Why did the Africans not develop?

[Stapel]

Originally posted by thestonesfan
Africa isn't exactly short on animals or resources...

And civilization arose long before horses were domesticated.

As an aside, I always wondered whether or not a warm climate was ultimately detrimental to a civilization. Look at the situation in the world today, there are very few successful countries in warm climate zones.

It seems that northern peoples have always supplanted southern peoples. That is strange to me.

In cold areas, people were forced to save food in the summer time, for the winter time. In warm climates, crops can be harvested throughout the year.
This simple thing, makes it that people in cold (northern) places must have a structure (thus start building a civilisation), in order to survive.

 

[thestonesfan]

But the first civilizations did arise in warm climates...it's just that they eventually couldn't compete with people from the north once they had an organized society established.

 

[Stapel]

Maybe it is the other way around. Once you are somewhat civilised, you can go up north.

 

[Knight-Dragon]

The first civilisations seemed to appear in the great river systems, like the Tigris-Euphrates, the Indus, the Nile etc where organization for irrigation works was needed to farm. Which in turn led to the first cities and states.

 

[Xen]

Tell that to the Minoans -

that said, wjile rivers them selves dont seem to be of any real importance other then offering a steady ffod supply, it dose seem that a large body of water seems to spur on civlization...

 

[HalfBadger]

I'm not sure if anyone has brought this up, or that I'm way off, but this idea kinda came to me when thinking of Survivor Africa. It was the only time I thought the ppl were in actual life threatening situations. Where I'm going with this?

1) the super predators: Lions, Lepaods, Hyenas, Wild Dogs, Poisonous Snakes, Crocodiles, Cheetahs etc. When a lot of your resources go towards defending your village/self from these 'super' predators then you don't have much time to learn to plow your fields better etc. Compared to Places like Europe, Asia and North America who only have 2-3 'super' predators.

2) Competeing with these 'Super' predators also makes it harder to have excess meat, since the grazing animals are on such high alert/skilled to escape predators.

3) With greater/more developed Grazers it's also hard to compete for good soil and forage resources. I've heard researchers say that Bears couldn't survive in africa, because they couldn't compete with their 'Super' predators for meat and couldn't compete with the Grazers for berries/plants.

4) The threat from the grazers compared to other places is also huge. Having to deal with migrating elephants, stampeding Rhinos, crazy Hippos (who today kill the most ppl of any animal in africa, we can't even fully protect oursevles from them) etc.

I'm just wondering if anyone's read or if any research has been put into, that the highly skilled/developed Animals in Africa may have hindered Africans from developing, since so much time & resources would have to go worrying bout these animals, where other tribes/ppl woulnd't don't.

Most of my points are just the ppl protecting themselves/fighting for their survival, let alone trying to raise life stock or do farming.

 

[Xen]

Originally posted by HalfBadger

1) the super predators: Lions, Lepaods, Hyenas, Wild Dogs, Poisonous Snakes, Crocodiles, Cheetahs etc. When a lot of your resources go towards defending your village/self from these 'super' predators then you don't have much time to learn to plow your fields better etc. Compared to Places like Europe, Asia and North America who only have 2-3 'super' predators.

2) Competeing with these 'Super' predators also makes it harder to have excess meat, since the grazing animals are on such high alert/skilled to escape predators.

.

Europe had small Rhinos, and its own breed of Lion living in it until, sadlly, the combination fo Roman bestiarii consts, and near constant hunting as pests killed them off

 

[LouLong]

Originally posted by HalfBadger
I'm not sure if anyone has brought this up, or that I'm way off, but this idea kinda came to me when thinking of Survivor Africa. It was the only time I thought the ppl were in actual life threatening situations. Where I'm going with this?

1) the super predators: Lions, Lepaods, Hyenas, Wild Dogs, Poisonous Snakes, Crocodiles, Cheetahs etc. When a lot of your resources go towards defending your village/self from these 'super' predators then you don't have much time to learn to plow your fields better etc. Compared to Places like Europe, Asia and North America who only have 2-3 'super' predators.

2) Competeing with these 'Super' predators also makes it harder to have excess meat, since the grazing animals are on such high alert/skilled to escape predators.

3) With greater/more developed Grazers it's also hard to compete for good soil and forage resources. I've heard researchers say that Bears couldn't survive in africa, because they couldn't compete with their 'Super' predators for meat and couldn't compete with the Grazers for berries/plants.

4) The threat from the grazers compared to other places is also huge. Having to deal with migrating elephants, stampeding Rhinos, crazy Hippos (who today kill the most ppl of any animal in africa, we can't even fully protect oursevles from them) etc.

I'm just wondering if anyone's read or if any research has been put into, that the highly skilled/developed Animals in Africa may have hindered Africans from developing, since so much time & resources would have to go worrying bout these animals, where other tribes/ppl woulnd't don't.

Most of my points are just the ppl protecting themselves/fighting for their survival, let alone trying to raise life stock or do farming.

1) they were more predators in Asia, Europe and America than nwoadays. And even if in lower diversity they had the quantity. Africans never really had to face wolves who are strong orgnized predators. And you cannot compare a lion with a tiger.
Facing predators you get two ways : one is getting organized and getting rid of them, the second is to actually keep them as preys for elite/religious hunting. Obviously Africans chose (or could not do better) than the latter.

2) The only actual think that would make it more difficult is the savannah type. But the prairie in the US is not much better for hiding.
Human reactions/evolution to that : think of tricks (intelligence) or master fast animals such as horses/camels to compete in speed.
This reaction did not happen here.

3) same here. Bears are not specially smart. Humans are. The more they are confronted to a dire, tough environment the more they think and elaborate = --> civ.

4) Buffalo stampedes axisted in Europe and North America as well. Mammoth hunting meant to follow herds as well. And ice age conditions were quite likely to be worst than savannah.

A more general remark. What you are refering too is mostly East and South East Africa so only a limited part of the continent.
What's more the impression of wild nature you have now of Africa is not because it is naturally wilder and more dangerous but because humans have failed to master it there. Besides, a romantic idea of it was given through books, movies, etc... to a Western public eager for wild exoticism.

 

[andrewgprv]

Originally posted by thestonesfan
Africa isn't exactly short on animals or resources...

Try doemsticating a Zebra, Lion, Giraffe, Gorilla etc..... and get back to us on how succesfull you were

 

[Birdjaguar]

I think we are talking about the world prior to 1500 AD, which is when western Europe began to take the lead over everyplace else.

The underpinnings of civilization are domesticated crops and animals combined with interaction between cutures. All the civs off the east west, mediterranean to china axis came late to the civilization table and often lacked key things like writing when they got their.

By 1500 the peoples of southern Europe, the mideast and Asia had had 4500 years of buying, selling, killing, stealing, breeding, teaching and learning from one another on a continental scale. that did not happen anywhere else in the world. Comparatively speaking everyone else was living in isolation beating up on a few neighbors.

Then came the industrial revolution. Thank the English for that. No one else embraced it as early or with such enthusiam as western Europe (Japan came late and caught up, Chinas trying now). Once the IR got rolling no one else had a chance.

 

[spincrus]

I'd suggest people to read about what Bates has to say for this topic. He's a famous and valued political economist, especially focusing on the downfall of the African economies.

According to Bates, the underdevelopment of Africa in the 20th century (when it had time to develop) has couple of reasons:

1) The raw export materials (palm oil, etc.) were already syntheticly produced in Europe, hence Africa became incompetitive.

2) So, the only way the government can increase saving for investment was to form market boards.

3) These market boards would give certain limits to the agriculture sector, tell agriculture which crops to focus on and would buy the crops at extremely cheap prices. They'd then sell it in world prices, and pocket the rest.

4) Therefore, there were huge migrations to the cities. This caused huge urbanization.

5) As farmers were declining in number, food was both undersupplied for the cities and the world markets. The goods became lower quality as time passed.

6) However, the government was still getting every last bit of their incomes from the farmers.

7) There was rent-seeking going on, causing the corrupt governors to pocket most of the profits.

8) The people who've gone to the cities were left unemployed, as not much investment could be done.

9) There weren't enough trained people for operating and maintaining the expensive machinery that've been imported from Europe.

10) European governments were also rent seeking, signing certain pacts on disallowing Africa to trade with the United States and so forth.


Combining them all, and together with everything else mentioned in this forum, we can actually conclude some certain points.

Interesting thing is, that Bates also points out how the situation in Far East Asia was so similar in the beginning, but they managed to survive, whereas the Africans just couldn't develop. I'd say the amount of imperialism and colonization of Asia can in no way be compared to that of Africa, where things were extremely harsh.

 

[LouLong]

SpincruS, your resume of Bates was very good but your conclusion is wrong, it is not because colonization was harsher in Africa.
Strnage how when one speak of colonies, Africa always comes to mind quickly. It was probably the continent colonized the less (in depth and in time). African colonies were the last areas to be colonized quite late in the XIXth century and many areas were still not known at the beginning of the XXth, so hardly administered which prevents the harshness of colonization.
The frontiers the European states created in Africa were far from meaning there was control.

So except on the coast and in some areas (South Africa for instance where you had white population), Africa has been really colonized for 60 years with a strong influence that lasted much less.
In Asia (India, Vietnam) colonization started often ealier + since these areas were already organized they allowed for a better penetration and control from the whites.

 

[Sims2789]

Np, it was the Ghonikes who used Iron first.

 

[Birdjaguar]

Who were the "ghonikes"?

 

[allhailIndia]

About colonization, in Africa, its effects were the worst. In India, the British first came as traders, then became active plunderers, before they became rulers. When they came as traders, they were only a bunch of white men, doing trade with one of the largest kingdoms in the world, the Mughals and they watched as the Mughals collapsed into a bunch of warring princes, took their time and eventually made India as their dominion. This was before the Industrial Revolution.

When the course of the Industrial Revolution came in full swing, the Brits needed more Indian resources so the exploitation became max. At the same time, they also saw Indians as a market for their goods and tried to create a demand for their ggods through Westernization of the Indians. This meant the spread of education and the growth of the Indian middle class.

The same process was missed in Africa. The British came to Africa only for slaves and land. IF they got land they turned the population their into slave labour to be exported or sold. When slavery began being abolished, they decided,. that it was better to use Africans as cheap, underpaid labour in the vast gold and diamond mines or the plantations, hence the second phase of colonization in Africa. There was never the creation of any lasting institutions in most African colonies unlike in the Asian and to an extent American colonies, and racism, played an important role in it as well. For the longest time, the African people were seen as no better than an animals and hence, they had to be subjugated or destroyed, why bother educating or teaching them.

This I believe has what has led to Africa's backwardness in the last half century. The colonizers, when they couldn't afford it anymore, just packed up their bags, blew a kiss to the Africans and left, without teaching them the basics of not just how to run a country or a government, but at least work with them on these matters after independence.

 

[HalfBadger]

Originally posted by LouLong


1) they were more predators in Asia, Europe and America than nwoadays. And even if in lower diversity they had the quantity. Africans never really had to face wolves who are strong orgnized predators. And you cannot compare a lion with a tiger.
Facing predators you get two ways : one is getting organized and getting rid of them, the second is to actually keep them as preys for elite/religious hunting. Obviously Africans chose (or could not do better) than the latter.

2) The only actual think that would make it more difficult is the savannah type. But the prairie in the US is not much better for hiding.
Human reactions/evolution to that : think of tricks (intelligence) or master fast animals such as horses/camels to compete in speed.
This reaction did not happen here.

3) same here. Bears are not specially smart. Humans are. The more they are confronted to a dire, tough environment the more they think and elaborate = --> civ.

4) Buffalo stampedes axisted in Europe and North America as well. Mammoth hunting meant to follow herds as well. And ice age conditions were quite likely to be worst than savannah.

A more general remark. What you are refering too is mostly East and South East Africa so only a limited part of the continent.
What's more the impression of wild nature you have now of Africa is not because it is naturally wilder and more dangerous but because humans have failed to master it there. Besides, a romantic idea of it was given through books, movies, etc... to a Western public eager for wild exoticism.

Thanks for info, I didn't get a chance to research my idea too much, since I wanted to post it before I forgot some the details.

So partially it was because Europeans and other ppl, controlled/killed off most threatening predators that were a problem.

I also totally forgot about mammoths for some reason, aswell as Lions etc also being in Europe, but Tigers also used to live in Africa I believe.

 

[Louis XXIV]

Originally posted by thestonesfan
Africa isn't exactly short on animals or resources...

And civilization arose long before horses were domesticated.

As an aside, I always wondered whether or not a warm climate was ultimately detrimental to a civilization. Look at the situation in the world today, there are very few successful countries in warm climate zones.

It seems that northern peoples have always supplanted southern peoples. That is strange to me.

Rome, Greece, and other warm climat civilizations were clearly superior to the barbarians around them. The colder climates were typically "tougher" to survive in these conditions, and would raid other tribes in order to prosper. This military culture went a long way during the fall of rome, when they conquered the region and adopted part of the culture. They clearly weren't more technologically advanced, but the warm climate civilization did the work for them. All they had to do was improve on it.

 

[soren]

Originally posted by Hawkster

The removal of vast numbers of the population undoubtedly palyed a part

Not just that, but it was the young males who were removed. WHen you take the cream of the crop, negative things happen. JUst look at what happened to Britian...

 

[allhailIndia]

Geography, climate or "military" culture, has nothing to do with the current state of affairs in Africa as much as colonialism and the exploitation of people and resources have everything to do with it.

Even after independence, most African nations were not free from the interference of their colonial masters, e.g the Belgians in the Congo and became pawns in the Cold War, where neither side really cared for the establishment of a proper government which cared for its people. They were much more interested in which side the ruler would tilt and hence, work for the best interests of that particular.
Barring a few exceptions, this has been the story of Africa.
Even the most moderniszed country, South Africa was built totally on the backs of black slave labour, which was insitutionalized through apartheid and they were never allowed to enjoy the fruits of economic prosperity, condemned to near permanent slavery in wretched condtitions.

 

[Heffalump]

Blaming colonialism is too simple, and much too recent.

You need only ask yourself the following question: why wasn't it the Africans doing the colonizing instead of the Europeans? Why didn't Africans land on European shores and stake territorial claims for themselves?

Colonialism was merely a sympton of African weakness vis-a-vis Europe.

I think the truths lay much further back, and I think some of the things touched on earlier (climate, geography, animals available for domestication) all played a role.