Why didnt Africa Develope?

[Naval Power]

I believe that malaria was more of a problem than many give it credit. Even Europe did not find an effective way around it until the late 1800's.

 

[Zardnaar]

Those would be better explanation if they were more factual than imaginational...

Much of Africa was in constant contact with the Middle East (Timbuktu, important Muslim center of learning ; the swahili traders plying the indian ocean, etc), and not much less in contact with the far east than Europe in the same time period.

Most of the world had contact with multiple cultures though. It also depends on what timeframe you are looking at. Africa probably would have limited contact at best with the rest of the world during the Roman empire (apart form North Africa).

 

[Evie]

"Limited contact" describes pretty well what most of the world had with most of the rest of the world at the time of the roman empire. Wasn't much of an Africa-only thing.

That said, Roman coins have been found pretty far south in the Red Sea/Swahili Coast area (ie, east Africa) ; I think as far south as Tanzania.

 

[Zardnaar]

Rome traded with Africa, Middle east, India and China via the silk road.

 

[Plotinus]

It was only in the times of the later empire that there was much trade with China to speak of. Earlier, the Axum empire had traded far more extensively, with India and beyond, and down the eastern African coast. And, really, the empires of the Sahel in the Middle Ages did serious trade too - with the Maghreb (and via the Maghreb with Europe), with the Middle East (especially Arabia), and with the states further south in Africa such as Benin. Most of these empires relied upon trade, ultimately. Perhaps that was, in part, their undoing: the opening of new trade routes, the discovery of new commodities and loss of interest in old ones, and other factors that kill off old trade routes will also kill off the civilisations that depend upon them.

 

[Evie]

I don't know why I even bother, when Plotinus can always sum up my opinion on the matter of African history in a much more concise and to the point way.

All this to say, he is essentialy on the money. The African empires - those that formed - were virtually *entirely* based on trade, except perhaps Axum-Ethiopia, and even then.

The Swahili cities on the east coast of Africa (Zanzibar, Mombassa, Mogadisciu, etc) had trade contact with (at various eras) the roman (and "Byzantine") empires, the entire array of muslim empires, most Indian states, and as far east as Indonesia at least.

The loss of those trade routes (Sahel : to European traders reaching the coast of the gulf of Guinea by ship ; Swahili : due to portuguesse piracy in great part, and even Ethiopia due to being landlocked after some muslim conquests) was the death knell for many of the empires, simple as that.

 

[Stolen Rutters]

Africa is overall poorer when you look at continents as a group, and is much weaker in much of the economic picture of the world, but using growth of cities and urban areas as your example metric and then discounting any of the modern cities and urban areas that do exist and have existed as cities even through the colonial period... bad.

We know towns and cities existed in Africa, all around the place. Empires existed, ancient city ruins exist. Some of them even existed into the modern age as actual cities (Timbuktu was already mentioned). Most of the continent was rural, but so was most of everywhere else until recently.

If you are talking about modern cities (what you seemed to allude to in the OP but backed off to maybe the colonial time period just prior to that in a later post, when Europe was pulling massive resources out of the continent without much redevelopment in the area) the real development of the large metropolis reaching to the sky is quite a new development. New York city developed out from the 1850s into the twentieth century into a massive city, but skyscrapers didn't really start showing up until the last decade of the 1800s. There wasn't really a lag between continents. LA and Hong Kong exploded in the 60s-80s, for example.

 

[Plotinus]

You can't necessarily measure these things by skyscrapers, though. London has about two fairly modest ones, apart from Canary Wharf, which has four or five and is on the outskirts anyway.

 

[Stolen Rutters]

Oh no, dont get we wrong, i realise there are massive citys etc now.. but this is all relativly late development.

I guess jungle/repeated beating took its toll. An while there are pretty major things as Plot pointed out.. howcome nothing is still current? Why did all these major civs collapse? or not go onto expand and end up like europe?

I guess I should have read more than the OP and the last couple posts...

So why did none of the major historical African civs make it through the colonial period intact? Well, I don't really know why, but none of the North or South American major historical civs made it through either. Nobody truly thinks of the United States as a continuation of the Iroquois Confederation or the Cherokee, Lakota, or Fox nations.

It's probably more complicated than just saying something like:
"Colonialism ripped much of the world apart and new nations were created all over the place, occasionally right on top of old regimes (Ottoman lands were split up into smaller nations using historical names regardless of who actually lived there, the area around the Mexica became Mexico, India was forged out of a half dozen or so smaller empires, China was really locally administered with significant foreign influence considering it was too big and populous to colonize and occupy, etc.)... Some of them got over it, some are still working on it..." - source: me, 15 minutes ago

Hey, that sounds neat. I'll stick with that.

 

[magritte]

Actually Ethiopia did survive the colonial era more or less intact. But the tech level of Africa was always a long way behind Europe and the Middle East. Jared Diamond argues that it was because the agricultural crops and livestock that were suited to temperate-subtropcial latitudes were not well suited to Africa and its indigenous biological resources were relatively poor. Hence, a significantly delayed start.

While Diamond pushes too hard on environmental determinism sometimes--his thesis on why China didn't industrialize first instead of Europe is weak IMHO--I think he's correct on the disadvantages of Africa, Australia and the Americas.

Edited to add:
All this refers to sub-Saharan Africa.

 

[bloodofages]

Abbadon is talking about why aren't there first-world countries in Africa.

Because the rest of the world has used and abused Africa since the times of the Roman empire.

Same deal with South America.. butchered by Europe.. and never recovered.

Sure just go blame Europe cause the African lack the knowledge and military might. Poor old Africa, If the Africans has the Tech and military might and Europe was the backwards people, they would have done the same. Youknow slavery would still be around, infact there is still slavery still in Africa.

 

[bloodofages]

Technically, you had Egypt and Carthage, two huge African civilizations .)

Sorry but was not Carthage a Phoencian(SP?) city that becamea Empire? They were more Middle East people then African, I not sure if the really thought in term of Africa back then, look at the Greek colonies alot of the were in Turkey, would you say the Greeks are turks? No, you wouldn't. The Greeks were Greeks no matter where they lived at. Carthage was Phoencian. A friend of mine is from Egypt and he told me calling a Egyptian a African could get you in serious trouble over there. In the Egyptian history i study the Rulers of Egypt and they look more mid east then African, except for the Greek Rulers. there was no black leaders of Egypt, but i could be wrong on that. Also Wasn't Nubia a empire back then?

 

[Verbose]

Sorry but was not Carthage a Phoencian(SP?) city that becamea Empire? They were more Middle East people then African, I not sure if the really thought in term of Africa back then, look at the Greek colonies alot of the were in Turkey, would you say the Greeks are turks? No, you wouldn't. The Greeks were Greeks no matter where they lived at. Carthage was Phoencian. A friend of mine is from Egypt and he told me calling a Egyptian a African could get you in serious trouble over there. In the Egyptian history i study the Rulers of Egypt and they look more mid east then African, except for the Greek Rulers. there was no black leaders of Egypt, but i could be wrong on that. Also Wasn't Nubia a empire back then?

Check out the Egyptian 25th dynasty.

Of course these Nubians did consider themselves better Egyptians than the Egyptians.

Ancient Egypt was always turned towards the African south during the first 2000 years of its history. That was where the money and the political threat to it lay. The Mediterranean was always considered the back-yard. This changed in the last 1000.

 

[Verbose]

Sure just go blame Europe cause the African lack the knowledge and military might. Poor old Africa, If the Africans has the Tech and military might and Europe was the backwards people, they would have done the same. Youknow slavery would still be around, infact there is still slavery still in Africa.

And poor old Europe for exploiting anyone exploitable, and somehow not being able to indefinately blame the exploited for it (oh it used to work SO well, where's social Darwinism and the White Man's Burden when you need it!?), when the question is raised why the world these days looks like it does.
Oooh, the outrage!

Edit:
It's less a matter of blame, but of understanding. Try removing the European imput when looking at why the most advanced parts of Africa has struggled in the last 500 years of history, and you will see any kind of understanding of things collapse before your eyes. Unless of course you willfully do not want to understand?

 

[Plotinus]

Sorry but was not Carthage a Phoencian(SP?) city that becamea Empire? They were more Middle East people then African, I not sure if the really thought in term of Africa back then, look at the Greek colonies alot of the were in Turkey, would you say the Greeks are turks? No, you wouldn't.

You wouldn't call the Greeks Turks, but that is simply because "Turk" is an ethnic designation. There were no Turks in what is now Turkey back then, because they hadn't arrived yet. But you would call the Greeks who lived there Anatolians, because that just refers to where they live. Same with "African" - that doesn't designate an ethnicity, simply a location. You don't have to be black to be African. Anyone from Africa is an African no matter what their ethnic background. The Carthaginians may have been descended from Phoenicians, but that doesn't make them any less African. Similarly, Egyptians may not like being called Africans, but they still are.

 

[bloodofages]

I see your point Plotinus and that makes more sense to me. I would like to be able to go far back in Egypt's history but can't find the time right now to study all the Ancient history. Either way, Black or Arabian looking, Egypt is still a cool civ to study.