How come European colonial settlers were able to replace indigenous people as a majority of the population in the Americas and Australia but not Africa or Asia?
I have always wondered what factors made it possible for Europeans to almost fully replace indigenous people in North America, Australia and parts of South America as compared to other colonial hotspots such as Africa, India etc?
Is it only correlated to population volume? Disease? More aggressive eradication/displacement tactics? Or is the term “indigenous”misleading since all people are replace by new “tribes” sooner or later?
The places I named contain the majority of the African population as well as the some of the largest empires and kingdoms in history period. The average European was not riding horses or involved in any kind of horse culture to my knowledge. European hunter/gatherer were not riding horses to my knowledge. No different than in Africa. Horses were a sign of wealth and a part of the military culture. Rock art in Libya and Niger show people riding ponies with chariots as early as 5000-7000 BC.
Sure, but I thought we were talking about the period of European colonization? I am definitely less educated than I would like on sub-Saharan African history, so I will take your word on that.
European colonization
So the late 1800's? Yes horses and horse culture existed during the late 1800's. If it existed in the 1200's I think it would exist in the 1800's.
sub-Saharan African history
Also, "sub-saharan" Africa is a European colonial imaginary term used to justify killing millions. It makes no sense when you open a map, study African history, and use logic. There is no "sub-saharan history" only African history. Show me at any point in time in Africa where a person from Mali couldn't walk a few feet to the border of what is modern day Tunisia.
Obviously there isn't a real impassable border between the various regions of Africa. I never said that. Traders have been crossing the Sahara since hell, I dunno, probably before recorded history. But I think it's weird to argue that there is no difference in culture or environment between Tunisia or Mali or Kenya or Zaire or South Africa? Africa's a huge continent. I've been using the term sub-Saharan because it's a commonly accepted term... at least in Western histories or geographies. Of course it's arbitrary. Anyway, to the point you initially raised about my mention of horse culture - I've already admitted that it was probably incorrect based on the information you've already provided.
I thought "sub-Sahara" just meant "south of the Saharan desert". Does it mean something different to you?
