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.
When the first Europeans sailed to Sub-Saharan Africa, most areas lacked written language and the wheel.
This shouldn't be surprising when we consider the short period of time African children spent with parents before their relatively early onset of puberty and the responsibilities of adulthood that came with it.
There just wasn't as much time for parent to child intellectual development.
Given the present day pressures to begin having children at an early age that exist in Africa (war, famine, disease), it is unlikely that Europeans or Asians, with their longer childhoods, would accomplish anything in the same harsh environment except raise slightly smarter kids that disappear off the genetic map because they couldn't reproduce fast enough.
Here in the US, with no direct pressure from the environment to forego an extended period of learning in favor of getting an early start on making babies, it isn't clear why the option to pursue education isn't seen as more desirable.
When the first European colonizers went to Africa, European children were hardly any different from African ones. Europeans back then were overwhelmingly illiterate, mostly poor people, exploited farmers on the elite's and Church's lands. Child labor was rampant. So was infant mortality etc.
When the first European colonizers went to Africa, European children were hardly any different from African ones. Europeans back then were overwhelmingly illiterate, mostly poor people, exploited farmers on the elite's and Church's lands. Child labor was rampant. So was infant mortality etc.
Black people were present in Early modern Europe. Plenty of paintings, first hand accounts and testimony to prove this. The Catholic Church also had black saints.
The notion of superiority to non-Europeans was something that is a product of Enlightenment thinkers.
I think that is nonsense. The whole idea that humans were originally black and that white people are blacks that lost their pigments, basically. The first humans were actually "white". They only turned darker as they moved outside the jungle and lost their body hair, probably due to some environmental pressure. Same as with chimps, a naked chimp is pale. Skin color is merely the result of sun exposure. Look how dark some Native Americans in the Andes have become due to their exposure to intense sunshine. Much darker than the original Asians that crossed the Bering straight.
Original modern humans were a lot like the Khoisan people, who look more Asian than African by the way and used to inhabit large parts of Africa. Bantu-type black Africans appeared much later.
60% of the world’s gold came from the Mali Empire circa 13-16th centuries.
The Mali Empire was so rich they even devalued the currency of Egypt during the time because they had so much gold. Over 700,000 books were published in Timbuktu, so its silly to assume West Africans didn’t value information.
The Oyo Empire was called, “A Black Byzantium” there is even a book by the name. Saying Africa didn’t have cities is so shallow. I’m sure these posters will believe anything about Africa given their opinions of black people.
I’ve read Guns, Germs, and Steel and this is not what he said in the book.
I didn't say Africa didn't have cities. I said that he cited that as a reason why cities didn't develop in much (not all) of Africa on the same scale as in Europe and China. And Diamond does make that argument. This wasn't true everywhere...Angola was another region that comes to mind as having had been a wellspring of advanced societies. But it does describe a large portion of the continent. And Diamond does devote a considerable amount of time to a discussion of advanced African societies.
Posters will believe anything based on on their opinions of black people? Are you insinuating that I am racist? I know that, unfortunately, is true of many posters on this forum. But if you were insinuating that about me a full apology is warranted. I am not racist and consider that to be an unwarranted and serious character attack.
Last edited by robertbrianbush; 11-27-2017 at 09:21 AM..
I didn't say Africa didn't have cities. I said that he cited tgat as a reason why cities didn't develop in much of Africa on the same scale as in Europe and China. And Diamond does make that argument.
Posters will believe anything based on on their opinions of bkack people? I know that that, unfortunately, is true of many posters on this forum. But if you were insinuating that about me a full apology is warranted. I am not racist and consider tgat to be an unwarranted and serious character attack.
I don't see any confirmation for the claim that Finns are genetically different from other Europeans. The genetic makeup bars in the link state that they are actually similar to Russians.
They are simply slightly more originally European as they were not as heavily replaced by later waves of incoming farmers from SW Asia, similar to the Basque people in Spain.
People who claim to be genetically different usually have a certain agenda, or an ax to grind, like wanting to be different from neighbors who treated them badly in history. At the end of the day it is usually mostly a cultural difference rather than a genetic one.
If you dont feel like perusing the transcript google the PBS viewer guide for episode 3 ( it is a pdf). It is a summary so you can find what I am referencing within a few seconds there.
Uhkay what? You accused me of being racist. Don't minimize that. That is an accusation i take seriously. That warrants an apology. I encourage everyone reading this thread to visit the links I provided and see fir yourself that I was not coming from a racist angke and Jarrett Diamond did, in fact, make the arguments that I claim. And that his argument is that instead of claiming genetic factors or racial inferiority as the reasons why much of Africa did not urbanize or prosper as much as the more prosperous areas of the world but rather we need to look at environmental factors, and that the populations in those areas actually responded in a very intelligent manner to the problems they faced. Europeans attempting to move into those areas didnt fare any better until the advent of modern medicine. And the continuing effects of the increased disease risk...estimated at one percent less economic growth per year, compunded annually, is enough to explain the degree to which many nations in this area lag other nations. I don't get tge axcusation of racism against me year. You said you read "Guns, Germs, and Steel". Do you consider Jarrett Diamond's views to be racist?
Last edited by robertbrianbush; 11-27-2017 at 09:52 AM..
Black people were present in Early modern Europe. Plenty of paintings, first hand accounts and testimony to prove this. The Catholic Church also had black saints.
The notion of superiority to non-Europeans was something that is a product of Enlightenment thinkers.
There were African diplomats in Europe as well by the 1400s. The Angolan kingdoms, to cite one example, had diplomatic relations with the Vatican and other European nations.
I watched "Guns, Germs, and Steel" by Jarrett Diamond. He cites the factors that you mentioned and also postulates that another factor at play is that the areas along the rivers in Africa are often malarial, preventing the development of cities in those areas prior to the introduction of modern medicine. Those regions had dispersed settlement patterns hindering tge spread if disease and they generally did not live right on the rivers in large numbers prior to colonization. Civilization develops near water both for purposes of trade and transport and as sources of drinking water for large concentrated populations. Europe, China, etc did not face this issue to anywhere near the degree that much of Africa did, allowing for the development of large urban centers and all of the innovation and prosperity that reslults from that . Even today the disease rates for many large African cities is very high and is a major impediment to economic growth.
If you dont feel like perusing the transcript google the PBS viewer guide for episode 3 ( it is a pdf). It is a summary so you can find what I am referencing within a few seconds there.
On these, will note that I don't think you are a racist, but wanted to state that there were thousands of cities in Africa when Europeans first came to the continent. Africa is a huge continent and this one documentary does not go into depth about the great civilzations of Africa nor its cities and is seeking to prove a specific point/thesis he is trying to prove. Most documentaries leave out a lot of information and are slanted toward a particular point/view.
In regards to disease in particular, there are varied climates in the continent of Africa and Africans were useful as slaves because of their immunity to certain diseases. Contrary to what people may believe, Africa is very close to both Europe and Asia and all the continents have always had some sort of co-mingling of population and the diseases that follow said populations.
Waves of conquer and defeat are a part of human history. Prior to Europeans dominating other people, they were dominated by various peoples as well, as were Asians and Africans. Things are cyclical. In the 1400s when the Portuguese and Spanish began more frequent, regular voyages into the continent of Africa, there were very large cities in Africa and they, as you noted usually centered around water. They also had agriculture in Africa, in Angola - rice was a big crop, similar to in Asia - this is why Angolan slaves were sought after by slave owners in the Carolinas here in America - they knew about agriculture due to their place of birth.
I think what that poster was getting at is that many people are ignorant about African societies. Instead of believing this documentary about there not being any major urban centers in the continent due to disease (which is an odd theory BTW as disease decimated Europe much moreso than it did in Africa centuries ago and disease is only an issue in Africa today because of lack of modern medical facilities - take away the medical facilities in Europe and they would also suffer from poor health like they used to do - malaria in particular was also prevalent in southern Europe. It was particularly rampant in what is now present day Italy) you should maybe watch some other documentaries about Africa and its civilizations and read up about the history of Africa.
A good one also from PBS came on earlier this year Africa's Great Civilizations.There is a specific episode (#4) about cities in Africa.
The program dispels a lot of myths people commonly believe about the continent and its people in regards to technological advances and civilization.
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.
