Why was Africa so backward?

[Raven9983]

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)

No it doesn't. China and India were isolated from the west for thousands of years and they were technologically ahead of Europe during the middle ages. Gunpowder, compasses, paper, block printing, metal forging and the Damascus steel process, these were all eastern innovations, not Western. Indian states were isolated from each other but all developed rather well and on par with, if not faster than their european contemporaries during Ancient times. This is why India has something like 780 indeginous languages.

 

[Plotinus]

China and India are enormous regions full of different peoples. "India" wasn't a single country until the British made it into one. Both India and China could be viewed as analogous to Europe - collections of peoples in competition with each other. Plus, of course, they had the advantage of great river systems with extremely fertile land. Other than the Nile, Africa lacks that; the Niger and the Congo don't have the great floodplains of the other major rivers. And African cultures typically were more isolated from each other than Indian, Chinese, or European ones - isolated by rainforest, desert, or sheer distance.

 

[Rambuchan]

Regarding terraforming and the surrounding climate / landscape:

When speaking of sub-Saharan Africa in this context it should also be remembered: a) the beliefs these people had about the land around them and their place in it. b) the systems which they employed to exploit the land ie. agricultural or nomadic.

a) Many of the religious systems in effect in sub-Saharan Africa, prior to and alongside the introduction of monotheistic beliefs, did not view man as the caretaker / groundsman of creation, with a free hand to do with it as he will.

b) Many here were Nomadic peoples, who did not seek to terraform the land in any significant way.

Much the same could be said of many of the northern Native Americans, whom we also generally perceive as "backward". You could probably say the same for the Australian Aboriginies.

Which leads me onto another aspect of the whole "superior and inferior" and "backwards and advanced" civilisation debate: Where does the value lie? In sustainable, equitable living or the ability to manufacture advanced weaponry and raise large, disparate, urban populations? Does it lie in spiritual or monetary filfullment? (Are these compatible or not?) Are we more backwards or advanced if we can fly in a jet plane, yet cannot make our minds up about our place in the grand scheme of things? More backwards or advanced if we have a virtually crimeless society, yet cannot save our children from serious disease?

Is there really some intrinsic and objective human value in any of these things?

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.

I didn't think you were trying to mate. I was trying to point out our collective historical deficiencies on CFC History in general when speaking of Africa. We cannot mention those notable kingdoms and powers, not because they did not exist, but because of that old chestnut: History is Written By The Victor.

Within that line, and mentioned in other posts, is also the fact that many African cultures did not write their histories. Neither did much of Native America. Again, we tend to think of them as backwards too, in general.

It's interesting to note that when African histories did start to get written, down from their long stretching oral history formats*, this was often with a European Colonial Historian alongside. A very telling example of this is the history of Rwanda. I mentioned this in that Divide and Rule Thread. An interesting if somewhat distasteful byproduct of this writing synergy is that one group typically gets put down, is presented as inferior and undesirable, a blot on the landscape. That well suited the Divide and Rule strategy of the colonial power, as it did the local party seeking to gain an upperhand - but it's left us with libraries crammed with warped and derisive histories. These histories are what ours today are built on.

*It's also interesting that many oral history traditions are specifically designed to be immune to distortion. You can look at the way the Hindu Vedas have been passed down in pristine fashion for many millenia. (They may have passed on some disagreeable messages, but those were not warped in the process of being passed down.)

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 examples

Excellent post there

 

[Gladi]

Again I will disagree.

Celtic and Germanic tribes worked iron, built cities, they had writing. Compare that to Bushmen. In Africa we saw in historic times lack of population movement- I know only of spread of Bantu, does anybody know of any other migration? In Old World thousand of years BCE tribes could move thousands of miles. Persians and Medes into modern Iran, other Aryans into India, yet more Indo-Europeans into Central Europe and from there to Italy where they became Latins.

Nobody is saying negroids are inferior, indeed have they been seen as such, nobody would wonder why they fell behind and we would not have this discussion.

Oh and why do you have to post that "noble savage" tirade?

 

[Rambuchan]

Because you still have not identified an objective value system upon which we can come to conclusions of what is "advanced" or "backward". You say migration? I say, so what? The Canadian Goose migrates.

 

[Gladi]

Because you still have not identified an objective value system upon which we can come to conclusions of what is "advanced" or "backward". You say migration? I say, so what? The Canadian Goose migrates.

Why do you take such an offense at it? I am perfectly willing to say that my own people were technologicly and societaly backwards for several thousand years.

And I talked about ages, while all of Europe was laready in Iron Age, large parts of Africa were still in Stone Age. Large parts of Africa peaked in Iron Age- and were destroyed by more Europeans with more advanced technology and society. Yes! A more advanced society! Do you know how Menelik saved Ethiopia? Not by making better weapons, but by modernising Ethiopia's feudal society.

EDIT: And if you do not have anything to say than don't speak.

 

[Gladi]

And if you are so in need of "onjective" criteria how about: percentage of people employed in primary sector and energy avaible per person ( in W).

 

[Rambuchan]

How does that indicate what "advanced" or "backwards" even is? Again, you didn't answer the primary question in what you rashly branded as my "noble savage tirade". Where does the value lie? Answer that, then start coming with the indicators of that value.


I'm really wondering why you think I am taking offense. I am not. All I am doing is questioning the terms that this thread is taking for granted. And I would say that your edit was an error of judgement on your part Gladi, no need for that. I have got something to say,you're just ignoring it, and I'll say it whether you think I should or not.

 

[Gladi]

How does that indicate what "advanced" or "backwards" even is? Again, you didn't answer the primary question in what you rashly branded as my "noble savage tirade". Where does the value lie? Answer that, then start coming with the indicators of that value.


I'm really wondering why you think I am taking offense. I am not. All I am doing is questioning the terms that this thread is taking for granted. And I would say that your edit was an error of judgement on your part Gladi, no need for that. I have got something to say,you're just ignoring it, and I'll say it whether you think I should or not.

I did not call your question that. I called Raven 9983's post that. So were for example Bushmen in Stone Age till failry recently, yes or no? (And if you say I generalise Bushmen for Africa, you used Afro-Asiatic cultures and cultural implants to show yout view of Africa). You just say no no no, yes I am rather angry, and you are feinting me well. So would "differences" fit you better mister?

EDIT: And energy avaible measures use of resources and people employed in the sectors (primary, secondary and tertiary) efectivness in aquiring them.

 

[sydhe]

Isn't using the Khoisan to show Africa was primitive like using the Lapps to show Europe was primitive?

 

[Plotinus]

[Gladi] I don't really see why this point is relevant, but there have been many migrations within Africa. Possibly the best-known are the mfecane of the early nineteenth century, in which - for reasons still not really understood - vast numbers of people in southern Africa began to migrate large distances, especially north. This was a major factor in the spread of Christianity during this period, since even people who weren't Christian tended to talk about it along the way.

I don't know why you keep talking about "Bushmen". Who, precisely, are you talking about? And who exactly do you think lives in Africa? True, "Bushmen", whoever they are, may not work iron and build cities, but there were plenty of Africans who did, long before any Europeans or Arabs got there. Look at Ghana, for example. I would certainly say that the civilisations of the Saheb were easily the equal of the pre-Christian northern European cultures (which were themselves not much behind Rome itself, simply lacking such a good military); it seems to me just perverse to deny this. And, as I have already said, both groups have been unfairly denigrated because (a) they got conquered by other people, and (b) they were largely illiterate and did not leave behind records of their history.

I think it's pretty harsh of you to lambast Rambuchan for posting a "'noble savage' tirade" (when he was only asking what the basis is for these value judgements, not praising any "savages" at all) when your own comments betray such ignorance of African history.

 

[sydhe]

Again I will disagree.

Celtic and Germanic tribes worked iron, built cities, they had writing. Compare that to Bushmen. In Africa we saw in historic times lack of population movement- I know only of spread of Bantu, does anybody know of any other migration?

The Fula in the Sahel are another example. They spread from what is now Senegal most of the way across Africa. Also the Zande around 1 AD and Nilo-Saharan peoples in really ancient times.

 

[Gladi]

Okay. Thanks.

 

[Evie]

No it doesn't. China and India were isolated from the west for thousands of years and they were technologically ahead of Europe during the middle ages. Gunpowder, compasses, paper, block printing, metal forging and the Damascus steel process, these were all eastern innovations, not Western. Indian states were isolated from each other but all developed rather well and on par with, if not faster than their european contemporaries during Ancient times. This is why India has something like 780 indeginous languages.

I said isolated, not isolated *from the west*.

In addition to what Plotinus said, there's the simple fact that China and India were in contact *with each other*, as well as with South-East Asia, Japan, Korea (asian metal block printing originated there, btw). That's not isolated by any stretch of the imagination.

Plus, China at least had contact with the west as often as not in her history - via Persia-Arabia, of course, but still. Of course, the aforementioned contact was more to the benefit of the West than China up until the XVIIIth or so.

 

[Headline]

The answer is India.

India -- > Himalayas --> No Rain to Africa --> Sahara expands --> blocking north and south Africa trade, decrease food yield

Is that understandable?

 

[Stolen Rutters]

That can't be the only reason the Sahara desert is twice as big now as it was a few thousand years ago. The Himalayas can't move that fast.

There is a mechanism for the desertification of Northern Africa over the past several thousand years but it simply can't be the motion or presence of that mountain range. The time scales aren't even remotely close.

edit - sorry, forgot to comment on the topic itself.

Backwardness in society is still fairly subjective. Backwardness in science is less so, but there is still the matter of the local conditions for industry allowing a society to make use of a given technology or knowledge. Whole continents can't have been backward by default in ancient times. Let's take Bronzeworking and Ironworking as an example.

Iron and coal have to be in the same region (or traded for) to be able to work iron since wood doesn't burn hot enough to allow you to work iron. You would be able to make bronze tools without coal, but iron couldn't be made with any other available fuel. Just because a society used bronze more than iron doesn't define backwardness. You didn't have to be Celtic to have iron tools as these things were traded quite extensively. Even the Romans at their height used bronze as a metal in manufacture in a large part of the empire, just because the materials were still relatively plentiful compared to iron-making materials.

The technology for bronze and ironworking is actually somewhat similar. Heat up the ore, smelt out some of the impurities and work the metal into shape, mainly by striking it with a hammer of some sort. The difference is in the temperature and the time it takes to work into shape. I submit that other technologies, when developed to a more "advanced" state don't necessarily make don't make a nation that doesn't have it backwards.

Considering that inventions came from all over and spread all over the world makes me think that backwardness isn't the issue. I think the differences are more in actually working on, using, and leveraging the advanced technologies available.

 

[Gladi]

That can't be the only reason the Sahara desert is twice as big now as it was a few thousand years ago. The Himalayas can't move that fast.

There is a mechanism for the desertification of Northern Africa over the past several thousand years but it simply can't be the motion or presence of that mountain range. The time scales aren't even remotely close.

Pasates? The prevalent winds depending on your postion to tropics ( like Cancer not tropical climate). Wind blows from Sahara. And few thousand years ago we had somewhat different climate (Ice Age was Rain AGe for Sahara)

Sydhe, Plotinus- I needed some first step to "backwardness"- if I could get agreement that Bushmen were more backwards than Portuguese I could start to differate more stages of "progress". And the migration represented mobility and conflict.

 

[Cheezy the Wiz]

Also, the natural slant our axis has changed a very little bit, messing up the weath patterns, this is a big factor in creating the Saharan Desert.

 

[Erik Mesoy]

Why was Africa so backward?

Because it's so narrow.

(GG&S oversimplified to the extreme. )

 

[Gladi]

Because it's so narrow.

(GG&S oversimplified to the extreme. )

North-south orientation, some people may not think of north-south as up and down automaticaly, you know eek: )