Notice: This is the official website of the All Empires History Community (Reg. 10 Feb 2002)

  FAQ FAQ  Forum Search   Register Register  Login Login

Wheres africa been????
 Post Reply Post Reply Page  123>
Author
  Share Topic Share Topic  Topic Search Topic Search  Topic Options Topic Options
Guests View Drop Down
Guest
Guest
  Quote Guests Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Topic: Wheres africa been????
    Posted: 11-May-2006 at 23:28

Africans (Blacks) would have seen the Pyramids, they would have seen the North Africans (Arabs) advancing, they traded slaves etc yet they never had any type of civilization, there was no innovation, nor curiosity. I cant name any great Africans. I do realise that there were Black people present in Egypt because of slaver, and there would have been African tribal leaders who would have got quite wealthy from the slave trade.

But Where have they been?????????

Apart from a few Arab built structures with in Africa ive seen nothing from them.
Back to Top
Decebal View Drop Down
Arch Duke
Arch Duke
Avatar
Digital Prometheus

Joined: 20-May-2005
Location: Canada
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 1791 		  Quote Decebal Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 16-May-2006 at 08:36

You might want to parse this subforum, because there have been some discussions on this subject. First of all, much Black Africa was not in contact with North Africa, because of the geography. Second, the difficult geography and climate have generally impeded the development of African civilizations, especially the formation of large states. Finally, there were several native African civilizations which made some significant achievements, but they are poorly studied in the west, and there's still a strong bias in thinking that they had no achievements to speak of.

An in-depth discussion of African civilizations would take way too much of my time, but I would recommend you look up (on Wikipedia or something), the following civilizations:

1. Nubia (2000BC - 800AD)
2. Aksum and Ethiopia (200BC- present)
3. Ghana (400-1000AD)
4. Mali (1000-1450AD)
5. Songhay (1450AD-1680)
6. the Swahili trading city-states of East Africa (1AD-1500AD
7. Medieval Zimbabwe and Monomotapa (300-1400AD)
8. the Hausa city-states in Nigeria (1000-1800AD)
9. Kanem-Bornu (1500-1850)
10. Kongo
11. Benin
12. Dahomey

You should also look up art from medieval Benin, for an example of the artistic expression of Sub-Saharan black people.

I'm sorry to say this, but saying that "there was no innovation, no curiosity" in Africa, only displays ignorance from your part.
What is history but a fable agreed upon?
Napoleon Bonaparte

Even if you are a minority of one, the truth is the truth.- Mohandas Gandhi

Back to Top
Guests View Drop Down
Guest
Guest
  Quote Guests Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 17-May-2006 at 13:58
Since when does trading slaves, animals, Ivory constitute as an empire.
Wikipedia can not be trusted at all times. Oh yes you call me ignorant why???? If these were Pole ,German, Chinese empires, they would not even get a mention because of how unimportant they are. But its because they are Black isnt it?????. Ok no innovation and curioisty on par to the rest of the world, for tribesmen i guess they were quite artistic. Our aboriginals in AUstralia have some ok looking art.
Back to Top
Tobodai View Drop Down
Tsar
Tsar
Avatar
Retired AE Moderator

Joined: 03-Aug-2004
Location: Antarctica
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 4310 		  Quote Tobodai Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 17-May-2006 at 17:11
Due to poor agricultural base its impossible to become totally sedentary on most places of Africa outside the forest kingdoms.  You will eventually if you are immoble use up all resources and starve.  This happened to Great Zimbabwe, they built a stone city and eventually had to abandon it due to resource issues.
 
Not that there arent places you can be permenent, the river valleys of Mali, southern Nile, and Ethiopia.  These are isolated pockets and innovation doesnt happen with isolation.  Close proximity and cross cultural exchange between sedentary societies is essential for innovation. 
"the people are nothing but a great beast...
I have learned to hold popular opinion of no value."
-Alexander Hamilton
Back to Top
Decebal View Drop Down
Arch Duke
Arch Duke
Avatar
Digital Prometheus

Joined: 20-May-2005
Location: Canada
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 1791 		  Quote Decebal Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 17-May-2006 at 17:22
I simply recommended Wikipedia because of it's simple accessibility. If you don't trust it, feel free to look it up in Britannica.
 
Since when do the commodities that a state trades determine if it is an empire or not? The famous Arab traveler Ibn-Battuta recounts that during the time of his visit to the Mali Kingdom, around 1348, the Musa (king), could gather an army of 200,000. The area of the empire was hundreds of thousands of square kilometers. If that does not constitute an empire, then I don't know what it is. The wealth of the Mali, Ghana and Songhay kingdoms was legendary: most of the gold found in Medieval Europe was originary from there. In 1356, when Mansa Musa, the king of Mali visited Cairo en route to Mekkah, he spent so much gold that he provoked inflation which resulted in an economic crisis that lasted for years...
 
Did you know that it now appears that the Sub-Saharan Africans developed iron-working independently of the Eurasians? It was originally thought that iron-working diffused its way down from Egypt and Carthage, but the sub-saharan furnaces work on a completely different concept than those which would have been expected, if the diffusion model was correct. The Nok Bantu people appear to have developed iron-working independently. Check out "History of Africa" by Kevin Shillington for a discussion. If that does not display innovation and curiosity, then I don't know what does.
 
Below is a link with picture of one of the Lalibela churches, which were carved in solid rock in medieval Ethiopia.
 
 
This is a site showing pictures of Nubian pyramids. Perhaps not as impressive as their Egyptian counterparts, but still a testament to the strength of the Nubian state.
 
 
Check out the following links for example of the high skill of medieval Benin
sculptors and metalworkers. 
 
I'm not saying that Africa was necessarily on par with the rest of the world, but that's not necessarily because they somehow lacked innovation or curiosity. It was simply because of the difficult geographical and ecological conditions, which retared their development by thousands of years. You might want to read Jared Diamond's book Guns, Germs and Steel for an in-depth discussion of this.
 
It seems to me that you are biased against black people... And no, I'm not black in case that you were wondering. 


Edited by Decebal - 17-May-2006 at 17:32
What is history but a fable agreed upon?
Napoleon Bonaparte

Even if you are a minority of one, the truth is the truth.- Mohandas Gandhi

Back to Top
Anujkhamar View Drop Down
Chieftain
Chieftain
Avatar
Retired AE Moderator

Joined: 03-Aug-2004
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 1027 		  Quote Anujkhamar Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 17-May-2006 at 17:34
Originally posted by machine

Since when does trading slaves, animals, Ivory constitute as an empire.
Wikipedia can not be trusted at all times. Oh yes you call me ignorant why???? If these were Pole ,German, Chinese empires, they would not even get a mention because of how unimportant they are. But its because they are Black isnt it?????. Ok no innovation and curioisty on par to the rest of the world, for tribesmen i guess they were quite artistic. Our aboriginals in AUstralia have some ok looking art.


I don't quite get what your getting at. It's important to us because we like history, as this is a history forum. Why would anyone care? becasue its interesting, not because they're black.

The eastern coast of Africa traded with China, SE Asia, India and Arabia. They devoloped city states.

It's just geography that held them back from building much bigger. Some of the empires written above are actually quite large if you think of the size.
Back to Top
Guests View Drop Down
Guest
Guest
  Quote Guests Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 18-May-2006 at 00:34

No im not biased against black people. I cant recognise the above as empires because all empires that ive read about were far greater than the above, influence, tech innovation, law etc. You say Geographical and ecological reasons hindered their civilizations, i think thats a cop out. Is africa some barren wasteland, no.

 
 
 
Back to Top
Decebal View Drop Down
Arch Duke
Arch Duke
Avatar
Digital Prometheus

Joined: 20-May-2005
Location: Canada
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 1791 		  Quote Decebal Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 18-May-2006 at 08:36
Again, I would recommend you read Jared Diamond's Guns, Germs and Steel. The jist of it is that for people to develop an advanced civilization, they need an abundant and balanced source of food. The procurement of that is dependent upon the characteristics of the plant and large mammal species in the wild, which could be domesticated. The Middle East and the Fertile Crescent in particular, was particularly favored in this regard, because there were several species of easily domesticable cereals as well as several large mammals suited for domestication. Now, the use of domestic plants and mammals spreads easily from east to west, due to similar climactic conditions, but very slowly from north to south, due to the differences in temperature, aridity, seasons, etc. To spread along a north-south axis, different varieties of plants and domestic animals have to be developed, and that is a very lengthy process.
Thus, for example, wheat only took a few hundred years to spread from the Middle East to Europe, but quite a few thousands (if ever) in Africa. Africans, often relying on native crops which were less efficient than Middle Eastern ones,  only had a few regions where agriculture produced food surpluses which were enough to support an urban population, which is essential for the development of civilization as we know it.
What is history but a fable agreed upon?
Napoleon Bonaparte

Even if you are a minority of one, the truth is the truth.- Mohandas Gandhi

Back to Top
Chilbudios View Drop Down
Arch Duke
Arch Duke
Avatar

Joined: 11-May-2006
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 1900 		  Quote Chilbudios Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 18-May-2006 at 08:48
Again, I would recommend you read Jared Diamond's Guns, Germs and Steel.
While I agree that Black Africa displayed its own civilization, while I agree that in many aspects was inferior to the civilization developed in other corners of the world, I think this book has little value and J. D. is far away from being a scholar.
 
Jared Diamond: "... this very interesting point about the difference between the histories of Greece and Spain. Two really salient, long-term points there which you get as soon as you look at the map is that the coast of Greece is highly indented and the coast of Spain, of the Iberian Peninsula, is not, and that Greece lies immediately adjacent to Asia Minor, whereas Spain lies afar as possible. And the result is that all of those interesting things that arose in the Fertile Crescent, including writing systems, arrived in Europe first in Greece, 7000 BC, agriculture, and the last place they arrived was Spain."
 
"How Different Nations Maintain Wealth and Power While Others Don't..." Neal Conan, Jared Diamond & Victor Davis Hanson. Talk of the Nation. NPR. November 8, 2001
 
Here's a piece of wisdom a la Jared Diamond. As you can see it's about a red herring (the indentation of the coast) and a hilariously trivial role of geography (civilization propagated first in proximity, then in far away regions). If this dude is a scholar, so is more than half of this community LOL

 


Edited by Chilbudios - 18-May-2006 at 08:52
Back to Top
Decebal View Drop Down
Arch Duke
Arch Duke
Avatar
Digital Prometheus

Joined: 20-May-2005
Location: Canada
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 1791 		  Quote Decebal Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 18-May-2006 at 09:01

I recognize that certain aspects of Jared Diamond's theory are weak, and that he sometimes makes some mistakes. Still, I think that his main premise relating to the role of geography and ecology in the domestication and subsequent diffusion of plants and animals, is fundamentally sound.

I did not say myself that the African civilizations are on par with Eurasian or even Meso-American ones. The point that I'm trying to get across is that they did the best they could given the hand that they were dealt, and that Africa's slow development is not due to some inherent lack of innovation and curiosity, as machine has affirmed.



Edited by Decebal - 18-May-2006 at 09:02
What is history but a fable agreed upon?
Napoleon Bonaparte

Even if you are a minority of one, the truth is the truth.- Mohandas Gandhi

Back to Top
Chilbudios View Drop Down
Arch Duke
Arch Duke
Avatar

Joined: 11-May-2006
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 1900 		  Quote Chilbudios Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 18-May-2006 at 09:35
I am not persuaded by almost none of the fundaments of Jared Diamond's theory though I agree partially with them, but honestly it would be so hard not to agree with. Of course, exogenous causes modify the history of humankind - be them obvious causes like a catastrophy or a geographical constraint - you already mentioned the isolation and the difficulty of land communications between North Africa and "Black Africa" - or less obvious causes like the Little Ice Age from the second half of last millenium.
Yet, I don't think a relative small specificity in nutrition or similar points Jared Diamond tries to emphasize are causes for the great historical successes or insuccesses of the humankind. I don't think we can ultimately rewrite our history from the history of our natural environment. I think it's a question of political correctness and ideological justice to transfer a fictional blame from the people to their environment. I see it as a doctrine Jared Diamond first subscribed to then tried to find some arguments to back it up. I don't have informations at hand to blame the individual or his community, his/their structure, abilities, curiosity, desires - but I can't follow Jared Diamond neither.
I believe in the specificity of the culture (and consequently of the civilization). A proper specificity given by human creativity, by human conflicts and interactions. Humans and their environment both create and alter the civilizations. Yet, human mind is a great cathalyst, greater than the superiority of wheat over yams.
 
I don't like V. D. Hanson, and also I disagree with some of his claims, but still some of his counter-arguments seem valid to me:
 


Edited by Chilbudios - 18-May-2006 at 09:43
Back to Top
Tobodai View Drop Down
Tsar
Tsar
Avatar
Retired AE Moderator

Joined: 03-Aug-2004
Location: Antarctica
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 4310 		  Quote Tobodai Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 18-May-2006 at 17:21
Everytime I hear culture is important in the development of human societies I think its an even bigger cop out than using jared Daimond.  To me culture is nothing but the superficial veneer over normal people.  What they eat, what they wear, who cares? Thats not relivant in the same way what peoples diets isnt relevant.
 
Daimond is wrong of course, his broad platitutdes mean nothing, but all broad platitudes mean nothing in the course of historical study.  He is right that geography is important but he cites all the wrong reasons.
 
A great example for Africa is the simple fact that for mass urbanization to occur , as anywhere else, you must have large settled communities.  This is an impossibility in every place south of Ghana due to disease.  WHy is disease so deadly? Same reason you cant have Africans using giraffes and zebras in domestic burden...things that evolve with people are either more effective at fleeing them or killing them. 
 
Since most social scientists and historians have a lacking understanding of biology and havent written massive papers about bubonic plague and influenze like I have they obviously dont get how amazingly important disease and its virulence effects history, not just in sudden events, but overall.
 
You want a good factually correct book about human civilizations? Try Felip Fernandez Armesto's Civilization.
"the people are nothing but a great beast...
I have learned to hold popular opinion of no value."
-Alexander Hamilton
Back to Top
Chilbudios View Drop Down
Arch Duke
Arch Duke
Avatar

Joined: 11-May-2006
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 1900 		  Quote Chilbudios Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 18-May-2006 at 19:51

Culture is not only what people eat or wear, culture is what people build, draw, play, listen, speak, value, believe, think, culture is everything people do. Culture is human activity. This is the most general definition I can think of. Of course, the term gets refined while concerning a particular topic - when we talk about archaeology we talk of material culture, for instance.

Africa had its own large settlements and its own civilizations. Decebal already provided some hints, needless to reissue them (and be amazed - Zimbabwe is way south of Ghana!). Africa had archaic domestication (what about zebra or giraffe? is lynx or deer domesticated? what about amoebas then? Ermm). http://www.naturalhistorymag.com/master.html?http://www.naturalhistorymag.com/0203/0203_feature.html and I'm sure you may find many other online resources if you're interested and you'll look for.

Most historians may not properly understand biology, but hey, we're talking history. And there are enough decent historians who may appeal to their colleagues of a different specialisation. Pollen analyses, for instance, are widely used.
The histories of epidemics and human pathologies are, with no doubt, interesting and may provide a lot of useful information. But to claim the history of humankind is reductible to that is a bit too much.



Edited by Chilbudios - 18-May-2006 at 19:59
Back to Top
Decebal View Drop Down
Arch Duke
Arch Duke
Avatar
Digital Prometheus

Joined: 20-May-2005
Location: Canada
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 1791 		  Quote Decebal Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 19-May-2006 at 13:22

Yes, actually I had meant to mention Zimbabwe as well. Actually thinking about it reminds me of machine's general attitude: when white explorers first discovered Great Zimbabwe, they developed all these wild theories about a lost race of white people having built them. King Solomon's mines, Ophir, Arabs.. all these wild theories were given as alternatives to avoid facing the most obvious explanation....

Anyway, we're now diverging on a different discussion altogether: about the relative importance of culture, geography, innovation, diet, etc. on the development of human society. Perhaps it might be worth to open up a separate topic on a forum where more people go: say World History or Intellectual Discussion?
What is history but a fable agreed upon?
Napoleon Bonaparte

Even if you are a minority of one, the truth is the truth.- Mohandas Gandhi

Back to Top
Tobodai View Drop Down
Tsar
Tsar
Avatar
Retired AE Moderator

Joined: 03-Aug-2004
Location: Antarctica
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 4310 		  Quote Tobodai Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 19-May-2006 at 16:14
Yes culture is all those things, but it is not the root of those things only the reflection.  People dress a certain way because of the climate of where they live, they beleive in a certain type of government because of the realities around them (absolute monarchy in Egypt due to the ease of control over th epopulation made possible by then clustering around the Nile.  Greater tolerance of religion and peoples in nomadic societies because they move around and exposed to more types of people etc.  Of course we talk about culture because thats all that culture is at its base, differing aesthetics.
 
What is culture aside from a reaction to your immediate surroundings?  It seems many peoples arguements is that its some sort of mystical entity that wafts around different people and there seems no rational basis when someone says that whatever carved trinkets one person prays to makes them alot different than another.
 
And of course Africa had its own civilizations, I know about them far better than you or 99% of the people on this forum hell i ve written essays about them.  And I know that those civilizations are often isolated from others, cutting down on information exchange drastically.  I know they are confined to the Nile, Ethiopian highlands, and the Sahel (and Zimbabwe all the way out there) and do you know why they seem so confined and not lasting? Tseste flies and endemic disease.  You cant have large draft animals in most of Africa because of tseste fly, you cant have lasting cities in most places south of there due to disease and north of there due to desert.  You end up with a narrow strip of usable land for civilizations cut off from others save through indirect routes.  Its like taking a swath of the Eurasian steppe and placing it imbetween a junge and a desert.  Lacks the oporotunity of many other places.
 
This is why all domesticated  aminals in Africa come from somewhere else.  You can tame elephants and zebras but not domesticate them as they grew up with people in the same area and thus have adapted to resist people better.  The elephant is worth bringing up as well because its a menace to agriculture and a competitor for resources.  To this day elephants in some areas devour huge amounts of human crops.
 
You still have not (and no one ever does) respond to my point that diseases evolving alongside people prevent urbanization and thus urban progress.  No one ever responds to that point they all just conveniently ignore it.  I have yet to see a good counter argument but if you have on eplease break the record and share.
 
"the people are nothing but a great beast...
I have learned to hold popular opinion of no value."
-Alexander Hamilton
Back to Top
hugoestr View Drop Down
Tsar
Tsar

Suspended

Joined: 13-Aug-2004
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 3987 		  Quote hugoestr Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 19-May-2006 at 18:36
You are biased. You came here to discuss why Africa is a wasteland. When it was shown to you that it wasn't, you keep dismissing it.
Back to Top
Chilbudios View Drop Down
Arch Duke
Arch Duke
Avatar

Joined: 11-May-2006
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 1900 		  Quote Chilbudios Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 20-May-2006 at 19:38
Originally posted by Tobodai


Yes culture is all those things, but it is not the root of those things only the reflection.  People dress a certain way because of the climate of where they live,
My first impulse was to answer ... and what about fashion? But I don't want to bury this reply under a blunt rhetoric. Climate dictates little ... to simplify it think of sweaters, rain coats and t-shirts. So many types of each, and you don't switch your red cloth over your blue cloth, or your branded cloth over your not-branded cloth on the basis of a weather pattern. Human history is not written only by having a cloth reflecting the temperature, humidity, wind speed, but also having a cloth reflecting your social status, your own personality, and many other things but the weather. I really wonder why do we have to debate such a trivial thing like this...

they beleive in a certain type of government because of the realities around them (absolute monarchy in Egypt due to the ease of control over th epopulation made possible by then clustering around the Nile.  Greater tolerance of religion and peoples in nomadic societies because they move around and exposed to more types of people etc.
Non sequitur. There were absolute monarchies also when people were not crowded along a river (let's look at more recent examples - Louis XIV of France, the tsarist Russia or Saudi Arabia nowadays), but also your geography pattern also knew other types of government (today's Egypt is not an absolute monarchy!!). There were tolerant religious communities in non-nomadic societies (Graeco-Roman Mediteranean space, so many of nowadays secular countries), likewise there were intolerant nomads (you can find examples among the wandering Germanic tribes after they converted to Arianism).

thats all that culture is at its base, differing aesthetics.

What is culture aside from a reaction to your immediate surroundings?  It seems many peoples arguements is that its some sort of mystical entity that wafts around different people and there seems no rational basis when someone says that whatever carved trinkets one person prays to makes them alot different than another

Not at all. Like I already specified, culture at base is human activity. It's not reductible neither to geography, nor to climate, nor to aesthetics, nor to mysticism. Even the things we write here are part of the human culture and they're not conditioned by any of the above, just by our own human intellectual yearnings (well, sometimes by frustrations, boredom or other such less "noble" impulses Tongue).

 
 
And of course Africa had its own civilizations, I know about them far better than you or 99% of the people on this forum hell i ve written essays about them
Ad hominem and non sequitur. You don't know what I know. You don't know what they know. And that you've written essays doesn't make you neither a scholar, nor a warrant of the truth. Shameful to fight for an argumentative victory in such a way. Thumbs Down

I know they are confined to the Nile, Ethiopian highlands, and the Sahel (and Zimbabwe all the way out there) and do you know why they seem so confined and not lasting?
Not really. On the lower Niger or Congo there were mighty kingdoms and statal formations. There were also well urbanised areas in the East Africa in today's Kenya (Kush*tic) or Tanzania (Bantu).

Your previous claims about your knowledge are now bitterly hilarious.
 
 
You cant have large draft animals in most of Africa because of tseste fly
Ad nauseam. I provided you a link which supports the contrary. You haven't challenged any of those claims.
As for the tsetse fly you could at least know that it feeds with the blood from vertebrate animals, not only bovines particularily. What about the African antelopes? Ermm

you cant have lasting cities in most places south of there due to disease and north of there due to desert.
Huh? Timbuktu exists from the times of the Ghana Empire (an empire which was affected by desert!). The Moorish armies that assaulted the Songhai Empire at the end of 16th century did more damage to the city than your assumed environmental harshness!

This is why all domesticated  aminals in Africa come from somewhere else.

Ad nauseam. Check that previous link but also the following ones:
http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2002/04/0411_020411_africacattle.html
http://www.afrol.com/printable_article/11986
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aurochs
http://www.embryoplus.com/cattle_nguni.html - feel free to explore other types of African cattle, you will find a historical brief for each

You can tame elephants and zebras but not domesticate them as they grew up with people in the same area and thus have adapted to resist people better.
Ad nauseam and red herring. Already clarified.



The elephant is worth bringing up as well because its a menace to agriculture and a competitor for resources.  To this day elephants in some areas devour huge amounts of human crops.
So do locusts, blizzard, drought ... the point is? Also, do you think the Indian elephant is more merciful?

You still have not (and no one ever does) respond to my point that diseases evolving alongside people prevent urbanization and thus urban progress.
Because it is false. Africa had its own urban centers proven by archaeology and written testimonies. D. P. Mannix and M. Cowley in their book (1962) covering Atlantic slave trade describe the Western African coast as having cities larger than most of their contemporary (16-17th century) European counterparts and kingdoms and statal communities of the size of the European states. The African herds of cattle are mentioned as well! Along with original weaving methods (talking of clothes and culture Wink), iron working, codes of laws, flourishing agriculture and economies.
 
.


Edited by Chilbudios - 20-May-2006 at 19:55
Back to Top
Tobodai View Drop Down
Tsar
Tsar
Avatar
Retired AE Moderator

Joined: 03-Aug-2004
Location: Antarctica
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 4310 		  Quote Tobodai Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 21-May-2006 at 18:14
Actually Chilbudiois, you make excellent points and you have convinced me of many of your points, indeed, I would concede victory to you on most of your points after double checking your sources for articles.  However some things I still take issue with.  For example absolute monarchy was a movement, like all movements at its core, which spread for some place to another.  A movement is often adopted because a society held in high regard has it, a prestige symbol.  Usually the core of this practice does indeed have to do with geography, most things like absolut ekingship have roots in river valley civilizations and often work quite differently in differnet places, such as the rise of feudalism in places more open.
 
And of course your absolutely right to bring up the swahili trading states which i completely neglected to mention.  They were the westernmost urbanized outpost of the most massive maritime trade network in human history.  The reason i did not bring these things up was I was convinced that your argument rested on the basis that Africans were inferior peoples either culturally or racially and hence I used a very selective argument in order to try to dispell it.  i see this is not the case at all and indeed you are advocating the point that  I usually advocate, that Africa DID have some dman fine civilizations. The trick is, that argument does not work against users like machine and his stormfront minions because they will just say its some foreign element and thus it is one I tend not to use.  I see I was mistaken to use it on you.
 
of course I have one question, if we can come to the conclusion that we agree on these points than are you trying to assert that its completely African culture that prevented africa from having a more decisiove role in modern history?  I do not beleive any culture can stifle its individuals from achieving something through sheer force of will otherwise China with is repressive Confucianism could never have been the power that it was.  My personal and actual beleif if rooted in the lack of harbors, and thus th elack of an actually respectable maritime development.
"the people are nothing but a great beast...
I have learned to hold popular opinion of no value."
-Alexander Hamilton
Back to Top
Chilbudios View Drop Down
Arch Duke
Arch Duke
Avatar

Joined: 11-May-2006
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 1900 		  Quote Chilbudios Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 22-May-2006 at 08:14
Originally posted by Tobodai

For example absolute monarchy was a movement, like all movements at its core, which spread for some place to another.  A movement is often adopted because a society held in high regard has it, a prestige symbol. 
To avoid a continuous expansion of this discussion, how would you relate the aforementioned monarchies - ancient Egypt, Louis XIV's France, tsarist Russia and nowadays Saudi Arabia?
 
Usually the core of this practice does indeed have to do with geography, most things like absolut ekingship have roots in river valley civilizations and often work quite differently in differnet places, such as the rise of feudalism in places more open.
France is at the same time open and has valleys like Seine or Loire. France witnessed both feudalism and absolute monarchy. Can't find the evidences for a strong correlation between government systems and geography.
 
And of course your absolutely right to bring up the swahili trading states which i completely neglected to mention.  They were the westernmost urbanized outpost of the most massive maritime trade network in human history.  The reason i did not bring these things up was I was convinced that your argument rested on the basis that Africans were inferior peoples either culturally or racially and hence I used a very selective argument in order to try to dispell it.  i see this is not the case at all and indeed you are advocating the point that  I usually advocate, that Africa DID have some dman fine civilizations. The trick is, that argument does not work against users like machine and his stormfront minions because they will just say its some foreign element and thus it is one I tend not to use.  I see I was mistaken to use it on you.
I'm glad we clarified this point.  Smile
 
of course I have one question, if we can come to the conclusion that we agree on these points than are you trying to assert that its completely African culture that prevented africa from having a more decisiove role in modern history?  I do not beleive any culture can stifle its individuals from achieving something through sheer force of will otherwise China with is repressive Confucianism could never have been the power that it was.  My personal and actual beleif if rooted in the lack of harbors, and thus th elack of an actually respectable maritime development.
I am not trying to put a blame, just to point out that human societies follow different evolution paths, and consequently they're not always rushing for rocketry or mobile telephony. Human culture is at the same time both cause and effect, it represents who we are, where we came from and where we go.
A history represents a point of view. Certainly Africa played a role in the modern history. Changing the point of view will change the significance. If you're judging through the lenses of the so called "Western culture" you shouldn't wonder why not only large parts of Africa, but also from Americas, Asia or Oceania are somehow weakly represented.
Back to Top
Bulldog View Drop Down
Caliph
Caliph
Avatar

Joined: 17-May-2006
Location: United Kingdom
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 2800 		  Quote Bulldog Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 22-May-2006 at 12:01

What was the most powerfull sub-saharan African Empire/Culture/Civillisation ?
      What we do for ourselves dies with us. What we do for others and the world remains and is immortal.
Albert Pine

Back to Top
 Post Reply Post Reply Page  123>

Forum Jump Forum Permissions View Drop Down

Bulletin Board Software by Web Wiz Forums® version 9.56a [Free Express Edition]
Copyright ©2001-2009 Web Wiz

This page was generated in 0.094 seconds.