U.S. CitiesCity-Data Forum Index
Covid-19 Information Page
Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > History
 [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)
Reply Start New Thread
 
Old 04-27-2011, 08:53 PM
 
Location: NC
10,002 posts, read 9,511,072 times
Reputation: 3075

Advertisements

Quote:
Originally Posted by Ro-Dialin View Post
"Ravaging" the continent? You mean like Africans are doing today in European countries, the U.S. and Canada?

The Europeans help "civilize" these countries and their peoples. Hmm...and why is it the Africans would rather live in a white dominated country? Hmm? less savage maybe?
In all fairness the triangle trade ravaged Africa pretty badly, and while Africans did participate, it would not have existed, but for Europeans.
Rate this post positively Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message

 
Old 04-28-2011, 12:53 PM
 
Location: Montgomery Village
4,112 posts, read 4,064,945 times
Reputation: 1703
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ro-Dialin View Post
"Ravaging" the continent? You mean like Africans are doing today in European countries, the U.S. and Canada?

The Europeans help "civilize" these countries and their peoples. Hmm...and why is it the Africans would rather live in a white dominated country? Hmm? less savage maybe?
Um read up on some African history like the Scramble for Africa. They ravaged the country and exploited it. Nobody came to "civilize" it or whatever you'd like to call it. i don't know of any African nations laying waste to any European country or North American Country. I don't see any African nation burning down cities and stealing resources for their own countries profit from any European Country or North American country.
Rate this post positively Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 04-28-2011, 01:59 PM
 
14,781 posts, read 38,671,795 times
Reputation: 14503
Quote:
Originally Posted by btsilver View Post
Um read up on some African history like the Scramble for Africa. They ravaged the country and exploited it. Nobody came to "civilize" it or whatever you'd like to call it. i don't know of any African nations laying waste to any European country or North American Country. I don't see any African nation burning down cities and stealing resources for their own countries profit from any European Country or North American country.
I would just ignore that post all together. It was a very thinly veiled rascist statement with no substance whatsoever.
Rate this post positively Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 04-28-2011, 03:16 PM
 
5,510 posts, read 5,066,704 times
Reputation: 1693
Quote:
Originally Posted by NJGOAT View Post
I would just ignore that post all together. It was a very thinly veiled rascist statement with no substance whatsoever.
I agree.

Its been a great and informative discussion so far, lets keep it that way.
Rate this post positively Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 04-28-2011, 03:32 PM
 
14,781 posts, read 38,671,795 times
Reputation: 14503
Quote:
Originally Posted by kovert View Post
Interesting that you mention this, as at one time in the early modern period (roughly between the 1400s-1800s), the Barbary lands might have received just as much or more British migrants than the New World.

I would also recommend Garcais's text where he mentions European migration (in the millions) as slaves, merchants, converts and mercenaries and one must not also forget the millions of Iberian Muslims and Jews that sought refuge in Barbary from 1492-1620's.

Its amazing that the same forces of slavery, political & religious persecution, and lack of social mobility that drove migration to the New World also occurred in Barbary but there is not as much attention paid to barbary as the New World.
You are correct that it is a little looked at period. However, I don't think there was much "migration" as it was capture and enslavement. I've read counts that place between 1 and 1.5 million European Christians from the Mediteranean to the British Isles and even Iceland that were captured by the Barbary Slave Traders. Ironically it was the influx of poor Iberian Muslims that helped fuel the piracy and slave traders and led to the destabilization of Ottoman control and the rise of the pirate "nations".

I think in that light, there is a stark contrast between immigration to the New World and "immigration" to Barbary. Both involved movement of large groups of people. However, one was voluntary, though in some cases under duress or prosecution. The other involved being drug out of your village and taken to a Barbary slave market. I've seen some accounts that state the Italian coast between Venice and Malaga was virtually depopulated by the pirate slave raids.
Rate this post positively Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 04-28-2011, 04:01 PM
 
Location: SWUS
5,420 posts, read 8,343,590 times
Reputation: 5825
My ideas:

1. Africa is friggin' huge
2. It is mineral-rich, but getting to the areas where those minerals are could be difficult (vast desert/dense forest/ arid grassland)
3. Disease
Rate this post positively Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 04-28-2011, 04:18 PM
 
5,510 posts, read 5,066,704 times
Reputation: 1693
Quote:
Originally Posted by NJGOAT View Post
You are correct that it is a little looked at period. However, I don't think there was much "migration" as it was capture and enslavement. I've read counts that place between 1 and 1.5 million European Christians from the Mediteranean to the British Isles and even Iceland that were captured by the Barbary Slave Traders. Ironically it was the influx of poor Iberian Muslims that helped fuel the piracy and slave traders and led to the destabilization of Ottoman control and the rise of the pirate "nations".

I think in that light, there is a stark contrast between immigration to the New World and "immigration" to Barbary. Both involved movement of large groups of people. However, one was voluntary, though in some cases under duress or prosecution. The other involved being drug out of your village and taken to a Barbary slave market. I've seen some accounts that state the Italian coast between Venice and Malaga was virtually depopulated by the pirate slave raids.
Frankly, the 1-1.5 million estimate might be too low, according to the Garcais text.

What is interesting about that text is that it provides insight into the motivations of why some European Christians voluntarily migrated into Barbary, sometimes converted to Islam and in many cases engaged in piracy themselves.

Europeans of this category were often referred to as "renegades". Unfortunately Garcais's text is the only one (in English at least) I have come across that goes into some detail about this aspect of Barbary history.

But you are correct in the depopulation of coastal towns due pirate raids, in many ways there are parallels between the slave trade in Barbary and that of the Americas.

Ironically some former Barbary slaves became abolitionists, I have even read that Abraham Lincoln's reading of James Riley had an influence on his views of slavery.
Rate this post positively Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 06-01-2011, 02:33 PM
 
5,510 posts, read 5,066,704 times
Reputation: 1693
Quote:
Originally Posted by Felix C View Post
Thanks both of you have given me additional reading to do regarding the extent of gold in that region. No it really is interesting why no expedition was mounted if if just for raiding.

Note how gold discoveries worldwide resulted in massive influxes of prospectors.-South Africa, Klondike, California, Black Hills, etc. None to Ashanti land.

Just subsititute precious stones and metals and it still fits.
I would also like to recommend George Brooks's and Pekka Masonen's texts.

Masonen in particular because he argues that not even the Saharan/Sahelian kingdoms of Ghana, Mali and Songhai could not conquer the ethnic and political groups located in the forest, gold producing regions.

So it was just not simply a case of Europeans unable to enter disease ridden areas, credit must be given to the tribes who were able to resist local and foreign powers from dominating them and exploiting their resources for well over a thousand years.
Rate this post positively Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 06-02-2011, 10:03 AM
 
3,737 posts, read 7,313,239 times
Reputation: 1930
All of Africa was not colonized. The historical frontiers of Ethiopia stretched from the Red Sea to the Indian Ocean, including all the territory between them.

Ethiopia and Liberia were never colonized although it was tried.

The battle of Adwa:
Battle of Adwa 1896
Battle of Adwa - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Mussolini even tried and was unsuccessful.

IMO, the reason why it took long for some countries in Africa to be colonized has to do with similar reasons the US is having trouble in Afganistan and Iraq right now. The places are big and the people know the interiors better, the climate is also an issue, and the people aren't willing to give up either.
Rate this post positively Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 07-14-2011, 02:08 PM
 
5,510 posts, read 5,066,704 times
Reputation: 1693
Quote:
Originally Posted by kovert View Post
Actually, the Iberians were long embroiled in wars with the Moors, both in Spain itself and North Africa.

In fact Spain and Portugal established their empire, or rather spheres of influence along the coasts and islands of Africa before 1492.

But it is often overlooked that Morocco, largely through its own initiatives, was able to acquire, adopt and apply its own innovations in the early era of gun powder warfare. The battle of the 3 Kings greatly enhanced Moroccan prestige internationally.

Some great reads on this are Newitt, Cook, and Cornell.
Quote:
Originally Posted by kovert View Post
The texts I have read made a point of emphasizing the martial prowess of the local populations.

Remember outside of the coastal areas of the Maghrib and the Delta of Egypt, the Ottoman Turks had at best nominal authority over the bedouin tribes, even before the majority of them adopted the use of firearms.

It was often the case, the berbers of the desert, the mountains were not able to be subdued until military technology advanced to around the time of WWI.
Interesting point I came across reading through Nasr's Maghrib text once again.

The Ibadi Amazigh of the island of Jerba, situated near modern southern Tunisia and Tripolitania, were able to fend off the Spaniards twice. Once during 1510 and again in 1590.

What's interesting is that Nasr credits the Ibadi Amazigh and although there was contact with the Ottomans, Nasr portrays the victory largely as a result of local initiative. The Ibadi Amazigh of Jerba also were able to maintain their independence from the Ottomans longer than the Barbary coastal mainland.

This is quite impressive given how during this same period, with the exception of the later Saadians, the Iberians and Ottomans blasted away resistance quite easily due to their muskets and cannons in North Africa.

Furthermore John Ogilby, who wrote his text on Africa in 1672, mentions that the Amazigh of the modern Jabal Nefusa, also Ibadi, not only had their own muskets, but that they were strong enough to overwhelm rival Amazigh and Arab tribes, not to mention the Ottomans in many a battle.

Tully likewise mentions that the Amazigh (though she just refers to the natives as Moors and Arabs) of the mountains were just as powerful and influential as the Ottomans were on the coast and the Ottomans relied on their support and goodwill. The names of the most powerful tribes clearly indicate that they were of the Ibadi Amazigh of Jabal Nefusa.

The question is how were the Ibadi Amazigh able to get their hands on arms and fight off the Spaniards and Ottomans, while the other North African areas were blown to smithereens.

My guess would be through Venetian and other Italian traders along with the international Jewish trading networks (the Ibadi were relatively tolerant of Jews and there were sizable communites of Amazigh Jews in Nafusa and Jerba, probably the only non-Ibadis in those areas).

This just demonstrates there are still many unknown stories yet to be told and works along the lines of what Cook did for the Saadians of Morocco on upgrading their martial capabilities MUST ALSO be done for the Zawawa of the Kabylie mountains; the Ibadi Amazigh of Matmata, Jabal Nefusa and Gerba; the tribes of Cyrenica like the Siwa/Zuwiya; the Hawwara of Upper Egypt and the northern Sudan; and of course the veiled Amazigh of the Sahara.
Rate this post positively Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
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.


Reply
Please update this thread with any new information or opinions. This open thread is still read by thousands of people, so we encourage all additional points of view.

Quick Reply
Message:


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 > General Forums > History
Similar Threads

All times are GMT -6.

© 2005-2021, 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