If Africa Was Never Colonized? (citizen, international, country, life)
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.
Yellow Fever can be transmit, and there were out breaks in the Americas, infact it was first discover in Cuba. insect cart the disease can be found in Africa as well as the Americas. As U.S. Army Physicians didnt discovered the Cause of Yellow Fever, August 27, 1900 and the Vaccination in 1937, Sleep Sickness the same thing, it wasn't just in Africa. Furthermore a lot of this was discover after 1830.
So the timing is way off....... Europeans weren't even aware of these diseases until near scramble for Africa. So idea that it prevent them from colonization a few hundred years earlier. Doesn't make sense, and they didn't find Vaccines until later years after they didn't. Mean while it did exist in the Americas as well.
Again Europeans did not know what was in the African interior like they didn't know what was in latin America. The African interior was a mystery to them outside the coast. Latin America was a mystery, but Europeans choose to colonize the Americas hundred of years before the scramble for Africa. It wasn't because of diseases it was cause some of the African states prevent European from enter the interiors. So the scamble for Africa didn't happen until after the industrial revolution.
People knew about these diseases long before the 19th century, even though they don't have the right vocabulary to describe the life cycle or the epidemiology until the 19th century. Even the Romans had books that described malaria even though they attributed the disease to miasma.The idea that disease had not effect on history until discovered by modern medicine is ridiculous.
Sounds like what you really want to say is that Africans were tougher fighters than native Americans. Both are diverse groups and I don't see how anyone can make such a broad claim. The natives of Angola and the southern part of South Africa didn't really do much better than the Cherokees, for example. It's also hard to judge the fighting ability of an army on paper. You wouldn't expect the mighty Songhai Empire to fall to a much smaller Moroccan army armed with 16th century firearms but it did.
People knew about these diseases long before the 19th century, even though they don't have the right vocabulary to describe the life cycle or the epidemiology until the 19th century. Even the Romans had books that described malaria even though they attributed the disease to miasma.The idea that disease had not effect on history until discovered by modern medicine is ridiculous.
Sounds like what you really want to say is that Africans were tougher fighters than native Americans. Both are diverse groups and I don't see how anyone can make such a broad claim. The natives of Angola and the southern part of South Africa didn't really do much better than the Cherokees, for example. It's also hard to judge the fighting ability of an army on paper. You wouldn't expect the mighty Songhai Empire to fall to a much smaller Moroccan army armed with 16th century firearms but it did.
No... my point was rubutal the comments that Africa was just "backwards" meanwhile the scramble for Africa didn't happen until after the industrial revolution, the new technology made it easier. But point isn't that African states would had won but it would had more difficult early on so Europeans basically skip it
You fucos seem to be it was just Diseases that kept Europeans away and their numerous with that starting with wasn't even aware what was in African, they did know what those diseases were, the disease did travel to the Americas, they kept trans Atlantic slave trade going, and they invade Africa before there was a cure.
I been stated there were smaller areas and ports colonize before the scamble I'm talking about the vast majority of the continent, interior the more powerstates. And your making general statements. I respond more when I'm off work.
No... my point was rubutal the comments that Africa was just "backwards" meanwhile the scramble for Africa didn't happen until after the industrial revolution, the new technology made it easier. But point isn't that African states would had won but it would had more difficult early on so Europeans basically skip it
You fucos seem to be it was just Diseases that kept Europeans away and their numerous with that starting with wasn't even aware what was in African, they did know what those diseases were, the disease did travel to the Americas, they kept trans Atlantic slave trade going, and they invade Africa before there was a cure.
I been stated there were smaller areas and ports colonize before the scamble I'm talking about the vast majority of the continent, interior the more powerstates. And your making general statements. I respond more when I'm off work.
I'm not saying it was just disease that kept Europeans away. Not all of Africa had tropical diseases, and some of African societies were strong enough to make it hard for Europeans to conquer without late 19th century weapons without disease. This is something that you can argue for on a case by case basis. In large parts of East Africa it was competition from Arabs that gave Europeans the most trouble before the 19th Century.
You seem to be making the point that Europeans were intimidated by those African societies in the interior, but how could that be the case though if they didn't know what's there?
I'm not saying it was just disease that kept Europeans away. Not all of Africa had tropical diseases, and some of African societies were strong enough to make it hard for Europeans to conquer without late 19th century weapons without disease. This is something that you can argue for on a case by case basis. In large parts of East Africa it was competition from Arabs that gave Europeans the most trouble before the 19th Century.
You seem to be making the point that Europeans were intimidated by those African societies in the interior, but how could that be the case though if they didn't know what's there?
No.. intimidated is too strong of a word to use in this context, Especially if Europeans were the ones aggressive to invade. More that Europeans didn't see the benefit of attacking those Kingdoms before the industrial revolutions,
European states would had likely won but because it was before the industrial revelation and Many African states where at or above at Middle ages technology, plus having guns from trading with Europeans themselves it would resulted in longer war periods and more European loses. At a time when Europeans nations were already stretching there military and money trying colonize the Americas already. And as I mention because Africans were more immune than native in the Americas meant Europeans would had to deal with that populations been constant attacks and threat of native gaining back control. It would been like Haiti on steroids. So imitated maybe not, but wanting to deal with trying to fight the stronger kingdoms and trying to massively colonize Africa then.......... no.
And don't mean the African interior I mean the coastal states. block them from reaching the interior
- You had many West African Kingdoms on the coast blocking there
- You had Swahili cities states, Ethiopia and kingdoms in the horn of Africa blocking there
- And you had Ottomans, moroccans and etc blocking the north, with Sahara under them
- European were more effective in parts of South Africa, Angola and etc but to enter further from those point you have cross desert and Jungle
but all of this besides the point I was making, already in this thread posters have statement stuff along the lines that Africa need colonization because Africa was just backwards there were no societies eager to learn which is bs to Any one who knows African history. There this racist narrative by the west of just seeing Africa as monolithic and just hunter and gather societies. And diversity of African cultures and developments in different societies is ignore. With that false perspective how can imagine an African society progressing if colonization never happen. While Actually there more complex societies in Africa. Just as kingdoms in India and Indochina were colonize at similar time but does any one believe those places needed colonize to progressive no. That the point of me bring up those places in the timing.
But to be fair there were obliviously more develop state pre Colombian Americas as well, my point these societies didn't need colonization we probably end up with more Japans and Chinas across the World. It is what is but posters in this thread shouldn't be trying to justify by going "oh these societies were backward it doesn't make a difference" When actually colonization did interrupt some progressing societies.
Location: Wherever the are junk homes: Lawrence County Alabama, Huntsville Alabama and Birmingham Alabama
69 posts, read 267,514 times
Reputation: 47
Quote:
Originally Posted by chiatldal
I'm not trying to get into your debate over religion, it's free speech and I'm liberal anyways, so I don't care if some is religious or atheist as long as they respect other people. anyways What I'm saying your using "Witchcraft" as a prejudice term to generalize a bunch of religions that have nothing in common. This is no religion call "Witchcraft" the are no group of religions call "Witchcraft" there no need to separate religions like that. Your response are like there actually a thing call witchcraft and there difference between it a religions. I get your point but just say religions.
OK Sir, I have a lot of respect for you, chiatldal, and all other participants here! PEACE be to us all!
If Africa was never colonized it would still be a continent dominated by 3rd world nations. The borders and number of these nations would look very different.
Africa today is not backward because of European colonization, rather it was successfully colonized because it was backward. Unless the absence of colonialism somehow resulted in Africa finding itself with more enlightened leaders (it wouldn't have), the current condition of the continent wouldn't be much different than now.
Colonization can happen to any society or culture that is overpowered by force and might. This very thing has happened many times throughout history and not just on the continent of Africa. One example is Ancient Greece which was very enlightened, intellectual, and sophisticated yet was colonized by the Romans. Another example are the ancient Jews who were dominated by other cultures at various times throughout their long history included being colonized by the Romans at one point.
If Africa was never colonized it would still be a continent dominated by 3rd world nations. The borders and number of these nations would look very different.
Africa today is not backward because of European colonization, rather it was successfully colonized because it was backward. Unless the absence of colonialism somehow resulted in Africa finding itself with more enlightened leaders (it wouldn't have), the current condition of the continent wouldn't be much different than now.
Completely agreed with this. Indeed, the main thing that is holding Africa back nowadays is its low average IQ.
Also, for what it's worth, European colonialism in Africa was a mixed bag. There were both good things--such as the abolition of slavery in various parts of Africa--and bad things--such as the creation of Hutu-Tutsi hostility in Rwanda--which came as a result of the European colonization of Africa.
Completely agreed with this. Indeed, the main thing that is holding Africa back nowadays is its low average IQ.
Also, for what it's worth, European colonialism in Africa was a mixed bag. There were both good things--such as the abolition of slavery in various parts of Africa--and bad things--such as the creation of Hutu-Tutsi hostility in Rwanda--which came as a result of the European colonization of Africa.
Yes he does. What would you expect from person of European descent. To put things in perspective, how can a continent that had Almoravids, Egyptians, Nubians, the Ashanti Empire, and many more be thought of as backwards without the Euro encounter? Black Africans brought Europeans out of the dark ages and Black Africans sparked what Europe's beacon of light in Greece....(That would be the Egyptians)
Yes he does. What would you expect from person of European descent. To put things in perspective, how can a continent that had Almoravids, Egyptians, Nubians, the Ashanti Empire, and many more be thought of as backwards without the Euro encounter? Black Africans brought Europeans out of the dark ages and Black Africans sparked what Europe's beacon of light in Greece....(That would be the Egyptians)
Exactly lol it’s foolish to think that Africa would be in the same state with its resources.
Many of the issues of Africa today stem from colonization. Many of the conflicts as a result would never have existed.
It’s natural for some with European decent to think that the world would be better if there was no colonization!
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.
Happens even to non-backwards societies
