Black majority state in Europe
- Thread starter Lateknight
- Start date
- Status
SunDeep
Banned
No, because black people aren't capable of that, are they? Europeans? Of course, they're predestined to extend their dominion across the entire world in every TL, aren't they? The East Asians? Maybe, once in a blue moon, after the Europeans have had their fill. The Arabs? Sure, but only if they're European first. But anyone else? No, don't be ridiculous! They're only capable of being ruled over, being enslaved, being assimilated or being driven to near extinction as soon as they come into contact with the superior master race of the Europeans! And Africans? The bottom rung of the ladder, the lowest of the low? Not even the most powerful ASB can ever make this happen, can it? I mean, what can a mere ASB do when the most potent, infinite one of all, God, bestows the Europeans with their inherent supreme dominance over mankind...?
Oh, and in case it was too subtle for you to pick up on, I was being sarcastic. The Sahara is difficult to cross, but not insurmountable or impassable, even for allegedly inferior Africans. Vast amounts of trade were already crossing it- they had the same means that the Arabs used to routinely cross the desert by this stage, pack camels, and several of the sources of the main commodity they were trading for, salt, were located within the Sahara itself, or just across it in North Africa. And the Europeans had already established their first few trading posts along the Gold Coast- why can't the African merchants follow their example, building the simple, relatively primitive kind of vessels which would still be capable of navigating the coast of West Africa all the way to Europe themselves? Then, after they've taken the numerous salt mines within the Sahara itself, there are enough salt mines within Europe for the endeavor of European colonization to be deemed worthwhile by some of those traders who've already emigrated to North Africa. And politically, even more so ITTL after being ravished by even worse outbreaks of the plague, Europe would be just as divided as OTL's Africa, India and the Americas were when the Europeans established their first footholds in these regions. Why wouldn't the expansive African Kingdoms ITTL be able to take advantage of these schisms in the same way that the European Kingdoms did across the globe time and again IOTL? Any reasons that don't boil down to them not being 'white enough'...?
Last edited:
Yes. But it also defined itself as Pluricontinental, not African.
I guess third-parties could consider Portugal to be an African country since most of its territories lied in Africa. But then, again, Angola and Mozambique are definitely not in Europe so I guess that's not what the OP wanted
The former is indeed very plausible and would satisfy the OP. The Canaries are geographically African, though, and if they're populated by a black majority they shan't ever be seen as an extension of Europe...
JSmith
Banned
A question that has been raised here several times and is of interest to me. I would love to see it get the full timeline treatment. Anyone aware of any that touch on this-besides Lion's Blood-which is more Africa conquering Europe?
Christ, what the fuck. I never said any of those things. I said that African countries could extend political control northwards, I just said I did not see mass settlement being a big thing.
Please, I'm trying to be polite here. Common courtesy would dictate you do the same. So please don't imply I'm racist, or put words into my mouth that aren't there.
People do things for a reason. The Europeans explored the world for a reason, and one of those reasons is that Europe is actualy dirt poor when it comes to things people want. All those spices, finished goods, etc Europe lacked. Its why they went out exploring to try and find Asia.
There was also a distinct land shortage in Europe. After the Black death OTL, farmland started getting turned into pasture and once the population recovered, there was less and less land to farm. Ergo, Europeans left.
Europe also has a variety natural inlets and ports, along with navigable rivers, that encouraged maritime trade. The Atlantic is also MUCH smaller than the pacific, so the America's were easier to find for Europe rather than for Asia (same goes for Africa).
Thus Europe had both the means and the reasons to go out settling.
People settle for a reason. They just don't settle because they hear there is empty land really far away. When the Spanish contact killed off millions of Americans in Mexico, did they get an influx of Spanish settlers that turned Mexico majority white? I think you would find they didn't. They did conquer it though.
Which goes with what I was saying. African powers could extend control northwards, and even become a ruling elite. But majority of the population they probably won't be.
So please, continue being "subtle" and rude and imply I'm racist. Because that was what I was saying.
Oh, and in case it was too subtle for you to pick up on, I was being sarcastic. The Sahara is difficult to cross, but not insurmountable or impassable, even for allegedly inferior Africans. Vast amounts of trade were already crossing it- they had the same means that the Arabs used to routinely cross the desert by this stage, pack camels, and several of the sources of the main commodity they were trading for, salt, were located within the Sahara itself, or just across it in North Africa. And the Europeans had already established their first few trading posts along the Gold Coast- why can't the African merchants follow their example, building the simple, relatively primitive kind of vessels which would still be capable of navigating the coast of West Africa all the way to Europe themselves? Then, after they've taken the numerous salt mines within the Sahara itself, there are enough salt mines within Europe for the endeavor of European colonization to be deemed worthwhile by some of those traders who've already emigrated to North Africa. And politically, even more so ITTL after being ravished by even worse outbreaks of the plague, Europe would be just as divided as OTL's Africa, India and the Americas were when the Europeans established their first footholds in these regions. Why wouldn't the expansive African Kingdoms ITTL be able to take advantage of these schisms in the same way that the European Kingdoms did across the globe time and again IOTL? Any reasons that don't boil down to them not being 'white enough'...?
Last edited:
Holy overreaction Batman!No, because black people aren't capable of that, are they? Europeans? Of course, they're predestined to extend their dominion across the entire world in every TL, aren't they? The East Asians? Maybe, once in a blue moon, after the Europeans have had their fill. The Arabs? Sure, but only if they're European first. But anyone else? No, don't be ridiculous! They're only capable of being ruled over, being enslaved, being assimilated or being driven to near extinction as soon as they come into contact with the superior master race of the Europeans! And Africans? The bottom rung of the ladder, the lowest of the low? Not even the most powerful ASB can ever make this happen, can it? I mean, what can a mere ASB do when the most potent, infinite one of all, God, bestows the Europeans with their inherent supreme dominance over mankind...?
Oh, and in case it was too subtle for you to pick up on, I was being sarcastic. The Sahara is difficult to cross, but not insurmountable or impassable, even for allegedly inferior Africans. Vast amounts of trade were already crossing it- they had the same means that the Arabs used to routinely cross the desert by this stage, pack camels, and several of the sources of the main commodity they were trading for, salt, were located within the Sahara itself, or just across it in North Africa. And the Europeans had already established their first few trading posts along the Gold Coast- why can't the African merchants follow their example, building the simple, relatively primitive kind of vessels which would still be capable of navigating the coast of West Africa all the way to Europe themselves? Then, after they've taken the numerous salt mines within the Sahara itself, there are enough salt mines within Europe for the endeavor of European colonization to be deemed worthwhile by some of those traders who've already emigrated to North Africa. And politically, even more so ITTL after being ravished by even worse outbreaks of the plague, Europe would be just as divided as OTL's Africa, India and the Americas were when the Europeans established their first footholds in these regions. Why wouldn't the expansive African Kingdoms ITTL be able to take advantage of these schisms in the same way that the European Kingdoms did across the globe time and again IOTL? Any reasons that don't boil down to them not being 'white enough'...?
You take an entirely reasonable, well stated position regarding MASS migration through the Sahara and try to twist it into some white supremacist doggerel?
SO don't think so.
Since you clearly implied that another member is a racist, with quite literally no proof AT ALL, you earned a no expenses paid 7 day trip to the beach.
Please pick up you pail and sand shovel as you depart.
When you come back, please be civil and stop looking for reasons to be offended where none exist.
If the Canaries were populated first by Europeans (yes, I know they had a population before, related to Berbers IIRC) and considered European for awhile I don't think it'd revert to being thought of as African simply because of population change.
I thought your departure point was settling the Azores or the Canaries in the first place like Cape Verde or São Tomé: making it black/mestizo majority from inception.
Suppose the sub-Saharan Africans traveled north, conquered somewhere in Europe, ruling as a minority elite (like, e.g., the Vikings in various places). Then, some time later--50 years? 100? 150?--there is a mostly successful rebellion against them. (Maybe similar to the Reconquista, but sooner and happening faster.) Not enough time has passed for them to be mestizoed.
Instead of packing up and returning to Africa, they form a garrison state in the mountains, or maybe an island or part of a coastal region, concentrated in a fairly small area, outnumbering the non-African locals.
Another possible factor: What if, before they lose control of the larger territory, something happens to make them doubt the loyalty of the non-African part of their armed forces? (Like a rebellion, or coup attempt or something--even if it's only some of them doing it.) Then the Africans could encourage more people from their tribe/original nation to migrate to Europe--maybe offer good pay, land/mansions, honors, perks like that. So when they lose the rebellion, there's more Africans to form the garrison state.
(I just read this thread recently, that's why I'm commenting so much later than everyone else.)
Instead of packing up and returning to Africa, they form a garrison state in the mountains, or maybe an island or part of a coastal region, concentrated in a fairly small area, outnumbering the non-African locals.
Another possible factor: What if, before they lose control of the larger territory, something happens to make them doubt the loyalty of the non-African part of their armed forces? (Like a rebellion, or coup attempt or something--even if it's only some of them doing it.) Then the Africans could encourage more people from their tribe/original nation to migrate to Europe--maybe offer good pay, land/mansions, honors, perks like that. So when they lose the rebellion, there's more Africans to form the garrison state.
(I just read this thread recently, that's why I'm commenting so much later than everyone else.)
The general site etiquette is that, after a few months, you should just start a new thread on the same topic, rather than trying to revive a dead discussion.
Your post was very interesting, although I think option one is far more plausible . Happy first post!
- Status