U.S. CitiesCity-Data Forum Index
Go Back   City-Data Forum > World Forums > Africa
 [Register]
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.
View detailed profile (Advanced) or search
site with Google Custom Search

Search Forums  (Advanced)
Reply Start New Thread
 
Old 01-01-2016, 05:23 PM
 
1,603 posts, read 1,461,984 times
Reputation: 2024

Advertisements

Quote:
Originally Posted by Motion View Post
I'm no fan of colonialism but I do recognize that through colonialism Africa did receive some useful things like improved literacy,medicine,more modern infrastructure etc. But as far as how Africa would have developed without colonialism? I think many of the things you mentioned above would have been introduce to much of Africa through trade with Europeans and through other exchanges over time. Europe did need Africa's natural resources for various things related to it's growth like Africa's minerals. So trade and contact between both groups would have benefited both.
It's likely, consider though that usually in history a neighbour with such an overwhelming advantage rarely ends well for the disadvantaged part.
The conquest of Africa happened for a series of historical reasons: it didn't happen until the second half of 19th century for a reason and it ends in the way we know (i.e. almost the whole Africa subdued) because of several historical reasons.
Quote:
Originally Posted by SuperiorMegaman View Post
Umm, no it wasn't. The colonial era occured after the slave era.
I'm still asking in what world you think that Africa of 1800 was "advanced", in what ways?
The comparison between the scientific contributions of Europe is indisputably infinitely higher than Africa.

Quote:
Plenty of Nations (IE not tribes) existed in Africa. They had guns and organized militaries. Ethiopians managed to repel Europeans TWICE.
Yet, in the end Ethiopia was conquered and only Liberia remained independent as a puppet of the US (a creation of the US moreover).
There were plenty of Empires, but nowhere close to the sophistication that European nations reached.
Quote:
America and Europe would never have been world powers without the aid of African slaves, meanwhile.
Bull****.
Germany became a world power and that had nothing to do with the colonies, Industrialisation, the Enlightenment, the Scientific revolution and the creation of European modern nations were all processes that had nothing to do with slavery.
When slavery was abolished (by Europeans), European supremacy had very little to do with slaves (moreover only a handful of European countries, i.e. Portugal,Spain, France and Great Britain plus the Netherlands had slaves in the plantations.
Even the US came out as a economic superpower well after the abolition of slavery and the Southern states have always been poorer than the North.

Quote:
Why do you keep saying Africans were illiterate? They weren't! Now stop saying it. Africans knew metallurgy, had access to steel and other metals and anything they didn't have access to could have been acquired through trade of goods, services and ideas (not of slaves, though...) Christopher Columbus learned of the new world from Africans.
There were entire parts of Africa that knew no writing (including the very powerful Zulu Empire) and you want to make me believe that all Africans were literate?
Even in Algeria, a relatively richer part of Africa with an Arabic script being used, most people were illiterate by 1960s.
Africa had nothing comparable to the education system that Europeans created (and after which African leaders modelled theirs).
Yes, in 1500 most European commoners were illiterate, the same apply to 99% people of the world.
Alphabetisation is still something to be achieved in many parts of Africa, whereas Europe has nearly 99% of literacy.
Quote:
Just so you know, most of Europe was backwards, too--that is until Africans came and brought them out of the Dark Ages.
Even admitting that this notion is true (i.e. the Moors), you fail to notice that Moors were culturally Arabic, they speak Arabic and were Muslim, all features that are not African.
Without even entering in the long debate about whether Moors were actually "Black" or not.
Quote:
The problem is that people have been so prejudiced in thinking that some of the negatives of modern European colonization have been the only and entire story. This is entirely unfair and inaccurate.
Sub-Saharan Africa was home to some of the richest empires in the world before Europe came along...
That's true.
You hit a right taste when you say that African history is seen as "poverty,slaves and huts" and this is stupid and prejudiced.
Yet, you can't fabricate history either: to say that Africa in 1800 was as advanced as Europe is utterly ludicrous like saying that Europeans in 5000 BC were more modern than Ancient Egyptians.
Europe may have been the worst evil in history but it is largely responsible for the modern world all people live in: from modern industry to medicine, from the train to the aeroplane, from the modern chemistry to IT, from many modern concepts of philosophy and government (and ideologies).
Most of this has been done and achieved by Europeans and this is undeniable.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message

 
Old 01-01-2016, 07:52 PM
 
693 posts, read 818,502 times
Reputation: 1546
Quote:
Originally Posted by SuperiorMegaman View Post
The British and American forms of Government are the worst in the world--certainly not to be emulated.
LOL!

Yeah, compared to the nations of Sub-Saharan Africa. Some of the most backwards, filthy, diseased, poor, corrupt, uneducated and uncivilized nations on earth, who rank dead last in things like human development, wealth, IQ, etc., etc.

I love your trolling though, my friend. You give me a good laugh!
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 01-02-2016, 12:58 AM
 
7,437 posts, read 5,939,607 times
Reputation: 3799
Quote:
Originally Posted by xander.XVII View Post
, complete isolation would mean no investments by Europeans, no modern medicine or science.
How could Africa excel when Shaka Zulu ?


Of course you cite the most backward parts of Africa.


Do you know that slaves from certain parts of what is today Nigeria were valued because of their high level of skill in metals? Both in metallurgy, as well as in the manufacture of metal items? Benin and Oyo empires were renowned in this activity.


17th C accounts by European sailors showed that they were reasonably impressed with the Yoruba empires if Oyo and Benin. The cities were as large as some of the European cities at the time, with vastly higher standards of public hygiene.


Independent African nations might have well ended up like Asia, were there not certain dislocations caused by colonialism, the most ridiculous being arbitrary borders. In fact a big problem of the slave trade is that greedy African elites, in a rush to acquire short term wealth actually undermined their own manufacturing sector (textiles and metals) by purchasing them instead from the Europeans. So the most advanced parts of West Africa didn't move beyond the Middle Ages.


Given that literacy was quite low in Europe, literacy was of benefit only to the very small elites which existed before the Renaissance.


The Mali empire (the location of Timbuktu) was one of the world's richest. Given the abundant poverty which existed all over Europe in the 17th C I wonder why the poverty of Africa would have been an issue. In fact some claim that the larger African empires were no worse off than those of Europe.


I don't know if you know this, but at its peak the Ashanti had armies of 200,000. Poor societies CANNOT sustain armies that large.


Please put aside your Tarzanesque images of pre colonial West Africa. The universities of Timbuktu were just as respected as those elsewhere.


The same way that Italy currently benefits from modern US technology, so would Africa, colonial or not.


The fact is that we do NOT know what West Africa would have been like had it not stupidly got itself involved in the Transatlantic slave trade, or become colonized from the late 19th to the mid 20th C.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 01-02-2016, 01:10 AM
 
7,437 posts, read 5,939,607 times
Reputation: 3799
[quote=SuperiorMegaman;42472901]
Quote:



Why do you keep saying Africans were illiterate? They weren't! Now stop saying it. Africans knew metallurgy, had access to steel and other metals .
The universities in Timbuktu were well respected in the Middle East, and even in Europe, so we can put to bed the notion of universal illiteracy and ignorance throughout Africa.


Other regions had also developed farming techniques which the Europeans copied. It seems apparent that the European farmers weren't too adept at the use of fertilizer, as they borrowed techniques from BOTH the Africans, and the Native Americans.


Steel is a relatively recent invention, so no, during the 17thC neither the Europeans nor the Africans had access to it.


Africa was a very diverse continent. Some regions being quite primitive. The central and southern regions being examples.


What folks who babble about literacy need to admits is that the vast majority of Europeans in the 17th C were illiterate. In fact even England, the most educated, only had a 50% literate population.


West Africa was developing at a reasonable rate and in the Medieval era its peoples in the most developed areas (today's Sahel, and south west Nigeria and Ghana) had living standards which matched that of the average Europeans.


Nigerian towns were as large as those in Europe. They already had systems for removing human waste, unlike Europe, where it ended on the streets, to be feasted on by rats, and creating the infamous numbers of plagues.


We don't need to romanticize Africa. Some areas were down right primitive, while others had advanced to reasonable levels.


The Transatlantic slave trade had the same impact on the Akan, Fon/Dahomey, and the Yoruba empires as oil has on many developing nations. The sudden burst of wealth encourage greed, corruption, and short term thinking. In fact by the 19th C the more advanced regions Africa was LESS developed than they were 400 years earlier.


Sadly for too many, the image of Africa is the Masai and the Zulu, two of the most primitive groups.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 01-02-2016, 01:20 AM
 
7,437 posts, read 5,939,607 times
Reputation: 3799
Quote:
Originally Posted by NigerianNightmare View Post
I was saying in the future, before European colonization many African Nations were on par or more advanced than Europe till slightly after the renaissance. .


To say more advanced is exaggerating. What we had in the more advanced regions of Africa were societies which were some what more egalitarian than in Europe.


Yes Europe had advanced writing systems, but the vast majority of the population was illiterate until the late 18th and into the 19th C. The Muslim regions also had writing, and in certain places, even universities, given their contact with the Arab world.


Yes they had lavish cathedrals. But most Europeans lived in filthy hovels. And their cities were dangerous because of the poor hygiene (bathing wasn't a common practice, and human waste was dumped in the streets).


But the average European probably didn't have any more access to technology, medicine, or high living standards than did the average person living in the Yoruba kingdoms.


We don't know what would have happened, had West Africa not succumbed to the "crack" that the Transatlantic slave trade created. This enriched small elites, but the endless wars and the depletion of some of its most productive people arrested the economic and social development in the more advanced areas.


And yes the Europeans were so impressed with the metallurgy of those in the Benin and Oyo empires that slaves that planters in the Americas paid top dollar for slaves with those skills coming from those regions. In fact even today the metal art of these peoples attracts much respect.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 01-02-2016, 01:27 AM
 
7,437 posts, read 5,939,607 times
Reputation: 3799
Quote:
Originally Posted by xander.XVII View Post
Bull****.
Germany became a world power and that had nothing to do with the colonies, .


Yes in the 19th C.


Which European nations were richest in the 17th and 18th C? Those which engaged in the slaves. Britain, France, Holland, Spain and Portugal.


Note that prior to the start of the exploitation of the Americas, which led to the development of the transatlantic slave trade, these nations were quite poor.


Germany benefited from the wealth of these nations, which provided markets for its industrial products. The industrial revolution in the UK was funded from the tremendous wealth created in its sugar colonies in the Caribbean. You mightn't believe it, but in the 18th C some of the richest places on a per capita income basis were small islands like Barbados, Haiti, St Kitts and Jamaica.


NONE of that wealth remained in those islands.


So claiming that the slave trade wasn't highly beneficial to Europe is pure unadulterated NONSENSE!
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 01-02-2016, 01:38 AM
 
7,437 posts, read 5,939,607 times
Reputation: 3799
Quote:
Originally Posted by xander.XVII View Post
Yes, in 1500 most European commoners were illiterate, the same apply to 99% people of the world.
Alphabetisation is still something to be achieved in many parts of Africa, whereas Europe has nearly 99% of literacy.

.


So why cite the writing systems of Europe when these were beneficial only to the aristocrats (not all of them) the priests, and a few learned people?

For most people in 1650 education was passed on by observation, and by apprenticeship. True in Africa, and true in Europe. The "illiterate" peoples of the Benin and Oyo empires had levels of metallurgy that the 17th C Europeans certainly respected.


The Akan people had mining techniques which the Spanish certainly found valuable in their South American gold mines.


Screaming about Zulus makes you look very uninformed. It would be like some one going into some remote village in Russia in the 17th C and then claiming that Europeans were primitive!


A measure of a society is how the AVERAGE person lives, and evidence is that those living in the larger West African empires didn't live worse lives than those living in rural areas of western Europe during the 17th C.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 01-02-2016, 01:39 AM
 
7,437 posts, read 5,939,607 times
Reputation: 3799
Quote:
Originally Posted by CityLover9 View Post
LOL!

, IQ, etc., etc.

I love your trolling though, my friend. You give me a good laugh!


Any one who still babbles about IQ in 2015 is in fact a troll. IQ is a measure of innate intelligence, has long been discredited.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 01-02-2016, 12:27 PM
 
749 posts, read 597,998 times
Reputation: 842
Quote:
Originally Posted by caribny View Post
Any one who still babbles about IQ in 2015 is in fact a troll. IQ is a measure of innate intelligence, has long been discredited.
IQ discredited? By who?
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 01-02-2016, 12:39 PM
 
Location: Katy,Texas
3,507 posts, read 1,706,241 times
Reputation: 2217
Quote:
Originally Posted by caribny View Post
Yes in the 19th C.


Which European nations were richest in the 17th and 18th C? Those which engaged in the slaves. Britain, France, Holland, Spain and Portugal.


Note that prior to the start of the exploitation of the Americas, which led to the development of the transatlantic slave trade, these nations were quite poor.


Germany benefited from the wealth of these nations, which provided markets for its industrial products. The industrial revolution in the UK was funded from the tremendous wealth created in its sugar colonies in the Caribbean. You mightn't believe it, but in the 18th C some of the richest places on a per capita income basis were small islands like Barbados, Haiti, St Kitts and Jamaica.


NONE of that wealth remained in those islands.


So claiming that the slave trade wasn't highly beneficial to Europe is pure unadulterated NONSENSE!
Carib when I mean many were advancedI am only talking about three locations, The area around modern day Mali and Northern Nigeria/Ghana/Cote D Ivoire and Niger. Which was connected to the Arab world had nations/cities that was more advanced than Europe, Certain North African states and East African trading city-states who had Chinese and Indian goods in bulk which In Europe would only go for the very rich. The rest of the continent was on par or underdeveloped compared to Europe overall (Even though different parts of Europe like Africa had differing levels of development). I wasn't talking about Yorubaland or Congo or Zulu but the three regions (East African Region stretching from Somalia to Southern Tanzania along the coast), Northern Portion of West Africa, and Certain Regions within North Africa along the coast of the Mediterranean. All of these regions were either in Indian Ocean Trade or Silk Road and had access to Indian, Chinese, Arabian good which at the time were the most advanced regions in the world with China being the most developed.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
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.


Reply
Please update this thread with any new information or opinions. This open thread is still read by thousands of people, so we encourage all additional points of view.

Quick Reply
Message:

Over $104,000 in prizes was already given out to active posters on our forum and additional giveaways are planned!

Go Back   City-Data Forum > World Forums > Africa
Follow City-Data.com founder on our Forum or

All times are GMT -6.

2005-2019, Advameg, Inc. · Please obey Forum Rules · Terms of Use and Privacy Policy · Bug Bounty

City-Data.com - Archive 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35 - Top