R U American or not.

[GreatLakes2]

Somehow, I have a felling that I am going to regret this because as usual I am telling truth and facts and that is rarely PC........

Quite simply because of decolonization. When the Europeans left, everything fell apart. Nothing left behind by the Europeans was maintained by the natives. I had a long talk about this with a retired French Army Col. who was the chief engineer in one of those Fench colonies in Africa back in the 50's. He told me all about it. Not my opinon, just historical fact. Look at Zimbabwe today as a good example of what has gone wrong. The worst thing the Europeans ever did to those people was leave them to govern themselves and manage their own affairs. Now there is nothing but genocide (Rawanda) and famine (Zimbabwe) and tribal warfare. Since they seized all the productive farms from the white people and expelled, or murderd the whites, the farms have failed and they have severe food shortages now. Just go research it on news websites, you will find the recent articles.

So far you are safe. As you said, these are all facts that can be verified. And all valid points. But I still wonder why the stories are not more similar between the evolution of the two continents. Why were the Native Americans more easily displaced than the native Africans? Was it a question of numbers? Did the Europeans not expend the same efforts in Africa as in America? Both had there share of untamed wilderness.
I truly have no agenda here, just an honest question of the differences in the development in the two areas. No different than asking how GM became more successful than Chrysler. (OK, 'success' may be a strong word these days.) Both had the same market, access to the same technologies, etc, yet one grew bigger than the other.

 

[mitch768292]

So far you are safe. As you said, these are all facts that can be verified. And all valid points. But I still wonder why the stories are not more similar between the evolution of the two continents. Why were the Native Americans more easily displaced than the native Africans? Was it a question of numbers? Did the Europeans not expend the same efforts in Africa as in America? Both had there share of untamed wilderness.
I truly have no agenda here, just an honest question of the differences in the development in the two areas. No different than asking how GM became more successful than Chrysler. (OK, 'success' may be a strong word these days.) Both had the same market, access to the same technologies, etc, yet one grew bigger than the other.

Well, the Europeans did pretty much the same thing in Africa but they did not send as many colonists as we had here in the original 13. So numbers probably had a big role in it. But also remember that the Europeans were truly interested in colonizing America but in Africa they mainly wanted to simply extract natural resources, and make sure their European neighbors did not get too strong a foothold. Just a theory.

 

[GreatLakes2]

Well, the Europeans did pretty much the same thing in Africa but they did not send as many colonists as we had here in the original 13. So numbers probably had a big role in it. But also remember that the Europeans were truly interested in colonizing America but in Africa they mainly wanted to simply extract natural resources, and make sure their European neighbors did not get too strong a foothold. Just a theory.

OK, I'll buy that.

I have also wondered why the northern hemisphere is more populated and settled than the southern. Almost all the major powerful countries have been on the north half of the planet.
(Well unless you count Atlantis, which was in the southern hemisphere according to some theories. )

 

[canada]

So far you are safe. As you said, these are all facts that can be verified. And all valid points. But I still wonder why the stories are not more similar between the evolution of the two continents. Why were the Native Americans more easily displaced than the native Africans? Was it a question of numbers? Did the Europeans not expend the same efforts in Africa as in America? Both had there share of untamed wilderness.
I truly have no agenda here, just an honest question of the differences in the development in the two areas. No different than asking how GM became more successful than Chrysler. (OK, 'success' may be a strong word these days.) Both had the same market, access to the same technologies, etc, yet one grew bigger than the other.

Had to pop in with my view. I love history (world and American), however, I do not claim to be an expert. I found it thought provoking the difference between the evolution of the 2 continents.

I would like to propose a theory based only on my limited knowledge. The U.S. is really what we are talking about, not North America. I believe the big difference between the colonization of the U.S. and Africa was the very early independence of the U.S. The people in the U.S. were no longer part of Europe, but had to develop itself.

Now, I want you to understand that inspite of what I am about to say, that I am a right of center person who is a very pasionate American. The following is my description of what I believe really happened in U.S. using modern day historical terms to describe it:

1. Ethnic Cleansing - is not what us European Americans did to the Native Americans really not any different than ethnic cleansing. We forced the Native Americans from their land and forced them into small areas or reservations. On those reservations they were often abused, limited in what they can do and often even starved. Was it really any different than the black slums in apartheid South Africa.

2. Conquest - America used its "manifest destiny" to conquer any other area that was controlled by another European power (Florida - Spanish, British forced Dutch out of New York, British forced France out any areas east of Mississippi in the French & Indian War, we bought most of the western U.S. from France, we conquered the rest of the western U.S. (Texas, Arizona, New Mexico, California) from the Spanish/Mexicans,we even bought Alaska from the Russians (the Eskimos didn't count), and last but not least we even conquered Hawaii from its native).

I guess, what I am saying is that in fact the British united the early U.S. and then this newly independent nation comquered most of what was left of North America.

There was no continent wide uniting or conquering power in Africa.

I am not saying what I see as what really happen in U.S. was morally right, but I am glad it happened.

 

[mitch768292]

Had to pop in with my view. I love history (world and American), however, I do not claim to be an expert. I found it thought provoking the difference between the evolution of the 2 continents.

I would like to propose a theory based only on my limited knowledge. The U.S. is really what we are talking about, not North America. I believe the big difference between the colonization of the U.S. and Africa was the very early independence of the U.S. The people in the U.S. were no longer part of Europe, but had to develop itself.

Now, I want you to understand that inspite of what I am about to say, that I am a right of center person who is a very pasionate American. The following is my description of what I believe really happened in U.S. using modern day historical terms to describe it:

1. Ethnic Cleansing - is not what us European Americans did to the Native Americans really not any different than ethnic cleansing. We forced the Native Americans from their land and forced them into small areas or reservations. On those reservations they were often abused, limited in what they can do and often even starved. Was it really any different than the black slums in apartheid South Africa.

2. Conquest - America used its "manifest destiny" to conquer any other area that was controlled by another European power (Florida - Spanish, British forced Dutch out of New York, British forced France out any areas east of Mississippi in the French & Indian War, we bought most of the western U.S. from France, we conquered the rest of the western U.S. (Texas, Arizona, New Mexico, California) from the Spanish/Mexicans,we even bought Alaska from the Russians (the Eskimos didn't count), and last but not least we even conquered Hawaii from its native).

I guess, what I am saying is that in fact the British united the early U.S. and then this newly independent nation comquered most of what was left of North America.

There was no continent wide uniting or conquering power in Africa.

I am not saying what I see as what really happen in U.S. was morally right, but I am glad it happened.

The reason we succeeded is because the Europeans never left America. The people who inhabited the colonies were Europeans. We simply changed our form of government.

In Africa, the Europeans left and the natives took over.

I think that explains it.