NationStates Jolt Archive

I hope this doesn't sound racist, I'm seriously wondering. I don't know a lot of history about Africa.

I just happened to pick up a new story about Chad asking the U.N. to step in in Darfur. And it got me thinking. Was Africa peaceful before we started taking slaves out? Before Britain or France started colonizing it.

Has it EVER been prosperous?

Please don't flame me on this. I'm just trying to learn more about an important issue that alot of people in the world seem to ignore.

Has any continent, ever?

Has it EVER been prosperous?
Well, what parts of Africa are we talking about? If the north counts, you've got your Egyptian civilization. But I kinda think that's not what you mean.
Hmm. I think I remember once being taught about some African kingdoms which really did quite well for a time, sell salt or somesuch. But I can't seem to remember the names at the moment, I'll go look for info.

EDIT:
One of them was the Mali Empire (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mali_Empire), I think.
I think the other I had heard about was the Songhai Empire (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Songhai_Empire)

Has any continent, ever?

Antarctica has a pretty good track record. :D

Antarctica has a pretty good track record. :D

*moves to Antarctica, and freezes to death after a week*

Antarctica has a pretty good track record. :D

Damn it!

two points/flaws with your question.
first off africa is a huge place, which is not very well connected (ie:natural barriers), the whole coast of africa was not really mapped out at all until 1421 (by the chinese), and even then it was of poor quality. your the north east you have the areas dominated by the nile river, in the horn trade was for many years huge, as well as in and around modern tanzania (think zanzabar mombasa). in the forests in central africa peoples who have been very primitive, mostly nomadic until very recent times, so on and so forth. you cant really talk about africa as a whole the same way you cant talk about asia as a whole, because what do japan, isreal, and bangledesh have in common?
second off, no continent has ever really been peaceful, and the slave trade was huge in africa long before europeans explored/began trading there...
if you wanna know more lemme know

Africa was peaceful when humans did not exist.

regular tribal spats sub-sahara pre-15th C. was about as warfare-y as it got, some limited larger kingdoms and limited wealth. The North was a totally different story, being accessible to the Med. and the influences there from the egyptians, libians, sea peoples, greeks, persians, carthaginians, numidians, romans, Vandals, byzantines, muslims, Normans, Ottomans... Parts of North Africa were incredibly wealthy at various times.

Africa was peaceful when humans did not exist.
I don't think the dinosaurs were very peaceful...

Also, chimps go to war as well as humans.

I hope this doesn't sound racist, I'm seriously wondering. I don't know a lot of history about Africa.

I just happened to pick up a new story about Chad asking the U.N. to step in in Darfur. And it got me thinking. Was Africa peaceful before we started taking slaves out? Before Britain or France started colonizing it.

Has it EVER been prosperous?

Please don't flame me on this. I'm just trying to learn more about an important issue that alot of people in the world seem to ignore.


No.

No.

No.

It never will be as long as the continent his held by socialists, communists, and never-do-wells.

Elgesh']regular tribal spats sub-sahara pre-15th C. was about as warfare-y as it got, some limited larger kingdoms and limited wealth.
fair enough, but there was not the population or infrastructure to support anything bigger

I hope this doesn't sound racist, I'm seriously wondering. I don't know a lot of history about Africa.

I just happened to pick up a new story about Chad asking the U.N. to step in in Darfur. And it got me thinking. Was Africa peaceful before we started taking slaves out? Before Britain or France started colonizing it.

Has it EVER been prosperous?

Please don't flame me on this. I'm just trying to learn more about an important issue that alot of people in the world seem to ignore.

You're not racist, just ignorant.

The British and French may have owned most of it but colonization of Africa was started by others and has happened for thousands of years.

Africa was peaceful when humans did not exist.

No, even then animals killed each other for food and territory...

Yes, Africa has been prosperous, but that prosperity was neither universal nor prolonged. There were numerous empires and kingdoms that thrived in the trades and precious metals mining, but they were often destroyed by rebellions or invasions after a few centuries. Some of this has to do with climate; major regions of the sub-Saharan don't lend themselves well to large cities and agriculture with its jungles, wet weather and swampy lowlands, and tropical diseases.

It never will be as long as the continent his held by socialists, communists, and never-do-wells.
I don't hold out much hope for it when they stop ruling it as well, considering the state of...I don't know...Europe, c.1914-1945

Damn it!

Kind of walked into that one, didn't you? ;)

Africa was for the most part peaceful before the white man arrived. Yes, there was tribal warfare and slavery, but for the most part, things were peaceful, and Africans treated their slaves far more humanely than the Americans and Europeans did.

Botswana today is quite peaceful. It has never had a coup d'etat, the country has been free, non-racial, and democratic since its independence, and corruption, though it does exist, is so minor as to be inconsequential.

Some African countries have been prosperous. Abhorrent as apartheid was, South Africa was extremely prosperous under it (although it achieved its prosperity through despicable means, including using blacks as cheap labor). Rhodesia, too, was prosperous, as was Cote d'Ivoire under President Houphouet-Boigny.

If we're throwing in N Africa than a few major civilisations Carthage for one and a whole slew of them durring the middle ages.

We studied africa in my ancient world history class. In awnser to your question, most nations WERE very prosperous.

Africa was for the most part peaceful before the white man arrived. Yes, there was tribal warfare and slavery, but for the most part, things were peaceful, and Africans treated their slaves far more humanely than the Americans and Europeans did.

I'd go farther back. Africa's troubles began with the arrival of Arab slave traders and were accentuated by whites to their destructive peak.

If we're throwing in N Africa than a few major civilisations Carthage for one and a whole slew of them durring the middle ages.

I agree Carthage was very prosperous, but it was more in the time of ancient Rome.

It never will be as long as the continent his held by socialists, communists, and never-do-wells.
He didn't ask when it will be prosperous, he asked if it has ever been.
And seeing as Marxism has only existed for less than hundred years, somehow I doubt it has caused Africa to never have been prosperous...

I hope this doesn't sound racist, I'm seriously wondering. I don't know a lot of history about Africa.

I just happened to pick up a new story about Chad asking the U.N. to step in in Darfur. And it got me thinking. Was Africa peaceful before we started taking slaves out? Before Britain or France started colonizing it.

Has it EVER been prosperous?

Please don't flame me on this. I'm just trying to learn more about an important issue that alot of people in the world seem to ignore.

Sure. The north, mainly, (Egypt, Nubia, Axum) but even in the rest of the continent, almost all of Africa's problems were caused by colonization. Europeans came in, divided up territory based on their needs, and bit by bit shaped a political map that crossed tribal, ethnic, and religious boundaries, locking rivals and enemies into the same nations.

At the same time, they retarded the independent progress of African civilization and hideously screwed up the entire natural social order, dominant political mentalities, and economic situation. African populations shown tyranny by their European rulers turned to tyranny themselves when free; civil-rights guerillas became revolution-happy trigger-twitchers roving around in small armies. Unstable conditions created by the push-in and pull-out of colonization were fertile soil for dictators and poverty. Exploitation created dependent, unstable economies and populations used to foreign rule didn't really understand how to start and run an independent nation once the occupiers left.

Kind of walked into that one, didn't you? ;)

I always manage to somehow forget there is a continent down there.

Some of this has to do with climate; major regions of the sub-Saharan don't lend themselves well to large cities and agriculture with its jungles, wet weather and swampy lowlands, and tropical diseases.
im not sure that this is entirely fair. although the climate and geography certainly has an impact (for subsah africa no good natural trade ties, slow technological diffusion, relatively few domesticated crops), although i dont think it really stops large cities from existing, the thing is less people/habitable land mass in the area, means less technological development and less trade etc.etc.
'guns,germs, and steel' by jared diamond has been quite popular in the last couple years, and it discusses this, id probvably suggest the book.

I always manage to somehow forget there is a continent down there.

Understandable. Not a very happening place. Easy to forget.

yes, actually even to the middle ages Africa was a power to deal with. As an example, Saladins re-capture of Jerusalem between the 2nd and 3rd crusade.(mightve been between 1st and 2nd, i forgot.)

I hope this doesn't sound racist, I'm seriously wondering. I don't know a lot of history about Africa.

I just happened to pick up a new story about Chad asking the U.N. to step in in Darfur. And it got me thinking. Was Africa peaceful before we started taking slaves out? Before Britain or France started colonizing it.

Has it EVER been prosperous?
Africa has had periods where a type of "peace" was imposed by African rulers, but it was always based on tribe and enforced via inter-tribal warfare.

Here's a good starting point (http://www.fordham.edu/halsall/africa/africasbook.html#African%20History:%20General).

No.

No.

No.

It never will be as long as the continent his held by socialists, communists, and never-do-wells.

Whoa i just read that post, obviosly you dont know any history of africa if you think it was never prosperous or peacefull. Know some facts before you post man.

Sure. The north, mainly, (Egypt, Nubia, Axum) but even in the rest of the continent, almost all of Africa's problems were caused by colonization. Europeans came in, divided up territory based on their needs, and bit by bit shaped a political map that crossed tribal, ethnic, and religious boundaries, locking rivals and enemies into the same nations.
africa may have been prosperous (and certianly egypt axum carthage etcetc were), however none of these states were peaceful, egypt was almost continually at war in both the new and old kingdom, as were most of the other states that achieved any level of prosperity and development.
-Magdha-

Africa was for the most part peaceful before the white man arrived. Yes, there was tribal warfare and slavery, but for the most part, things were peaceful, and Africans treated their slaves far more humanely than the Americans and Europeans did.
this is simply not true, long before europeans began to colonize africa it was not peaceful first off. and dont get me started on the slavery part, long before europeans used africa as a source of slaves both the arabs and the chinese were, and china was colonizing africa before the europeans as well (abandoning its colonies around 1430). the slave trade was huge, and was the only worthwhile resources the people of east africa could provide the indian ocean trade with.

I hope this doesn't sound racist, I'm seriously wondering. I don't know a lot of history about Africa.

I just happened to pick up a new story about Chad asking the U.N. to step in in Darfur. And it got me thinking. Was Africa peaceful before we started taking slaves out? Before Britain or France started colonizing it.

Has it EVER been prosperous?

Please don't flame me on this. I'm just trying to learn more about an important issue that alot of people in the world seem to ignore.

A bit yes, if my history book was legit, which it ...well to be honest 50-50 chance there. But anyhow if the history book is legit, then yes Africa was peaceful and prosperous for a time, thriving on gold and ivory exports. But then it started to like slavery exports to much and *boom* now we have the Africa of today.

I don't hold out much hope for it when they stop ruling it as well, considering the state of...I don't know...Europe, c.1914-1945

And a continent wide war took care of that. If only Africa would either peacefully get their stuff straightened out or just make WWIII on each other, we'd all be better off.

I hope this doesn't sound racist, I'm seriously wondering. I don't know a lot of history about Africa.

I just happened to pick up a new story about Chad asking the U.N. to step in in Darfur. And it got me thinking. Was Africa peaceful before we started taking slaves out? Before Britain or France started colonizing it.

Has it EVER been prosperous?

Please don't flame me on this. I'm just trying to learn more about an important issue that alot of people in the world seem to ignore.


Major Things that have hurt Africa and have not allowed it to prosper:

The First was the spread of Islam. Islam spread through violence in North Africa westward until Morrocco. The Sahara desert though ended the violent spred of Islam, the Arabs did not want to cross the Sahara to spread their empire south.

The Second was slavery. It was brought by the Arabs, then the Europeans began slave trade on the western coast.

The Third was colonialism. Colonialism at first crushed Africa, as the Europeans implemented social Darwinism. Colonialism though then kinda evened out and began helping the Africans.

The Fourth was de-colonization. Just as colonialism began to build the african society and infrastructure up, the African's began to drive the European colonialists out. These colonialists left but did not add any infrastructure other then what had been necessary for colonialism. This infrastructure would of course have to continue to grow as the African population grew.

The Fifth is poor leadership. The leaders that lead de-colonization spoke about freedom from the colonial masters, and democracy for the Africans. However the liberators became dictators and began sucking their countries dry, amassing huge personal fortunes instead of helping build infrastructure and promoting the comon good.

The Sixth was the Cold-War. Combat between West and East forced African countries to choose sides. The west gave money too and caused AFrican countries to become dependent on the west, and the East did the same thing. The East also bred Soviet minded leaders that were violent and murderous.

The Seventh was the end of the Cold-War. The west quit funding African countries, and the countries that relied on Western funds tore themselves apart, and the same case w/eastern funded nations.

The final eighth reason is tribalism. Tribalism causes racism (Yes the different tribes are different ethically and culturally), and genocide based on race,religion, politics, and money. Tribes fight for control of resources, when they need to put aside racial and cultural differences and fight for stronger countries.

well this thread is actually pretty interesting, to bad i gtg. cya everyone, hah i just realized i have black hawk down playing on my tv right next to me, i think thats kinda ironic.

I agree Carthage was very prosperous, but it was more in the time of ancient Rome.

Well yeah Carthage fought a war with Rome. Over the trade war that they were winning against the Romans Terribly prosperous. Actually just about every part of the med (like Rome) has had a few prosperous cultures.

A bit yes, if my history book was legit, which it ...well to be honest 50-50 chance there. But anyhow if the history book is legit, then yes Africa was peaceful and prosperous for a time, thriving on gold and ivory exports. But then it started to like slavery exports to much and *boom* now we have the Africa of today.
youre history book (or memory i dunno) is too vague to be useful here. gold and ivory costs would be around the 'bulge of afirca', one of many regions and occured mostly in the 18th and 19th century (when it was biggest anyways) slavery exports have been big in africa since AT LEAST 1200 AD, and did not create the africa of today, as they began subsiding over a century ago

youre history book (or memory i dunno) is too vague to be useful here. gold and ivory costs would be around the 'bulge of afirca', one of many regions and occured mostly in the 18th and 19th century (when it was biggest anyways) slavery exports have been big in africa since AT LEAST 1200 AD, and did not create the africa of today, as they began subsiding over a century ago


Ivory Coast is Morrocco, Libya, Tunisia, and Algeria (Those are the countries today.)

And just regarding Socialism...it actually worked quite well for a few places - until their leaders changed course.

Nyerere (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Julius_Nyerere) for example did great things in Tanzania early on - his reforms worked, it was a rich country, he was Times "Man of the Year", Western students flocked to Tanzanian universities and so on.
It was only when Nyerere sudddenly changed course and aligned himself with Mao's China, and he became a dictator that things turned pear-shaped.

Ivory Coast is Morrocco, Libya, Tunisia, and Algeria (Those are the countries today.)
....?Côte d'Ivoire , ghana etc is the ivory coast, not libya algeria etc

Ivory Coast is Morrocco, Libya, Tunisia, and Algeria (Those are the countries today.)
:confused:
Which Ivory Coast are you talking about?

http://www.lib.utexas.edu/maps/africa/africa_pol97.jpg

Nyerere (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Julius_Nyerere) for example did great things in Tanzania early on - his reforms worked, it was a rich country, he was Times "Man of the Year", Western students flocked to Tanzanian universities and so on. It was only when Nyerere sudddenly changed course and aligned himself with Mao's China, and he became a dictator that things turned pear-shaped.

At least Nyerere deserves credit for overthrowing Idi Amin...that's worth more than anything in my opinion of him as leader.

the nation cote d'ivoire or ivory coast if you would is named after the ivory coast http://archives.cnn.com/1999/WORLD/africa/12/25/ivory.coast.coup.02/ivory.coast.abidjan.lg.jpg

And just regarding Socialism...it actually worked quite well for a few places - until their leaders changed course.

Nyerere (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Julius_Nyerere) for example did great things in Tanzania early on - his reforms worked, it was a rich country, he was Times "Man of the Year", Western students flocked to Tanzanian universities and so on.
It was only when Nyerere sudddenly changed course and aligned himself with Mao's China, and he became a dictator that things turned pear-shaped.

Yes and no. Tanzania was never a "rich" country, and Nyerere made it much, much poorer. But he did make some positive accomplishments, as you noted; notably, the union of Tanganyika and Zanzibar; achieving one of the highest literacy rates in Africa; and giving the people a sense of national unity, thus avoiding the pitfalls of tribalism. Nyerere was also a dictator to begin with, albeit a benign one. Much as I detest Nyerere, he was far more benevolent than many other African leaders that headed one-party states, and he was genuinely liked by his people (and is still highly respected by them today).

Ivory Coast is Morrocco, Libya, Tunisia, and Algeria (Those are the countries today.)

Barbary Coast.

Yes and no. Tanzania was never a "rich" country, and Nyerere made it much, much poorer.
Initially the economy profited a lot from the projects he started, and people's living standards did improve...but it is true, the collectivisation (particularly the forced collectivisation inspired by Mao) did more damage than good.

Initially the economy profited a lot from the projects he started, and people's living standards did improve...but it is true, the collectivisation (particularly the forced collectivisation inspired by Mao) did more damage than good.
government projects dont improve living standards, government projects are the 'practical' equivalent of digging holes and filling them up, and then saying everyone has a job

government projects dont improve living standards, government projects are the 'practical' equivalent of digging holes and filling them up, and then saying everyone has a job
Not if they give people roads, schools and clean drinking water.

alright i wont argue with the roads or clean water....im not an anarchist.....yet

Actually historians have studied this subject and Europeans are the most waring peoples by far. In recorded history, Europe has been at war almost constantly. And, most of the wars outside of Europe have had their roots in European or US interferance. If those with European culture would stay home, the rest of the world would have relative (not absolute) peace.

Actually historians have studied this subject and Europeans are the most waring peoples by far. In recorded history, Europe has been at war almost constantly. And, most of the wars outside of Europe have had their roots in European or US interferance. If those with European culture would stay home, the rest of the world would have relative (not absolute) peace.

Most of the recent wars outside of Europe. The rest of the world, particularly China, has a rich history of warfare even before European contact.

Actually historians have studied this subject and Europeans are the most waring peoples by far. In recorded history, Europe has been at war almost constantly. And, most of the wars outside of Europe have had their roots in European or US interferance. If those with European culture would stay home, the rest of the world would have relative (not absolute) peace.
no offense intended, bt this post is complete BS. give me a source first off, with some sort of empirical data. only someone with a very poor grasp of history would make such a claim. yes europe has been at war constantly for thousands of years, but so has everyother continent. do you think the wars between the chinese and the mongols and other steppe peoples started because of europeans? do you think the wars between egypt and persia started because of europeans? if you wanna study a history of people who were at war constantly lets look at the chinese.
the only reason you would make this claim (or any historian) would be plain and simple ignorance. the things is european nations have the most surviving history (best written records anyway), this is only because the chinese was united, so when 1 or 2 fucked up confusians say 'lets destroy history' it happens, meanwhile no ones ever controlled all of europe

Lets just face it...Everyone fights, all the time.
More recently, however, North America (not counting Central...they're somewhere in the middle; their own 3rd world) hasn't had a war in over a century.

Actually historians have studied this subject and Europeans are the most waring peoples by far. In recorded history, Europe has been at war almost constantly. And, most of the wars outside of Europe have had their roots in European or US interferance. If those with European culture would stay home, the rest of the world would have relative (not absolute) peace.

China was having wars with 100,000 casulaties a battle when Rome was just a mediocre republic in Southern Europe, so obviously warfare is nowhere near a European phenomenon. Don't forget Attila the Hun or Ghengis Khan either.

Lets just face it...Everyone fights, all the time.
More recently, however, North America (not counting Central...they're somewhere in the middle; their own 3rd world) hasn't had a war in over a century.
But only because two countries conquered the place and crushed all opposition. And now the two remaining forces are allied.

no offense intended, bt this post is complete BS...

I agree - wars were 'caused' by europeans/US because they dominated militarily technology/thinking and travalled a lot... Had any other part of the world happened to have these characteristics, we'd be saying _they_ caused most wars!:D

This just shows that power differentials correlate with conflict. No big surprise there!

Lets just face it...Everyone fights, all the time.
More recently, however, North America (not counting Central...they're somewhere in the middle; their own 3rd world) hasn't had a war in over a century.
errrrm thats kinda like saying rome was at peace for 500 years, meanwhile it was just that no wars were fought in the homeland (rome was literally always at war, in britannia or gaul or germanic regions, or thrace, or north africa etc) yes there has been no fighting here for a century, but both the USA and Canada as well as various carribean states have been involved in many wars over the last century (both world wars, korean, vietnam, boer war a little more than a century meh) and were also involved (provided weapons, or generals, or intelligence) in countless others

errrrm thats kinda like saying rome was at peace for 500 years, meanwhile it was just that no wars were fought in the homeland (rome was literally always at war, in britannia or gaul or germanic regions, or thrace, or north africa etc) yes there has been no fighting here for a century, but both the USA and Canada as well as various carribean states have been involved in many wars over the last century (both world wars, korean, vietnam, boer war a little more than a century meh) and were also involved (provided weapons, or generals, or intelligence) in countless others

Yea, but the original post was more focused on Continental Peace, and N. America (W/ out Central America), has been at peace for about a century

Yea, but the original post was more focused on Continental Peace, and N. America (W/ out Central America), has been at peace for about a century
fair enough

My personal opinion/theory of the reason for Africas (South of Sahara) current difficulties:

Africa was doing well in the middle age. It was damn far from "peacefull", but at that same level of civilization and organisation that the large tribes and kindoms were, it wasn't any worse than Europe at the time.

Just like there was a constant state of warfare between the tribes, fought the feudal lords and "countries" of Europe against each other. Both had very little literature and written history of the times.
However, the difference is that when the Europe finally moved out of the shadows of middle age, and nationalism and unification of the "tribes", =small feudal-based communities somewhere in the 18th-19th century, Africa was lagging a bit behind. I still claim that if the colonialism didn't happened, would the Africa reached Europe in couple of centuries. They didn't however get this chance.

After that, Africa lost about 150-200 years of the fastest development in the history of human kind. They were kept at the same level they were when the colonialism started, and very little development happened in those years. In the same time, infrastructure and technology together with the social systems and ideas developed in Europe.

When they finally got strong enough - or to be more accurate the colonialists got too weak - to kick the Europeans out, they had to start basically from where they were in the beginning of the 19th century - late medieval/slowly starting renaissance.




To put it simple, I think the case with Africa and Europe is like with two kids in the school. The other is just a bit behind the other, but for that he gets kicked out from the school for years. Hes already an adult when he's let back in, and the learning is much, much harder.

My personal opinion/theory of the reason for Africas (South of Sahara) current difficulties:

Africa was doing well in the middle age. It was damn far from "peacefull", but at that same level of civilization and organisation that the large tribes and kindoms were, it wasn't any worse than Europe at the time.

Just like there was a constant state of warfare between the tribes, fought the feudal lords and "countries" of Europe against each other. Both had very little literature and written history of the times.
However, the difference is that when the Europe finally moved out of the shadows of middle age, and nationalism and unification of the "tribes", =small feudal-based communities somewhere in the 18th-19th century, Africa was lagging a bit behind. I still claim that if the colonialism didn't happened, would the Africa reached Europe in couple of centuries. They didn't however get this chance.

After that, Africa lost about 150-200 years of the fastest development in the history of human kind. They were kept at the same level they were when the colonialism started, and very little development happened in those years. In the same time, infrastructure and technology together with the social systems and ideas developed in Europe.

When they finally got strong enough - or to be more accurate the colonialists got too weak - to kick the Europeans out, they had to start basically from where they were in the beginning of the 19th century - late medieval/slowly starting renaissance.




To put it simple, I think the case with Africa and Europe is like with two kids in the school. The other is just a bit behind the other, but for that he gets kicked out from the school for years. Hes already an adult when he's let back in, and the learning is much, much harder.
your confused:
subsaharan africa was neither feudal nor agrarian at this time.

When they finally got strong enough - or to be more accurate the colonialists got too weak - to kick the Europeans out, they had to start basically from where they were in the beginning of the 19th century - late medieval/slowly starting renaissance.

To put it simple, I think the case with Africa and Europe is like with two kids in the school. The other is just a bit behind the other, but for that he gets kicked out from the school for years. Hes already an adult when he's let back in, and the learning is much, much harder.

I think thats a fair way to put it actually...

My personal opinion/theory of the reason for Africas (South of Sahara) current difficulties:

Africa was doing well in the middle age. It was damn far from "peacefull", but at that same level of civilization and organisation that the large tribes and kindoms were, it wasn't any worse than Europe at the time.

Just like there was a constant state of warfare between the tribes, fought the feudal lords and "countries" of Europe against each other. Both had very little literature and written history of the times.
However, the difference is that when the Europe finally moved out of the shadows of middle age, and nationalism and unification of the "tribes", =small feudal-based communities somewhere in the 18th-19th century, Africa was lagging a bit behind. I still claim that if the colonialism didn't happened, would the Africa reached Europe in couple of centuries. They didn't however get this chance.

After that, Africa lost about 150-200 years of the fastest development in the history of human kind. They were kept at the same level they were when the colonialism started, and very little development happened in those years. In the same time, infrastructure and technology together with the social systems and ideas developed in Europe.

When they finally got strong enough - or to be more accurate the colonialists got too weak - to kick the Europeans out, they had to start basically from where they were in the beginning of the 19th century - late medieval/slowly starting renaissance.




To put it simple, I think the case with Africa and Europe is like with two kids in the school. The other is just a bit behind the other, but for that he gets kicked out from the school for years. Hes already an adult when he's let back in, and the learning is much, much harder.

Your time lines are waay out! Feudalism was on its way out in europe by the 14th C. Even 300 years prior to this, there was a large gulf in technology between europe and sub-saharan africa. And feudalism was far more complex than tribalism as a means to regulate society.

But even if the specifics are out, I still agree with your basic ideas :)

Elgesh']Your time lines are waay out! Feudalism was on its way out in europe by the 14th C. Even 300 years prior to this, there was a large gulf in technology between europe and sub-saharan africa. And feudalism was far more complex than tribalism as a means to regulate society.

But even if the specifics are out, I still agree with your basic ideas :)

I think in his second to last paragraph meant that they started in the late 1800's at a 14th Century level, to be more exact. I didn't like the wording.

My guess is no. Sounds a lot like The Jews. They've been persecuted from the Exodus onward. I don't know what culture and music and technology will be like thousands of years from now but someone somewhere will be persecuting the Jews.

your confused:
subsaharan africa was neither feudal nor agrarian at this time.

My point was that between 800-1400 African states were at the same level with the feudal Europe. While their economy wasn't completely similar and there are major differencies between the social system, the Big Tribe is about as "civilized" as some count or baron ruling his village and fighting his neighbours.

My point was that between 800-1400 African states were at the same level with the feudal Europe. While their economy wasn't completely similar and there are major differencies between the social system, the Big Tribe is about as "civilized" as some count or baron ruling his village and fighting his neighbours.
your point is quite simply incorrect, in that no iron was being smelted in sub saharan africa, very little farming was being done, NOTHING was being written or read...your quite simply wrong

your point is quite simply incorrect, in that no iron was being smelted in sub saharan africa, very little farming was being done, NOTHING was being written or read...your quite simply wrong

So then why has Africa always lagged so far behind? People originated there remember?

I think in his second to last paragraph meant that they started in the late 1800's at a 14th Century level, to be more exact. I didn't like the wording.

I don't think the 2 socities - 14thC Euro. and 19th C Africa were comparable in terms of complexity - at first, most of Africa (except the North, where this _was_ true. Well, you know, tuish, you could make a case for it!) didn't _need_ to be, and after Euro intervention was prevented from developing freely.

Hell, even that's not right. Gaah, it's too late for me to try and post.

I'll just say that most of Africa missed out on a lot of societal development based on geographical isolation and then exploitation, which today results in an unstable continent where post-industrial culture/societal structures are superimposed on a basically tribal/kingdoms model without any of the intervening development.

Elgesh']I don't think the 2 socities - 14thC Euro. and 19th C Africa were comparable in terms of complexity - at first, most of Africa (except the North, where this _was_ true. Well, you know, tuish, you could make a case for it!) didn't _need_ to be, and after Euro intervention was prevented from developing freely.

Hell, even that's not right. Gaah, it's too late for me to try and post.

I'll just say that most of Africa missed out on a lot of societal development based on geographical isolation and then exploitation, which today results in an unstable continent where post-industrial culture/societal structures are superimposed on a basically tribal/kingdoms model without any of the intervening development.

I completely disagree on Geographical isolation. Africa is where people originated, as I said before; therefore, it should be the most technologically advanced culture, because more people have been there longer. Exploitation definately played a factor though.

I completely disagree on Geographical isolation. Africa is where people originated, as I said before; therefore, it should be the most technologically advanced culture, because more people have been there longer. Exploitation definately played a factor though.

But... sounth of the sahara, they were isolated people, thinly spread out. In the absense of other cultures to trade with and war with, why should they change their way of life? (A totally different story in the north, obviously)

Just as an example, take the effects of geographical isolation on Ancient Egypt. Now, they had access to the Med., some trade links... but no massive contact with other cultures at all (the sea, the desert, and the mountains - geographical isolation!)... and their culture barely altered in 1500 years. That's the amount of time between the Dark Ages and now! Their military, for example, used clubs - just weighted clubs - at a time when, in the middle east (where cultures traded and warred more easily due to a totally different geography) axes, swords, spears, chariots, body armour, shields, early phalanxes, seige warfare, the division of troops based on battlefield roles, a standing army, local garrisons... When the 2 came into contact, well... heavy exploitation of the egyptians for 150 years +! They changed pretty sharpish after that, socially and technologically.

Isolation breeds stagnation, same as exploitation. Development isn't simply a matter of _time_! It's about what you're developing in response to, just like evolution. In the absense of changes, development occurs much, much more slowly.

Elgesh']But... sounth of the sahara, they were isolated people, thinly spread out. In the absense of other cultures to trade with and war with, why should they change their way of life? (A totally different story in the north, obviously)

Just as an example, take the effects of geographical isolation on Ancient Egypt. Now, they had access to the Med., strong trade links, history of interchange of ideas... and their culture barely altered in 1500 years. That's the amount of time between the Dark Ages and now! Their military, for example, used clubs - just weighted clubs - at a time when, in the middle east (where cultures traded and warred more easily due to a totally different geography) axes, swords, spears, chariots, body armour, shields, early phalanxes, seige warfare, the division of troops based on battlefield roles, a standing army, local garrisons... When the 2 came into contact, well... heavy exploitation of the egyptians for 150 years +! They changed pretty sharpish after that, socially and technologically.

Isolation breeds stagnation, same as exploitation. Development isn't simply a matter of _time_! It's about what you're developing in response to, just like evolution. In the absense of changes, development occurs much, much more slowly.

Basically, because they had things alright, they saw no reason for change?

Basically, because they had things alright, they saw no reason for change?
Exactly! Hence, geographical isolation~stagnation~no change. And 'alright' is a good choice of words - it wasn't great, but it was 'good enough' - no huge pressures or big problems, so no need to change. Enter another culture on the scene, and suddenly you need to change, and sharpish! The Egyptians managed to change (copy the invaders, in some respects) because the invading culture grew soft with their exploitative ruling and were very thinly spread out.

Elgesh']Exactly! Hence, geographical isolation~stagnation~no change. And 'alright' is a good choice of words - it wasn't great, but it was 'good enough' - no huge pressures or big problems, so no need to change. Enter another culture on the scene, and suddenly you need to change, and sharpish! The Egyptians managed to change (copy the invaders, in some respects) because the invading culture grew soft with their exploitative ruling and were very thinly spread out.

So it all goes back to the theory of "It is not the smallest, nor smartest who survive, but those most able to adapt," Right?

[NS:::]Elgesh is right about the isolation, though what youve said about egypt makes no sense to me, they had lots of natural trade conections, used them and developed a great deal of new technology etc. but sub saharan africa had virtually no (and no regular) contact outside of the region untill around the 11th or 12th century

So it all goes back to the theory of "It is not the smallest, nor smartest who survive, but those most able to adapt," Right?

Not quite - because it's those who are forced by circumstance to adapt who become the most able to adapt. If your circumstances don't ever call on you to adapt, you can't be blamed if you can't adapt quickly to hugely rapid changes, can you?

That said, it _could_ all be loosely thought of as obeying some of the rules of evolution. That what you're driving at?

Elgesh']Not quite - because it's those who are forced by circumstance to adapt who become the most able to adapt. If your circumstances don't ever call on you to adapt, you can't be blamed if you can't adapt quickly to hugely rapid changes, can you?

That said, it _could_ all be loosely thought of as obeying some of the rules of evolution. That what you're driving at?

Basically; after all, humans are animals too, and evolution applies to us to some degree, as much as we hate it... We're just the most kick-ass animals ever imagined on this planet. I mean, look at all we've done.
Building the simplest structures is a moderately amazing feat, as far as skyscrapers, tunnels, mines, factories, highway systems etc. etc. etc.

No other species has a method of caring for their weak as extensive as ours.
Sometimes I think we've gone a bit too far...

Basically; after all, humans are animals too, and evolution applies to us to some degree, as much as we hate it... We're just the most kick-ass animals ever imagined on this planet. I mean, look at all we've done.
Building the simplest structures is a moderately amazing feat, as far as skyscrapers, tunnels, mines, factories, highway systems etc. etc. etc.

No other species has a method of caring for their weak as extensive as ours.
Sometimes I think we've gone a bit too far...

Cool, cheers for the chat :)

Underlined portion - how do you mean? Or should we save it for another thread? :D

Elgesh']Cool, cheers for the chat :)

Underlined portion - how do you mean? Or should we save it for another thread? :D

Your welcome, I think its cleared up a lot for things in my perspective. About the other thing, I'll start up another thread right now, but I'm not sure how far it'll go.

On second thought, It'll have to wait till later. Night good sir, and when i have that thread up, I'll expect you to be there.

On second thought, It'll have to wait till later. Night good sir, and when i have that thread up, I'll expect you to be there.
heh! Coolness! :) Good night, and mibbe there'll be a thread like the one you're thinking of by tthe next time we're on. See you!

There were battles taken place in Africa but mostly it was based on necessity and not greed. African civilizations were developing but what had hindered it was the arrival of both Arab and European slave traders, the introduction of guns, and finally the colonialism of African people by European countries. Even after Europeans have left the African countries they have created overnight, the damage they have created has not yet disappeared What Europeans or settlers of European descents have done back in those days (from 1400's to 1990) to the rest of non-white nations is unimaginable. Wars and conquest in which guns and cannons played a vital role against sticks and spears. Africans are now fighting over imaginary borders that greedy Europeans have created for their own purpose in colonial times. The rivalry between America and the USSR in the Cold war has brought all kinds of weapons and ruthless corrupt leaders backed by the latter two. The worst part of Africa's misery today is brain drain, meaning, doctors, lawyers, engineers, pilots, and all sorts of professionals have left their African countries and went abroad, mainly to Western countries. There are African countries which pay freely for their best and brightest students to go abroad and attend Universities in Europe and North America but once these students get their degrees, they stay back in the hosting nation. Africa is still much alive not dead. The human toll of hunger, wars and diseases is really a learning phase Africa is going through just as how Europe and Asia also experienced these catastrophic scenarios in the past (the plague which affected half of Europe, for example). Let us not forget that most African countries became independent only in the 1960's and some even into the 70's (angola) and in the 80's (Zimbabwe) and that means a huge part of Africa's poplation today were alive even before their countries became independent. Humans are not born being wise, we are wise because we learn from our past errors. Africa presently is experience its errors, it's up to the post-colonial generations of Africa to overcome it.