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.
Whites imported Black slaves which were sold to them on the gold coast because African tribes had been enslaving each other for hundreds, if not thousands, of years.
In fact, when the British banned slave trading and used their navy to enforce the ban in the 1800s it was African tribes which complained about it because it was so lucrative for some of the tribes which enslaved each other.
Africa really didn't have a 'massive drain' on its population. European traders only bought slaves on the mid & North West Africa coasts. They didn't have to go inland nor did they, other tribes were more than happy to trade with the Europeans. The tribes had been fighting and warring each other for thousands of years.
Furthermore - when Europeans explored inland Africa in the 1800s there was no industry or manufacturing. These people were literally living in the stone age still so don't act like they were some sort of technology powerhouse which Europe destroyed. If anything, Europeans gave these people written language, a wheel, etc. --- Last minute attempt at building infrastructure? These people didn't even have roads or clean water before Europeans arrived.
To act as if Europeans went in and destroyed some sort of technological paradise is so ridiculously comical I can't help but wonder what you must be drinking. These people were living in the stone age before Europeans arrived and would still be had we never arrived.
The vast majority people lived on the coast. They were not literally living like in the stone-age. Ever heard of Timbuktu? Or Great Zimbabwe? Sorry but you clearly do not have a lot of knowledge of African history. There were roads.
It's not as if Africans were unable to make and produce things. Please read up on your African history before commenting.
As for the last minute attempt, this is why most infrastructure on the continent is from the late 1950s through early 1960s. Not the 1940s. Ever wonder? Well, it goes back to an unprising in Ghana in 1958, where the colonial power, Britain, instituted a policy that placed greater emphasis on infrastructure needs to its colonies. However, this push was not sufficient enough. It was too little too late.
To act as if the Europeans were "saviors" or even imply that colonialism helped Africans is an insult to Africans. The fact of the matter is that Europe did disrupt traditional society and create many problems that we see today. This is not to say that modern Europe should pay dearly. It is to say that it should help to rectify the situation.
I again urge you, and others, to really read and understand African history before commenting.
People that make those type of comments don't want to learn about history or its implications.
Truly very sad
Quote:
Originally Posted by that1guy
The vast majority people lived on the coast. They were not literally living like in the stone-age. Ever heard of Timbuktu? Or Great Zimbabwe? Sorry but you clearly do not have a lot of knowledge of African history. There were roads.
It's not as if Africans were unable to make and produce things. Please read up on your African history before commenting.
As for the last minute attempt, this is why most infrastructure on the continent is from the late 1950s through early 1960s. Not the 1940s. Ever wonder? Well, it goes back to an unprising in Ghana in 1958, where the colonial power, Britain, instituted a policy that placed greater emphasis on infrastructure needs to its colonies. However, this push was not sufficient enough. It was too little too late.
To act as if the Europeans were "saviors" or even imply that colonialism helped Africans is an insult to Africans. The fact of the matter is that Europe did disrupt traditional society and create many problems that we see today. This is not to say that modern Europe should pay dearly. It is to say that it should help to rectify the situation.
I again urge you, and others, to really read and understand African history before commenting.
Whites imported Black slaves which were sold to them on the gold coast because African tribes had been enslaving each other for hundreds, if not thousands, of years.
In fact, when the British banned slave trading and used their navy to enforce the ban in the 1800s it was African tribes which complained about it because it was so lucrative for some of the tribes which enslaved each other.
Africa really didn't have a 'massive drain' on its population. European traders only bought slaves on the mid & North West Africa coasts. They didn't have to go inland nor did they, other tribes were more than happy to trade with the Europeans. The tribes had been fighting and warring each other for thousands of years.
Furthermore - when Europeans explored inland Africa in the 1800s there was no industry or manufacturing. These people were literally living in the stone age still so don't act like they were some sort of technology powerhouse which Europe destroyed. If anything, Europeans gave these people written language, a wheel, etc. --- Last minute attempt at building infrastructure? These people didn't even have roads or clean water before Europeans arrived.
To act as if Europeans went in and destroyed some sort of technological paradise is so ridiculously comical I can't help but wonder what you must be drinking. These people were living in the stone age before Europeans arrived and would still be had we never arrived.
When indigenous people took slaves after a battle, it was usually limited to a year or two of indentured servitude or under peace was declared and there could be an exchange of slaves. The concept of not only owning the slaves but also their descendants took things to a whole new level.
Africa really didn't have a 'massive drain' on its population. European traders only bought slaves on the mid & North West Africa coasts. They didn't have to go inland nor did they, other tribes were more than happy to trade with the Europeans. The tribes had been fighting and warring each other for thousands of years.
Furthermore - when Europeans explored inland Africa in the 1800s there was no industry or manufacturing. These people were literally living in the stone age still so don't act like they were some sort of technology powerhouse which Europe destroyed. If anything, Europeans gave these people written language, a wheel, etc. --- Last minute attempt at building infrastructure? These people didn't even have roads or clean water before Europeans arrived.
To act as if Europeans went in and destroyed some sort of technological paradise is so ridiculously comical I can't help but wonder what you must be drinking. These people were living in the stone age before Europeans arrived and would still be had we never arrived.
You obviously don't know any African history. Examples of precolonial African Kingdoms and Empires:
These were the ones that I could remember off the top of my head. There are obviously many others. There is one in particular that had a pretty standardized written and spoken language under a well known king who developed it. I remember seeing pictures of its expansive architectural layout as well as examples of the language. Too bad I can't remember its name right now. My personal favorite on this list is Benin. The bronzes are famous and beautiful. I really think this history needs to be covered better in world history classes. It's kind of sad and pathetic that you don't know about this.
So, what do you feel about the implications of this study and would you agree with its findings?
Absolutely agree.
As they are finding out in France where to say so is a criminal act.
"Can you cite one speck of hard evidence of the benefits of "diversity" that we have heard gushed about for years? Evidence of its harm can be seen — written in blood — from Iraq to India, from Serbia to Sudan, from Fiji to the Philippines. It is scary how easily so many people can be brainwashed by sheer repetition of a word."
"There goes the brainless tossing around of that word "racist". If I don't trust someone because they're different, maybe its because of prior experiences. Face it, not everyone wants to be mixed in with other races. Doesn't make them a racist, it just means they're comfortable around their own people. Get off your high horse, chum."
People who support diversity are not in fact celebrating the differences between people, as several people have commented. The point is that racial differences are in fact relatively insignificant and people make a much bigger deal out of them than they are. The idea behind promoting diversity is that all people are the similar insofar as they are human, so the "differences" are not all that real. If I said that I didn't like being around people who have brown hair because they are not my own people, everyone without exception would think I was a lunatic. Being "racist" is nothing more than applying that idea to another arbitrary physical trait, like skin color.
These were the ones that I could remember off the top of my head. There are obviously many others. There is one in particular that had a pretty standardized written and spoken language under a well known king who developed it. I remember seeing pictures of its expansive architectural layout as well as examples of the language. Too bad I can't remember its name right now. My personal favorite on this list is Benin. The bronzes are famous and beautiful. I really think this history needs to be covered better in world history classes. It's kind of sad and pathetic that you don't know about this.
I only know about the Zuli and Benin. The Benin were the ones who enslaved each other and sold to the Europeans.
The Zulu... lol. Are you really comparing these people.. to what?
Hell - in the 1800s the Zulu were still fighting with spear and dressed in loincloth... Lets ignore that the Zulus were plain brutal and savage.
These people were thousands of years behind the rest of the world, the very fact that you bring up the Zulu confirms it.
Someone pointed out 'Great' Zimbabwe which is a small collection of rocks... nothing compared to Rome thousands of years earlier.
It's not taught in European history classes because there was no history of Africa until the Europeans arrived because the sub-Saharan peoples had no written language to record any history. That's why you hear of the 'rich oral traditions.' lol. Teaching it to school children will simply tell them how backwards they were and how Africans sold each other into slavery. I guess you could teach it but it would make African-Americans probably feel more inferior about their past and Africa than they already do.
These were the ones that I could remember off the top of my head. There are obviously many others. There is one in particular that had a pretty standardized written and spoken language under a well known king who developed it. I remember seeing pictures of its expansive architectural layout as well as examples of the language. Too bad I can't remember its name right now. My personal favorite on this list is Benin. The bronzes are famous and beautiful. I really think this history needs to be covered better in world history classes. It's kind of sad and pathetic that you don't know about this.
Without double-checking for a name-mismatch there are also the Nubians from the Kingdom of Kush. They held one of the world's largest territories in 700 B.C.E.
I only know about the Zuli and Benin. The Benin were the ones who enslaved each other and sold to the Europeans.
The Zulu... lol. Are you really comparing these people.. to what?
Hell - in the 1800s the Zulu were still fighting with spear and dressed in loincloth... Lets ignore that the Zulus were plain brutal and savage.
These people were thousands of years behind the rest of the world, the very fact that you bring up the Zulu confirms it.
Someone pointed out 'Great' Zimbabwe which is a small collection of rocks... nothing compared to Rome thousands of years earlier.
It's not taught in European history classes because there was no history of Africa until the Europeans arrived because the sub-Saharan peoples had no written language to record any history. That's why you hear of the 'rich oral traditions.' lol. Teaching it to school children will simply tell them how backwards they were and how Africans sold each other into slavery. I guess you could teach it but it would make African-Americans probably feel more inferior about their past and Africa than they already do.
Well reading comprehension is clearly not your strong suit. I never said anything about European history class, I said WORLD history class. Obviously there is a difference.
Savagery and Primitiveness are relative. Have you ever thought about why some people in Africa wear loincloths? Hmm let me think...maybe because it's hot??? To equate a style of dress to savagery is nonsense. People in different climates are obviously going to wear different styles of clothing.
You said that Europeans gave Africans language. That is blatantly false. Do you think people were stupidly sitting around ignoring each other? No. They were communicating through languages both written and spoken. Many of those languages are still being spoken today.
It's actually startling how narrow-minded your view of Africa is. I gave you long articles with examples of several civilizations. If you want to ignore that then fine. But to simplify Benin and other civilizations in such a way is utterly ridiculous. I am glad that there are legitimate scholars who study this history for a living. If we had to depend on people with your limited view of history for common knowledge, we would all be in an extremely sorry state.
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.
