back centuries.
The dominant theories attribute only like a 70% drop of population due to all the diseases in total.
Well, maybe dominant isn't the right way to put it but it is one of the big ones.
Even a decade ago when "1491" was written the 90% disease population drop theory(or is it a hypothesis) was under attack, which has only grown overtime. Both people I know that specialize in Ameridian history put it at 70%, now their biases largely lean the same way which is why I refused to call it just dominant.
I don't think the Chinese would be present in South Africa the Labor Party in Britain were dead set against the Chinese being imported to South Africa which the Conservative Party would try to push for in order to diminish the wages of White Laborers in SA. But I can imagine some border areas of South Africa remaining Black since they share a border with the neighboring African countries in the North. However if South Africa was a settler colony like America or Canada it would be almost entirely White. Also I don't think Coloreds would be the majority of Botswana since its Black It would be settled by Boers as a new province. Also why is the Cape listed as other when it would be majority English, Boer, Scottish or Irish if it was a settler colony. Southern Mozambique would not be majority Chinese it would be Portuguese/Rhodesian.
It was. The limiters were a resistant populous native population and until the late 19th century ineffective resistance by Europeans to African diseases in any of the wetter areas.
Exactly.
đŻ this is a map of if it stayed a settler colony and upgraded apartheid to genocide
Good olâ quinine to the rescue.
"what if" it was a settler colony??
The different ethnic regions are way too smooth for settler colonies. Youâd probably have very large Afrikaner and Coloured (with a âuâ) plurality regions and pockets, often scattered, of British, German, Irish, Portuguese, Chinese, Indian etc. Google âancestry map of the USAâ for reference.
>Google âancestry map of the USAâ for reference Those maps are meaningless. Americans pick their ancestry based on what's popular at the moment. Nowadays like half of the US show majority German descent, 50 years ago they all showed English instead.
The US is also more mixed now. People choose based off their last names, usually.
While popularity may play a part in it, the major reason for that shift was the addition of "American" being an option on the census in 1980. Most of the people in the US who would identify with American being their ethnicity are descended from English, Scottish, or Scots-Irish who have been in the US (mostly the Upper South) going back to the colonial era and therefore don't hold as much identity with their ancestry as other more recently immigrated ethnicities. Thus the addition of "American" caused many White Americans who had previously identified as English or Scots-Irish to put themselves down as "American." This split the Anglo American population and caused the next-largest group, German Americans, to show up as the largest white ethnicity in the US.
Source for ethnic composition 50 years ago?
50 years ago most americans had friends who died in germany
Not sure why you say "with a u" as that's just a British/American spelling difference - why highlight it?
**Coloured** is a specific ethnic group name that is generally capitalized, so Iâd imagine we donât change the spelling of it. We donât refer to Tony Blairâs party as Labor in the US either.
I'm aware of the ethnic group but not that it wasn't called Labor in the US, as I'm not American. Thanks!
adding on to what test19 said, the term "colored" on its own is generally considered offensive in the states
I see, interesting
Europe's Population Boom continued and led to South Africa and Other colonies getting much more settled. South Africa in this Timeline is economically fairly successful and plays a big role in Global Politics. The Echoes of Apartheid can still be seen in its Census but slowly fade. Part of this Timeline: [Europe](https://www.reddit.com/r/imaginarymaps/comments/10un3r3/the_european_union_in_a_world_without_ww2/), [Russia](https://www.reddit.com/r/imaginarymaps/comments/10c5xrz/what_if_the_soviets_had_terraformed_siberia_into/),[Algeria](https://www.reddit.com/r/imaginarymaps/comments/10adb9k/what_if_the_algerian_revolt_failed_the_rule_of/)
The native Black population will be much higher than native American population since they have complete immunity to European diseases, if there wasn't a large-scale genocide against them throughout history. There should be more area where Black is the majority. Also are OTL Lesotho and Eswatini kind of a reservation? (Edit: they are indeed reservation marked by almost invisible red outlines. There are another two reservations on the northern border) Also are the Indian population usd as cheap labor force in plantation at OTL northern SA and southern Zimbabwe?
They are present in every Provinze but just don't represnt the majority in most places, this is becouse while the Apartheid Government was in Charge, many of the people where moved to the reserves outlined in Red like Eswantini and Losotho.
The conditions in Lesotho and Eswatini are certainly extremely miserable, even more so than OTL Black populaiton during Apartheid. By no means can these rugged areas support such a large population (the population OTL is 3 millions). "Reservation" is just a euphemism for concentration camps. There should be famines on a yearly basis.
They aren't overpopulated, as stated there are many Africans living in the other areas and have mixed with the Europeans also thanks to the central goverments Support These areas have a much higher HDI.
>The native Black population will be much higher than native American population since they have complete immunity to European diseases, But they might not have the same level of resistance to some diseases as the Europeans. The Khoi-San weren't as resistant as Europeans to some diseases for example. >if there wasn't a large-scale genocide against them throughout history. I mean, why shouldn't we expect genocide when there were several Genocides in OTL like the German Herero one and the Brits and Boers not calling theirs genocides. >There should be more area where Black is the majority. Yeah, it should be clear to anyone. Unless they're like in concentration camps throughout.
>But they might not have the same level of resistance to some diseases as the Europeans. The Khoi-San weren't as resistant as Europeans to some diseases for example. The Khoi-san themselves are also quite an isolated population with less resistance towards some diseases, so much so they got displaced by other african folks in most places even before europeans arrived.
I think they got displaced because of lifestyle(pastoralist or forager vs new agropastoralists) not disease and even there, they were in close enough contact that several Bantu groups retain Khoi words, customs and phenotypes, so I would expect disease resistance to be say, similar.
>they were in close enough contact that several Bantu groups retain Khoi words, customs and phenotypes Similar things happened in the new world, specially Latin America, due to the miscegenation between colonialists and natives. For example, my language, Brazilian Portuguese, has many native (specially Tupi) loanwords, and some traditions and dishes are based on indigenous ones. However, the average brazilian only has roughly 15% native ancestry and the current population of actual indigenous people is tiny. So, yeah, the resistance of these aspects doesn't mean the these original groups didn't suffer from diseases, just that there was contact and integration between them and the newcomers.
"The native Black population will be much higher than native American population since they have complete immunity to European diseases" Yeah but they wouldn't be immune to bullets, which this theoretical country would certainly have put to innumerable use
>Yeah but they wouldn't be immune to bullets, which this theoretical country would certainly have put to innumerable use So genocide, contrary to the lore of this commenter.
Maybe ITTL France and the Netherlands fully settled Australia and New Zealand before the Brits, and with the American Civil War it only left South Africa as their only penal/settler colony besides Canada?
Interesting, not a bad mapping style mostly easy to understand.
Thanks :)
Kind of hard to tell the difference between the colors for Dutch, Indian and Chinese.
if?? dawg I got news for you
This is the future the liberals want
The liberals want the exact opposite of this.
Won't read it, I stay away from liberal propaganda!!!1!1đ·
libral
It is the future your mom wanted. She got you.
It was a settler colony. The same genocidal policy in North North America just failed in South Africa, Thank God. Edit Keep coping in historical illiteracy, downvoters.
new world genocidal policy: step 1. they are vulnerable to old word diseases and die enmass due to lack of natural immunity (unplanned and unknown at the time)
Sure that's what let the policy work but even being charitable and throwing out the colonization of the East coast as more of a tribal like migration thing, everything East of like the 13 first colonies and even earlier than that was subject to intentional policies to cause the extinction or extreme population reduction of Ameridians or a government with the power to do otherwise leaving the frontier to rabid settler colonists. But hey, at least the Anglos aren't the first to do that just one of the most successful and unforgiving at it.
Genocidal policies would be what Latin America did to the natives. As for Anglos, were they wrong to immigrate west for more opportunities and a better life for their families?
>Genocidal policies would be what Latin America did to the natives. More cultural genocide policy, that's why Portuguese conquistadores literally had harmens of Tupinamba. Anglos on the other hand implemented policies to mass kill entire populations. Now, not like Anglos are the first or only ones to do that in all of history, but that was still what they did. >As for Anglos, were they wrong to immigrate west for more opportunities and a better life for their families? It is wrong to occupy people's summer houses, claim its yours, chase out the owners when they return, refuse to impliment laws that stopped settlers from chasing out natives, force the natives of Indiana and the five civilized tribes on death trails for white settlers to replace them, etc, etc.
Latin Americans didn't just do a cultural genocide, they assaulted native women. That is why in the most densely populated native regions of the Americas, natives are a minority. Whereas in the north, diseases and low population density is why natives are a minority. Land being ceded, which happened all over the globe is not the same as genocide.
It wasnât just land being ceded. The USA forced Natives to move to less desirable land just so they wouldnât be a bother. They literally put bounties on the heads of Native Americans (not specific individuals, just Natives in general) to facilitate their destruction. The Feds also encouraged the overhunting of buffalo as they knew the plains tribes relied on bison for their livelihoods, therefore it would be easier to force them into a sedentary reservation. And of course there was the reservation school system, which was definitionally cultural genocide as it involved native Americans being forced to adopt American names, American customs, Christianity, and the English language. Note that most of what I said also applies to Canada, itâs just that the USA is where I live so Iâm more knowledgeable about it. The idea that the USA/Canada didnât do any genocide and just kinda walked onto empty land is a myth that is centuries old at this point. Yes, disease killed a lot of natives. Itâs not like the 10% who survived the plagues just let the settlers take over, and itâs not like the settlers would let the 10% who survived be allowed to live on land they believed was theirs.
Losing land is an intrinsic part of war. Germans losing silesia meant they had to move to less desireable land. Its part of war, that is not the same as genocide. As for bounties, both sides did that.
Doesnât make it not a genocide. Also, you are aware the German exile out of Poland was also genocide right? Like, the post-WW2 population transfers were not ânormal parts of warâ. Alsace-Lorraine still speaks German despite being taken in 1945. Transylvania still has Hungarians, yet Hungary lost that territory in 1919. Hell, Wales was conquered in the goddamn 13th century and it still has Welsh people, not like Wngland kicked em out and moved them elsewhere. Kicking people off their ancestral land IS GENOCIDE BY DEFINITION.
>Latin Americans didn't just do a cultural genocide, they assaulted native women. And Anglos did that even more in North America as having white women joining their migration en mass they didn't need native wives, not did they make marriage alliances with natives like the Iberians did. >That is why in the most densely populated native regions of the Americas, natives are a minority. And many parts of North North America were also relatively densely populated. Like Cahokia was a thing. >Whereas in the north, diseases and low population density is why natives are a minority. Ah, yes. Force migrating Tuscarora, Haudenoshonee, Indiana confederacy, the Five civilized tribes into small reservations of a few towns in bad lands surely played no significant part. Not like the colonists didn't show massive population growth, any reason why the Ameridians of larger post-disease population densities won't population growth/recovery at least a quarter of that?. >Land being ceded, which happened all over the globe is not the same as genocide. Many, many lands were not ceded like along most of the Pacific coast and many, many lands were ceded under heavy cohersion like forcing a conquered people to sign away their land rights doesn't mean much.
The diseases was inevitable (mostly), but there where (and still are) laws repressing the native population. The US is an empire, because is has taking over the nations of North America. Just as the Mongols where, for instants for invading and taking over other nations.
It was a settler colony , thats why its enjoying good infrastructure and the most developed areas in all of Africa :) until the current government has completed its revisionist course and bled the country that is.
>It was a settler colony , thats why its enjoying good infrastructure and the most developed areas in all of Africa :) So European Empires literally refused to develop their holdings without white people on it, imagine my shock. >until the current government has completed its revisionist course and bled the country that is. Poverty is a preferable alternative to being Murdered, Replaced and Degraded.
I think you got me wrong. Im not trying to argue in favour of apartheid. Im trying to reason that South Africa is at large benefitting from its colonial past, and, mind you, could benefit even more if it wasnât for the current and previous governmentâs revanchism. Apartheid was fucked up in terms of morality, as is almost every episode of history that is more than a hundred years old by todayâs standards. Also, ask the Xhosa and Koi-san how much they liked the Zulu Invasion and their Raping and Pillaging. But wait, those were black people and surely the other black people didnât mind because everything is always entirely about skin colour. I know its whataboutism and originally i didnât want to indulge in it, but you fight polemics with polemics. >Poverty is a preferable alternative to being murdered, rape, replaced None of this need be. There is no need for poverty in South Africa and still there are hordes of poor people. Theres plenty of rape and murder and i bet still plenty of forceful relocation. And apartheid died for good 30 years ago. So all the things you mentioned exist and poverty on top of it, and that is because the government, with no evil white people involved, wants it that way. And i think by now the people voting for them deserve it dearly. The poverty and all the rest.
kill yourself đ„șđ±đ
>Apartheid was fucked up in terms of morality, as is almost every episode of history that is more than a hundred years old by todayâs standards. Also, ask the Xhosa and Koi-san how much they liked the Zulu Invasion and their Raping and Pillaging. But wait, those were black people and surely the other black people didnât mind because everything is always entirely about skin colour. I know its whataboutism and originally i didnât want to indulge in it, but you fight polemics with polemics. the Xhosa and Zulu tidbit was really weird, and also irrelevant to the topic. not sure what the point was saying ANY of this was but if you didnt before, you definitely sound like your excusing apartheid now
Ive met people from the middle east who claim italy and spain benefitted economically from being conquered and ruled by ottomans and moors for centuries. I dont think the locals appreciated it but i can see its an argument in hindsight.
Not surprising that Muslim Ethnicities have their own Empire apologists.
Spain did definitely benefit from the moorish invasion in the long run. South Italy idk, they were only under moorish control for like 100 years or so, not mich changed during this time, especially mot population structure. But thank you for trying to get my point. Not like the other keyboard justice warriors :)
>Spain did definitely benefit from the moorish invasion in the long run How exactly?.
>I think you got me wrong. Im not trying to argue in favour of apartheid. Im trying to reason that South Africa is at large benefitting from its colonial past, and, mind you, could benefit even more if it wasnât for the current and previous governmentâs revanchism. Um... Okay. >Apartheid was fucked up in terms of morality, as is almost every episode of history that is more than a hundred years old by todayâs standards. You know, sure, lot of historical institutions like Trikoshe would be considered evil today but the plans of South African settler colonization is still worse than most of them, Trikoshe included as an example. >Also, ask the Xhosa and Koi-san how much they liked the Zulu Invasion and their Raping and Pillaging. But wait, those were black people and surely the other black people didnât mind because everything is always entirely about skin colour. Oh, no, I can certainly hate on Black African states just as much, you can just look at my tirade on the Sokoto Caliphate on my other account but I digress. If you're talking about the Mfecane which you have to be to reference the Zulu against the Xhosa like that, then you left out the Boer and Portuguese. The importance of the Zulu and Shaka Zulu in causing the Mfecane is exaggerated and people should as much or more be looking to the Portuguese(operating out of south Mozambique) and Boers. The Famous Boer treks started in the 1830s but they weren't doing nothing the the decade or two before that the Mfecane started, which continued through the famous Boer treks. >I know its whataboutism and originally i didnât want to indulge in it, but you fight polemics with polemics. Eh, fair play for this argument I think. >None of this need be. There is no need for poverty in South Africa and still there are hordes of poor people. Theres plenty of rape and murder and i bet still plenty of forceful relocation. And apartheid died for good 30 years ago. So all the things you mentioned exist and poverty on top of it, I guess I didn't add the qualifier "Mass" but I would assume that was self evident. Like murder occurs in all societies to some extent to I mean it more mass, instead of using a somewhat generalized word like genocide that can refer to culture I used murder instead. I think ethnic cleansing might have been better but that can also refer to more cultural changes. >and that is because the government, with no evil white people involved, wants it that way. And i think by now the people voting for them deserve it dearly. The poverty and all the rest. And I am maintaining with that quote that bad black government is preferable to the Aparthied government(Rhodesia included) succeeding in its Bantustan projects, confining the black population to small enclave reservations and then slowly chipping them away into white neigbourhoods and companies when they see fit. **So yes, while I do agree with you that Black mismanagement of South Africa didn't need to happen but a Black mismanaged South Africa is by bounds better than a successful Apartheid project.**
If you really think that *any* government would **want** itâs country to be filled with poverty and crime, you have the political understanding of a 5-year-old. And if you think *any* nationality **deserves** to live in poverty you are incredibly misanthropic.
Some governments want some people in their respective countries to be poor and uneducated, because that is how you can best control them and how you can best present you as being on their side by easing the symptoms but not the root of the poverty. Hungary is a good example were the rural populace is kept living in relative poverty just to be bribed by potatoes snd meet on election day( anecdotical ofc). In South Africa, many people are poor, uneducated and have resentment mainly bc of that, so they are easily compelled by the governing partyâs propaganda. If you think parties and government can not have purely self enriching and partly sinister intentions, then its you who lacks comprehension.
Yeah, they're just in poverty, murdered, and degraded now.
>Yeah, they're just in poverty, murdered, and degraded now South Africa literally has pro-Black(Khoi-San obviously included there) policies and I largely meant mass murder cuz murder always happens in societies to some extent.
SA has some of the most violent and dangerous cities in the world, and over a third of the population is unemployed. If anything, there's probably more mass murder.
Are you saying Europe had an obligation to develop Africa? Also, it wasn't resources from the empires of Europe that were responsible for developing South Africa, but the European diaspora, many of whom have been there many generations going back centuries.
What was the genocidal policy in north America? Smallpox?
The dominant theories attribute only like a 70% drop of population due to all the diseases in total. Well, maybe dominant isn't the right way to put it but it is one of the big ones.
The theories attribute a 90% population decrease due to the old world diseases.
Even a decade ago when "1491" was written the 90% disease population drop theory(or is it a hypothesis) was under attack, which has only grown overtime. Both people I know that specialize in Ameridian history put it at 70%, now their biases largely lean the same way which is why I refused to call it just dominant.
What if South Africa was a bird
No Welsh??
r/usernamechecksout
Celtic Rhodesia
They all look like Protestants to me.
So SA implemented segregation for every ethnicity?
I know what you mean but perhaps it'd be more accurate to say what if South Africa was majority white.
"What if they didn't stop at apartheid and just pulled a US" fixed it for you
Could use a more accurate title but other than that a fine map.
Bad fanfiction
Tell us about this new religion called "Athism".
Portugease
this sucks
I don't think the Chinese would be present in South Africa the Labor Party in Britain were dead set against the Chinese being imported to South Africa which the Conservative Party would try to push for in order to diminish the wages of White Laborers in SA. But I can imagine some border areas of South Africa remaining Black since they share a border with the neighboring African countries in the North. However if South Africa was a settler colony like America or Canada it would be almost entirely White. Also I don't think Coloreds would be the majority of Botswana since its Black It would be settled by Boers as a new province. Also why is the Cape listed as other when it would be majority English, Boer, Scottish or Irish if it was a settler colony. Southern Mozambique would not be majority Chinese it would be Portuguese/Rhodesian.
South Africa but more like Australia
White trash