Both the USA and South Africa share the unique history of being founded by both Dutch and British colonists with a strong emphasis on the Protestant work ethic.
I'm curious why did South Africa and the rest of the European colonies in Africa attract as many European immigrants as the US did? The African continent has more arable land, minerals, and other natural resources than America does. It's also warm all year long without any harsh winters disrupting the agricultural cycle.
What happened?
Edit: I meant "why did South Africa and the rest of the European colonies in Africa NOT attract as many European immigrants as the US did?"
It was. They became independent too early, though.
It was owned by independent British companies, the same could be said about India.
too many big black cocks
>The African continent has more arable land,
That's a stretch. The US has insane agricultural output for a reason, the middle of the country is some of (if not the best) farmland in the world.
>minerals
Like what, coltan? No one knew/needed about those sort of minerals back then and they are found in difficult to access regions of the Congo (not Cape Town).
>and other natural resources than America does.
Like Ivory? The US has a shit load of natural resources, it's not hurting for anything.
>It's also warm all year long without any harsh winters disrupting the agricultural cycle.
What is the American South?
>Like what, coltan? No one knew/needed about those sort of minerals back then and they are found in difficult to access regions of the Congo (not Cape Town
tons of different metals in africa. also, south africa alone has 80 percent of the entire world's platinum reserves but im not sure if platinum was that important back in the day.
>That's a stretch. The US has insane agricultural output for a reason, the middle of the country is some of (if not the best) farmland in the world.
I don't doubt that but africa has great farm land too and you can grow shit all year long. africa is a lot bigger too.
>Like Ivory? The US has a shit load of natural resources, it's not hurting for anything.
like uranium, gold, diamonds, iron, natural gas, oil, etc. you sound confused to be honest. africa is far more resourceful than america.
>What is the American South?
the America South is tiny compared to Africa
>but africa has great farm land too
And Malaria.
I think large scale agriculture was impractible in the vast majority of Africa due to some fly.
but a good portion of africa doesn't even have malaria.
Too many niggers. Same reason immigration to the United Statesian south has been lowers than anywhere else in that country.
>too many
That doesn't make sense. Africans people "seem" superior to other people, it only makes sense for the rest to be around them. Just look how their culture overwhelms everyone's culture and take over global influences.
Please refrain from using the N word or any other racial slurs. This is a forum for intellectual discussion.
No way nigger
The British Empire considered the presence of significant populations of immigrants from rival European powers to be a threat to security and the long term odds of retaining said lands. They discouraged non-English immigration to the colonies and made efforts to marginalize other Europeans already present - see mass expulsion of French from the Maritimes for one prominent example.
By contrast, various parties in the US were actively seeking out and enticing Swedes, Germans, etc to come to the US.
man you really are a dumb faggot and a prime example of why we need more globalization to weed out retards like you
>What happened?
Gold Rushes were occurring in America and Australia (1860s) before South Africa (1880s and 1890s)
Also while European and Chinese immigrants were flocking to Australia and America, the British were still subjugating the native tribes of South Africa (1860-70s) and later the Boers (late 1890s).
Finally the British had access to cheap labor from India, so individual immigrants had a worse chance of getting choice jobs than in America, Australia and Canada.
South Africa has only been a country since 1910, America was already well established destination by then.
>like what
Gold, silver, platinum, copper?
low level bait
Couldn’t compete with the massive black labor force already present.
There's half a million people of Portuguese ancestry in South Africa.
Uh...the Union of South Africa began in 1910 but European colonies were in southern Africa since 1652.
And so what?
There were opportunities to immigrate there much earlier than 1910.
The Cape Colony and Natal colonies were open to immigration. Even the Boer Republics welcomed immigration.
That part of the world is filled with You-Know-What.
I know I should be on /tv/, but South Africa seems like the perfect place to film a post modern movie.
I don't even know what that means.
Yet african people seem superior to other peoples. You may hate that, but you cannot deny that african influence overwhelms other cultures'
african-american culture dominates entertainment.
rock/blues/jazz/swing/rap/hiphop/r&b are all inventions of the black man.
So a man straight from Africa has the ability to make some level shit by the snap of his fingers? lmao
he can also give a white woman an intense eyeball-rolling orgasm from his big black cock stretching her out
>The African continent has more arable land
This is false
>Minerals
Like what? Platinum? They found gold and diamonds in the Kalahari and set up there, but there's not nearly enough around Capetown to merit that sort of thing.
>Other natural resources
Such as what, exactly? Lumber that was wet (humid) and weak, hard to fashion with and not durable? Slaves? Because they did do that.
The infrastructure you are suggesting for Africa to be even comparable with america is laughable
>This is false
no it's not false. if you are suggesting that the USA as more all-year arable land than the entire african continent than you are a fucking retard.
>Like what? Platinum? They found gold and diamonds in the Kalahari and set up there, but there's not nearly enough around Capetown to merit that sort of thing.
there's an abundance of all minerals in africa. also no one said cape town only you dumb fuck.
>The infrastructure you are suggesting for Africa to be even comparable with america is laughable
what infrastructure? do you know the definition of infrastructure you dumbass? no one here mentioned anything about infrastructure
>Why didn't South Africa specifically attract as many migrants as the US did?
>Talk about how Cape, the largest colony, was barren and lacking in resources that were of consequence
>DURR NOBODY'S TALKING ABOUT THAT GOSH BE SPECIFIC
I'm not going to bother arguing this point. You seem like you're out for a b8 m8.
However, let's dissect your fuckwit assertion that there is more arable land in Africa than the US. I am an agricultural science major and I come from a family of farmers.
For starters, you have extreme limitations to what you can work with, with regards to topography and climate. In large chunks of the Eritrea and Ethiopia, the elevation is too high and dry for agriculture, recieving less rainfall than the median for the area. But this is only a pallid comparison to the real problem - that it's far, far too hot and dry to grow crops efficiently.
The entire coast north coast and all the way down to the horn of africa, the Sahara and the territories that occupy it are incredibly sandy and rocky (which makes poor soil for growing grain crops) and recieve almost no natural rainfall. Egypt and the Sudan rely completely on the Nile Delta to make land arable; ultimately making them net import nations when it comes to certain foodstuffs. The Sahara and the Karoo in S.A., as well as Namibia, are all ruled out for 'arable land'.
Next is soil depth and salinity. This is an incredible swathe of land that I don't think you understand; it affects well over 30% of the land that ISN'T part of the Sahara, Kalahari - where topsoil is of an insufficient quality to hold moisture, your plants won't achieve any maturity; and salinity accumulation in the root zone prevents plant growth as they plant is forced to exert more energy to extract water from the earth.
1/??
Already, we've basically ruled out half of Africa already. Algeria's coastline, The northern half of Morocco, and the meditteranean coastline of Tunisia all have climate that can support limited agriculture (as per my Nat Geo and a report from the UN Food Bank.) Libya, Niger, Mali, Mauritiania, Western Sahara - 90% desert.
Next up is tropical soils, which are incredibly high in acids and low in nitrates, essential to growing plant life. Plants tend to grow in neutral or slightly acidic soil (pH-wise); a heightened acidity can prevent it from absorbing nutrients; decomposition of plant matter - such as in subtropical and tropical forest areas - gives high levels of acidity that prevents effective plant growth. Your other problem here is disease, predominately fungal in nature, that thrives due to perpetually wet conditions - the sort of shit you can partially control with pesticides, but not really. Heavy and consistent rain can spoil harvests too; not to mention stockpiles through insect plagues and other pestilences. So that's the Congo, Zimbabwe. Basically the entire middle chunk of Africa.
Pic related is NatGeo's assertion on the area of Africa that is 'arable' (in brown). What is being 'worked' is green. You could argue that irrigation could provide neccessary water; but you can't effectively Dam or channel monsoonal waters with settlement-era technology. This basically nukes water-demanding crops like Rice out of the atmosphere in any form of substance; what is grown in africa right now is corn, sorghum and cassava.
Let me try and generate a perspective. Australia (which is neither the US or Africa) and the United States are roughly the similar landmass size; minus florida and Alaska. The United States has about 1.6 million square kilometres of cultivated land, and the same again in arable. Australia has less than a third of that.
Put simply; your assertion is baseless, moronic, and without consideration of any effective agriculture.
The reason I mentioned Australia was so you can grasp that climate, soil quality and topography (in addition to other environmental factors like rainfall) have HUGE impacts on yield.
The United States has some of the most profitable, lush farmland on the planet; and all of it is rain-fed. It's truly god's gift to farmers - we're talking double yields off of full maturity crops compared to dryland crops. And that's not unusual, because it's absolutely what you'd expect from a dryland vs irrigated crop; it's just that most of the irrigation is really irrigation, it's just rainfed. I can't stress enough how remarkable that is.
To achieve similar results in other countries would require development and irrigation the likes of which are so batshit insane that they're African-dicator-tier (literally, Gaddafi set out to 'plow the desert' in the 70's and 80's in the imagination that deep european farming techniques and co-ordination of resources was all that was required to grow crops).
The above posts are also completely in ignorance of European farming practice at the time, which in layman's terms are deep and clustered, and no good for sandy or dry conditions. Modern dryland farming requires you to exploit other avenues than the availability of consistent, good rain. Sewing your plants slightly farther apart, for example, can maximumize nutrients and sunlight to the plant, as well as helping prevent from growing at ground level, and these aren't developments we knew about til the 1950's at least. That's why the big 'Africa can feed the world' meme is only recent.
But, again, seeing as how we're talking 17th and 18th-century technology and practices, both of which were suited to continental european climates, water availability and soil composition, your assertion is still incorrect.
>Most of the irrigation is really irrigation
isn't*
The native Americans died, mostly, form smallpox. That created a vacuum. But the Blacks were immune to smallpox.
mother africa is too doting and soft on her children
mothe europa did not spare the rod
Came here for the meme answers
>It's also warm all year long
You act like this is a positive. The average european does not enjoy average yearly temperatures above 10-15°C. Southern South Africa is already on the unplesantly hot side of mediterranean climate, the rest of the continent is outright hellish.