Africa! What is wrong with Africa?

[Buckhead_Broker]

Zzzzzzzzzzz

[jwp529]

[quote=Mississippienne;3001582]Believe it or not, a couple of HUNDRED Spanish destroyed and slaughtered THOUSANDS of Aztecs and Incans. Never underestimate the power of steel weapons, gunpowder, and smallpox.

Africa's problems are COMPLEX and MANY, something people don't want to hear. People want to believe one thing or another caused Africa to become what it is today. The truth, as it often is, happens to be complicated.

Blacks are, indeed, shunned in much of the world, overtly or not. They've been exploited and enslaved for centuries. If there's anything humanity craves, it's not God, it's someone to look down on.

The Europeans ransacked Africa for it's riches and oppressed and enslaved its peoples. That's undeniable. Africa was not the only target, and Africans probably not the worst victims (the Amerindians I think got a harsher deal, if only because they've been forced off their own lands and nearly bred into extinction) but they did suffer. The Europeans were also not in the least interested in sharing their wealth and power.

China has a long history of its own, and suffered under colonialism as well. But note that China is a COUNTRY and Africa is a CONTINENT. What holds true in China does not hold true in Africa. Also, the Chinese were able to develop agriculture and animal husbandry on par with the Europeans, something the Africans weren't able to do.

Japan is an ISLAND, and a homogenuous one at that, on the other side of the world. Its leaders were able to clamp down their borders and resist the Europeans, and then start aggressively modernizing. Africa, once again, is a continent hosting THOUSANDS of ethnic groups and languages, divided by dozens of religions, and its leaders were unable to close the borders as they did on an island. They were preyed upon from one direction by the Europeans, and from another by the Turks and other slavers.

Blah blah blah. I've already discussed why Europe made the technological advances it did at length! I'm tired of repeating myself! The Europeans had massive technological and geographical advantages. Their history of warlike behavior made them aggressive and expansionist. Once they started prowling the oceans, it became a competition between the European powers as to who controlled the other continents -- Asia, Africa, Australia, the Americas.


---------------------
one thing that you have not addressed and it is true of all civilizations. there must be a need to change. If that need does not exist on the ground level (within the family unit) then how can it happen on a tribal or regional or national level.change must come from within and not be forced on anyone.

It is interesting that the least developed people are those that live near the equator and enjoy a perpetual supply of heat, food, game. Nature itself has provided an abundant home for literally millions of people. there was no need for industry in most of these civilizations because all they needed for centuries was protection from the lions, snakes, and other forces of nature. The people of the equator are intelligent and adapted very nicely by forming tribes (made up of family and close relatives) this afforded protection from the wild beasts and allowed them to live harmonously with their kin. Yes disease and familne happen and this kept the population manageable for centuries. Living off of nature and in harmony with nature is not a bad life and is not bad either. But this also made it so there was no need to become an agressive agriculture society. Remember that the jungles do provide much for survival and these people loved nature and lived in it.

As population increased and the need for the natural resources become more scarce tribes would infringe upon the feeding grounds of others and war and desolation became more rampant. Also one of the means of war was to burn or torch the domain of the others. It has been stated that Africa is diverse with many ethnics and this was because of each tribes isolation from the other and they had no need to have trade and commerce with each other except for mating purposes and this was done in an act of war by force. It was survival and energizing it's own population by bringing in new breeding stock.

When you look at the other cultures it is interesting that the farther removed you are from the equator the greater level of development you have in the society because they have to fend for themselves and have totally different needs. In the cold winters they need to dress themselves in warm clothes, provide shelter from the cold elements and snow, have fire for heat and cooking. they must provide food for extended periods of time when agriculture cannot be in production. they have to grow surplus in the summer and store enough food through the cold months until the new cropping season comes again. they face more droughts and changes in climate than their brothers that live in the warmer tropical regions nearer the equator. hence there become a need to provide methods of survival which includes textiles (weaving), tools for use in agriculture, mining of coal and metal elements, etc.

In the equator regions you do not need clothes or much clothes and most of these societies wore very little clothes except to protect the private parts of the body from the natural elements such as sticks, thorns, etc. There was no desparate need to develope and industrial society for survival b ecause normally nature provided for them most of all their needs.

So to blame the lack of development on the european and white man is blindly looking for scapegoats. Necessity is what causes change. As technology and education is spread so the necessity increase to make changes. When Islam was first preached to the African tribes society started to change and health/sanitation become more important, this in turn increased the population and created a necessity for more food gathering and infriging upon other tribes territory. Tribal wars then began to be used to hold the population in balance with nature. But by this time greed had been inflicted upon the cultures there and the value of trade items began to be used.

This then created an ever increasing cycle of problems, disease, more war, famines and desertification of the enviroments. Now into this equation add other nations from the the colder climates and you have what we are looking at today.

[Prince of Lombards]

[quote=jwp529;3640351]

Originally Posted by Mississippienne

Believe it or not, a couple of HUNDRED Spanish destroyed and slaughtered THOUSANDS of Aztecs and Incans. Never underestimate the power of steel weapons, gunpowder, and smallpox.

Africa's problems are COMPLEX and MANY, something people don't want to hear. People want to believe one thing or another caused Africa to become what it is today. The truth, as it often is, happens to be complicated.

Blacks are, indeed, shunned in much of the world, overtly or not. They've been exploited and enslaved for centuries. If there's anything humanity craves, it's not God, it's someone to look down on.

The Europeans ransacked Africa for it's riches and oppressed and enslaved its peoples. That's undeniable. Africa was not the only target, and Africans probably not the worst victims (the Amerindians I think got a harsher deal, if only because they've been forced off their own lands and nearly bred into extinction) but they did suffer. The Europeans were also not in the least interested in sharing their wealth and power.

China has a long history of its own, and suffered under colonialism as well. But note that China is a COUNTRY and Africa is a CONTINENT. What holds true in China does not hold true in Africa. Also, the Chinese were able to develop agriculture and animal husbandry on par with the Europeans, something the Africans weren't able to do.

Japan is an ISLAND, and a homogenuous one at that, on the other side of the world. Its leaders were able to clamp down their borders and resist the Europeans, and then start aggressively modernizing. Africa, once again, is a continent hosting THOUSANDS of ethnic groups and languages, divided by dozens of religions, and its leaders were unable to close the borders as they did on an island. They were preyed upon from one direction by the Europeans, and from another by the Turks and other slavers.

Blah blah blah. I've already discussed why Europe made the technological advances it did at length! I'm tired of repeating myself! The Europeans had massive technological and geographical advantages. Their history of warlike behavior made them aggressive and expansionist. Once they started prowling the oceans, it became a competition between the European powers as to who controlled the other continents -- Asia, Africa, Australia, the Americas.


---------------------
one thing that you have not addressed and it is true of all civilizations. there must be a need to change. If that need does not exist on the ground level (within the family unit) then how can it happen on a tribal or regional or national level.change must come from within and not be forced on anyone.

It is interesting that the least developed people are those that live near the equator and enjoy a perpetual supply of heat, food, game. Nature itself has provided an abundant home for literally millions of people. there was no need for industry in most of these civilizations because all they needed for centuries was protection from the lions, snakes, and other forces of nature. The people of the equator are intelligent and adapted very nicely by forming tribes (made up of family and close relatives) this afforded protection from the wild beasts and allowed them to live harmonously with their kin. Yes disease and familne happen and this kept the population manageable for centuries. Living off of nature and in harmony with nature is not a bad life and is not bad either. But this also made it so there was no need to become an agressive agriculture society. Remember that the jungles do provide much for survival and these people loved nature and lived in it.

As population increased and the need for the natural resources become more scarce tribes would infringe upon the feeding grounds of others and war and desolation became more rampant. Also one of the means of war was to burn or torch the domain of the others. It has been stated that Africa is diverse with many ethnics and this was because of each tribes isolation from the other and they had no need to have trade and commerce with each other except for mating purposes and this was done in an act of war by force. It was survival and energizing it's own population by bringing in new breeding stock.

When you look at the other cultures it is interesting that the farther removed you are from the equator the greater level of development you have in the society because they have to fend for themselves and have totally different needs. In the cold winters they need to dress themselves in warm clothes, provide shelter from the cold elements and snow, have fire for heat and cooking. they must provide food for extended periods of time when agriculture cannot be in production. they have to grow surplus in the summer and store enough food through the cold months until the new cropping season comes again. they face more droughts and changes in climate than their brothers that live in the warmer tropical regions nearer the equator. hence there become a need to provide methods of survival which includes textiles (weaving), tools for use in agriculture, mining of coal and metal elements, etc.

In the equator regions you do not need clothes or much clothes and most of these societies wore very little clothes except to protect the private parts of the body from the natural elements such as sticks, thorns, etc. There was no desparate need to develope and industrial society for survival b ecause normally nature provided for them most of all their needs.

So to blame the lack of development on the european and white man is blindly looking for scapegoats. Necessity is what causes change. As technology and education is spread so the necessity increase to make changes. When Islam was first preached to the African tribes society started to change and health/sanitation become more important, this in turn increased the population and created a necessity for more food gathering and infriging upon other tribes territory. Tribal wars then began to be used to hold the population in balance with nature. But by this time greed had been inflicted upon the cultures there and the value of trade items began to be used.

This then created an ever increasing cycle of problems, disease, more war, famines and desertification of the enviroments. Now into this equation add other nations from the the colder climates and you have what we are looking at today.

So then, how many years/decades/centuries/millenia will it take for Africa to recover from the evil Europeans oppressing everybody? BTW, I'll tell you why your thesis is flawed:

1. "Oppressive" Rhodesia was far less troubled when run by Evil European Oppressors (EEO), than its current manifestation, Zimbabwe.

2. Old South Africa was more functional than today's non-EEO version, which saw a first world nation turn into a calamity in just a decade and a half.

3. Even North Africa has a lower quality of life than when run by EEO. Compare the Libya run by Italy to the now "liberated" version, which is about 500 years behind the opposite side of the Med despite EEO leaving a viable infrastructure.

[pirate_lafitte]

[quote=Prince of Lombards;3642668]

Originally Posted by jwp529

So then, how many years/decades/centuries/millenia will it take for Africa to recover from the evil Europeans oppressing everybody? BTW, I'll tell you why your thesis is flawed:

1. "Oppressive" Rhodesia was far less troubled when run by Evil European Oppressors (EEO), than its current manifestation, Zimbabwe.

2. Old South Africa was more functional than today's non-EEO version, which saw a first world nation turn into a calamity in just a decade and a half.

3. Even North Africa has a lower quality of life than when run by EEO. Compare the Libya run by Italy to the now "liberated" version, which is about 500 years behind the opposite side of the Med despite EEO leaving a viable infrastructure.

It was good for the people who had money and power. Those places were functional for the people who were in power.

South Africa was only good for people who were white. Blacks had no rights. Do you call that functional? One group gets everything while everyone else gets nothing?

[El Rhino]

Originally Posted by pirate_lafitte

South Africa was only good for people who were white. Blacks had no rights. Do you call that functional? One group gets everything while everyone else gets nothing?

Actually I read somewhere that South Africa under apartheid had the most black millionaires out of anywhere in the world, including the United States. I imagine that most blacks in South Africa and Rhodesia had a much higher standard of living than their counterparts in other parts of Sub-Sahara Africa. As far as rights go, I think apartheid was more about separation than denial of rights.

[Cornerguy1]

As far as rights go, I think apartheid was more about separation than denial of rights.

Well that certainly has the potential to stir up a hornet's nest, doesn't it?

However, a discussion about the impact, pluses, and minuses of apartheid needs to have a seperate thread of its own.

[uglyblackjohn]

Imagine South-Central L.A. on a continental scale. The same inability to plan beyond your immediate needs and wants, the inability to adapt to a changing economy and the inability to form strong political and social aliances to the benefit of all invoved. In most established societies, there were religious, geographical and/or ethnic ties which held groups of people together. In the West- the spread of Christianity was the driving force. In most other societies- it was having a common enemy. Africa is like all of these ghetto children seeing all that the world has to offer on T.V. and not knowing that all that they see was acquired over time. Maybe the European invasion disrupted the natural phenomenon of the stronger and/or smarter Africans conquering the weaker and advancing their culture. If anyone has THE answer to this question- you deserve a Nobel prize.

[Prince of Lombards]

Originally Posted by El Rhino

Actually I read somewhere that South Africa under apartheid had the most black millionaires out of anywhere in the world, including the United States. I imagine that most blacks in South Africa and Rhodesia had a much higher standard of living than their counterparts in other parts of Sub-Sahara Africa. As far as rights go, I think apartheid was more about separation than denial of rights.

Indeed. Also, in the past there was a great deal of African indiginous migration into South Africa, from neighboring countries in sub-Saharan Africa. A lot of people have an imagine in their mind that Europeans moved into South Africa and then enslaved an indiginous population, while in reality the old South Africa created opportunities that were not previously enjoyed by the peoples of sub-Saharan Africa.

[pirate_lafitte]

Originally Posted by El Rhino

Actually I read somewhere that South Africa under apartheid had the most black millionaires out of anywhere in the world, including the United States. I imagine that most blacks in South Africa and Rhodesia had a much higher standard of living than their counterparts in other parts of Sub-Sahara Africa. As far as rights go, I think apartheid was more about separation than denial of rights.

Where did you read this? Last time I check, most black South Africans couldn't go anywhere they wanted. I don't call that separation. I call that denial of basic human rights to travel wherever one wants to travel. Anyone who tells you that you can't to this or that simply because of the color of your skin(especially inside your own country) isn't trying to separate you, they want control of you and they want power over you.
And I didn't say that they didn't have a higher standard of living, but they were still much poorer than anyone else.

[Cornerguy1]

Moderator Note:

Apparently some members don't wish to keep the thread on the original topic and would rather debate apartheid in South Africa.

Thread closed.