Go, Andries, Go - the story of Andries Wilhelmus Jacobus Pretorius

[Patine]

But Africa would still be in the Stone Age if Europeans hadn't helped them, and the Boers would not exist at all. The existence of the Boers alone is enough to make up for whatever "sins" that colonists committed against the local tribesmen.

No, your assumption is that they would have remained perpetually so, with no advancement, ever, without European, "assistance." There is no way to know this, for sure, but you state it like it''s settled fact.

 

[FishFishFish]

I would expect Bengal (or whatever entity controlled Bengal) to be where the industrial revolution occurs if there was no colonization, as it produced 12% of the entire world's GDP (a value bigger than the entirety of Western Europe at the time) in the Mughal Era. Plus Bengal has plenty of coal and isn't too far from iron.

Personally I doubt the Aztecs would survive even without colonization. The Aztecs just have too fragile a system to survive suddenly invigorated subjects and the ravages of the epidemics. Maybe the Purépecha would take over Mesoamerica...

 

[Ajidica]

But Africa would still be in the Stone Age if Europeans hadn't helped them

Sub-Saharan Africa (and I'm assuming you mean sub-saharan, because North Africa was for centuries a source of serious economic and military powers contesting control of the Mediterranean with European powers) may have struggled with material technologies, but to call them "stone age" shows either you know nothing about the history of sub-saharan Africa, or have no understanding of what "stone age" means.
Like, literally off the top of my head the Songhai Empire fielded large armies of armored heavy cavalry - not something associated with 'stone age' people. Great Zimbabwe was built by a people known to have iron tools - literally not "stone age" people.

As far as "helping" Africans...

Between 24,000 and 100,000 Hereros and 10,000 Nama died in the genocide.[2][9][10][11][12][13][14] The first phase of the genocide was characterised by widespread death from starvation and dehydration, due to the prevention of the Herero from leaving the Namib desert by German forces. Once defeated, thousands of Hereros and Namas were imprisoned in concentration camps, where the majority died of diseases, abuse, and exhaustion.[15][16]

Herero and Nama genocide - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

Listen to the yell of Leopold's ghost,
Burning in Hell for his hand-maimed host.
Hear how the demons chuckle and yell,
Cutting his hands off, down in Hell.
While the number of Congolese who died under the Congo Free State is unknown, and estimates vary heavily depending on what you assume the starting population to be, it is generally assumed to be several million with a population decrease of around 50%.

 

[Uncle Paul]

No, your assumption is that they would have remained perpetually so, with no advancement, ever, without European, "assistance." There is no way to know this, for sure, but you state it like it''s settled fact.

I mean, they barely advanced in the millennia before we found them...perhaps by 8000 AD they might be up to Industrial Era standards.

I would expect Bengal (or whatever entity controlled Bengal) to be where the industrial revolution occurs if there was no colonization, as it produced 12% of the entire world's GDP (a value bigger than the entirety of Western Europe at the time) in the Mughal Era. Plus Bengal has plenty of coal and isn't too far from iron.

The Mughals/Moguls were just as much colonizers and imperialists as the British were.

Personally I doubt the Aztecs would survive even without colonization. The Aztecs just have too fragile a system to survive suddenly invigorated subjects and the ravages of the epidemics. Maybe the Purépecha would take over Mesoamerica...

Also, they were exceptionally primitive and violent, even by the standards of their time - I mean, ripping out people's hearts? That's barbaric and wicked.

Sub-Saharan Africa (and I'm assuming you mean sub-saharan, because North Africa was for centuries a source of serious economic and military powers contesting control of the Mediterranean with European powers) may have struggled with material technologies, but to call them "stone age" shows either you know nothing about the history of sub-saharan Africa, or have no understanding of what "stone age" means.

I know a lot more about Sub-Saharan Africa than you do, especially about South Africa. North Africa once had great civilizations, but then Islam came.

Like, literally off the top of my head the Songhai Empire fielded large armies of armored heavy cavalry - not something associated with 'stone age' people. Great Zimbabwe was built by a people known to have iron tools - literally not "stone age" people.

How much reading and writing was there in "Zimbabwe" before Europeans showed up?
Songhai wasn't as far behind as other parts of Africa, but was still behind Europeans.

As far as "helping" Africans...

Herero and Nama genocide - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

Listen to the yell of Leopold's ghost,
Burning in Hell for his hand-maimed host.
Hear how the demons chuckle and yell,
Cutting his hands off, down in Hell.
While the number of Congolese who died under the Congo Free State is unknown, and estimates vary heavily depending on what you assume the starting population to be, it is generally assumed to be several million with a population decrease of around 50%.

Cherry-picking. I don't deny some Europeans did bad things, but most didn't.

 

[Patine]

I mean, they barely advanced in the millennia before we found them...perhaps by 8000 AD they might be up to Industrial Era standards.

European advancement in social, technological, and academic progress (everything except military innovation), ground to a crawl in the Dark and Middle Ages - relative to either Antiquity or the Post-Medieval Eras. But it didn't stay that way forever, even though who lived in that era showed a feeling that little would likely, realistically change in the long-term.

 

[Uncle Paul]

European advancement in social, technological, and academic progress (everything except military innovation), ground to a crawl in the Dark and Middle Ages - relative to either Antiquity or the Post-Medieval Eras. But it didn't stay that way forever, even though who lived in that era showed a feeling that little would likely, realistically change in the long-term.

The Dark Ages is a myth.

 

[Patine]

The Dark Ages is a myth.

Ah, so it's descended to this level. Unless you can give me a RATIONAL, SENSIBLE, VERIFED, FULLY BACKED, and HISTORICALLY SOUND reason for this statement, I'm afraid I have to judge the tenor of your points and their veracity as having taken a plummet.

 

[Edmund Ironside]

European advancement in social, technological, and academic progress (everything except military innovation), ground to a crawl in the Dark and Middle Ages - relative to either Antiquity or the Post-Medieval Eras. But it didn't stay that way forever, even though who lived in that era showed a feeling that little would likely, realistically change in the long-term.

The dark ages is an outdated term, not used by the vast majority who study that period . When I did a degree in 'early medieval history' longer ago then I care to admit it was already frowned on using the term, mostly as it gives a misleading impression. It was called dark ages simply because it was poorly documented. It was certainly no period of enlightenment, but there were some important innovations in farming and shipbuilding. Among other things, the early medieval period includes the first European voyage to the Americas.

 

[Patine]

The dark ages is an outdated term, not used by the vast majority who study that period . When I did a degree in 'early medieval history' longer ago then I care to admit it was already frowned on using the term, mostly as it gives a misleading impression. It was called dark ages simply because it was poorly documented. It was certainly no period of enlightenment, but there were some important innovations in farming and shipbuilding. Among other things, the early medieval period includes the first European voyage to the Americas.

Terminology, aside, it was a time of significant stagnation in most areas of advances that lasted for almost a millennium, which is the original point I was making.

 

[Henri Christophe]

But Africa would still be in the Stone Age if Europeans hadn't helped them, and the Boers would not exist at all. The existence of the Boers alone is enough to make up for whatever "sins" that colonists committed against the local tribesmen.

Africa isn't in Stone Age before the European arrival. Actually it was in Iron age when the european arrival, just don't know about gunpowder.
By the way, Africa achieve the iron age before european had this knowledge.

I wouldn't call civilizations that rip people's hearts out as a sacrifice great. Primitive and barbaric, not great.

Neither primitive or barbaric. They was amazing civilizations.

 

[Uncle Paul]

Ah, so it's descended to this level. Unless you can give me a RATIONAL, SENSIBLE, VERIFED, FULLY BACKED, and HISTORICALLY SOUND reason for this statement, I'm afraid I have to judge the tenor of your points and their veracity as having taken a plummet.

What the 'Dark Ages' Myth Gets Wrong About Medieval Science

Recent research has exploded almost every myth about the scientific stagnation of the Middle Ages

time.com

Africa isn't in Stone Age before the European arrival. Actually it was in Iron age when the european arrival, just don't know about gunpowder.
By the way, Africa achieve the iron age before european had this knowledge.

This isn't true.

Neither primitive or barbaric. They was amazing civilizations.

I get the feeling that if you were one of the people having their heart ripped out by the Aztecs, you might have a different view.

 

[FishFishFish]

North Africa once had great civilizations, but then Islam came.

What the 'Dark Ages' Myth Gets Wrong About Medieval Science

Recent research has exploded almost every myth about the scientific stagnation of the Middle Ages

time.com

From your own article: "The most advanced scientific knowledge for most of the European Middle Ages came from the Islamic world. Christian translators flocked to places where the two faiths mingled, like Spain and Sicily, to get their hands on the best theories and texts."

 

[Ajidica]

I know a lot more about Sub-Saharan Africa than you do, especially about South Africa.

At the risk of turning this into a nerd-measuring contest, I'm not so sure you can make that statement. I wrote my senior thesis on the Congo Crisis, specifically on the role of ethnic identity in the secession of Katanga. On my bookshelf I have a large number of books on the history of modern africa; ranging from Gerard Punier's Africa's World War to AJ Venter's Portugal's Guerilla Wars in Africa to Ludo de Witte The Assassination of Lumumba.

North Africa once had great civilizations, but then Islam came.

Umayyad Spain was for centuries the envy of Europe in terms of science and wealth, the Mamluks in Egypt were a serious power, and Fernand Braudel discusses how the north african kingdoms retained a major influence in the mediterranean trading network through much of the 17th century.

How much reading and writing was there in "Zimbabwe" before Europeans showed up?

And? You said they were stone age, even though they used iron tools. Having iron tools means a culture is quite literally not "stone age".

The Dark Ages is a myth.

Well, yes and no.
There was a genuine collapse in centralized state authority and material wealth in the mid to late 6th century stretching to roughly the mid 8th to 9th centuries. The breakdown in long distance trade and Roman style urbanized society was due to a combination of plague and the Gothic Wars in Italy. Rome was effectively depopulated at one point. Britain, depending on how you view the archaeology, may have seen a genuine 'Dark Age' as social organization broke down to almost the village level. Archaeology and some much later written sources also strongly suggests a mass collapse in state authority in Norway, Denmark, and Sweden.
It really comes down to what ones means by 'Dark Ages'.

 

[Patine]

And? You said they were stone age, even though they used iron tools. Having iron tools means a culture is quite literally not "stone age".

And, of course, we can't forget the Inca, the largest, most-centralized and -organized Pre-Columbian Western Hemisphere civilization with large cities (if not as large as the biggest Mesoamerican centres), armies as structured, regimented, large, and professional as any the Roman or Han-, Sui-, or T'ang-Dynasty Chinese Empires ever had, a large road network with sturdy bridges that held up Spanish horses and canons and had storehouses and roadhouses all along them and had the Chasqui runners, foot messengers very much akin to Rome's Viators, keeping communication, and a tuber-based mountain-terrace agricultural system that fed millions. But, they had no formal written script - only the quipu ropes with their patterns of knots as a form of record-keeping. But, apparently, according to Uncle Paul, this lack of formal, "reading and writing," makes them, "primitive and savage stone age tribes," which he said all Pre-Colonial Sub-Saharan and New World Civilizations were, in sweeping terms, anyways.

 

[Uncle Paul]

At the risk of turning this into a nerd-measuring contest, I'm not so sure you can make that statement. I wrote my senior thesis on the Congo Crisis, specifically on the role of ethnic identity in the secession of Katanga. On my bookshelf I have a large number of books on the history of modern africa; ranging from Gerard Punier's Africa's World War to AJ Venter's Portugal's Guerilla Wars in Africa to Ludo de Witte The Assassination of Lumumba.

You can't even tell Waterval Boven from Waterval Onder, if I had to guess. In fact, without looking it up, do you know what Waterval Boven and Waterval Onder are?

Umayyad Spain was for centuries the envy of Europe in terms of science and wealth, the Mamluks in Egypt were a serious power, and Fernand Braudel discusses how the north african kingdoms retained a major influence in the mediterranean trading network through much of the 17th century.

They were military powers, but culturally weak...it would be like in a game of civ...imagine a player that had a huge army but hadn't even expanded the borders of his cities to cover the entire BFC.

And? You said they were stone age, even though they used iron tools. Having iron tools means a culture is quite literally not "stone age".

I'm using "stone age" here as a more general term, essentially to say "primitive".

Well, yes and no.
There was a genuine collapse in centralized state authority and material wealth in the mid to late 6th century stretching to roughly the mid 8th to 9th centuries. The breakdown in long distance trade and Roman style urbanized society was due to a combination of plague and the Gothic Wars in Italy. Rome was effectively depopulated at one point. Britain, depending on how you view the archaeology, may have seen a genuine 'Dark Age' as social organization broke down to almost the village level. Archaeology and some much later written sources also strongly suggests a mass collapse in state authority in Norway, Denmark, and Sweden.
It really comes down to what ones means by 'Dark Ages'.

Yet the Middle East has been in a dark age ever since the Mongols sacked Baghdad three-quarters of a millennium ago.

And, of course, we can't forget the Inca, the largest, most-centralized and -organized Pre-Columbian Western Hemisphere civilization with large cities (if not as large as the biggest Mesoamerican centres), armies as structured, regimented, large, and professional as any the Roman or Han-, Sui-, or T'ang-Dynasty Chinese Empires ever had, a large road network with sturdy bridges that held up Spanish horses and canons and had storehouses and roadhouses all along them and had the Chasqui runners, foot messengers very much akin to Rome's Viators, keeping communication, and a tuber-based mountain-terrace agricultural system that fed millions. But, they had no formal written script - only the quipu ropes with their patterns of knots as a form of record-keeping. But, apparently, according to Uncle Paul, this lack of formal, "reading and writing," makes them, "primitive and savage stone age tribes," which he said all Pre-Colonial Sub-Saharan and New World Civilizations were, in sweeping terms, anyways.

It's also the whole human sacrifice thing that makes them primitive and savage. It's barbaric to rip a human being's heart out of his or her chest like that.

From your own article: "The most advanced scientific knowledge for most of the European Middle Ages came from the Islamic world. Christian translators flocked to places where the two faiths mingled, like Spain and Sicily, to get their hands on the best theories and texts."

They translated and preserved ancient Greek and Roman texts, that's all. They only did it because Europe was in a state of upheaval at the time. Otherwise we could have done it without them.

 

[Patine]

You can't even tell Waterval Boven from Waterval Onder, if I had to guess. In fact, without looking it up, do you know what Waterval Boven and Waterval Onder are?

Is this the pivotal question of scholarship to determine education on ALL THINGS of Sub-Saharan Africa, now?

They were military powers, but culturally weak...it would be like in a game of civ...imagine a player that had a huge army but hadn't even expanded the borders of his cities to cover the entire BFC.

What is your source, here, as it's dead wrong, and I advise to stop using it as a reference, to avoid future embarrassment.

I'm using "stone age" here as a more general term, essentially to say "primitive".

This is a highly contentious usage, AT THE VERY BEST. You understand this, correct?

It's also the whole human sacrifice thing that makes them primitive and savage. It's barbaric to rip a human being's heart out of his or her chest like that.

I believe I said Inca, not Aztecs. The Inca did not practice human sacrifice verifiably. Does the distinction between the two civilizations even mean anything, or have relevance to you?

They translated and preserved ancient Greek and Roman texts, that's all. They only did it because Europe was in a state of upheaval at the time. Otherwise we could have done it without them.

Many Medieval Arabic and Iranian mathematicians and astronomers who pushed the field forward say otherwise.

 

[Uncle Paul]

Is this the pivotal question of scholarship to determine education on ALL THINGS of Sub-Saharan Africa, now?

Someone who was knowledgeable about Africa History would know. Something very important happened in one of them.

What is your source, here, as it's dead wrong, and I advise to stop using it as a reference, to avoid future embarrassment.

Where is their Notre Dame? Where is their Hagia Sophia? Where is their St. Mark's Basilica?

This is a highly contentious usage, AT THE VERY BEST. You understand this, correct?

Why can't you just admit that AT THE VERY BEST, they were quite a few centuries behind Europeans technologically?

I believe I said Inca, not Aztecs. The Inca did not practice human sacrifice verifiably. Does the distinction between the two civilizations even mean anything, or have relevance to you?

They all blur together to me.

Many Medieval Arabic and Iranian mathematicians and astronomers who pushed the field forward say otherwise.

Al-Ghazali rejected reason, he threw Aristotle in the garbage.

 

[Ajidica]

You can't even tell Waterval Boven from Waterval Onder, if I had to guess. In fact, without looking it up, do you know what Waterval Boven and Waterval Onder are?

Someone who was knowledgeable about Africa History would know. Something very important happened in one of them.

Wikipedia would disagree with you.

Waterval Boven (officially known as Emgwenya[2]) is a small town situated on the edge of the Escarpment on the banks of the Elands River above the 75m Elands Falls on the railway line from Pretoria to Maputo in Mpumalanga, South Africa. Hence the name, which is Dutch for "above the waterfall".

It is the sister town of Waterval Onder which is at the base of the Escarpment below the waterfall. Both settlements were established in 1895 because of the building of the Pretoria - Delagoa Bay railway line,[3] built by the Netherlands-South African Railway Company (NZASM).

References[edit]​

1. ^ Jump up to:a b c d "Main Place Waterval Boven". Census 2011.
2. ^ "AfriForum petitions against name changes". Mail & Guardian Online. Nov 2, 2009.
3. ^ "Waterval Onder Information". Where to Stay. Retrieved 21 January 2014.

External links[edit]​

• Media related to Waterval Boven at Wikimedia Commons

Waterval Onder is a small village situated at the base of the escarpment on the banks of the Elands River in Emakhazeni Local Municipality, Mpumalanga, South Africa.

History[edit]​

The name means below the waterfall, due to its position below a 75 m waterfall (Elands River Falls). The village did not develop into a town like its sister town of Waterval Boven, which is above the waterfall.[1] Both settlements were established in 1895 because of the building of the Pretoria - Delagoa Bay railway line built by the Netherlands-South African Railway Company (NZASM).[2]

President Paul Kruger lived in Waterval Onder before he left South Africa via Mozambique during the Anglo-Boer war. His Krugerhof house was proclaimed a national monument.[2]

References[edit]​

1. ^ "Waterval Onder". SA Venues. Retrieved 21 January 2014.
2. ^ Jump up to:a b "Waterval Onder Information". Where to Stay. Retrieved 21 January 2014.

If online Afrikaaners can't be find events that meet Wikipedia's basic notoriety guidelines (something that is met by changing traffic patterns in the Monticello Subdivision of the BNSF Railway), I think I'm safe in not knowing anything about those two places!

They were military powers, but culturally weak...it would be like in a game of civ...imagine a player that had a huge army but hadn't even expanded the borders of his cities to cover the entire BFC.

[/QUOTE]
Umayyad and Moorish Spain was so culturally weak, they had no famous philosophers (Averroes), or famous buildings (Great Mosque at Cordoba, Alhambra, etc).

Yet the Middle East has been in a dark age ever since the Mongols sacked Baghdad three-quarters of a millennium ago.

Huh, normally you lot like to talk up the threat posed by the Grand Turk and the grandeur of the court of Suleiman the Magnificent.

 

[Uncle Paul]

Wikipedia would disagree with you.
If online Afrikaaners can't be find events that meet Wikipedia's basic notoriety guidelines (something that is met by changing traffic patterns in the Monticello Subdivision of the BNSF Railway), I think I'm safe in not knowing anything about those two places!

Kruger lived in Waterval Onder, and his house there was proclaimed a national monument. That's the important event I was referring to.

Huh, normally you lot like to talk up the threat posed by the Grand Turk and the grandeur of the court of Suleiman the Magnificent.

They were a military threat with a weak culture. Suleiman's court was decadent and degenerate. I suspect that a large amount of the anger towards Westerners in the Islamic world is because they are insecure that their culture hasn't reached the heights ours has.

 

[Patine]

Kruger lived in Waterval Onder, and his house there was proclaimed a national monument. That's the important event I was referring to.

And how would members of all the over 800+ ethnicities in Sub-Saharan Africa, or the students of the history of the whole continent, from Olduvai Gorge (or I think there may have been an older anatomical human fossil find) to today, or who studies any of a myriad of other areas thereon, in focus or in number, ALL agree that those two towns were mandatory and essential learning, with priority to almost all others, across the board, pray tell?