ChrTh
Happy Yule!
jonatas said:
Sorry, I worded it poorly. I was referring to the connections themselves dominating its history--in both directions. I did not mean to suggest one side of the water was dominating the other.
Why was Africa so backward?
- Thread starter ew0054
- Start date
Sorry, I worded it poorly. I was referring to the connections themselves dominating its history--in both directions. I did not mean to suggest one side of the water was dominating the other.
Gladi
The ignored thread killer
jonatas said:
A) He did not said it was dominated by Europe, but by connection Euro-mediterrean and Near (I added that because I hate when people think Lebanon and Isreal are in Middle East) and Middle eastern civilizations. I would go as far as say that they were all part of common Mediterrean culture. That sea was more a high speed lane for spread of goods and information.
B) In ancient history there is one, one/U], (or two okay, but Ptolemaic holdings were pitiful) case of African control of european territory, that of Carthage colonies in Hispania.
jonatas
tropicalista
Gladi said:
A) I already stated that the Mediterranean had basic affinities on the 3 continents. I thought he was implying that North African civs were always dominated by Europe.
B) dominating was a poor choice of words to begin with, which is what I was really objecting to. I prefer to speak of influence, as in Egyptian influence on Minoan civilization and art.
edit: this is a pretty dumb debate btw
Gladi
The ignored thread killer
jonatas said:
True.
So I would say that Black Africa in olden times was backwards because of geography and in modern times because everybody but common africans like it that way. (in past 50 prices of commodities went down almost every year, that would be hard with stable prosperous Africa, would it not?)
jonatas
tropicalista
Gladi said:
I don't know, perhaps we would be overlooking sub Saharan civs too. I'm not an expert by any means on that.
I just thought of another nice example of Egyptian influence on Greek art though, the Kouros in the Archaic period, which would eventually lead to classical Greek sculpture. Proto-Greeks and Greeks were definitely influenced by Egypt, especially artistically and I think in the early forms of civilization.
Evie
Pronounced like Eevee
The more backward parts of Africa were the more isolated ones, for a very simple answer. The same can be said of virtually everywhere else - isolation, in general breeds backwardness. (CF Asia)
The parts in Africa that were not isolated by virtue of trade routes - Ethiopia ; the Sahelian kingdoms, the Swahili coast (the Omani domination was an on-again, off-again thing, and rarely if ever applied to the whole coast), etc all developed reasonably modern (by their era's standards) empire. When they fell off those trade routes, they dwindled again, due to the increased isolation.
As Diamond put it, there are very, VERY few cradles of civilization ; ie places where human civilization formed its basics (writing, etc) on its own, rather than picking the idea up from the neighboring regions.
The parts in Africa that were not isolated by virtue of trade routes - Ethiopia ; the Sahelian kingdoms, the Swahili coast (the Omani domination was an on-again, off-again thing, and rarely if ever applied to the whole coast), etc all developed reasonably modern (by their era's standards) empire. When they fell off those trade routes, they dwindled again, due to the increased isolation.
As Diamond put it, there are very, VERY few cradles of civilization ; ie places where human civilization formed its basics (writing, etc) on its own, rather than picking the idea up from the neighboring regions.
Doc Tsiolkovski
Deity
IMHO the real qustion is still not really answered.
No doubt, the Sahel Civs did reasonably well, and they did have connections with the Med.
But, the really hard-to-understand fact is why on Earth there didn't emerge a single Central African Civ worth mentioning. Can't be the climate by itself. Khmer/Indonesia or Mayans/lowland Incans shared that very same rain forrest. And seriously, there a tons of way more hostile environments on Earth (Tibet, anyone?). Also, can't be the lack of population - after all those areas are right next to the Craddle of Mankind.
So, the only really striking arguement may indeed be malaria.
No doubt, the Sahel Civs did reasonably well, and they did have connections with the Med.
But, the really hard-to-understand fact is why on Earth there didn't emerge a single Central African Civ worth mentioning. Can't be the climate by itself. Khmer/Indonesia or Mayans/lowland Incans shared that very same rain forrest. And seriously, there a tons of way more hostile environments on Earth (Tibet, anyone?). Also, can't be the lack of population - after all those areas are right next to the Craddle of Mankind.
So, the only really striking arguement may indeed be malaria.
Rambuchan
The Funky President
Or perhaps that their histories are too infrequently told? We just don't know enough about them.Doc Tsiolkovski said:
jonatas
tropicalista
@DocT
What about Great Zimbabwe? That's about the best example I can think of in Sub-Saharan Africa, though I know nothing about the entire region really.
What about Great Zimbabwe? That's about the best example I can think of in Sub-Saharan Africa, though I know nothing about the entire region really.
ChrTh
Happy Yule!
One of my own pet theories (no doubt espoused previously by others with credentials) is that prolonged conflict is a motivator for technological advancement. Thus Europe, with its disparate and constantly warring people (be it Athens versus Sparta, Rome versus wave after wave of Barbarian, or France versus England) took the "baton" as it were from the Near/Middle East after Persian subjugation reduced the amount of conflict in the area. Perhaps the problem was that there was too much space / too little competition for resources so that warfare did not occur with the same frequency in sub-Saharan Africa?
Doc Tsiolkovski
Deity
Not exactly rain forrest.jonatas said:
Hey Ram, I wasn't trying to insult Africa! Surely there may be reasons why not much is told about the peoples living there outside their own "responsibility" (slavery, colonization) - but still, haven't heard of a Chichen Itza or Angkor Waht there either.
jonatas
tropicalista
Doc Tsiolkovski said:Not exactly rain forrest.
No, but still one of the most impressive set of historical buildings in Sub-Saharan Africa. If you're looking for comparisons to Maya or something, this is probably the closest I know of.
Gladi
The ignored thread killer
Kongo wasn't really in rainforest (it was in modern Angola).
To my mind, the main reason why most African cultures remained technologically behind those in other parts of the world is that they never developed writing. The exception, of course, was Ethiopia. Writing reached most of sub-Saharan Africa only with Islam and Christianity, and that's when we see real empires forming and technological advances being made. Before then, much of Africa was at a similar stage to Europe in late antiquity - fairly civilised, but not very advanced, and leaving virtually no records for modern historians, which is why (a) so little is known about them, and (b) they tend to be overly denigrated. This applies both to northern European cultures before the coming of Christianity there, and to most of sub-Saharan Africa before modern times.
Of course, you could always play my African scenario (link in sig) and find out more...
To my mind, the main reason why most African cultures remained technologically behind those in other parts of the world is that they never developed writing. The exception, of course, was Ethiopia. Writing reached most of sub-Saharan Africa only with Islam and Christianity, and that's when we see real empires forming and technological advances being made. Before then, much of Africa was at a similar stage to Europe in late antiquity - fairly civilised, but not very advanced, and leaving virtually no records for modern historians, which is why (a) so little is known about them, and (b) they tend to be overly denigrated. This applies both to northern European cultures before the coming of Christianity there, and to most of sub-Saharan Africa before modern times.
Of course, you could always play my African scenario (link in sig) and find out more...
Gladi
The ignored thread killer
Plotinus said:
And modern Congo suprisingly. Sao Salvador its capital lies very near the border between the modern countires.
Cheezy the Wiz
Socialist In A Hurry
naziassbandit said:
It is argued that the African continent is not capable of supporting a population remotely becoming of it's immense size. Africa's popualation crested out early in history. Even at the time of the Romans, most of Africa's population lay in Egypt, and most of that within one mile of the River Nile. A combination of it's climates, terrain, and soil make Africa simply incapable, as I said before, of supporting a population remotely becoming of it's size.
I wrote a History of Africa for one of my History papers, I can answer more questions if you had them.
Louis XXIV
Le Roi Soleil
I think the landmass of Europe is a big reason. The Mediteranian allowed for trade and communication (in both Europe and North Africa) that prevented isolationism. In Africa, those who could have trade and communication weren't isolated and became advanced (until those trade routes disapeared).
I do think the small, narrow peninsulas that existed in Europe (Italy, Greece) created competition that led to wars, which spurred technological advancements. Combined with increased communication and competition, Europe advanced. Those areas in Africa not connected to Europe through trade didn't learn about this advancement. They fell further behind. Eventually, their technological backwardness (and the fact that they weren't Christian or even Muslim) left them vulnerable for exploitation in the slave trade (both European christians and arabs forbid taking slaves of their own religion, so they turned to the parts of Africa that lacked either religion). Then the problem got compounded as European colonialism set it to benefit Europe at the expense of Africa.
I do think the small, narrow peninsulas that existed in Europe (Italy, Greece) created competition that led to wars, which spurred technological advancements. Combined with increased communication and competition, Europe advanced. Those areas in Africa not connected to Europe through trade didn't learn about this advancement. They fell further behind. Eventually, their technological backwardness (and the fact that they weren't Christian or even Muslim) left them vulnerable for exploitation in the slave trade (both European christians and arabs forbid taking slaves of their own religion, so they turned to the parts of Africa that lacked either religion). Then the problem got compounded as European colonialism set it to benefit Europe at the expense of Africa.
European Christians didn't forbid taking slaves of their own religion. On the contrary, seventeenth- and eighteenth-century missionaries argued that being a Christian and being a slave were perfectly compatible (this was to persuade slave-owners that it was OK to baptise slaves). The slavers didn't target West Africans because they weren't Christians - they targeted them simply because they were there and available.
Of course, Catholics at least shouldn't have been enslaving anyone. In 1537, Pope Paul III decreed that it was not permissible to enslave human beings irrespective of whether they were Christian or not. Of course, everyone ignored him.
Of course, Catholics at least shouldn't have been enslaving anyone. In 1537, Pope Paul III decreed that it was not permissible to enslave human beings irrespective of whether they were Christian or not. Of course, everyone ignored him.
Where do you get the idea they were backwards? That's either extremely racist or ignorant. African kingdoms weren't any more or less advanced than the rest of the world, in fact Timbuktu was a huge thriving culture center during the middle ages. No further offense, but compare 14th century Timbuktu to 14th century America, and you'll see just how far those "backwards Africans" have come along. It just fell in importance when faster sea routes controlled by Europeans and Arabs took over as the primary way to transport goods and people around the continent. The interior didn't appear to offer much until expeditions to find new modern resources started coming into fruition. The tropics are not bearable either. Crops do not grow, disease is rampant, and clearing jungles before the age of power saws and bulldozers took a lot of time and fire. Ideal climate for agriculture and growth is Mediterranean, not tropical. Still, opportunity and competition is what triggers advancement. It's not fair to call tribal societies backwards because of their lack of technological innovations compared to the "mainstream". If Rome didn't conquer the celtic and germanic tribes of northern Europe, chances are they'd be viewed as "backwards" and not advanced as well. The truth is, compared to what they knew, they were equal or even superior, and therefore complacent. The opportunities for Africa dried up when the Arab influence left, and European imperialism ground them under their heel, and many kingdoms in Africa were subverted because of the greed of their kings (selling away land and of course, their people for cash pay offs from the various companies taking root in Africa). There needs to be an interest in furthering their technology, whether its to terraform or wage war better. Many African tribes, like native American tribes and the european tribes of ancient times didn't have this need. When Rome took over Europe, you know that the old tribes were taking notice. Similarly, many modern African countries (the successful ones in particular) have taken notice of what the first world does and develop on their own just fine. South Africa and Nigeria are great examplesew0054 said:
Similar threads
