NationStates Jolt Archive

Thank you for dropping by! You are invited to give your thoughts on the following statement:


[...] hadn't American farmers import large numbers of blacks as slaves from Africa, the grandchildren of those abducted back then would now live a much more horrible life, starving to death or being enslaved somewhere in the various chaotic civil wars tearing through the African continent. So, after all, from the perspective of those alive today, they should be glad that we Americans shipped their grandparents over here. We practically saved them by doing that. Imagine Will Smith living in some african village right now, amidst hunger, AIDS and war. Would he be a famous actor? Propably not.

Propably I didn't manage to cite this using the exact words of the person who said it, but still, the message is the same.

Now, I don't know what to say about this. No, honestly, I don't. The Will Smith argument somehow seems to be logical. But then again, something tells me this is rubbish. Please give your thoughts.

Imagine the great grandchildren of the people living in war torn areas of Africa right now (assuming those grandchildren would be living in peace). Would this same person be claiming that all that war and horror was necessary as well? Even beneficial?

The world would be a much different place today had the slave trade not occured. Trying to pretend that the US would have found the same level of prosperity without slave labour is ridiculous. It would never be a choice between 'living in Africa in the present day, all other things remaining the same' or 'living in the US in the present day, all other things remaining the same'.

It makes the assumption that even if the world powers were in the mindset that slavery is wrong, they would have continued the type of colonization that resulted in the cultural and political decimation of the African continent.

Without the economic forces that drove colonialism (of which slavery was one), there probably wouldn't be a US here at all, with or without Africans.

Everything has unintended consequences. The assasination of archduke Ferdinand and years of alliance making and military buildup(look strong so that nobody wants to declare war on you, thereby creating peace by fear) gave us World War I and, eventually, World War II. Pearl Harbor forced America completely out of isolation, which the country still is today.

Consequences.

So what they're saying is "the end justifies the means."

It could also be said that if the the Europeans and Americans had not exploited Africa, they would have been left to develop along their own lines and who knows what wonderful (and maybe not so wonderful) things could have happened. But it can be pretty much be assumed that the problems in Africa today are, in large part, a direct result of European/American exploitation. That being the case, their argument is specious.

And I think it's incredibly silly to think that the United States would not have developed without slavery. We would have developed along only slightly different lines, but I think the end result would have been similar - minus some of the racially motivated idiocies - from both blacks and whites.

In any case, it's my contention that slavery of the type practiced in the United States is an evil that both Africa and the US could have done without with no detrimental effect to the development of the US and with considerable positive effect to Africa.

yes they should be thankful for the generations enslaved because the decades of political repression, poverty and actually having to live in Detroit are so worth it!

yes they should be thankful for the generations enslaved because the decades of political repression, poverty and actually having to live in Detroit are so worth it!

Don't me sing 'The Motor City is Burning' by John Lee Hooker. Seriously. I do a terrible version.

Given how the slave trade and colonization carved up the African map like a Christmas ham with no regard for anything except European interests and given how this is the root of a lot of African conflict since, the whole claim seems to collapse in on itself like a dying star.

Ridiculous.

Thank you for dropping by! You are invited to give your thoughts on the following statement:


Propably I didn't manage to cite this using the exact words of the person who said it, but still, the message is the same.

Now, I don't know what to say about this. No, honestly, I don't. The Will Smith argument somehow seems to be logical. But then again, something tells me this is rubbish. Please give your thoughts.

it is rubbish. who's to say that had America not had slavery, that Will Smith's grandparents would not have traveled to America for a new life. infact, chances are without slavery, most Affirmative Action won't exist and who knows what the relationship between various persons of color would be today.

Sure there's a silver lining, but that doesn't change the nature of the cloud.

Thank you for dropping by! You are invited to give your thoughts on the following statement:


Propably I didn't manage to cite this using the exact words of the person who said it, but still, the message is the same.

Now, I don't know what to say about this. No, honestly, I don't. The Will Smith argument somehow seems to be logical. But then again, something tells me this is rubbish. Please give your thoughts.

Africa could have become a much more prosperous civilization if it wasn't marked down for slavery and colonization, so that argument is no go.

it is rubbish. who's to say that had America not had slavery, that Will Smith's grandparents would not have traveled to America for a new life. infact, chances are without slavery, most Affirmative Action won't exist and who knows what the relationship between various persons of color would be today.

Sure there's a silver lining, but that doesn't change the nature of the cloud.

Wait. JuNii...are you seriously suggesting that Affirmative Action is a direct cause of there continuing to being less than stellar race relations in the US (not excluding actual slavery of course)? Cuz that's what it sounds like.

Wait. JuNii...are you seriously suggesting that Affirmative Action is a direct cause of there being less than stellar race relations in the US (not excluding actual slavery of course)? Cuz that's what it sounds like.

I can't speak for him/her but to me it sounded like JuNii cited affirmative action as an effect of slavery, not as any type of cause in itself.

I can't speak for him/her but to me it sounded like JuNii cited affirmative action as an effect of slavery, not as any type of cause in itself.

I lost my ability to give people the benefit of the doubt here around the second year.

Every cloud has a silver lining.

Every cloud has a silver lining.

I know! It's like, when someone is raped, the silver lining is totally that the STI testing they receive after the assault might catch a potentially debilitating disease they didn't even know they had! Thank the rapist, for bringing these important health issues to the attention of others!

SNIP

just prodding here but you don't support affirmative action do you?

Every cloud has a silver lining.

unless its fog

Devil's Advocate

Imagine the great grandchildren of the people living in war torn areas of Africa right now (assuming those grandchildren would be living in peace). Would this same person be claiming that all that war and horror was necessary as well? Even beneficial?

The world would be a much different place today had the slave trade not occured. Trying to pretend that the US would have found the same level of prosperity without slave labour is ridiculous. It would never be a choice between 'living in Africa in the present day, all other things remaining the same' or 'living in the US in the present day, all other things remaining the same'.

Actually, a lack of slaves might have encouraged the onset of industry and advanced agriculture methods, as technology was easilly advanced enough at the time of America's colonization to use steam engines and some kind of steam tractor to decrease labor needs to an acceptable level, just as it did, somewhat, in New England. May I remind you that the parts of America with slaves were generally much poorer then the parts of America without slaves, and even the rich generally were richer in the Northern states.

What is this "slavery in the US" you speak of? You are ALL my slaves, everywhere, on ALL of planet Houston, not just in the United States.

Now, all of you, KNEEL BEFORE ZOD!

This is one of those "what ifs" that is really hard to figure. If we hadn't f'd up Africa, would it still have become the war/famine ridden hellhole it is today? I don't know. But I think it's a reasonable guess that the people who took the slaves out of Africa weren't interested in "rescuing" them from war and poverty. :p

Leaving aside the fact that, had there not been colonisation, Africa would never have been carved into nation-states with pseudo-Western style national governments and all attending problems, the argument is rubbish because it's premised on the amazingly ignorant belief that "Africa" is a homogenous whole, and that no-one anywhere in Africa is well-off. Most parts of Africa are reasonably stable and safe.

What is this "slavery in the US" you speak of? You are ALL my slaves, everywhere, on ALL of planet Houston, not just in the United States.

Now, all of you, KNEEL BEFORE ZOD!

Yay (http://i40.photobucket.com/albums/e232/kaptkarl/zod-sticker.gif)!

Honestly the idea that it would still be the same as it is today even if other country's hadn't exploited it is just absurd. The Africa of today had we, and other country's not exploited it would be radically different. I think the original writer is simply trying to find some sort of justification as to why not to feel bad about enslaving (645,000 which is the initial number of slaves brought over which grew to 4 million by 1860.) 4 million people. Just my $0.02

Yay (http://i40.photobucket.com/albums/e232/kaptkarl/zod-sticker.gif)!

are you kneeling yet?!?

just prodding here but you don't support affirmative action do you? Yes. And tis an argument for another thread.

are you kneeling yet?!?

On rice even :P

I think it is a tad far fetched to think that every single problem on the entire African continent is due to western interference. Arab incursions into Africa have probably had a more lasting and deeper impact throughout the Saharan and Horn of Africa regions. It doesn't make it right or wrong, but the fact is that to blame it all on the Europeans and Americans is in itself a somewhat simplistic (and possibly racist) view.

I can't speak for him/her but to me it sounded like JuNii cited affirmative action as an effect of slavery, not as any type of cause in itself.yes, that's what I meant.

I lost my ability to give people the benefit of the doubt here around the second year. At least you asked first. :cool:

On rice even :P

feh, tease

All the shit in Africa today is caused by slavery and colonialism. If there was no slavery, they would be living happy, prosperous lives with the rest of the world.

yes, that's what I meant.

At least you asked first. :cool:

Yeah, just ripping into people according to what I THOUGHT they said lost its appeal um..

Oh actually it never did. I'm just not into it at this specific moment in time :P

feh, tease

You started it:p

All the shit in Africa today is caused by slavery and colonialism. If there was no slavery, they would be living happy, prosperous lives with the rest of the world.

While it would almost certainly be better their is technically no guarantee it would be better. I think we can all agree on at least one thing. Slavery=bad mistake that should never be repeated.

While it would almost certainly be better their is technically no guarantee it would be better. I think we can all agree on at least one thing. Slavery=bad mistake that should never be repeated.

But I want a slave. I suppose I'll just do what all the other rich folks do...and hire a nanny from the Phillipines and hold that work visa over her head for years, while paying her next to nothing and locking her in her room at night. Maybe I'll sexually abuse her too. That's sort of the thing to do.

It's not officially slavery, but hey, it's the next best thing, right?

Thank you for dropping by! You are invited to give your thoughts on the following statement:


Propably I didn't manage to cite this using the exact words of the person who said it, but still, the message is the same.

Now, I don't know what to say about this. No, honestly, I don't. The Will Smith argument somehow seems to be logical. But then again, something tells me this is rubbish. Please give your thoughts.

He's not the only one who has voiced this viewpoint, a reporter named Keith Richburg did as well on BET some time ago... It's said from a viewpoint of those opposed to the Afro-centrist ideology in african-american communities/groups.

But I want a slave.

Wait...what?

But I want a slave. I suppose I'll just do what all the other rich folks do...and hire a nanny from the Phillipines and hold that work visa over her head for years, while paying her next to nothing and locking her in her room at night. Maybe I'll sexually abuse her too. That's sort of the thing to do.

It's not officially slavery, but hey, it's the next best thing, right?

If you want a real slave, you need to be a graduate thesis or dissertation advisor, then all those anxious graduate students will do your bidding without question just so they can get a Master's or a Doctorate and, in turn, one day, have their own slaves.

Wait...what?

Oh hush you.

But I want a slave. I suppose I'll just do what all the other rich folks do...and hire a nanny from the Phillipines and hold that work visa over her head for years, while paying her next to nothing and locking her in her room at night. Maybe I'll sexually abuse her too. That's sort of the thing to do.

It's not officially slavery, but hey, it's the next best thing, right?

True it isn't OFFICIALLY slavery, but I'm fairly sure most people of any sort of educated background will generally agree that that sort of thing is just as if not more disgusting than slavery.

Oh hush you.

tsk tsk, such a mouth on you, will get you in trouble some day :p

True it isn't OFFICIALLY slavery, but I'm fairly sure most people of any sort of educated background will generally agree that that sort of thing is just as if not more disgusting than slavery.

These aren't backwood hicks doing this. These are educated professionals who feel justified in 'giving a poor woman a chance' to immigrate to a First World country. She's just paying her dues, ya know.

If we hadn’t intervened in Africa, they would probably still be living as they had done for 1000's of years. Simple and primitive peoples living in mud huts or herding cattle not worth the ground the stand on. Also, if it wasn’t for the slave trade and the exportation of many native peoples throughout the world Europe and to a lesser extent the USA wouldn’t be as powerful or as wealthy as they are today, the money generated from those actives kick started our wealth with led to more industrial development. Those of us living the western world cannot complain about the slavery as without it the world would be less developed and a worse place to live.

If we hadn’t intervened in Africa, they would probably still be living as they had done for 1000's of years. Simple and primitive peoples living in mud huts or herding cattle not worth the ground the stand on. Also, if it wasn’t for the slave trade and the exportation of many native peoples throughout the world Europe and to a lesser extent the USA wouldn’t be as powerful or as wealthy as they are today, the money generated from those actives kick started our wealth with led to more industrial development. Those of us living the western world cannot complain about the slavery as without it the world would be less developed and a worse place to live.

You'd think a Scotsman would have more understanding of the ills of slavery than this. But perhaps you're happy you were elevated yourself from mud huts and such.

If we hadn’t intervened in Africa, they would probably still be living as they had done for 1000's of years. Simple and primitive peoples living in mud huts or herding cattle not worth the ground the stand on. Also, if it wasn’t for the slave trade and the exportation of many native peoples throughout the world Europe and to a lesser extent the USA wouldn’t be as powerful or as wealthy as they are today, the money generated from those actives kick started our wealth with led to more industrial development. Those of us living the western world cannot complain about the slavery as without it the world would be less developed and a worse place to live.
Can you prove that? While yes sadly slavery probably did kick start us it doesn't make it any better or correct.

On rice even :P

Wait, do you know who he is? I figured everyone was ignoring him.

If we hadn’t intervened in Africa, they would probably still be living as they had done for 1000's of years. Simple and primitive peoples living in mud huts or herding cattle not worth the ground the stand on. Also, if it wasn’t for the slave trade and the exportation of many native peoples throughout the world Europe and to a lesser extent the USA wouldn’t be as powerful or as wealthy as they are today, the money generated from those actives kick started our wealth with led to more industrial development. Those of us living the western world cannot complain about the slavery as without it the world would be less developed and a worse place to live.

You don't have a clear view of the African past, do you. There were civilizations in Africa that, clearly, rivaled Egypt (or Hatshepsut would not have been negotiating with the Nubian Queen for trade, she would just have taken them over). There are remains of cities that indicate considerable "civilization." And, just because a culture no longer has the visible trappings of "civilized" culture, does not mean that their spiritual culture is not far along and complex. You also misread US history. Slavery was used for agricultural purposes. The industrial complex in the north was based on work for wages (albeit poor wages and miserable conditions) - and agriculture in the north was based on small, family run farms with perhaps one or two hired men. Slavery was, pretty much, a useless evil that actually served to hold the south back.

Thank you for dropping by! You are invited to give your thoughts on the following statement:


Propably I didn't manage to cite this using the exact words of the person who said it, but still, the message is the same.

Now, I don't know what to say about this. No, honestly, I don't. The Will Smith argument somehow seems to be logical. But then again, something tells me this is rubbish. Please give your thoughts.

Your feeling that this is rubbish would be correct.

The end most certainly did not justify the means. Not only does this sort of thinking violate just about every system of ethics that I am familiar with, it also makes baseless assumptions about what Africa would be like. Slavery is something that came directly out of colonialism. The only way for slavery not to occur is for European powers to not try to colonize Africa.

Africa, pursuing development free from European domination, would have completely changed history. We have no fucking clue what could have happened. For all we know, the world's greatest super power could have turned out to be an African nation. Africa might have conquered Europe, so might have the Ottoman turks. There are too many variables to consider what would have happened.

If we hadn’t intervened in Africa, they would probably still be living as they had done for 1000's of years. Simple and primitive peoples living in mud huts or herding cattle not worth the ground the stand on. Also, if it wasn’t for the slave trade and the exportation of many native peoples throughout the world Europe and to a lesser extent the USA wouldn’t be as powerful or as wealthy as they are today, the money generated from those actives kick started our wealth with led to more industrial development. Those of us living the western world cannot complain about the slavery as without it the world would be less developed and a worse place to live.

what the hell are you talking about. The africans had their own thriving cultures and their societies were practically created. Dop you know why Africans in the tropical regions of africa never lived in large cities like europeans? It's because over generations they figured out that disease is worse in densley populated areas. When Europeans came and forced them into cities they made them more susceptible to diseases such as malaria and set the basis for the negative economic net growth over the past century in africa. Europeans carved up Africa without regard to existing tribes and forced people that hated each other to live together and separated people that could have formed cohesive nation states with each other and put it into the position where it would be as bad as it is today. You can say that Eurpoeans didn't mean to do those things and you'd be right. But saying that it wasn't wrong is just plain stupid.

If we hadn’t intervened in Africa, they would probably still be living as they had done for 1000's of years. Simple and primitive peoples living in mud huts or herding cattle not worth the ground the stand on.

because the africans were too stupid to engage in normal trade with other countries and pick up new ideas from them that would help them improve their lives? they would never travel to other countries and see how they lived and bring those notions back home to be incorporated into their own countries as was appropriate?

its not a choice between slavery and no interaction whatsoever.

Trying to pretend that the US would have found the same level of prosperity without slave labour is ridiculous. It would never be a choice between 'living in Africa in the present day, all other things remaining the same' or 'living in the US in the present day, all other things remaining the same'.

The greatest periods of growth and prosperity in the history of the US came after slavery was abolished and a cheaper source of labor was introduced, immigrants.

The cost of maintaining slavery was counter productive and states like New York, which had the most slaves abandoned it to use foreign labor instead. The only exception was cotton farming because the slaves imported for cotton farming had been cotton farming slaves for hundreds of generations and were highly skilled at it. The wealth generated by slavery in the South was destroyed by the war and plundered during re-construction.

So anyone who believes that slavery was a major factor in Americas prosperity is quite confused, dumping slavery and taking in European refugees is what gave us out advantage. Jewish immigrants in particular achieved a level of success only seen before in America denied them in Europe. This influx of highly trained, motivated and educated people are the true reason America prospered, we allowed people to prosper.

If the British had fostered Ireland instead of slaving and starving it for centuries, had turkey not burned their upper class Armenians and Germany allowed Jews to stay as officers in their Army, we would all be seeing those countries enjoying similar prosperity.

The idea that we got here by oppressing people and then threw away all that profit on a war and then somehow benefited from that loss is absurd and the kind of thing only persons who do not pay their own way in the world can believe.

The greatest periods of growth and prosperity in the history of the US came after slavery was abolished and a cheaper source of labor was introduced, immigrants.

The cost of maintaining slavery was counter productive and states like New York, which had the most slaves abandoned it to use foreign labor instead. The only exception was cotton farming because the slaves imported for cotton farming had been cotton farming slaves for hundreds of generations and were highly skilled at it. The wealth generated by slavery in the South was destroyed by the war and plundered during re-construction.

So anyone who believes that slavery was a major factor in Americas prosperity is quite confused, dumping slavery and taking in European refugees is what gave us out advantage. Jewish immigrants in particular achieved a level of success only seen before in America denied them in Europe. This influx of highly trained, motivated and educated people are the true reason America prospered, we allowed people to prosper.

If the British had fostered Ireland instead of slaving and starving it for centuries, had turkey not burned their upper class Armenians and Germany allowed Jews to stay as officers in their Army, we would all be seeing those countries enjoying similar prosperity.
All I can agree with for the most part. I'm not sure I entirely agree with certain bits of speculation, but you're certainly right overall.

The idea that we got here by oppressing people and then threw away all that profit on a war and then somehow benefited from that loss is absurd and the kind of thing only persons who do not pay their own way in the world can believe.

Now that was just uncalled for. Shame on you. And I mean that seriously.

The idea that we got here by oppressing people and then threw away all that profit on a war and then somehow benefited from that loss is absurd and the kind of thing only persons who do not pay their own way in the world can believe.

Hmm. I seem to recall that the ten million square kilometers of land that we call America belonged to about 6 million natives. Hmm. I wonder where those natives went? Genocide has nothing to do with it, of course. :rolleyes:

Same pathetic excuse as when few whites back in the slavery age questioned their society, "why do we enslave other people?" and ignorant whites would justify "Because God put them on earth for us...we did so much for them...we clothed them...taught them Jesus...without us they would go to hell." All too rubbish. While we're at it, why can't I also make dumb suggestions. Like, maybe it was for the best Hitler appeared in Germany because Israel would not have been created without him, maybe the Irish famine was a hidden in disguise for todays Irish Americans. See how the real people that went through those ordeal or their descendants react to these claims.

Given how the slave trade and colonization carved up the African map like a Christmas ham with no regard for anything except European interests...
Ridiculous.

I really like that anology! That makes Liberia the slice Uncle Sam put back on the serving plate (and then no one dared touch, lest Uncel Sam still wanted it for some reason) and Etheopia the tough part left over for Mousilinni, who arrived unfashionably late to the feast.

Are Africans incapable of immigrating away from to the U.S. voluntarily? If not, why would anyone assume that the only reason they'd be here is because they were brought by force?

It's the same line of reasoning like "Israel wouldn't even exist if it weren't for the Holocaust".

The statement's logic failed when it claimed prophetic powers. Causality just isn't that simple.

Africa, pursuing development free from European domination, would have completely changed history. We have no fucking clue what could have happened. For all we know, the world's greatest super power could have turned out to be an African nation. Africa might have conquered Europe, so might have the Ottoman turks. There are too many variables to consider what would have happened.
I really don't see the development of Africa being as painless as you're trying to make out, colonisation or not. For all the negatives of colonialism, there was at least an undercurrent of commitment to 'bringing law and order to the heathen savages'.

Without that you've just got a vacuum that's going to be filled by all sorts of free traders, offering muskets then breech loading rifles, maxim guns, poison gas and so on to the various peoples in returns for conflict diamonds and what have you. I don't think it's a reasonable expectation to suggest that even if the European powers had a moral objection to colonialism, that they'd have the modern outlook to enforce arms embargoes to prevent it happening, before a United Nations existed.

That's just my view on the matter. I don't think it's too unreasonable; you just have to look at how painful industrialisation was for Europe where it was a gradual process to see that sudden injection of modern technology in a piecemeal and unstructured way to Africa isn't going to be pretty.

Africa, pursuing development free from European domination, would have completely changed history. We have no fucking clue what could have happened. For all we know, the world's greatest super power could have turned out to be an African nation. Africa might have conquered Europe, so might have the Ottoman turks. There are too many variables to consider what would have happened.

No. Africa was 2000+ years behind Europe, which would have been the same 2000 years of pain that Europe experienced before reaching the modern age. Slavery and colonialism were clearly bad (I'm not even going to pretend to defend them), but they may have inadvertently reduced that time to 250 years, or roughly 10% of the pain. Assuming Africa can get it together within the next 100 years. Which I'm pretty sure it can.

No. Africa was 2000+ years behind Europe, which would have been the same 2000 years of pain that Europe experienced before reaching the modern age. Slavery and colonialism were clearly bad (I'm not even going to pretend to defend them), but they may have inadvertently reduced that time to 250 years, or roughly 10% of the pain. Assuming Africa can get it together within the next 100 years. Which I'm pretty sure it can.

That's simply not true. But, regardless, history isn't some steady treadmill and even taking for granted the assumption that Africa was at the same place Europe was 2000+ years prior, that means nothing as to how fast it would have caught up without colonization.

So, no, nothing can be said to have been inadvertently reduce. As has been said in this thread multiple times, we simply have no way of knowing how it would have worked out.

The amusing thing is that if say it were the whites who were slaves, or become slaves in the future you would support slavery.

It's the same line of reasoning like "Israel wouldn't even exist if it weren't for the Holocaust".

The statement's logic failed when it claimed prophetic powers. Causality just isn't that simple.

Israel was created as an apology to the Jews, so that statement is actually true; though it doesn't justify the Holocaust

The amusing thing is that if say it were the whites who were slaves, or become slaves in the future you would support slavery.

Slavery has been around since the beginning. Every ethnic group has been enslaved and has held slaves. The insitutionalized slavery in the American south was different in that it enslaved on particular group of people, it didn't keep families together and there wasn't a consistent means of freeing the slaves, nor were the slaves considered equal after they were freed. Regardless of the customs surrounding slavery, it is still evil.

That's simply not true. But, regardless, history isn't some steady treadmill and even taking for granted the assumption that Africa was at the same place Europe was 2000+ years prior, that means nothing as to how fast it would have caught up without colonization.

So, no, nothing can be said to have been inadvertently reduce. As has been said in this thread multiple times, we simply have no way of knowing how it would have worked out.
Not completely, no. but I think there are a number of assumptions you can make with a fair degree of certainty.

The first is that the Industrial Revolution was never going to start in Africa. You need the right agricultural base to allow innovation and industry to flourish in large and densely populated cities. You need the right natural resources and climate.

The second is that industrialisation caused a massive amount of pain in Europe. The first World war was as bloody as it was because the powers at the time hadn't realised how much industrialisation had changed warfare, and the second world war was a continuation of the first. There's several dozen million dead just in those. I don't see any particular reason why Africa would be spared this in its own development.

There's always going to be a gap between the technological level in Africa and elsewhere no matter what changes you make to the timeline and only the very best intentions by both western powers and everyone in Africa is going to stop the leap from one stage of development to the other being very messy indeed. And I honestly don't think that was ever going to happen in any timeline.

Not completely, no. but I think there are a number of assumptions you can make with a fair degree of certainty.

The first is that the Industrial Revolution was never going to start in Africa. You need the right agricultural base to allow innovation and industry to flourish in large and densely populated cities. You need the right natural resources and climate.

The second is that industrialisation caused a massive amount of pain in Europe. The first World war was as bloody as it was because the powers at the time hadn't realised how much industrialisation had changed warfare, and the second world war was a continuation of the first. There's several dozen million dead just in those. I don't see any particular reason why Africa would be spared this in its own development.

There's always going to be a gap between the technological level in Africa and elsewhere no matter what changes you make to the timeline and only the very best intentions by both western powers and everyone in Africa is going to stop the leap from one stage of development to the other being very messy indeed. And I honestly don't think that was ever going to happen in any timeline.

While I will concede that the climate in much of Africa would have halted (and have) the agricultural basis in many parts of the continent, there are a great many other natural resources present within the continent that are easily usable in trade. Assume that Africa had not been colonized, what's to say that the regions within would not have specialized in whatever natural resources they have and traded for the technological fruits of industrialization like other regions?

While you don't see any particular reason why Africa wouldn't suffer the pain associated with attaining an industrial revolution, I don't quite see why it would. Technologies don't have to be invented wherever they are used, they simply have to be brought there and then the locals educated in the creation and use of them so an industrial revolution of a different kind is completely plausible without the horribly damaging era of colonization.

It's also important to realize that once you attain a certain technological level, the playing field begins to even out some (in some ways). Also, with the advent of specialized economies comprising a country's economic base, I don't see why a competitive and modern Africa is so completely unimaginable.

That's simply not true. But, regardless, history isn't some steady treadmill and even taking for granted the assumption that Africa was at the same place Europe was 2000+ years prior, that means nothing as to how fast it would have caught up without colonization.

So, no, nothing can be said to have been inadvertently reduce. As has been said in this thread multiple times, we simply have no way of knowing how it would have worked out.

Africa is an infinately worse continent than Europe. They're plagued with diseases, jungles, deserts, large areas of infertile soil, and ethnic divisions that make Europe look tame. We may have no idea exactly how it would've turned out, but we can be assured their history of development without Europe's intervention would have been just as painful or more painful then Europe's development.

Please take note that I don't support African slavery or colonization. The ends don't always justify the means, especially with ends as bad as they are today.

Israel was created as an apology to the Jews, so that statement is actually true; though it doesn't justify the Holocaust

Ugh.

Just...

no.

Thank you for dropping by! You are invited to give your thoughts on the following statement:


Propably I didn't manage to cite this using the exact words of the person who said it, but still, the message is the same.

Now, I don't know what to say about this. No, honestly, I don't. The Will Smith argument somehow seems to be logical. But then again, something tells me this is rubbish. Please give your thoughts.
One always thinks about the slave trade with Europeans and Americans first. It isn't as often that we recall the trade that went on between Africans, themselves. I'd say that the slaves sold to Europeans, and their ancestors,
had a much better life than those Africans sold to other African tribes.

While I will concede that the climate in much of Africa would have halted (and have) the agricultural basis in many parts of the continent, there are a great many other natural resources present within the continent that are easily usable in trade. Assume that Africa had not been colonized, what's to say that the regions within would not have specialized in whatever natural resources they have and traded for the technological fruits of industrialization like other regions?

I think that's what's going to cause all the problems. The various trading abilities of different peoples in Africa will allow them to turn natural resources into overwhelming military dominance overnight, by trading for the right technologies. And then you pretty much have colonialism, except instead of it being profit motivated european colonialism with an element of the white man's burden thrown in, you'll have one African tribe subduing those neighbours that they've been warring with off and on for centuries. I can't imagine that will be any better.

While you don't see any particular reason why Africa wouldn't suffer the pain associated with attaining an industrial revolution, I don't quite see why it would. Technologies don't have to be invented wherever they are used, they simply have to be brought there and then the locals educated in the creation and use of them so an industrial revolution of a different kind is completely plausible without the horribly damaging era of colonization.

Well this is what I meant by there needing to be the best intentions on the behalf of both parties.

Without colonisation the people coming in to educate the Africans in the creation and use of these new technologies are going to be any Tom Dick and harry looking to make a bit of profit. So when the king of some African nation has a pressing urge to give his neighbours a good kicking, the only education he's likely to get is some chancer turning up with several crates of breechloading rifles and a big swag bag to carry way all those tradeable natural resources.

For it not to happen that way, the Africans would have to be virtually unique in the history of mankind's development in not using any new advances in order to get one over on their neighbours.

You don't have a clear view of the African past, do you. There were civilizations in Africa that, clearly, rivaled Egypt (or Hatshepsut would not have been negotiating with the Nubian Queen for trade, she would just have taken them over). There are remains of cities that indicate considerable "civilization." And, just because a culture no longer has the visible trappings of "civilized" culture, does not mean that their spiritual culture is not far along and complex. You also misread US history. Slavery was used for agricultural purposes. The industrial complex in the north was based on work for wages (albeit poor wages and miserable conditions) - and agriculture in the north was based on small, family run farms with perhaps one or two hired men. Slavery was, pretty much, a useless evil that actually served to hold the south back. Egypt, although physically on the continent of Africa was more culturaly based in the Middle-East. When we talk of Africa people mainly think of sub-Sahara (I hope that is the correct term, the bit below the Sahara desert). Spiritual culture is irrelevant in comparing development when your fighting machine guns and artillery with sharpened fruit. You are talking about a later period of time, have you heard of the 'Golden Triangle'. Ships would take things made in Europe to trade with the African's for slaves, then the slaves would be sold in America to work on the plantations, then the things made on the plantations would be taken back to Europe to make goods to sell to the Africans. At the time I was talking about cotton and tobacco was major American exports and slaves were needed to work the plantations.

what the hell are you talking about. The africans had their own thriving cultures and their societies were practically created. Dop you know why Africans in the tropical regions of africa never lived in large cities like europeans? It's because over generations they figured out that disease is worse in densley populated areas. When Europeans came and forced them into cities they made them more susceptible to diseases such as malaria and set the basis for the negative economic net growth over the past century in africa. Europeans carved up Africa without regard to existing tribes and forced people that hated each other to live together and separated people that could have formed cohesive nation states with each other and put it into the position where it would be as bad as it is today. You can say that Eurpoeans didn't mean to do those things and you'd be right. But saying that it wasn't wrong is just plain stupid. They may have been thriving cultures to some. But to compare them to the great European world powers at the time would be foolish. The way Europeans carved up Africa could be considered harsh, but what can you expect then the people and tribes inhabiting the continent were so technologically backward they may as well have not been there in many Europeans eyes.

Africa is an infinately worse continent than Europe. They're plagued with diseases, jungles, deserts, large areas of infertile soil, and ethnic divisions that make Europe look tame. We may have no idea exactly how it would've turned out, but we can be assured their history of development without Europe's intervention would have been just as painful or more painful then Europe's development.

Please take note that I don't support African slavery or colonization. The ends don't always justify the means, especially with ends as bad as they are today.

This is your Eurocentric view of the world getting in the way of understanding. Africa, in many ways, is a richer continent than Europe. Europe is a cold, rocky and swampy morrass that took centuries of labor to make habitable. Africa is no less a fertile farming land then Europe, even though half of it is covered by the Sahara. Those ethnic conflicts that we see today are the product of colonialism.

I don't care how painful it would have been without europe, the end did not justify means. When imperialism is involved, the end will never justify the means. There is no such thing as benovolent colonialism.

This is your Eurocentric view of the world getting in the way of understanding. Africa, in many ways, is a richer continent than Europe. Europe is a cold, rocky and swampy morrass that took centuries of labor to make habitable. Africa is no less a fertile farming land then Europe, even though half of it is covered by the Sahara. Those ethnic conflicts that we see today are the product of colonialism.

I don't care how painful it would have been without europe, the end did not justify means. When imperialism is involved, the end will never justify the means. There is no such thing as benovolent colonialism. If, in that case, Africa is physically better than Europe, does that insinuate that the Africans were too stupid or lazy to develop there continent? In which case European intervention was a good thing for bringing modern civilisation to Africa. Also the ethnic conflicts that we see are tribe vs. tribe. These tribes are centuries old and have been enemies for just as long. The only difference is that now they have guns and the TV cameras are watching.

If colonialism did do harm to Africa, which I dispute. It did the European colonisers a great deal of good, and coming from one of the main colonising countries I put the good it did to my country before the bad it did to a place in a far away land.

If, in that case, Africa is physically better than Europe, does that insinuate that the Africans were too stupid or lazy to develop there continent? In which case European intervention was a good thing for bringing modern civilisation to Africa. Also the ethnic conflicts that we see are tribe vs. tribe. These tribes are centuries old and have been enemies for just as long. The only difference is that now they have guns and the TV cameras are watching.

If colonialism did do harm to Africa, which I dispute. It did the European colonisers a great deal of good, and coming from one of the main colonising countries I put the good it did to my country before the bad it did to a place in a far away land.

Actually, there were several large empires, both military and trading, in Africa. The largest ones collapsed in the 1500's because they relied on trade with Europe across the Sahara, and European explorers figured out that they could go the direct route and not have to pay taxes to those Africans.
Several African empires were just starting to develop in the 1700's and 1800's when the Europeans stormed in and declared that they owned the entire continient.
A few developed after that, since they either werent worth taking over, but the modern conflicts in Africa make it virtually impossible to develope a decent infrastructure in most of the regions there.

As an example of a somewhat similar situation...look at Afghanistan. It was one of the nicer places to live in Central Asia before the Soviets came in. Not perfect, certainly, but you could've made a living there and been reasonably happy.
Now everything is basically a war torn ruin.
And the Afghans have only been dealing with THAT for thirty years. Africa has several hundred years of colonialism and colonialist-inspired conflict to deal with.

A little wiki-search reveals:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/African_Empires

EDIT:
Also, your sig is four lines too long. Just a friendly warning before the mods come in and change it to something unpleasant.

Egypt, although physically on the continent of Africa was more culturaly based in the Middle-East. When we talk of Africa people mainly think of sub-Sahara (I hope that is the correct term, the bit below the Sahara desert). Spiritual culture is irrelevant in comparing development when your fighting machine guns and artillery with sharpened fruit. You are talking about a later period of time, have you heard of the 'Golden Triangle'. Ships would take things made in Europe to trade with the African's for slaves, then the slaves would be sold in America to work on the plantations, then the things made on the plantations would be taken back to Europe to make goods to sell to the Africans. At the time I was talking about cotton and tobacco was major American exports and slaves were needed to work the plantations.

They may have been thriving cultures to some. But to compare them to the great European world powers at the time would be foolish. The way Europeans carved up Africa could be considered harsh, but what can you expect then the people and tribes inhabiting the continent were so technologically backward they may as well have not been there in many Europeans eyes.

Ah, so you stipulate that a country's power over another country, it's ability to exploit, oppress and overpower is superior. The "might makes right" view of human history. You have bigger guns and more of them, nastier bombs and more troops so you march in and conquer and take and then impose your version of religiously supported morality on the conquered in order to justify keeping them suppressed and, indeed, to guilt them into not rebelling against their God-given exploiters. This was done largely in the name of God, dontcha know.

By the way, how did the Scots feel about 1305, 1715 and 1745? Did they feel it was justified because the English had a better military-industrial complex?

Actually, there were several large empires, both military and trading, in Africa. The largest ones collapsed in the 1500's because they relied on trade with Europe across the Sahara, and European explorers figured out that they could go the direct route and not have to pay taxes to those Africans.
Several African empires were just starting to develop in the 1700's and 1800's when the Europeans stormed in and declared that they owned the entire continient.
A few developed after that, since they either werent worth taking over, but the modern conflicts in Africa make it virtually impossible to develope a decent infrastructure in most of the regions there.

So you're saying that if the Europeans hadn't arrived on the scenes to take everyone over in Africa over, there were a few strong homegrown contenders waiting in the wings. You can't have failed to have spotted the bit in the linked wikipedia article that lists "dominion over" after each empire followed by a list of various African peoples.

Now, I don't know what to say about this. No, honestly, I don't. The Will Smith argument somehow seems to be logical. But then again, something tells me this is rubbish. Please give your thoughts.It's bullshit. If you change the past, you have every reason to believe that the present will be different. Now I don't claim that slavery is the sole cause for poverty and corruption in Africa, but it has greatly contributed to the current situation.

If, in that case, Africa is physically better than Europe, does that insinuate that the Africans were too stupid or lazy to develop there continent? In which case European intervention was a good thing for bringing modern civilisation to Africa. Also the ethnic conflicts that we see are tribe vs. tribe. These tribes are centuries old and have been enemies for just as long. The only difference is that now they have guns and the TV cameras are watching.

If colonialism did do harm to Africa, which I dispute. It did the European colonisers a great deal of good, and coming from one of the main colonising countries I put the good it did to my country before the bad it did to a place in a far away land.

What I've been told about Africa is that while it has arguably the most natural resources in the world, much of its land is simply not very arable. This doesn't mean it doesn't have an abundance of other natural resources, though. And there are some arable tracts of land, but generally those are the first to be claimed when colonization takes place (the closer food is, the stronger your presence is).

I'll give you that colonialism gave Europeans an explicit and implicit boost. The former being in terms of resources and labor and the later being the political power that comes from being more socially and technologically advanced than your international competitors. But, really, cooperation is generally more beneficial than competition so it still seems that had colonization and the slave trade not taken place, advances might have come a bit faster rather than slower, even if spread in a more egalitarian manner.

Will Smith is just one guy in extraordinary circumstances - most Black Americans are not millionaires. But one the other hand, it's certainly true that they are much more fortunate that their ancestors were enslaved by Europeans. They might think they had it tough having to give up seats to white men on buses, but that's infinitely better than having no bus, a life expectancy of about 32 and engaging in the unspeakably brutal warfare that plagues the continent.

And there is no way Africa without colonisation would be anywhere near even what Europe was in the 17th century. The blame does not lie with the Europeans where. The ease in which the ENTIRE CONTINENT was completely brought under the control of a few small nations (and no, that wasn't any more immoral than any other empire that has existed on this planet - empires are how civilisation developed, Africa's lack of them is one reason for the disappointing level of development) surely tells us something about the state of development? The fact there were no unified political entities, just fractured uncivilised tribes of thousands of different ethnicities (no empire had managed to erase such ethnicities with a unified common one, like for example, in China) makes any sort of development a big no-no. Nothing was going to happen there for a loong time.

By the way, how did the Scots feel about 1305, 1715 and 1745? Did they feel it was justified because the English had a better military-industrial complex?

Lord grant that Marshal Wade
May by thy mighty aid
Victory bring
May he sedition hush
And like a torrent rush
Rebellious Scots to crush
God save the Queen

:p

Ah, so you stipulate that a country's power over another country, it's ability to exploit, oppress and overpower is superior. The "might makes right" view of human history. You have bigger guns and more of them, nastier bombs and more troops so you march in and conquer and take and then impose your version of religiously supported morality on the conquered in order to justify keeping them suppressed and, indeed, to guilt them into not rebelling against their God-given exploiters. This was done largely in the name of God, dontcha know. Yes, the ability to exploit, oppress and overpower is superior. Because would all this have happened if Africans had an effective military? Probably not, they did have a complex spiritual system but that didn’t stop the bullets.
Actually, there were several large empires, both military and trading, in Africa. The largest ones collapsed in the 1500's because they relied on trade with Europe across the Sahara, and European explorers figured out that they could go the direct route and not have to pay taxes to those Africans.
Several African empires were just starting to develop in the 1700's and 1800's when the Europeans stormed in and declared that they owned the entire continient.
The Empires were there, but if they were any good why couldn’t they have stopped the Europeans? In past times African empires may have rived European ones, but at the time when it counted they were backward compared to Europe. Look at the great cities and architecture that were being made at the time in London, Paris or Berlin, what can we compare that to in Africa built in the same period.

This thread is silly, the problems in Africa are because of slavery and colonization, in fact for most of it's history a traveler was safer in Africa than in Europe

This is from “The Growth of African Civilization A History of West Africa 1000-1800" by Basil Davidson

City of Benin in southern Nigeria

http://s120.photobucket.com/albums/o180/Markellion/th_benin.jpg

In 1602 a Dutch traveler O. Dapper wrote of the city

“It seemed to be very big, when you go into it, you enter a great broad street, which is not paved, and seems to be seven or eight times broader than the Warmoes street in Amsterdam [the capital of Holland]. The street is straight, and does not bend at any point. It is thought to be four miles long.
‘At the gate where I went in on horseback, I saw a very big wall, very thick and made of earth, with a very deep and broad ditch outside it… And outside the gate there is also a big suburb. Inside the gate, and along the great street just mentioned, you see many other great streets on either side, and these are also straight and do not bend…

‘The houses in this town stand in good order, one close and evenly placed with its neighbor, just as the houses in Holland stand… They have square rooms, sheltered by a roof that is open in the middle, where the rain, and wind and light come in. The people sleep and eat in these rooms, but they have other rooms for cooking and different purposes…
‘The king’s court is very great. It is built around many square-shaped yards. These yards have surrounding galleries where sentries are always places. I myself went into these court far enough to pass through four great yards like this, and yet wherever I looked I could still see gate after gate which opened into other yards....'

Will Smith is just one guy in extraordinary circumstances - most Black Americans are not millionaires. But one the other hand, it's certainly true that they are much more fortunate that their ancestors were enslaved by Europeans. They might think they had it tough having to give up seats to white men on buses, but that's infinitely better than having no bus, a life expectancy of about 32 and engaging in the unspeakably brutal warfare that plagues the continent.

And there is no way Africa without colonisation would be anywhere near even what Europe was in the 17th century. The blame does not lie with the Europeans where. The ease in which the ENTIRE CONTINENT was completely brought under the control of a few small nations (and no, that wasn't any more immoral than any other empire that has existed on this planet - empires are how civilisation developed, Africa's lack of them is one reason for the disappointing level of development) surely tells us something about the state of development? The fact there were no unified political entities, just fractured uncivilised tribes of thousands of different ethnicities (no empire had managed to erase such ethnicities with a unified common one, like for example, in China) makes any sort of development a big no-no. Nothing was going to happen there for a loong time.


this stance makes no sense.

if progress hadnt been shoved down the african's throats, there would be no electricity in africa today, no railroads, no cars, no telephones, no <whatever you want to put here that didnt exist in 1650>.

you cant conceive that even if you grant african NO possibility of self improvement that they might just have found out through travel and trade that such things existed? that they might MAAAAAYBE have traded a few diamonds and a bit of gold for the secret of...the steam engine or the telegraph?

Tomes of Timbuktu

One thing from the text
The museum plans to highlight a little-known connection between its host state and the manuscripts of Timbuktu: the story of Ibrahima Abd ar-Rahman, an 18th-century prince from what is now Guinea who studied at Timbuktu before being sold into slavery in Natchez, Miss. The prince's saga contradicts another widely held Western belief -- that Africans sold in the slave trade were uncivilized. In fact, many were doctors, dentists, lawyers, professors, musicians and members of royal families. And a large number were Muslim.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A45889-2005Feb23.html

This is from "Ibn Battuta In black Africa" by translated by Said Hamdun and Noel King

In the 14th century when he traveled through west Africa Ibn Battuta (famous Berber traveler) wrote about the good things he found amongst the blacks
Amongst their good qualities is the small amount of injustice amongst them, for of all people they are furthest from it. Their sultan does not forgive anyone in any matter to do with injustice. Among these qualities there is also the prevalence of peace in their country, the traveler is not afraid in it nor is he who lives there in fear of the thief or of the robber by violence. They do not interfere with the property of the white (Arab) man who dies in their country even though it may consist of great wealth, but rather they entrust it to the hand of someone dependable among the white men until it is taken by the rightful claimant

Amongst the things he didn't like were that the woman walked around unveiled, often with breasts showing. They poured dust and ashes on their heads as sign of respect to the king, and the praise singers of the king which was a pagan tradition predated Islam

It wasn't a paradise of course but Africa wasn't improved because of colonization

this stance makes no sense.

if progress hadnt been shoved down the african's throats, there would be no electricity in africa today, no railroads, no cars, no telephones, no <whatever you want to put here that didnt exist in 1650>.

you cant conceive that even if you grant african NO possibility of self improvement that they might just have found out through travel and trade that such things existed? that they might MAAAAAYBE have traded a few diamonds and a bit of gold for the secret of...the steam engine or the telegraph?

Umm...because obviously all cultures exist within a vacuum and trade is just some weird myth people make up like leprechauns and such.

Umm...because obviously all cultures exist within a vacuum and trade is just some weird myth people make up like leprechauns and such.

*smacks self on forehead*

of course!

you cant conceive that even if you grant african NO possibility of self improvement that they might just have found out through travel and trade that such things existed? that they might MAAAAAYBE have traded a few diamonds and a bit of gold for the secret of...the steam engine or the telegraph?

I agree with this stance

Places in Africa wern't colonized without effort, Benin wasn't colonized untill 1891

This is a good website from BBC. deals everything from early Africa, religion and colonization

http://www.bbc.co.uk/worldservice/africa/features/storyofafrica/index_section16.shtml

Tomes of Timbuktu

One thing from the text


http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A45889-2005Feb23.html

This is from "Ibn Battuta In black Africa" by translated by Said Hamdun and Noel King

In the 14th century when he traveled through west Africa Ibn Battuta (famous Berber traveler) wrote about the good things he found amongst the blacks


Amongst the things he didn't like were that the woman walked around unveiled, often with breasts showing. They poured dust and ashes on their heads as sign of respect to the king, and the praise singers of the king which was a pagan tradition predated Islam

It wasn't a paradise of course but Africa was much more civilized before colonization

Should also note that Battuta was possibly the most successful bum in history! He traveled further and longer than Marco Polo, never paid for anything, and had 33 wives and 78 children. o.O

Should also note that Battuta was possibly the most successful bum in history! He traveled further and longer than Marco Polo, never paid for anything, and had 33 wives and 78 children. o.O

lol :p

One last thing, this is a good video by Basil Davidson which gives a good explanation of the transition from equality to racism, and what happened to African societies

http://youtube.com/watch?v=1i2dB2mIXhk

This article also talks about African contact to the outside world, this is something interesting

http://www.hf.uib.no/institutter/smi/paj/Masonen.html

Summarizing all the effects of the intellectual contacts to the Islamic culture, we may claim that the 14th-century West Africans may have had considerable detailed knowledge of their contemporary world - perhaps more detailed than most of their contemporary Europeans who still regarded sub-Saharan Africa as a land of monsters and miracles.

The situation was perhaps similar to that in the early 19th century, when European explorers, who had penetrated the African interior in order to unveil her secrets, were amazed at how well the West Africans knew what was going on in the outside world. When Mungo Park arrived in Segu on the Niger in July 1796, being the first European in this city, he was told that the British and French were fighting in the Mediterranean. The news probably concerned the battles that took place after the treaty of Basle which was made in April 1795, when Park was in his way to Gambia. In 1824, Hugh Clapperton visited Kano, being again the first European in this city, and he was surprised by Muhammad Bello, the ruler of Sokoto caliphate, who asked him detailed questions concerning the British policy in India and the religious situation in Europe. In early 1871, Gustav Nachtigal, the famous German traveller who had left Tripoli in 1869 in order to explore Central Africa, was told in Bornu that a war had broke out between franse and nimse, meaning Frenchmen and Germans. Considering that the Franco-Prussian war began in July 1870, the news had reached Bornu very quickly.

Perhaps news of the great events in the medieval Mediterranean, like the fall of Acre in 1291 or the Turkish conquest of Constantinople in 1453, were heard in the capital of Mali as quickly. However, there are only few mentions in the contemporary Arabic sources concerning the transmission of news across the Sahara. We know, for example, that Mansa Musa of Mali sent a delagation to congratulate the Marinid Sultan Abu 'l-Hasan for the conquest of Tlemcen. Since Tlemcen had fallen to Marinids in April 1337, the news most probably arrived in Mali with the traders who had left Morocco in autumn, which was the usual season of departure for the caravans to the south. The Malian delegation was sent to Fez probably in the following summer, when the caravans returned to the north. Similarly, another Malian delegation was sent to congratulate Sultan Abu 'l-Hasan for the conquest of Constantine in 1349. The prompt action on part of the Malian rulers proves that they knew well the political geography of Northern Africa, being fully aware of the consequenses of the Marinid expansion to central Maghrib.

you cant conceive that even if you grant african NO possibility of self improvement that they might just have found out through travel and trade that such things existed? that they might MAAAAAYBE have traded a few diamonds and a bit of gold for the secret of...the steam engine or the telegraph?

It's difficult to conceive how Africa in the weak and divided state it was could have been left alone (history doesn't seem to work like that) during the industrialisation of Europe, but certainly I see no reason why it would be any better than it is today.

I'm not talking about progress being shoved down peoples throats - I don't think you could argue that Europeans ever tried to do anything like that (you say that like its a bad thing though?). Look at Ethiopia, sure the Italians did briefly hold it for a period, but did not affect the country's economic state in any significant way. Still, even left to its own devices, it hasn't progressed much further than any of its neighbours. It might not be quite as war-torn, but it's not really much better. I would say that Europe in the 16th century was at least as developed than Africa today (well, obviously you're not comparing quite the same things here, you'll find pockets of development mainly in African capitals, but I would say overall this is the case)

To see that it is not simply colonisation that is to blame, look at India. The British had a much deeper involvement in the region than they did in their African colonies (which were really just for show). Although it's still fairly divided, especially on religious lines, and suffers from poverty quite severely in many places, there is far more development. It had the technical knowledge to develop its own nuclear weapons in the 70s without any outside assistance, it even has a more or less functioning democracy. How, other than by looking at Africa and India themselves (and not European powers) can you explain this?

It's difficult to conceive how Africa in the weak and divided state it was could have been left alone (history doesn't seem to work like that) during the industrialisation of Europe, but certainly I see no reason why it would be any better than it is today. Well, if selling unwanted critics like Irdu Imbatani into slavery hadn't been possible for the African kingdoms, he may have turned his home into a strong power capable of resisting the Europeans, particularly because his ancestors managed to develop a more effecient firing mechanism for muskets. Instead, he was whipped to death on a Virginian plantation.

That's one example of how things could have been different. It makes just as much sense as saying things would be just like they are today.

It's difficult to conceive how Africa in the weak and divided state it was could have been left alone (history doesn't seem to work like that) during the industrialisation of Europe, but certainly I see no reason why it would be any better than it is today.

I'm not talking about progress being shoved down peoples throats - I don't think you could argue that Europeans ever tried to do anything like that (you say that like its a bad thing though?). Look at Ethiopia, sure the Italians did briefly hold it for a period, but did not affect the country's economic state in any significant way. Still, even left to its own devices, it hasn't progressed much further than any of its neighbours. It might not be quite as war-torn, but it's not really much better. I would say that Europe in the 16th century was at least as developed than Africa today (well, obviously you're not comparing quite the same things here, you'll find pockets of development mainly in African capitals, but I would say overall this is the case)

To see that it is not simply colonisation that is to blame, look at India. The British had a much deeper involvement in the region than they did in their African colonies (which were really just for show). Although it's still fairly divided, especially on religious lines, and suffers from poverty quite severely in many places, there is far more development. It had the technical knowledge to develop its own nuclear weapons in the 70s without any outside assistance, it even has a more or less functioning democracy. How, other than by looking at Africa and India themselves (and not European powers) can you explain this?

its impossible to say now what might have happened.

as you indicate, it would also require a europe of a far different character than the one it had.

given that requirement its silly to suggest that it would be better OR worse than it is now but so many of the current problems of africa stem from colonial rule that its hard to see how it would have gone worse.

So you're saying that if the Europeans hadn't arrived on the scenes to take everyone over in Africa over, there were a few strong homegrown contenders waiting in the wings. You can't have failed to have spotted the bit in the linked wikipedia article that lists "dominion over" after each empire followed by a list of various African peoples.
Eh? I was saying that Africa did, indeed, have large states with quite well developed infrastructure. The Songhai traded across the Sahara quite successfully for some time, again, until the Portugese figured out that they could get to South Africa cheaply by ship.

The Empires were there, but if they were any good why couldn’t they have stopped the Europeans? In past times African empires may have rived European ones, but at the time when it counted they were backward compared to Europe. Look at the great cities and architecture that were being made at the time in London, Paris or Berlin, what can we compare that to in Africa built in the same period.

Because the largest and most cohesive African empires had collapsed due to their trade being cutoff. Imagine if the UK was suddenly teleported into the middle of the Pacific in the 1600's. How do you think they'd do?

And have you ever heard of Timbuktu? Great Zimbabwe? I'm sure there are other less-well-known ones as well.
African civilizations achieved the same heights as European civlization.

And if we're going to list great cities, I'd include Beijing, St. Petersburg at the very least. Berlin is a latecomer, Paris was a disease ridden sinkhole until the 1700's and London...I mean, really, does anybody WANT to live in London?

I mean, really, does anybody WANT to live in London?

Whats wrong with London?

Whats wrong with London?

In th 1700s: a lot.

Just imagine the asshole of the world, and then imagine what it would look like if it had hemorrhoids.

Eh? I was saying that Africa did, indeed, have large states with quite well developed infrastructure. The Songhai traded across the Sahara quite successfully for some time, again, until the Portugese figured out that they could get to South Africa cheaply by ship.

Yes but you related that to the situation in Afghanistan, making the point that those strong empires had they been left alone might have been quite successful. My point is that if you happened to be an African tribe living next to one of those empires then your chances of being left alone would have been nil. And how is African imperial interference any better than European imperial interference?

Yes but you related that to the situation in Afghanistan, making the point that those strong empires had they been left alone might have been quite successful. My point is that if you happened to be an African tribe living next to one of those empires then your chances of being left alone would have been nil. And how is African imperial interference any better than European imperial interference?

Because, by being on the same continent, you have a vested interest in the region that really doesn't exist in the colonial mindset. So, yes, an "inhouse" empire is better than a foreign imperialism. Obviously there are some caveats to this, but I think the point still holds.

Yes but you related that to the situation in Afghanistan, making the point that those strong empires had they been left alone might have been quite successful. My point is that if you happened to be an African tribe living next to one of those empires then your chances of being left alone would have been nil. And how is African imperial interference any better than European imperial interference?

I never said it was. I was under the impression that some people were somehow implying that European civilization was inherently superior to African civilization.
*shrug*

In th 1700s: a lot.

Just imagine the asshole of the world, and then imagine what it would look like if it had hemorrhoids.

AND the water was probably even worse than it is now.

Because, by being on the same continent, you have a vested interest in the region that really doesn't exist in the colonial mindset. So, yes, an "inhouse" empire is better than a foreign imperialism. Obviously there are some caveats to this, but I think the point still holds.
Yes to some degree. It seems to me a question of who is going to be more risk averse to a revolt; someone who has to live next door to a conquered people or someone who is holding it with a skeleton force from half the world away. And whether that translates into less exploitation or merely more subjugation.

On the other hand, with colonialism you're not bringing any of the negative vested interests like long held rivalries with neighbouring tribes to the table.

Thank you for dropping by! You are invited to give your thoughts on the following statement:


Propably I didn't manage to cite this using the exact words of the person who said it, but still, the message is the same.

Now, I don't know what to say about this. No, honestly, I don't. The Will Smith argument somehow seems to be logical. But then again, something tells me this is rubbish. Please give your thoughts.

The slave trade was only part of a larger exploitation of Africa. If Africa was exploited by colonialism exactly as it was except for slavery then there would be some logic to the argument.

But the nightmarish civil wars going on in Africa are a remnant of their colonial heritage. Increased population density and an infrastructure designed for Europe instead of Africa and political leadership based on who was able to be most corrupt in sucking up to installed corrupt leaders would not have arisen had Europe left it alone to begin with.

Yes to some degree. It seems to me a question of who is going to be more risk averse to a revolt; someone who has to live next door to a conquered people or someone who is holding it with a skeleton force from half the world away. And whether that translates into less exploitation or merely more subjugation.

On the other hand, with colonialism you're not bringing any of the negative vested interests like long held rivalries with neighbouring tribes to the table.

Actually, as it turns out, often you are. As you said, a colonial power has to maintain their authority through lots of tricks since they don't exactly generally have the capability of leaving a massive force to maintain order. So what you do is you make use of the local tensions and, there ya go, you have the mess that many post-colonial regions find themselves in today.

That isn't to say that tribal tensions are a strictly post-colonial occurrence, but it'd be foolish to think colonial powers weren't very aware of the tensions and adept at using them to their own advantage.

Thank you for dropping by! You are invited to give your thoughts on the following statement:


Propably I didn't manage to cite this using the exact words of the person who said it, but still, the message is the same.

Now, I don't know what to say about this. No, honestly, I don't. The Will Smith argument somehow seems to be logical. But then again, something tells me this is rubbish. Please give your thoughts.
if it wasn't for the polonged and systematic rape of africa by colonial/slave trading powers the continent probably would not have become the shithole it is today.

as you indicate, it would also require a europe of a far different character than the one it had.

Not Europe, humanity would require a different character. The only thing that sets European colonialism apart from any other empire building is that the Europeans were just so much better at it. It's what annoys me when I hear people complaining about it. If anyone else could have done it, they would have done it. In fact if we base our moral standards on empires of the past, the European empires were actually quite humane in many cases.

given that requirement its silly to suggest that it would be better OR worse than it is now but so many of the current problems of africa stem from colonial rule that its hard to see how it would have gone worse.

They don't though. Most of Africa's problems stem from the fact that there is very little infrastructure, and it's people are largely uneducated and divided on tribal lines. That was the case before colonialism.

They don't though. Most of Africa's problems stem from the fact that there is very little infrastructure, and it's people are largely uneducated and divided on tribal lines. That was the case before colonialism.

You ignore the fact the colonialism, in many instances, did its best to exacerbate those tribal tensions in order to maintain control. The current lack of infrastructure, and thus education, stem from that (and a few other, more contemporary, issues).

Not Europe, humanity would require a different character. The only thing that sets European colonialism apart from any other empire building is that the Europeans were just so much better at it. It's what annoys me when I hear people complaining about it. If anyone else could have done it, they would have done it. In fact if we base our moral standards on empires of the past, the European empires were actually quite humane in many cases.

.

Usually the conquered people could have participation in their own government at least, the Romans would allow people to have some participation. In Africa however the people were taught that they were unable to rule themselves and tried to teach them that they had no culture prior to colonization

http://s120.photobucket.com/albums/o180/Markellion/th_speech.jpg This is a post card from old Rhodesia showing a picture of a white Queen of Sheba on the conical tower, they tried claim it was built by whites

You ignore the fact the colonialism, in many instances, did its best to exacerbate those tribal tensions in order to maintain control. The current lack of infrastructure, and thus education, stem from that (and a few other, more contemporary, issues).

It is the actual existence of so many different small tribes that is the problem. They only entity they'll feel allegiance to is their tribe. And as a rule any two neighbouring groups will never get on. Let's take a trip across Europe: historically the Scots hate the English, the English cannot stand the French, the French dislike the Germans, the Germans have always looked down on the Poles (although, after what they did to them in WW2, I'm not sure if they are allowed to anymore), the Poles absolutely despise the Ukrainians, the Ukrainians are certainly not fond of the Russians, and the Russians, well they just hate everyone.

My point is that these small ethnic groups, would never work together, whatever the Europeans might have done in the past. In an election they will always vote on tribal lines and not on political belief (although how meaningful an election can be for a developing country is debatable), as they wouldn't feel any attachment to other ethnic groups who might as well (and to them practically are) foreigners. While the existence of multiple ethic groups in the same country can be blamed in part on the highly artificial borders put in place by Europeans (the worst offenders here would be Sudan and the Congo), the sheer number and small size of these ethnic groups makes it completely unworkable to ever have a situation where each are their own country. It's hard to see how Africa can overcome this.

This is from Leo Frobenius, a friend gave this to me, he nots that

"What was revealed by the navigators of the fifteenth to the seventeenth centuries furnishes an absolute proof that Negro Africa, which extended south of the desert zone of the Sahara, was in full efflorescence which the European conquistadors annihilated as far as they progressed."

http://wysinger.homestead.com/looo_op.jpg

When they [the first European navigators of the end of the Middle Ages] arrived in the Gulf of Guinea and landed at Vaida, the captains were astonished to find the streets well cared for, bordered for several leagues in length by two rows of trees; for many days they passed through a country of magnificent fields, a country inhabited by men clad in brilliant costumes, the stuff of which they had woven themselves! More to the South in the Kingdom of Congo, a swarming crowd dressed in silk and velvet; great states well ordered, and even to the smallest details, powerful sovereigns, rich industries, -- civilized to the marrow of their bones. And the condition of the countries on the eastern coasts -- Mozambique, for example -- was quite the same.

"What was revealed by the navigators of the fifteenth to the seventeenth centuries furnishes an absolute proof that Negro Africa, which extended south of the desert zone of the Sahara, was in full efflorescence which the European conquistadors annihilated as far as they progressed. For the new country of America needed slaves, and Africa had them to offer, hundreds, thousands, whole cargoes of slaves. However, the slave trade was never an affair which meant a perfectly easy conscience, and it exacted a justification; hence one made of the Negro a half-animal, an article of merchandise. And in the same way the notion of fetish (Portuguese feticeiro) was invented as a symbol of African religion. As for me, I have seen in no part of Africa the Negroes worshipping a fetish. The idea of the 'barbarous Negro' is a European invention which has consequently prevailed in Europe until the beginning of this century.

"What these old captains recounted, these chiefs of expeditions -- Delbes,
Marchais, Pigafetta, and all the others, what they recounted is true. It can
be verified. In the old Royal Kunstkammer of Dresden, in the Weydemann
colection of Ulm, in many another 'cabinet of curiosities' of Europe, we
still find West African collections dating from this epoch. Marvellous
plush velvets of an extreme softness, made of the tenderest leaves of a
certain kind of banana plant; stuffs soft and supple, brilliant and delicate,
like silks, woven with the fiber of a raffia, well prepared; powerful javelins
with points encrusted with copper in the most elegant fashion; bows so
graceful in form and so beautifully ornamented that they would do honor
to any museum of arms whatsoever; calabashes decorated with the greatest
taste; sculpture in ivory and wood of which the work shows a very great
deal of application and style.

"And all that came from cuntries of the African periphery, delivered over
after that to slave merchants, . . .

"But when the pioneers of the last century pierced this zone of 'European
civilization' and the wall of protection which had, for the time being
raised behind it -- the wall of protection of the Negro still 'intact' --
they found everywhere the same marvels which the captains had found on
the coast.

"In 1906 when I penetrated into the territory of Kassai-Sankuru, I found
still, villages of which the principle streets were bordered on each side,
for leagues, with rows of palm trees, and of which the houses, decorated
each one in charming fashion, were works of art as well.

"No man who did not carry sumptuous arms of iron or copper, with inlaid
blades and handles covered with serpent skin. Everywhere velvets and
silken stuffs. Each cup, each pipe, each spoon was an object of art
perfectly worthy to be compared to the creations of the Roman European
style. But all this was only the particularly tender and iridescent bloom
which adorns a ripe and marvellous fruit; the gestures, the manners, the
moral code of the entire people, from the little child to the old man,
although they remained within absolutely natural limits, were imprinted
with dignity and grace, in the families of the princes and the rich as in
the vassals and slaves. I know of no northern people who can be compared
with these primitives for unity of civilization. And the peaceful beauty
was carried away by the floods.

"But many men had this experience: the explorers who left the savage and
warrior plateau of the East and South and the North to descend into the
plains of the Congo, of Lake Victoria, of the Ubangi: men such as Speke
and Grant, Livingstone, Cameron, Stanley, Schweinfurth, Junker, de Brazza
-- all of them -- made the same statements: they came from countries
dominated by the rigid laws of the African Ares, and from then on they
penetrated into the countries where peace reigned, and joy in adornment
and in beauty; countries of old civilizations, of ancient styles, of
harmonious styles.

"The revelations of fifteenth and seventeenth century navigators
furnish us with certain proof that Negro Africa, which extended
south of the Sahara desert zone, was still in full bloom, in the
full brilliance of harmonious and well-formed civilizations. In
the last century the superstition ruled that all high culture of
Africa came from Islam. Since then we have learned much, and we
know today that the beautiful turbans and clothes of the Sudanese
folk were already used in Africa before Muhammed was even born or
before Ethiopian culture reached inner Africa. Since then we have
learned that the peculiar organization of the Sudanese states
existed long before Islam and that all of the art of building and
education, of city organization and handwork in Negro Africa, were
thousands of years older than those of Middle Europe.

"Thus in the Sudan old real African warm-blooded culture existed
and could be found in Equatorial Africa, where neither Ethiopian
thought, Hamitic blood, or European civilization had drawn the
pattern. Everywhere when we examine this ancient culture it bears
the same impression. In the great museums -- Trocadero, British
Museum, in Belgium, Italy, Holland, and Germany -- everywhere we
see the same spirit, the same character, the same nature. All of
these separate pieces unite themselves to the same expression and
build a picture equally impressive as that of a collection of the
art of Asia. The striking beauty of the cloth, the fantastic beauty
of the drawing and the sculpture, the glory of the ivory weapons,
the collection of fairy tales equal to the Thousand and One nights,
the Chinese novels, and the Indian philosophy.

"In comparison with such spiritual accomplishments the impression
of the African spirit is easily seen. It is stronger in its folds,
simpler in its richness. Every weapon is simple and practical, not
only in form but fantasy. Every line of carving is simple and strong.
There is nothing that makes a clearer impression of strength, and all
that streams out of the fire and the hut, the sweat and the grease-
treated hides and the animal dung. Everything is practical, strong,
workmanly. This is the character of the African style. When one
approaches it with full understanding, one immediately realizes
that this impression rules all Africa. It expresses itself in the
activity of all Negro people even in their sculpture. It speaks out
of their dances and their masks; out of the understanding of their
religious life, just as out of the reality of their living, their
state building, and their conception of fate. It lives in their
fables, their fairy stories, their wise sayings and their myths.
And once we are forced to this conclusion, then the Egyptian comes
into the comparison. For this discovered culture form of Negro Africa
has the same peculiarity.



Leo Frobenius
Histoire de la Civilisation Africaine
translated by Back and Ermoat
Paris: Gallimard, 1936
6th edition page 56

in

W. E. Burghardt Du Bois
The World and Africa:
An inquiry into the part which Africa has played in world history
New York: Viking Press, 1946
pp. 79, 156

Usually the conquered people could have participation in their own government at least, the Romans would allow people to have some participation.

Are you serious? Special cases aside, in general the Romans only gave citizenship to Romans before eventually they extended that to Italians. Citizenship even whilst Rome was still a democracy meant relatively little, it was the Patricians who had all the power anyway. And the Roman empire was pretty bizarre in that it was founded by a republic. In most empires it was the emperor and his generals who had all the power, everyone else was merely a worthless peasant. The idea of the people having participation in their government would have been completely unbelievable to them, the whole point of it being an empire is that you were ruled by force.

Are you serious? Special cases aside, in general the Romans only gave citizenship to Romans before eventually they extended that to Italians. Citizenship even whilst Rome was still a democracy meant relatively little, it was the Patricians who had all the power anyway. And the Roman empire was pretty bizarre in that it was founded by a republic. In most empires it was the emperor and his generals who had all the power, everyone else was merely a worthless peasant. The idea of the people having participation in their government would have been completely unbelievable to them, the whole point of it being an empire is that you were ruled by force.

I meant like in the case of Israel there was a Jewish leader of a city or Jewish judges and stuff, even if they were subject to Rome

They also had religious tolerance (with one exception Christians)

Thank you for dropping by! You are invited to give your thoughts on the following statement:


Propably I didn't manage to cite this using the exact words of the person who said it, but still, the message is the same.

Now, I don't know what to say about this. No, honestly, I don't. The Will Smith argument somehow seems to be logical. But then again, something tells me this is rubbish. Please give your thoughts.


There is nothing novel about the idea that the descendants of the slaves in the USA are much better off than their distant cousins who stayed in Africa. The only bad thing that came from slavery in the sense that it is still around are the blood pressure problems that the slaves' descendants suffer that the African cousins do not have to the same degree for obvious reasons that we were probably all told about in biology classes when we studied genetics.