Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
An idea that seems quite far from reality.
One of the main grudges against "Europeans" is that modern African borders have been drawn without any consideration for the myriad of tribes that constitute African society and now, somehow, you want to just unite everything?
Secondly, Africa is VERY diverse and therefore to just say "let's unite a Somalian and a Gambian together because they are African" sounds rather silly and superficial.
Thirdly, Africa is HUGE and as such it carries immense differences within itself: it's not just a land of desert and jungles with people living in huts as many ignorants think, there are rich and prosperous areas such as Ghana and hellholes like Congo (the big Congo), thus to pretend that you can just lump everything together and live happily after is dumb.
Fourthly, North Africa has little to nothing in common with "Sub-Saharian" Africa (and they don't see their Southern neighbours that well, not at all), hence there's another big divide.
An idea that seems quite far from reality.
One of the main grudges against "Europeans" is that modern African borders have been drawn without any consideration for the myriad of tribes that constitute African society and now, somehow, you want to just unite everything?
Secondly, Africa is VERY diverse and therefore to just say "let's unite a Somalian and a Gambian together because they are African" sounds rather silly and superficial.
Thirdly, Africa is HUGE and as such it carries immense differences within itself: it's not just a land of desert and jungles with people living in huts as many ignorants think, there are rich and prosperous areas such as Ghana and hellholes like Congo (the big Congo), thus to pretend that you can just lump everything together and live happily after is dumb.
Fourthly, North Africa has little to nothing in common with "Sub-Saharian" Africa (and they don't see their Southern neighbours that well, not at all), hence there's another big divide.
Again...you've mentioned issues that also apply to the EU, India and even to a lesser degree the US and China, and yet somehow they make it work.
I'm not saying Pan-Africanism is an answer to Africa's issues or that it even should be promoted, but the idea that it's "far from reality" when Europe is attempting to do the same thing seems a bit silly, and I question the motives behind such a statement.
Again...you've mentioned issues that also apply to the EU, India and even to a lesser degree the US and China, and yet somehow they make it work.
I'm not saying Pan-Africanism is an answer to Africa's issues or that it even should be promoted, but the idea that it's "far from reality" when Europe is attempting to do the same thing seems a bit silly, and I question the motives behind such a statement.
There's a lot of difference between Europe and Africa in this sense: first and foremost, Africa is much larger and populated than Europe, secondly the differences are much bigger with thousands of tribes and hundreds of languages.
Third, corruption and poverty plagues Africa much more than Europe, without mentioning war, tribalism, rampant inequality and absence of any valuable leadership.
Fourth, who would run this supposed African Union as one state? How could be run when tribalism and tribal war is still a constant throughout many areas of Africa?
I'm not saying it's impossible to do, I'm saying it seems very unrealistic at the moment.
Quote:
Originally Posted by SuperiorMegaman
It would be nonsense to someone who grew up in a privileged world like you.
I'm not saying that they don't share a blame. The bulk of the blame, however goes to the west. They destroyed the economies and populations of some countries with the slave trade (Which was able to go on for as long as it did because of Europe's control over the flow of guns. Before you say that "Africans sold their own people," most Africans actually resisted the slave trade, those that did sell slaves were actually selling prisoners of war and criminals--ie, NOT THEIR OWN PEOPLE). After the slave era, They carved up the continent for themselves like a big birthday cake--without any consideration for tribes and people living there. During the colonial era, they were seen as subhuman and could be killed, raped and tortured with impunity. A lot of white folks like to say that "Africa was better off under colonialism." Better for whom exactly?
Africans sold other Africans, otherwise one could say that Nazi killed "other people" (beside German jews and undesirables) as if this would lessen their crimes.
Tribalism and ethnic divisions were as present before Europeans as they are now: slavery, war and poverty were present before Europeans as well.
I'm not saying that Africa benefited from colonialism, but it's not like before it was a heaven of peace and prosperity, it was a continent immensely behind in all field of development in respect to any other, especially Europe.
Be it clear, Europeans caused immense sufferings upon Africans but they also brought positive things: from the abolition of slavery to the improvements in medicine and farming that contributed to the growth of the African population (which increased four times since the 1950s), without mentioning infrastructures, universities, hospitals and so on.
Does this mean that Europeans were angel and thus we condone the crimes?
Most certainly not, but let's remember that European doesn't just mean King Leopold as much as ISIS doesn't mean Muslims.
India and China are the most populated countries in the world, and as someone else mentioned, the US and Brazil are also relatively large on their own, but they still manage to stay united.
Corruption and poverty plagues Europe and the US probably more so than Africa.
They can forge a new style of government, its been done before.
[b]Africans didn't sell other Africans[/B], they sold prisoners of war and criminals. Many nations (IE NOT TRIBES) resisted the slave trade, but it was able to continue because of Europe's control over guns,
No, some African cities were doing much better than cities in Europe at this time. You do realize that Africa brought Europe out of the dark ages, right?
No, Europe was behind, They lived in piles of their own excrement and most couldn't read. Africa was doing perfectly fine.
They built the infrastructure for the benefit of other White folks. Are you so arrogant to say that Africans couldn't build their own infrastructure? White Saviour much?
1. One of the biggest whoppers you have stated so far which diminishes the little credibility you have even further. Provide a credible link supporting your assertion that poverty and corruption plagues Europe and the US more than Africa.
2. You are wrong Africans did sell Africans from the same tribe ever heard of the civil war when the empire of Oyo(Yorubaland) was expanding.
"The expansion of Oyo after the middle of the sixteenth century was closely associated with the growth of slave exports across the Atlantic. Oyo's cavalry pushed southward along a natural break in the forests known as the Benin(Republic of Benin-Dahomey) Gap, i.e., the opening in the forest where the savanna stretched to the Bight of Benin), and thereby gained access to the coastal ports.
Most slaves exported from that region of Africa were sold by Yoruba traders, and many (if not most) of those slaves had been transshipped from further inside Africa. Many were identified by Europeans as coming from the Yoruba. Over time, as well, Yoruba culture and religion became common among many slaves in the Americas, so that a spiritual and communal connection became quite common." Yoruba Enslavement of African Ancestors, Major Blocks on W.African Transatlantic Slave Trade : - OTEDO.COM
3. Provide a link supporting your assertion that Africa(sub-Saharan Africa) brought Europe out of the dark ages.
Sure, my credibility is dwindling, but you and others have been making blatantly racist comments since the thread started. Okay.
Anyway, one third of Africa's population is middle class, not impoverished. Four of the fastest growing economies are African countries. Meanwhile in the US and Europe, infrastructure is crumbling, politicians are bought and sold and people are being killed in the streets.
The Oyo Empire under its oba, known as the Alaafin of Oyo, was active in the African slave trade during the 18th century. The Yoruba often demanded slaves as a form of tribute of subject populations, who in turn sometimes made war on other peoples to capture the required slaves. Part of the slaves sold by the Oyo Empire entered the Atlantic slave trade.
Prisoners of war and criminals. Why is that so hard to understand? And before you pull out the "Well they practiced slavery, too" argument, I would like to remind you that Africa's slavery at this time was not the Chattel Slavery practiced in the new world. I believe I've covered this. Yes the wars were prompted by their participation in the slave trade, but they were selling PRISONERS OF WAR AND CRIMINALS--NOT THEIR OWN PEOPLE!!!!!!!!!
The Moors (Africans) brought enormous learning to Spain that over centuries would percolate through the rest of Europe.
The intellectual achievements of the Moors in Spain had a lasting effect; education was universal in Moorish Spain, while in Christian Europe, 99 percent of the population was illiterate, and even kings could neither read nor write. At a time when Europe had only two universities, the Moors had seventeen, located in Almeria, Cordova, Granada, Juen, Malaga, Seville, and Toledo.
In the 10th and 11th centuries, public libraries in Europe were non-existent, while Moorish Spain could boast of more than 70, including one in Cordova that housed hundreds of thousands of manuscripts. Universities in Paris and Oxford were established after visits by scholars to Moorish Spain.
It was this system of education, taken to Europe by the Moors, that seeded the European Renaissance and brought the continent out of the 1,000 years of intellectual and physical gloom of the Middle Ages.
In the 10th Century, Cordoba was not just the capital of Al Andalus (Moorish Spain) but also one of the most important cities in the world, rivaling Baghdad and Constantinople.
It boasted a population of 500,000 (200,000 more than now) and had street lighting, fifty hospitals with running water, three hundred public baths, five hundred mosques and seventy libraries – one of which held over 500,000 books.
The Moorish achievement in hydraulic engineering was outstanding. They constructed an aqueduct, that conveyed water from the mountains to the city through lead pipes.
All of this, at a time when London had a largely illiterate population of around 20,000 and had forgotten the technical advances of the Romans some 600 hundred years before. Paved and lighted streets did not appear in London or Paris for hundreds of years later.
The “father of modern surgery,” Abu al-Quasim (Al Zahrawi), was a Moor who was born in Cordoba. During a practice that lasted fifty years, he developed a range of innovative and precise surgical instruments, while writing a text book that was to be a cornerstone of Western medical training for the next 500 years.
Under the Moors, Spain was introduced to new food crops such as rice, hard wheat, cotton, oranges, lemons, sugar and cotton. More importantly, along with these foodstuffs came an intimate knowledge of irrigation and cultivation of crops. The Moors also taught the Europeans how to store grain for up to 100 years and built underground grain silos
1. BS the Yoruba sold Yoruba same people that were captured during a civil war.
2. If you think the think that the Moors were the Taureg you've bumped your head. The Arabs brought to the Iberian peninsula knowledge acquired from Mesopotamia, India, the Greeks, the Romans, North Africa.
In addition the Moors in the Iberian peninsula were primarily native Iberians that converted to Islam over time with a minor admixture with Maghrebi, Arabs, Saquiliba, and a very minor amount of sub-Saharan. The desert nomads that later arrived upon the scene the Almoravids and Almohads were ignorant religious fanatics that didn't contribute a damn thing and were beat back and sent packing to Morocco.
India and China are the most populated countries in the world, and as someone else mentioned, the US and Brazil are also relatively large on their own, but they still manage to stay united.
India and China have seen extended and powerful unifying civilisations unlike Africa and have a much better developed sense of national pride and national identity than Africa.
Brazil was a colony that transited to a modern state through many dramatic periods but that shared a common language and a moulding culture that "Brazilian-ised" immigrants.
Quote:
Corruption and poverty plagues Europe and the US probably more so than Africa.
Even admitting that that's true (and it is not), it still remains that Europe is ahead in every single field of human development on average (and the poorest areas of Europeans are still better than most areas of Africa).
Quote:
Africans didn't sell other Africans, they sold prisoners of war and criminals. Many nations (IE NOT TRIBES) resisted the slave trade, but it was able to continue because of Europe's control over guns,
Therefore prisoners of war and criminals weren't African?
"Control of guns"?
Before 1870s, Europeans had never even dared going into Africa, let alone establish any meaningful form of authority.
The slave trade was conducted through a series of hub harbours and coastal cities from which slavers embarked people, to do this it needed the collusion of African people in the interior and so it was.
A portion of the blame does indeed fall on Africans.
Quote:
No, some African cities were doing much better than cities in Europe at this time. You do realize that Africa brought Europe out of the dark ages, right?
Really?
Care to provide any example "at the time"?
Or are you referring to the Moors?
Curious, because in this case Moors (who were Berbers by the way for the most part and culturally Arabic, the same Arabs who enslaved millions of Africans and still treat them like subhumans in many areas) conquered an area that was NOT African and occupied it for 800 years, YET magically this invasion and occupation is not bad or worthy of condemnation, right?
I have always loved how obviously Europeans were brutal invaders and murderers who did nothing for Africans but, somehow, Islamic moors were a blessing for stupid and backwards Europeans.
Some contradiction right?
Quote:
No, Europe was behind, They lived in piles of their own excrement and most couldn't read. Africa was doing perfectly fine.
Really?
Care to explain how "Africa was perfectly fine" when while Europeans were inventing the aeroplane, the train, the steam machine, developing modern medicine, chemistry and mathematics, in Africa we had Zulus and Ashantis?
Really?
"piles of their own excrement"?
You mean perhaps Rome and the most extraordinary empire the world had ever seen to that time?
Greece and its accomplishment?
The Gothic churches and medieval castles? The adaptation of gunpowder, modern algebra from Arabs, the establishment of modern seafaring technology, the development of the press, and Africa?
Quote:
They built the infrastructure for the benefit of other White folks. Are you so arrogant to say that Africans couldn't build their own infrastructure? White Saviour much?
"The White folk" invented modern roads, the train, the modern industry and practically the whole world you and I live in nowadays.
I'm not being arrogant, I'm simply looking at facts:Africa had many great empires and states (Ethiopia for example, Dahomey, Ashantis just to name a few), it still pales to what Europe achieved in terms of contributions to the modern civilisation.
Does this mean that Europeans had the right to enslave or murder?
Obviously not, I never said that, I just said that all the times people forget that "the White folk" as you called it besides deporting millions of slaves did also invent the vaccine which helped cure many millions Africans.
We do have a unifying African identity--its called pan-Africanism. LOL I still think its possible.
I wish you the best, I still think it's rather unrealistic in the near future.
Quote:
Have you drank your tap water lately? America is not number one in any category. We are the richest third world country in the world.
Well, since I live under the Alps I do drink tap water daily and it's probably among the best tap waters in the world (I'm drinking it even now).
Quote:
They were soldiers of enemy nation states and criminals who broke the law. Europe gave guns to some nations to use against others, thus creating a serious imbalance in power among the nations. The country of Chad for instance, has still not recovered from the slave trade after its population diminished
Soldiers of enemy nations and criminals still were Africans and by your reasoning a large part of slaves traded to the Americas are not Africans (after all, Africans sold "criminals and prisoners of war", right?).
European traders traded arms only from coastal cities and harbours: the interior of Africa was a big blank part of the map (the famous "hic sunt leones").
Plus, Africans have been at war among themselves far before Europeans came (as did Europeans among themselves): to believe that Europeans brought violence or "guns" (which by the way were still largely unknown were Europeans began to the scramble for Africa since fewest African nations/tribes/states could fight with modern weapon).
Quote:
The moors were black. Moor is the word used for black at the time. Nice try, friend.
I didn't say that it was a good thing that they conquered Portugal and Spain. I mean, its not like they established a caste system based on physical appearance or something after killing off the native population with disease.
The fact that Moors were not Black (meaning with Black with features similar to those of people from West Africa) has been lengthily debated here: were the Moors black?
You can also find my responses which I don't want to quote so as not to derail the thread any further.
Without forgetting that Moors were culturally Arabic (so actually very little of "African").
Quote:
Didn't read the post? Most Europeans couldn't read or write--that includes royalty. Modern Mathematics came from the Arabs (by way of India, though the Olmecs had a concept of zero before them). Some African cities at that time were bigger and doing better than European cities--which were in disarray.
"at that time"?
Anyway, it's fairly evident that the debate won't go anywhere.
Keep believing that Europeans were all monkeys (Romans, Greeks obviously were disguised Africans) whom "Africans" educated.
It's basically the "Black man's burden" now
Quote:
Modern industry" was created by people of all races and creeds. I'd be surprised that you don't understand that, but considering what thread I'm on, I'm not surprised.
Sure.
Let's examine the scientific discoveries in modern mathematics, chemistry and "science" that led to most of industrial inventions?
Let's see which countries produced the most Nobel prizes?
Let's see what inventions can be attributed to Europeans (or people of European ancestry) from the industrial revolution to computers?
Quote:
Weren't we talking about pan-Africanism?
True, let's not derail any further.
It's clear that we have completely opposite ideas, if you want open a new thread, otherwise this is not the thread.
About Pan-Africanism, I don't really think it's doable right now, I have no problem whatsoever if it happens since it would not do anything to me personally.
I as an African don't think Pan-Africanism is possible, you know what China did to get Pan-China-ism(made up word)? They first conquered most of China then forcefully simplified the language and basically destroyed the dozens of ethnic groups in China to create the largest Ethnic group in the world. Germany did the same thing except on a much smaller scale and more peacefully than China. If following the previous examples of uniting one place this equates to the destruction of traditional cultures forcefully, and one culture becoming superior above all other cultures not just a mix. In China they had dozens of ethnic groups through centuries of centralization and assimilation eventually roughly 1.2 billion (Han Chinese) got united with ethnicity wiped away. Modern day China is a lend of the previous ethnic groups of Eastern China, and now has a singular Chinese culture, same thing happened with France and Germany.
Xander: Your right on certain points but you are acting like he is talking about nearly 2000 year timeline. His statement that African Cities were doing better at the time is 100% true.
From the time period he is talking about: The Romans were gone, The Greeks were Gone Western Europe was in shambles, The Vikings had just risen, Industrialization was still some 100-200 years in the distant future. The only power was Charlemagne and The Ottomans, and Charlemagne was illiterate and had to constantly go around just to keep states from splitting off. East African City-States were benefiting from the Indian Ocean Trade, the West African empire of the Mali was so rich with gold that it is said and commonly agreed that when a certain king they had went to Egypt he gave so much gold he devalued the price of Gold by 20%+ (forgot the #). At this time North Africa and West and East Africa were very connected with Trans-Saharan trade booming, Timbuktu was an important city. Also the Moors were first African who then converted many of the Spanish. Race doesn't equal being African. Aboriginals and South Indians are attest to that, Also Ethiopians/Somalians (certain Somalis the only difference between them and a white person is skin tone, same hair, facial structure, body type etc.) Some south Indians even though they look Indian and can actually be darker than non-mixed black people. Aboriginals although they are black don't seem to have many stereotypical "Sub-Saharan African" features to them. Point is the Moors were African, skin tone doesn't matter when your talking about Continents. It's like Saying you have to be East Asian to be from Asia.
For Others: Also your acting like Africa is just a mass of "black" people. Your talking about well over 10,000 ethnic group speaking more than 10,000 languages, My country of Nigeria has more languages than all of Europe... Just because they look "Black doesn't mean anything. Although some languages are ridiculously similar and can be merged. Most are like Ibo and Hausa/Fulani (Hausa and Nigerian Fulani unite on many topics) is to Japanese and Chinese. They may "look" the same but are impossible to understand. In fact I dare to say a Saudi Arabian would have an easier time learning Hausa than an Ibo.
It would be good for Africa, I just don't think it is plausible and it wouldn't benefit certain African nations such as Namibia, Egypt, Tunisia, North Africa in general and a few West African and East African states/nations like Ghana or Ethiopia or SA would be the Germany's and about every other nation would be Greece. It would benefit Africa in general but might cause certain countries to have anti-immigrant violence etc. like SA is currently having.
It would be nonsense to someone who grew up in a privileged world like you.
I'm not saying that they don't share a blame. The bulk of the blame, however goes to the west. They destroyed the economies and populations of some countries with the slave trade (Which was able to go on for as long as it did because of Europe's control over the flow of guns. Before you say that "Africans sold their own people," most Africans actually resisted the slave trade, those that did sell slaves were actually selling prisoners of war and criminals--ie, NOT THEIR OWN PEOPLE). After the slave era, They carved up the continent for themselves like a big birthday cake--without any consideration for tribes and people living there. During the colonial era, they were seen as subhuman and could be killed, raped and tortured with impunity. A lot of white folks like to say that "Africa was better off under colonialism." Better for whom exactly?
I guess it is comforting for you to think such thoughts. Some Africans think different.
"Had Europe not decided to end the slave trade and the New World ceased demanding chattel labour, the transatlantic trade might still be rolling today. The ending of the obnoxious business had nothing to do with events in Africa. Rulers and traders there would have happily continued to sell humans for as long as there was demand for them. One can only imagine how more determinedly African merchants would have clung on to the business as goods offered by European buyers became more attractive with changes in Western technology. How many souls would African chiefs have been prepared to trade for a television or a car? It is a disturbing thought.
To highlight the role of the African elites in the slave trade is not to argue the obvious that they were morally depraved like the Europeans who bought slaves from them. It is to show that the corrupt leadership that undermines democracy and economic development in African countries today has a long history. The selfishness and disregard for the welfare of fellow humans manifest in the sacking of national resources by modern African leaders also motivated the pillaging of the human resources of the continent in times past."
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
