why did the africans came to work on sugar plantations in british guiana?
600397
They didn't choose to do so.  They were forced into slavery.
734882
The British colony in Massachusetts started because of money. English "gentlement" flocked to the colony in hopes to make a quick buck with cash crops. Some women also came, but the vast majority were men.\n\nOf course, there were many varied (and potentially life-threatening) factors at work once they arrived, but that exceeds the scope of the question.
893308
Here are some sites that may help you:\n\nhttp://www.answers.com/topic/colonization-of-africa\nhttp://www.hyperhistory.net/apwh/essays/comp/cw25colonizationafrica.htm\nhttp://www.yaleslavery.org/TownGown/coloniz.html
942242
The Souther Colonies consisted primariy of North Carolina, South Carolina, and Georgia.\n\nColonists wanted gold, land, and resources. The biggest reason however was plantations. Many wanted to reap huge profits from growing a variety of crops including tobacco and cotton. Georgia was a colony where English debtors were sent. Though it always acted as a "buffer" between the English and Spanish (Florida).
219657
If your speaking historically, it's just a matter of who invented guns and boats first. Africans did enslave other African tribes for centuries before whites got there, and if they had the technology to get to Europe first, then whites would have been on the receiving end.
642590
They speak English and Patois (pronounced Patwa), also called Creole. Creole varies throughout the world and variations exist throughout countries where slavery was common (Caribbean, Guyana, and parts of Africa to name just some). It normally uses the words of the base language (usually English or French) spoken with the native (African) grammar. A typical example might be "me no see she face" meaning "I didn't see her face". It is accepted as a legitimate language in it's own right in many countries, with newspapers in Guyana having a Creole section - it makes for interesting reading, if you can get a grip on it!
173615
it helped them by providing a product they could export/sell back in europe.  this in turn provided money and an economy that allowed the colony to survive.
1046459
Cause lots of African countries used to be french colonies.
945113
The British colonies sent rice, tobacco, indigo, and furs to Britain. Britain sent cloth and manufactured goods to the West Indies.  The West Indies sent goods to the British colonies.\n\nThe West Indies sent sugar, molasses, and fruit to Britain.  Britain sent iron, cloth, and weapons to Africa.  Africa sent enslaved persons to West Indies. \n\nThe West Indies sent molasses to the British colonies.  The British colonies sent rum, iron, and tools to Africa.  Africa sent enslaved persons, gold, and pepper to the West Indies.
632634
You'll have to clarify your question.  Indigenous peoples have lived in South Africa for hundreds of thousands of years.  Do you mean to ask when Europeans started stealing South African land, enslaving Africans, and using military force to take control of the country?: Do you mean to ask when the first Europeans settled there(1652)?  Or when the British annexed the Cape (1795)?  Or when the Brits seized control over the country through brutal military force (1910 - The Union of South Africa created)? Or when the Boers won control of the country and began the horrors and injustices of apartheid? (1948)?
456712
Actually, the foundations go back to the beginnings of the African slave trade.  Prior to the African slave trade, enslavement was not an act of racism.\n\nIn the past slaves were criminals, children sold by their parents, or prisoners captured in war time.  In some asian and middle eastern cultures such slaves are still openly traded (official government positions are that it is illegal, but the laws are not enforced).\n\nWhen Britain banned the enslavement of British residents in the 16th century , slave traders needed to find a new source of slaves.  They discovered that African tribes were willing to sell members of their tribes and thus began the trade of African slaves in the western world.\n\nThe reason that the trade of British residents was outlawed was because the church had concluded that slavery was incompatible with Christian Values.  In order to reconcile the trade of African Slaves with their Christian beliefs the British and later the French looked for evidence that Africans were not fully human.  They used everything from the way they stood to the fact that they had no written language to justify their stance that Africans were not fully human.\n\nAs African slaves learned to speak English and as some learned to read and write the slaves began to produce intelligent ideas into the culture both in Europe and in the American colonies.  This disproved the theory that Africans were less than human. \n\nThe new justification for holding African slaves became converting them to Christianity.  This justification could be validated until the international slave trade was banned by Britain in the late 18th century and by the rest of Europe and the United States in the early 19th century.  Within a generation nearly all African slaves had converted to Christianity.  \n\nAfter 300 years of African slavery, that enslavement was deeply rooted into the cultures and into the economies of Europe and the United States.  \n\nAbolitionist groups had begun forming in the late 18th century, but in the early 19th century their support bases grew quickly. Abolitionist papers were published openly in the U.S. and underground in most European countries.  \n\nIn the Mid 19th century western countries began outlawing the ownership of slaves.  Britain was the first (It was outlawed, but the trade continued in their colonies), followed by the other countries of western Europe.  It was only in the United States that the ending of slavery resulted from a war.  \n\nThe former owners of slaves and those who were too poor but had envied slave holders turned on the newly freed slaves particularly in the United States.  The KKK for example was formed as a political action group to eliminate republican party candidates from national offices but changed their focus to persecuting freed slaves after the civil war.  \n\nIn response to the racist propoganda Black advocate groups such as the NAACP were formed.   \n\nDuring reconstruction many freed slaves moved to northern cities.  Shortly after reconstruction a recession occured and there were accusations that blacks were taking the jobs of white men. Added to the tension was the fact that many of the whites in those cities had rarely or never seen a black person. Fueled by the propoganda put out by racist groups, fights broke out between blacks and whites.  These among other incidents led to the "seperate but equal supreme court decision" which at the time was supported by most black advocate groups.\n\nThe early twentieth century brought more conflict as Black advocate groups tried to enforce the equal part of "Seperate But Equal".  The racist groups fought back and gained support as Whites became defensive about their treatment (as a whole) of blacks.\n\nWhen the stock market crashed and a drought devestated the mid west, the focus of hate groups turned from the blacks in the cities to Mexican field hands in California and blacks came to be more accepted by society since they w
866289
I think that is a really good thought provoking question.  But you have to consider to that Africa was also affected by the slavery trade as well as being Colonised by European countries.  In fact it wasn't until the late 20th century that South Africa was still under the complete control of European Colonists.  But as an African American I can say that I am very happy and fill privileged to be born in America.
781564
Whole books about this stuff...In a nut shell...\nNatives and Africans fought on both sides of the Revolution to further their own interests.  Native Americans were the dominant military presence west of the Appalachian Mountains and they fought alongside the English.  They believed the English were their beat hope of keeping American settlers from pouring over the mountains and pushing them off their land.\n\nThere were many tribes, some traditional enemies, and that further complicated their response to the war between American Colonists and the English,\n  Africans and African Americans (remember, at this time the African slave trade was very much alive - not all African slaves were native born) fought for the colonies, and fought well, as free men and on behalf of their masters.  At one point, the British promised freedom to any male slave (and his family) if he escaped and joined the British Army.  Many did.  Others took advantage of masters and overseers' absence to escape from slavery.\n\nJust remember this - no group of people ever acted uniformly.  People act in their own interests.
344226
Well of course people lived in Liberia before the African Americans went back there.  So I disagree, but the independent state of liberia was started by freed American slaves.  That much is true.  Also American companies such as the tire maker Firestone moved in, to start rubber plantations.
659475
It was exploited!\n\nMost of my life the Congo was called "the Belgum Congo" (Find an old atlas and look it up). I therefore deduce that Belgum was the colonial power.\n\nWhen? Sorry, can't help yuo.
777312
Blacks started coming later on. They were brought here by the white people to be used as slaves to harvest their land and clean their houses, ect. It is very cruel, but true. Africans were torn from their homes, and kidnapped to the U.S. where they were forced to serve white people.
932001
I can understand reparations to the still living Jamanese who were interned during WW2, but the whole thing about getting a check because of ancestral difficulties p*sses me off.  My family came over as indentured servants, working off their trip for the rest of their lives.  If I want a check, I'll work for it