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.
It would be like Wakanda. A perfect illustration of the wealth of minerals that still exist in Africa. I believe Africans would have help the Nations fairly without colonization influences.
Last edited by Atlwarrior; 02-24-2018 at 08:58 AM..
It would be like Wakanda. A perfect illustration of the wealth of minerals that still exist in Africa.
Uh oh, lol. You really about to get killed.
While I don't think they would be like Wakanda...They were certainly better off pre-colonialism. No crappy diseases, no crappy indoctrination. Just doing more research on things and seeing what the Euros said of some African cities....they were anything but backwards. They weren't European but how can one call the Continent and in some instances the very same areas that bred the Moors backwards?
Sub-Saharan Africa would have no desire to adopt European concepts of democracy or complex civil institutions, but would continue to interact and operate at a multitude of lower, more decentralized and local tribal levels.
There would be no need to pretend or attempt to create 'republics' or provincial governing bodies, as all decisions and actions would take place at the tribal or tribal-alliance level. Corruption, as we view it today, would be a meaningless concept, as 'to the victor belongs the spoils' would be accepted as the natural state of affairs. Advancement in education, science, architecture, or the arts would occur at a snails pace, indeed, if at all.
The introduction of outside armaments and modern goods would speed up inter-tribal warfare, and the few who sought 'advancement' would flee to other parts of the world as opportunity dictated. Eventually western do-gooders would try to intervene to stop the genocides and 'poverty and backwardness'.
The animals, especially elephants, would be all dead or on the brink of extinction as they would be sold to China and the rest of the world for hard currency. There would be no African money of any real value and there would be no National Park System'.
Sort of like today, but without the 'western values' that cause the sense of failure and hypocrisy that follow.
This is one of the silliest things a read in long time this is what happens when reply on stereotype and know absolutely nothing over a history of a large place that should not be even generalize in the first place.. This red is basically bs...... it contradicts the fact that have already been " complex civil institutions, " above "local tribal levels." before the scramble for Africa even happen. I don't even know where to even start....... So I split this long post into two parts one a history lesson of Africa history. The other "republics" comments.
1. African History lesson cause you clearly need to know this stuff before make a comment like that
First post modern Europe now is nothing like Europe 200 to 300 years ago or even just a 130 years. This before the common use of electricity or even cities had waste system in Europe and the US. A lot of discovery and technology were just happening in Europe. So while a lot technology was new to Africa it was new Europe as while.
So whole notion..... oh "Sub-Saharan Africa would have no desire to adopt European concepts of democracy or[color="Red"] complex civil institutions, but would continue to interact and operate at a multitude of lower, more decentralized and local tribal levels."
Because clearly through out the centuries African states were advancing and establishing "complex civil institutions" Clearly African states through trade was learning new ideas and even some instance creating institutions for study themselves.
-------------------------------
Columbus goal was to get to india...... With out going around Africa.... European knew African coastal states and india before Columbus even discover the Americas.
If you noticed the colonization of the Americas started hundred of years before the colonization of these parts of the world why?.......
Because why they might not have been advance as Europe they was advance enough to put more of a fight or resistance to European rule it would been like fight another European state.
What happen was the industrial revolution and age of scientific racism. The industrial revolution brought new technologies to Europe which a gave a edge to the West.
Instead of continue to trade and exchange ideas going into the 1800's European states started a late second wave of colonization.
During that time their widespread racism in Europe that was literally "the White Man Burden" to civilize the World. The White Man Burden
The idea was suddenly these concept are too advance for Asia and Africa, as if these modern invocation were not also new to Europe as well.
-------------------
Second part.............. "Republic"
While I agree a Republic is the best route, The idea calling it the only a society has been been civil is false, not just on world but even just European history that would be false.
The idea of a Republic stated greco-roman antiquity but that didn't last long most of European states for the last 2000 years has been anything but a republic. They was rule by a monarchy and to some extent the church. Is wasn't until The US became a Republican a little over 200 years a republican what we know of today really Republican became a serious thing.
In fact even during the scramble for Africa during that time which was before WW1 most European nation weren't "republics" either................ Germany, Austria-Hungary, Russia, Ottoman Empire. Belgium and even Britain "though losing power" were monarchies during the start of the Scramble for Africa. They weren't republics themselves. Spain and France were switching back and forth between a Republic and monarchies for that whole century.
And make it so bad the scramble for Africa happen right in this smack in middle of Gilded age., before the progressive era when Western government were hugely Corrupt and Government set any regulation of industry. https://www.proprofs.com/quiz-school...9a1glmpc23.jpg
So to have your view you have
1. You most be oblivious to African history, and not know there were more complex develop society.
2. have mindset that Europe was like 1,000 years ahead Africa states. When really Europe colonize Africa late for a reason. That some Africa states weren't to far behind to learn new technology through trade.
3. Oblivious to European History with corruption. Europe was basically ramped with corruption 1750-1940. The idea that Europe end massive corruption but Africa can't is base on nothing. And Most European nations were monarchies before WW1.
disintegrated before the "Scramble for Africa" began in earnest in 1880, they
were as involved in the production and trading of these commodities as the
Europeans were. An important example of the interest of African states in the
development of commerce and trade is in the constitutional experimentation
undertaken by the Fante Confederation. This group was fonned in Ghana in
1868 to not only improve internal relations, erect a modem infrastructure
facilitating trade, and establish schools, but also held as one of its major
objectives, "to promote agricultural and industrial pursuits, and to endeavor to
introduce such new plants as may hereafter become sources of profitable
commerce to the country." The Fante Confederation was concerned about the
export market but also sought to, "develop and facilitate the working of the
mineral and other resources of the country." I 0 Thus we see a demonstrated
effort by African states to control the international commerce of their
territories and also to promote their internal development. Since they
controlled the resources, they were able to demand high prices for the goods.
Interestingly enough, the type of raw materials that were exported from
Africa during this period were not those deemed essential to the
industrialization of Europe.
Quote:
Colonial economic policy made itself felt in other ways as well. As
previously mentioned, African governments focused substantial energy on
developing an internal infrastructure for trade during both the era of the slave
trade and during the period of "legitimate commerce." Colonial governments,
focused solely on the export component of the economy, improved the
infrastructure as well. Their interests were only to improve transport of raw
materials to market and not the improvement or enrichment of the colonies
themselves. "In order to encourage the movement of commodities for export,
the government built and operated railways to connect the interior and the
coastal markets. ,,22 This resulted in most of the roads and rail systems in
colonial Africa to be oriented towards the coast. Little or no development of
railways occurred between colonies or within colonies.
Quote:
er problems in African economic development.
Colonialism lasted in Africa for only a period of about eighty years.
During that time, colonial governments built a substantial infrastructure,
introduced a cash crop system of agriculture, and changed the traditional
standards of wealth and status.25 Education refonns were introduced and in
many areas, modem state systems implemented. However, the long tenn
economic impact of European development held some very negative
consequences for Africa also. The infrastructure that was developed was
designed to exploit the natural resources of the colonies. Also, the
technological and industrial development that had been occurring in Africa
was stalled by the imposition of colonialism. Prior to the partition of Africa,
local production provided Africans with a wide variety of consumer goods.
The policies of colonialism forced the demise of African industry and created
a reliance on imported goods from Europe. Had native industry been
encouraged and cultivated by the colonizing powers, Africa would probably
be in a much better economic and technological position today.26 The most
significant negative impact of colonialism on Africa was the overemphasis on
single cash crop production. Colonial African economies were focused on
the production of one or two agricultmal products for consumption in the
world markets. The coming of independence during the mid nineteen sixties
led to the breakup of many large colonies. The individual nations that
remained often could not or did not produce the range of agricultmal goods
that were produced prior to independence and the breakup of colonies. An
example of this is in French West Africa. The interior states of Niger,
Burkina Faso, and Mali did not have access to the lucrative cocoa market that
tided Cote D'Ivoire through the first precarious days of independence. Other
consequences of colonialism is the destruction of trans - African trade and
cooperation. Prior to the partition of Africa, the continent had become
increasingly integrated economically, with trade occurring north - south and
east -west. The policies of the governing powers redirected all African trade
to the international export market. Thus today, there is little in the way of
inter - African trade, and the pattern of economic dependence continues.
The imposition of colonialism on the continent of Africa occurred for
many reasons, not the least of which was economic. Prior to this
development, Africa was advancing and progressing economically and
politically. Colonialism encouraged this development in some areas, but in
many others severely retarded the natmal progress of the continent. Had
colonialism never been imposed on Africa, its development would be
significantly different and many of the problems that plague it today would
not exist.
Africa had as much time BEFORE colonization as anyplace else to flourish, develop science and technologies, build cities and universities that would be praised as models virtue, durability, and beauty, while recording this noble history to pass on to future generations.
They could have gone forth to explore remote areas of the world and bring their highly advanced culture, philosophy, and ethics to those less advanced. And history would have remembered, because THEY would have written it.
But, despite a few flashes of local glory, they did none of that.
Again The first statement fascinate me how people say such false thing, Especially after I just post on the other pages talking about Timbuktu university and some of African cities. Just cause your ignorant of history doesn't mean it doesn't exist.
The second is call racism, your basically boasting racism as if it good thing, And as if it's a bad that Africa didn't do that. You seem to be confused.
Again The first statement fascinate me how people say such false thing, Especially after I just post on the other pages talking about Timbuktu university and some of African cities. Just cause your ignorant of history doesn't mean it doesn't exist.
The second is call racism, your basically boasting racism as if it good thing, And as if it's a bad that Africa didn't do that. You seem to be confused.
Not to mention the Haya people. They had medicines and forged steel way before the Euros. Funny thing, these people always have a habit of distorting things about other people to make it a competition. It's good that Europe took from different cultures around the world and put things together but nobody needs European validation on anything. The African continent would have developed well on their own without the warlike disruptive behavior of the Europeans. Yes, they did conquer it but Africa was by no means backwards.
Last edited by Chevalier de Saint-George; 02-25-2018 at 11:47 AM..
Location: Wherever the are junk homes: Lawrence County Alabama, Huntsville Alabama and Birmingham Alabama
69 posts, read 267,558 times
Reputation: 47
I agree Africa is still very backward with very old human cultures like witchcrafts. I don't believe in . any kind of religion but witchcrafts are the worst of them all - religions, believing in some powers just by faith! The leaders gain but most lose and remain ignorant. Strange US politicians have to show they are religious to get elected and so most of them pretend they are. Don't be fooled, witchcraft is as silly and all the other religious beliefs! The missionaries brought their kinds of religious beliefs to enable colonization and they succeeded. One couldn't go to any schools if they are not believers in any of them. I had to fake christianity until I passed high school. What a relief I got, walking out of my last silly church, in 1964! Free at Last I Yelled!
I agree Africa is still very backward with very old human cultures like witchcrafts. I don't believe in . any kind of religion but witchcrafts are the worst of them all - religions, believing in some powers just by faith! The leaders gain but most lose and remain ignorant. Strange US politicians have to show they are religious to get elected and so most of them pretend they are. Don't be fooled, witchcraft is as silly and all the other religious beliefs! The missionaries brought their kinds of religious beliefs to enable colonization and they succeeded. One couldn't go to any schools if they are not believers in any of them. I had to fake christianity until I passed high school. What a relief I got, walking out of my last silly church, in 1964! Free at Last I Yelled!
Witchcraft isn't a religion, and isn't a culture. there are actual names to native African religions, witchcraft is a a general prejudice name group dozens of religions across the world that have nothing in common, but some African societies were Christian, Muslim and Jewish before colonization. Because Africa is right next to the Middle East as Europe.
Not to mention the Haya people. They had medicines and forged steel way before the Euros. Funny thing, these people always have a habit of distorting things about other people to make it a competition. It's good that Europe took from different cultures around the world and put things together but nobody needs European validation on anything. The African continent would have developed well on their own without the warlike disruptive behavior of the Europeans. Yes, they did conquer it but Africa was by no means backwards.
You have think about how little to no African history is taught in the West. before the 60's America bluntly had racist laws, After the 60's while intergration happen schools and school districts didn't updated schools circular to included much African history, American conservatives definitely don't want to do it.
So this result in bluntful ignorance..... because they are not taught about Africa history they assume there not much there. Which reinforce their ignorance. Meanwhile all they had to do is google but they didn't bother. PamelaIamela comments are perfect example of what happen when history is not taught.
Because they are not taught about Africa history they assume there not much there. Which reinforce their ignorance.
Hand in hand is a tendency to think of Europe in 1453-1500 from the perspective of what it would become in later centuries. Constantinople was by far the largest and most sophisticated city in Europe when it was conquered in 1453.
Other than Paris, most cities in Europe were pretty small, and nothing like the Asian cities.
Last edited by PacoMartin; 02-25-2018 at 11:33 PM..
Hand in hand is a tendency to think of Europe in 1453-1500 from the perspective of what it would become in later centuries. Constantinople was by far the largest and most sophisticated city in Europe when it was conquered in 1453.
Other than Paris, most cities in Europe were pretty small, and nothing like the Asian cities.
This true Tokyo was the first city in the world to reach a million during the edo period,
but a lot Africa cities were destroyed and burned during the wars for colonization, and afterwards, as post above during Colonization of Africa Europeans didn't seek to expand existing infrastructure in Africa. Railroads didn't connect existing African cities they connected mines to the coast, And During colonization Europeans didn't seek to grow Africa economy, they use Africa for cheap labor, and sold resources for lower prices to befit Europeans. The education system and etc was not up par with modern world as well undeveloped modern utilities. This is besides the mistreated and violence against Africans during Colonization.
I think a lot racist try to hold idea that nothing was in Africa to try justify colonization. You can't say African develop cities, center for learner, created complex government above tribal leaderships. because that would be evidence that African societies could advance though trade......
My point is Africa had develop complex societies with latest technology 1200 to 1800 like Songhai, Swahili cities states, Ashanti, and dozens of other places already because of trade, what evidence that with the latest advancing of technology of the industrial revolution after the 1800 Some Africa society weren't going Advance further. So to avoid this, African history is avoid altogether.
That some are saying nothing would change or Africa was "backwards" before colonization because there idea of African history is Tarzan, And they nearly oblivious to African history.
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.
