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?
I thought "sub-Sahara" just meant "south of the Saharan desert". Does it mean something different to you?
Sub Sahara was used by Europeans to separate the areas they encountered black people from the rest of the world as if the 22nd parallel is a magical barrier. Africans never referred to a "sub-sahara" Africa, which is a euphemism for black Africa, even that is a misnomer since African = black. Blacks have always existed in north Africa (still do to this day) and are the oldest population in north Africa. Arabs and the so called olive skinned semitic people (for getting that there are black semetics and that the word semetic was also used by Europeans for the same reason) are not native to north Africa. Oldest mummies in Libya = negros according anthropologists, oldest rock art shows blacks, and we have the history books in Timbuktu written by blacks about the history of the region.
