D2 posted:Africa was not explored farther up from the coast by whites for centuries because the rivers are fast flowing and drop to the sea rapidly making travel inland seasonal and very hard.
Not true. The River Niger is navigable at considerable distances from the coast, as are several other rivers. West Africa is mainly low lying in the near coastal regions in most instances. The mountains of Nigeria and Ghana, two of the largest suppliers of enslaved peoples, are well inland.
The truth is that the African kingdoms were too powerful, and combined with susceptibility to tropical diseases and the high humidity battling these empires wouldn't have been possible. The Africans had immunity to various European diseases, so didn't collapse in the way that the various Amerindian empires of Mexico and South America did when the locals died from diseases brought in by the Spanish.
The wealth generated by slaves in the Americas and the importance of this slavery to continue to generate such wealth was such that if it was possible for the Europeans to reduce the cost of slave acquisition from African traders they would have done so.
Silly druggie is too unintelligent and ignorant to know that in the late 17th century and the early 18th Jamaica generated more wealth than did all of the British colonies in North America. And that Martinique generated more than did Quebec. And of course Ste Domingue (Haiti) was even wealthier than these.
I will watch him run to Wikipedia to post an article that undermines his argument simply because he cannot understand it.