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?
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.
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?
What does that have to do with using a racist term?
because it's a commonly accepted term... at least in Western histories or geographies.
That's the problem. Chiekh Anta Diops and Chancellor Williams's work on africa are unrivaled till this day. They are the authority of African culture and history. Sub-sahara is not something we Africans like. It's quite insulting.
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.
