/pol/ memes aside, how come West Africa never got into colonization...

They got sucked into the bermuda triangle.

...

...

Too much hassle and maintenance to keep a colony on a completely different continent for a country like the Malian empire, even especially at its height during the 14th century. Despite their wealth, Mali's greatest concern was focusing on her frontier. (Timbuktu itself was razed by the Mossi, and then repeatedly sacked and then seized by the Tuaregs around 1433). If the later Mansas had been more competent, the absolute most we could've seen were outposts in South America perhaps, and maybe being able to beat Portugal at the colonization of Cape Verde or one of the closer Atlantic islands.

>Too much hassle and maintenance

kek. where have i heard that before

Spaniards went looking for gold, Mali had enough

It's true, though. Mali may have been rich but it was in no position to maintain a colony thousands of miles away.

You do know the Olmecs and their head predated Musa's voyage by about 2000 years?

patricio?

>Kankan, my son
>You are man now
>Where does the future of your nation lie?
>Filthy rich northerners following consistent trade routes?
>Or 5,000 miles of raging seas if you can make it over the sheer cliffs of the west african "coast"?

I see your point. Touche.
That raises two new question now though:
>How wealthy was Mali/Morocco compared to the average European nation at the time of the Caribbean being discovered?
>How come they never jumped on the scramble when news got out?

I'm not arguing with you, but what exactly is that evidence for that claim out of curiosity?

Colonization came from the need to trade from Christians but not being able to go through the Muslims. The Muslims had easy access to India and the Spice Islands through the middle east so they had no need to ever go west. By the time they realized what was going on their naval forces were no real match for Europe

Of the Olmecs? Well archeologically they were very ancient, dating to the Preclassic period. It's pretty much a fact not a claim that they were around 1200 BC. The Mali empire is medieval, so to try to make a correlation with the two doesn't make sense.

How could african nations, with their inferior seafaring capability, wealh and military power hope to compete with the European powers?

Europeans only got competent at seafaring due to decades of Portuguese investment.

How the fuck am I supposed to read this greentext when every other word is a new hyphenated foreigner's name? It's like I have to start writing them down and connecting the dots.

The same reason why China didn't have colonies.

Ahh, I see. I'm just always sceptical about dating artifacts in South America due to the various conditions that would degrade materials faster.

But they did desu!

Bump

but china did have colonies

If they had discovered the outrigger it would have been possible

Tbh African watercraft have always been centered around mega lakes and rivers, it's bummer.
African Muslims placed Jihad in Brazil and they were so good instead of killing them all Brazil just brought them back to Africa were they became an extremely important class of people who mixed old and new ways.

Also don't take the story literally, it's mostly about how the brother veered from Islam and was punished while the other rightfully ruled by committing himself to Allah.

Fuck off with this bullshit, as a part native this fucking infuriates me.
Those were built by native Americans not blacks.
Modern mestizos look nothing like the long dead ancient central/South American natives (like Evo Morales from Bolivia), most of the natives were killed or forced to racemix by colonizers.
They were built in their image but the stones were too tough for carving stand out features.
Natives also built Moais using the same techniques, and I've met descendants of Rapanuis who study in my university.

Then blacks complain about the we wuz kings meme.

Bantus colonized the most land in human history

Same reason why Sardinia wasn't colonized until the Renaissance age, too far away with a lack of proper technology to rely on

not Russians?

Sorry man. I'm not the guy, but I also posted a statue head. I just posted it because it's a fun theory. Full credit to American civilization though.

My guess both Mali and Ethiopia didn't do so since there was little to achieve from it in their eyes, back then all does other places must have been seen like a wasteland only fools and madman would truly want to settle and thought it would be best to not waste to much time on it and instead only focus on getting slaves from does lands to sell.

Which ironically was what most colony settlers where: The foolish, the mad, and the desperate.

Nope

Russia is 17,098,242 km2, the entire African continent is 30,200,000 km2. Bantus didn't do over half of Africa, right?

Ethiopia was a naval power in the Indian ocean back in the day (same with Somalia) and they ruled an island off the coast of India until the early 1940's or so.
Most Africans are not Bantu and Bantu are about 2-3k years old

Tbh West Africans had a tendency of demolishing and ruling indigenous people if they had the chance.

You see it in several nation's histories.

beyond that, the British empire was massive, they had Canada and India. Not to mention that long ass north/south strip of Africa.

they're not as smart as Europeans. Jesus Christ, it's not that hard, races vary hugely. I'm sure some diamond tier sophist will say they didn't have the right wood or coal was rare or some shit. Asking why Africans didn't do what Europeans did is ridiculous, is it virtue signaling? Are you pretending you can't see their woeful inadequacies.

This.

inb4 "back to /pol/". For being self professed academics ya'll sure have very little knowledge of race and iq.

All of that can be explained with economic and psychological factors. Begone, fool!

It's hard when most of the data was pulled out of the asses of literal mustache twirling eugenicists

cus they were technologically inferior, and probably didn't have the knowledge to keep an expanse out of their native region upkept

No the answer is their weren't in environments conducive for ocean going travel.

We can see that the two regions on earth with the greatest ocean going navigating traditions are rooted in the Mediterranean and Island Southeast Asia with a myriad of islands faciliating a slow island hopping tradition that transformed into greater and greater navigational prowess.

Even China was influenced by Southeast Asian ship design.

Bantu people spread their genes over the largest area. Brits and Russians merely killed the leaders in tribes around the world and claimed to own it.

They did. Just look around.

>By the time they realized what was going on their naval forces were no real match for Europe
Not exactly true. That may have been more true at the beginning.

...

Its because the Native Americans westernized and colonized everything first.

Also... You might like EU4 for crazy alternative history game. Personally I like conquering meca and converting to Christianity.

...

I dunno, all i know is that algeria was conqured by the french for 100 years and now all algerian people i know are white, speak french and arabic, and are shitty people.

Oh fuck. I just noticed Scottish Mexico!

Black ppl are not imperialistic monsters unlike white devils baka

The Basques were fishing in the North America since the middle age, they salted cod there and sold it, or chased the whales until the skandis dominated and pushed them off the trade. The Skandis reached north america even earlier than the basques, and founded Groenlandia thanks to they skill in the sea. The ERE dominated his part of the Med until the Venetians, Pisans, Genoeses or Catalans made themselves strong, and dominated the sea around them. Trade between Skandis and Egyptians be sea is know since the bronze age, thanks to a culture of trade around the european atlantic (including the british islands) you could find Egyptians goods in bum fuck nowhere Norwey.

Tbf as a Malagasy I have to say currents were not conducive to settling Madagascar from the West and the Southeast Asian Negrito/Austronesian/Laccadives mixed people's that settled the island did so after thousands of years trading cinnamon and spices using the monsoonal winds.

Secondly by the time of Madagascar's settling we were already mixed African-Asian people. Having already formed our basis on Littoral East Africa.

Quick question: Why did you kill off the gorilla-lemurs? Seriously, how dare you?

Well for the birds we ate the eggs but also scientists believe now a avian disease that came with chickens killed the elephant bird.

Unlike Maori who left hundreds of thousands of hacked bones we have very few.
_____
Pygmy hippo was killed probably because it was like a pig, in fact our words for dugong and cow translates to water pig and pig.
_____
Giant lemur, baboon lemur, sloth lemur were all eaten too. However most tribes unless in famine have fady/taboo against eating lemurs today.

If anything Christian proslytizing has loosened the grip allowing for people to ignore fady.

Anyways Europeans killed half their animal species when they arrived, where as we killed no more than a dozen.

You have to remember that unlike continental Europe the animals had only Fossa as predators, they were rather naive and thus easy pickings for protein starved farmers.

You should do an AMA. Madagascar just fascinates me as a whole.

I've done three on Veeky Forums

Huh. Alrighty then. Do you currently live in Madagascar though?

Nope, anyways I just want to keep this on topic regarding African seafaring and maritime culture.

They colonized Spain and Southern Europe.

Because Mali was a shadow of it's former self by the time colonisation happened outside iberia

Besides, Mali had much greater concerns, and if they were stable enough, they would have probably attempted the conquest of Benin, Nigeria and the sand dwellers first in order to secure their frontier. If there was thing Mali didn't lack, it was space, food and resources.

This is quite different to the European situation where as soon as potatoes became known people where comeing to the continent in droves

That would depend on whether or not Mali was able to manage a measurable overseas trade fleet, of which I'm suspicious. Also, I doubt the europeans would have allowed any non christian to establish a pwoer base on the americas

I think people overestimate Mali because it's called an empire, when it was a tributary kingdom than bullied the tribes/minor kingdom around them (like the Ghana or Songhay did).
It wasn't like true empire like Rome or China, where the culture, way of government and way of life was enforced, it was mostly like bronze age kingdom like asiria or a feudal kingdom where the hegemon raked the good stuff and obligated minor polities to give resources or troops ,or else. I recognize than I have only a very light knowladge of Mali, but true public infraestructures didn't pop in any book/article I read about them, how could they colonize anything be sea if they didn't the will to even colonize they neighbors?

i thought early on rome didn't really care what you did as long as you paid taxes and shieeeet

An empire is a state that rules over an extensive group of states as supreme authority. Mali fits such criteria. Early on it was more "don't rebel and pay your taxes", but by Musa's age it was divided into provinces ruled by governors from the Mandinka heartland of Niani.