Welcome to City-Data.com Forum!
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)
Closed Thread Start New Thread
 
Old 03-16-2009, 04:48 PM
 
72,817 posts, read 62,167,325 times
Reputation: 21773

Advertisements

Quote:
Originally Posted by OhioUberAlles View Post
You're asking me to prove the historical population of a continent?

Prove the Earth is round...

Prove the Earth revolves around the Sun...

Prove that the Thirty Years War happened...

Prove that Europe even existed in the 14th century...


There are certain, very basic, points in a debate/discussion that both sides must accept before anything further can be done. If you're not going to accept a very basic point such as the historical population of the continent of Africa as of 1880, then I'm not even going to bother with you.

In his memoirs, Ian Smith, the last leader of Rhodesia, declared that the 1880s population of sub-saharan Black Africa was approximately 20,000,000. I would say that the word of a national leader (not a corrupt despot) is proof enough in regards to geo-politics of his region/area of expertise.
You were mentioning the population as of 1880. I am talking about the population as of the 15th century. Okay, I'll give you whatever Ian Smith said. With that in mind, Africa was not in major distress until the slave trade started when people were being taken out of Africa.
This is what Elikia M’bokolo of Le Monde diplomatique(or Le diplo) had to say about the slave trade: :"The African continent was bled of its human resources via all possible routes. Across the Sahara, through the Red Sea, from the Indian Ocean ports and across the Atlantic. At least ten centuries of slavery for the benefit of the Muslim countries (from the ninth to the nineteenth)." He continues: "Four million slaves exported via the Red Sea, another four million through the Swahili ports of the Indian Ocean, perhaps as many as nine million along the trans-Saharan caravan route, and eleven to twenty million (depending on the author) across the Atlantic Ocean". I have a source:The impact of the slave trade on Africa - Le Monde diplomatique - English edition

I would read the whole article. Africa's population may have gone down to 20 million in 1880, but there was a reason for that: The slave trade.

 
Old 03-16-2009, 04:53 PM
 
Location: Ohio
1,008 posts, read 869,123 times
Reputation: 250
Quote:
Originally Posted by pirate_lafitte View Post
You were mentioning the population as of 1880. I am talking about the population as of the 15th century. Okay, I'll give you whatever Ian Smith said. With that in mind, Africa was not in major distress until the slave trade started when people were being taken out of Africa.
This is what Elikia M’bokolo of Le Monde diplomatique(or Le diplo) had to say about the slave trade: :"The African continent was bled of its human resources via all possible routes. Across the Sahara, through the Red Sea, from the Indian Ocean ports and across the Atlantic. At least ten centuries of slavery for the benefit of the Muslim countries (from the ninth to the nineteenth)." He continues: "Four million slaves exported via the Red Sea, another four million through the Swahili ports of the Indian Ocean, perhaps as many as nine million along the trans-Saharan caravan route, and eleven to twenty million (depending on the author) across the Atlantic Ocean". I have a source:The impact of the slave trade on Africa - Le Monde diplomatique - English edition

I would read the whole article. Africa's population may have gone down to 20 million in 1880, but there was a reason for that: The slave trade.

Europeans only ever took away several million Africans as slaves. Keep in mind about one million Europeans were enslaved by Algerians and Turks. The impact on Europea was enormous in some coastal communities of southern France, Spain, and Italy.

The main culprit in African slavery were the Arabs and Turks, who enslaved well over ten million Africans.

Keep in mind, as far as African slavery went, it never would have been possible without the help of African tribal chiefs.


In the early 1500s there was an African civilization known as "Great Zimbabwe" that had 30-50 thousand people living around a 30 foot tall stone tower in the middle of modern Zimbabwe. This was the main feature of their civilization, a 30 foot tall stone tower. Their civilization was toppled by about 250-325 Portuguese explorers armed with 16th century firearms.

I'd say any nation has to be in distress if it falls to less than 400 explorers armed with the most basic of firearms.




So what do you want me to say? I'm sorry the leaders of your ancestors betrayed your ancestors by selling them to my ancestors? It may seem rather cruel and harsh but if the White explorers didn't buy the slaves from the tribal chieftains, they would have been massacred or eaten, most likely. They were pretty much all prisoners of war, their fate was either going to be slavery or certain death.

Do you like being here in the USA today or would you rather have grown up in Nigeria, Angola, Ivory Coast? What are you complaining about? Most of the people in Angola would trip over themselves to get here.
 
Old 03-16-2009, 04:55 PM
 
Location: Des Moines, IA
1,744 posts, read 7,241,671 times
Reputation: 1239
Quote:
That article was from 2008. Find something from BEFORE the British invaded Zimbabwe.
You said only a few people benefited from Rhodesia, I said it sounds like Rhodesia was light years ahead of Zimbabwe. Before the British came to that part of the world, I don't know what they were doing but if it in any way resembles how they're doing now it couldn't have been good.

Quote:
The last time I read, Europe was being bombarded by famine, feudalism, war and diseases during the 14th and 15th centuries. Africa never had that problem during those times.
Where do you come up with this stuff? So all those wars in Africa where the captives were sold off to European slave traders never happened in approximately that time period? No tribal warfare? No diseases? That's amazing considering the amount of disease that has historically and currently traveled around Africa. Those ancient Zimbabweans must've been way above the power curve in medical/sanitary technology.

I'm not trying to knock Africa. Africa has enough problems. I just think you're wrong.
 
Old 03-16-2009, 04:55 PM
 
72,817 posts, read 62,167,325 times
Reputation: 21773
Quote:
Originally Posted by OhioUberAlles View Post
Europeans only ever took away several million Africans as slaves. Keep in mind about one million Europeans were enslaved by Algerians and Turks. The impact on Europea was enormous in some coastal communities of southern France, Spain, and Italy.

The main culprit in African slavery were the Arabs and Turks, who enslaved well over ten million Africans.

Keep in mind, as far as African slavery went, it never would have been possible without the help of African tribal chiefs.


In the early 1500s there was an African civilization known as "Great Zimbabwe" that had 30-50 thousand people living around a 30 foot tall stone tower in the middle of modern Zimbabwe. This was the main feature of their civilization, a 30 foot tall stone tower. Their civilization was toppled by about 250-325 Portuguese explorers armed with 16th century firearms.

I'd say any nation has to be in distress if it falls to less than 400 explorers armed with the most basic of firearms.
Maybe so, but I was speaking of before, when Africa was left alone.
 
Old 03-16-2009, 05:11 PM
 
72,817 posts, read 62,167,325 times
Reputation: 21773
Quote:
Originally Posted by El Rhino View Post
You said only a few people benefited from Rhodesia, I said it sounds like Rhodesia was light years ahead of Zimbabwe. Before the British came to that part of the world, I don't know what they were doing but if it in any way resembles how they're doing now it couldn't have been good.



Where do you come up with this stuff? So all those wars in Africa where the captives were sold off to European slave traders never happened in approximately that time period? No tribal warfare? No diseases? That's amazing considering the amount of disease that has historically and currently traveled around Africa. Those ancient Zimbabweans must've been way above the power curve in medical/sanitary technology.

I'm not trying to knock Africa. Africa has enough problems. I just think you're wrong.

You really believe that I am wrong. Well then, think about this. Africa is in much worse shape now than it was before anyone got to that continent. I do not see any vidence of famine and the plague hitting Africa during the 14th and 15th century. This happened to Europe. Measures of sanitation didn't arrive anywhere until much later.

I am just telling you historical facts. Where do I get this stuff? I read books about Africa.
 
Old 03-16-2009, 05:15 PM
 
Location: Ohio
1,008 posts, read 869,123 times
Reputation: 250
Quote:
Originally Posted by pirate_lafitte View Post
You really believe that I am wrong. Well then, think about this. Africa is in much worse shape now than it was before anyone got to that continent. I do not see any vidence of famine and the plague hitting Africa during the 14th and 15th century. This happened to Europe. Measures of sanitation didn't arrive anywhere until much later.

I am just telling you historical facts. Where do I get this stuff? I read books about Africa.


You mean the same mighty Africa where they never invented the wheel? Where they never dared dream to build a boat and sail away from their coasts to explore what might lurk out there? They scarcely crossed the rivers in their own nations, they never dared dream of crossing the oceans to discover what was out in the unknown distance.

The truth is that if Europeans had not arrived in Africa there would be many things Africa would be lacking.... Allow me to list some of them...

1- Indoor plumbing
2- Electricity
3- Automobiles
4- Roads (of any sort)
5- Paved roads
6- Hospitals
7- Airports

I could continue but I don't feel the need to. There's no indication that a people who never invented the wheel or a seaworthy ship would have been able to develop such things. They cannot even maintain the infrastructure they inherited from the former colonial powers.
 
Old 03-16-2009, 05:23 PM
 
72,817 posts, read 62,167,325 times
Reputation: 21773
Quote:
Originally Posted by OhioUberAlles View Post
You mean the same mighty Africa where they never invented the wheel? Where they never dared dream to build a boat and sail away from their coasts to explore what might lurk out there? They scarcely crossed the rivers in their own nations, they never dared dream of crossing the oceans to discover what was out in the unknown distance.

The truth is that if Europeans had not arrived in Africa there would be many things Africa would be lacking.... Allow me to list some of them...

1- Indoor plumbing
2- Electricity
3- Automobiles
4- Roads (of any sort)
5- Paved roads
6- Hospitals
7- Airports

I could continue but I don't feel the need to. There's no indication that a people who never invented the wheel or a seaworthy ship would have been able to develop such things. They cannot even maintain the infrastructure they inherited from the former colonial powers.
Europeans brought their technology and other things, but only when the 19th century, and you are also missing the point. European explorers didn't travel to Africa to help out Africans. They did it to help themselves. They weren't interested in helping anyone or bringing civilization to people. They wanted gold and other resources because they were running low on gold. Africa had plenty. They traded some of their goods for gold because they were losing gold to traders out of Asia because they would only take payment in gold.
Europe only began prospering when explorers started traveling and trading with Africa for gold and slaves. Europe may have brought their technology to Africa, but Africa's resources(especially its human resources) is how places like the UK, Portugal and other nations got wealthy. Africa was being leached of its wealth.
 
Old 03-16-2009, 06:10 PM
 
Location: Springfield MO
438 posts, read 1,347,021 times
Reputation: 478
Having been back in Zimbabwe recently, I do believe that there are many Africans of all races (who have stuck out the Mugabe Regime and his genocide, domination, violence, stifling of the press, incompetence, corrupt Cabinet and Ministers, incapable management, pathetic politics, attitude and I could go on for years on his application of ethnic law in favor of his "Mashona" henchmen) who would love to be able to return to the peaceful period from the declaration of UDI by Ian Smith in 1965.
Many of those Zimbabweans asked to be called "Rhodesians" having weather the tyrant. Many commented that there was less racism in Rhodesia than what is currently the truth in Zimbabwe.
With No food, no security in their future, and praying each evening to see a new dawn, the Zimbabweans are incognito as human beings. The deafening silence of the world media, politicians, Human Rights organizations, The "farce" of the UN Security Council and all it stands for.
Hopefully, when Mugabe is finally tired for giving the "bird" to civilized nations and he is settled in his hideaway with all that he has stolen from the Zimbabwean Nation, once the breadbasket of Africa, justice will prevail and he will stand before a Tribunal for his crimes.
 
Old 03-16-2009, 06:11 PM
 
Location: Springfield MO
438 posts, read 1,347,021 times
Reputation: 478
I have pix of Zimbabwe which you may find interesting......
 
Old 03-16-2009, 07:07 PM
 
72,817 posts, read 62,167,325 times
Reputation: 21773
I never said Zimbabwe had it good at this moment. Zimbabwe has it very bad. There is no question. Yes, Mugabe was a very bad leader. I will give everyone that. With that said, this is the point few people are getting to. European explorers were going into Africa for its resources and taking the continent over. The rush for Africa at the 1885 Berlin Conference was a rush for controlling Africa's resources. Sure, some parts of Africa benefited, but there was a price for that. People lost their nations. What I was talking about was that Zimbabwe could rule its own people before they were being invaded. The question was about Africans being able to govern Africa. Before slaves were being drained out of Africa, Africa was doing better as it had flourishing kingdoms. Africa was drained of its wealth, human and material. Africa was basically bled until it had to depend on colonial powers. Sure, technology was brought to them, but they were also taking over other nations. If people want to bring Christianity and technology to people, it should be done for the purpose for helping other people, not as some ploy to take over some nations. The British Empire got wealthy because it took over other nations all over the world. France, Germany, and Portugal got wealthy the same way.
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.


Closed Thread


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

All times are GMT -6.

© 2005-2024, Advameg, Inc. · Please obey Forum Rules · Terms of Use and Privacy Policy · Bug Bounty

City-Data.com - Contact Us - 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, 36, 37 - Top