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

  FAQ FAQ  Forum Search   Register Register  Login Login

General Observations

 Post Reply Post Reply Page  12>
Author
AksumVanguard View Drop Down
Samurai
Samurai
Avatar

Joined: 01-Feb-2009
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 127
  Quote AksumVanguard Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Topic: General Observations
    Posted: 27-May-2009 at 14:34
Originally posted by Dolphin

You just took me out of context Aksumvanguard! It was meant ironically. I agree with what you are saying in general though.

LOL

I know no offense taken,I'm just trying to make my point clear
Back to Top
Dolphin View Drop Down
Arch Duke
Arch Duke

Suspended

Joined: 06-Feb-2007
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 1551
  Quote Dolphin Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 27-May-2009 at 11:42
You just took me out of context Aksumvanguard! It was meant ironically. I agree with what you are saying in general though.
Back to Top
AksumVanguard View Drop Down
Samurai
Samurai
Avatar

Joined: 01-Feb-2009
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 127
  Quote AksumVanguard Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 27-May-2009 at 09:45
This post just reasserts of how some people are stuck in their own turtle shelled point of viewof the world. There is a reason why I posted the civilized establishments Tarchitt Walata and Taganat Cliffs of Maurentania,
http://www.allempires.net/forum_posts.asp?TID=27072
those settlements were very important becasue they gave rise to the Ghana civilization we  know today.

Of course European  and Middle Eastern civilization should be studied they've had more impact throughout the world. But to say Sub-Sahran Africa was incapabable of producing civilzations,as metal working,building stone buildings,having a commerce system,having roads, of its borne ingenuitey  then your wrong.

Originally posted by pinguin

However, if you measure the developments in science and technology, field by field, and compare Subsaharan Africa with Europe, of course the comparison would be a disaster for Subsaharan Africa. The simply fact is that European culture developed a lot more and invented a lot more things than Subsaharan Africa.

Now here is a double edge sword to what you are saying.First and foremost alot of Roman inventions were based on greek knowledge,the catapult, Crossbow,Water Mill,Aqueducts,etc were based on knowledge of the greeks. Archimededes,Hero,and Pythagorus were studied extensively by the Romans later on.Later on the Romans such capitulated a vast majority these ideas and knowledge and disperesed to other lands they conqured in Europe.Most of which relatively didn't have a establishments.

Before Hadrian conquered Brtiain  most the inhabitants were living relatively simple,after he built Hadrians Wall,the ancestors of the Scottish were considered to be inferior to that of the new Roman citizens of Brittania,this Roman impact still reverberates to this day.   During the Laws of Conquest English and Irish were forbade to marry because of the  outlook of Brtainians to Irish.After the fall of the Roman empire did the Varangians Vikings,Saxons,Jutes,Anglos,Suevi,Goths build up a civilzation right away ,No. They wre gradullay christanized and brought into the old roman culture.The forst Post Roman in old Roman structures such as St.Angelos ,the Collessium and so on. The encastellions  and absolutism would be the rise of Europe.Europe in the Medieval times did not really sprout up their own advance societes until the end of Medieval times. They were basically living on the vestiges of the past.

The Vedic math,ALgebra,and Technolgical innovations in the east were all transported to Europe. They were stil later on able to rule over most of the people that created it would you those were inferior.



Originally posted by pinguin

That's simply the truth. In inventions alone Subsaharan Africa can compare with Australia and New Guinea, but hardly with the Pacific Cultures, Southeast Asia or the Americas, and of course it can't compare at all with China, India, the Muslim world or Europe.

 


In what way exactly? See the flaw here is that "the Americas", are 2 continents not to mention another sub region compared to that of the Central America. And most historians will say that throughout the majority of time most of North America didn' t have any urban developments or technology equivalent to Europeans ,according to European historians themselves.And the fact is that throughout time Meso-AMerica had dozens  civilizations just as that of Those regions in East Africa in tha past. So did the Andean region in South America,which had Half a dozen or more advanced ancient societies, but what about the rest of South America,which lived in relatively simple.
 
[/QUOTE]

Originally posted by Parnell

Its not that people deny sub saharan Africa has been an equally valid example of human experience, its just that we don't believe it is or should be considered amongst the pinnacles of human achievement.


Human achievement,Shocked I think the phrase your looking for is "human influence". To say there wasn't any achievements is hogwash, they didn't spread throughout the world,but they did Nonetheless occur in certain regions.Despite the fact that East africans did conquer some portions of Semitic regions in the Middle East whose to know what would of happened if circumstances were different.


Originally posted by Parnell


To be blunt, liberal democracy and all which that entails did not emerge from the African savannah.


I would't say liberal democracy actually emerged in Europe either. They were accidental occurences due to circumstances. For example the Greeks didn't really have a republic, but democratic  state was not to much of the same of democracy today. The Romans had a republic but they didn't hold any elections of their  Emperors. Actually the Rajputtins of India did have a republics.The French Revolution and Napoleon  invading in Prussia,Holland,and other place threaten the Monarchal systems of Europe.The modern democracy was refined during different periods of time


 
Originally posted by Parnell

the Second World War are all of superior importance to the development of the western world and of the human mind in general.



What do you mean?That the Colonial European powers dragging other nations into war is of importance.

Originally posted by pinguin


Simple, by the number of inventions, and the impact of them in the development of science and technology.
 
Alright,we know about the Meso American and Andean inventions were good but how did the rest of the world incorporate them into their societies, They were great but you have to state the impact.

Originally posted by pinguin


hat's simply the truth. In inventions alone Subsaharan Africa can compare with Australia and New Guinea, but hardly with the Pacific Cultures, Southeast Asia or the Americas, and of course it can't compare at all with China, India, the Muslim world or Europe.



What exactly are you taking about  do you know that the 1000s of kingdoms spread throught the IndoChina,Indonesia,Malaysia and the rest of Polynesia came from Sino-Asian and  Indian cultures.
Originally posted by Dolphin


 If all we have to offer each other is inventions, then by God, you'd be right, Sub Saharan Africa has nothing to offer any of us.
 

Heres a few enginners from africa you might not know about

Haile Shawul and Kitaw Ejigu







Edited by AksumVanguard - 27-May-2009 at 21:31
Back to Top
Guests View Drop Down
Guest
Guest
  Quote Guests Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 21-May-2009 at 18:20
Indeed. That's true. However, Europe global importance has declined since the end of World War II. In the beginning of the 20th century most of the globe was under European rule, and the exceptions were the Americas, China and most of the Muslim World. The Europeans ruled India, Congo, Algiers, Vietnam and even controlled China. Besides, Europe had a large percentage of world population and was a main source of immigrants, capitals, ideas, etc.
 
Today, that is not true anymore. Europe is today just a region more, or equally or less importance than North America or East Asia. Today, the center of change is in the United States, and not in Europe. The fastest growing economies are in East Asia, a region that probably will surpass Europe in the near future. India is free, the Middle East is free, even Africa is free.
 
Even more, if you ask anyone outside Europe they will tell you that the most important region (or country) to shape the modern world is United States and not Europe! Most of modern culture, from Rock to Jazz, from the movie industry and Walt Disney to Broadway, and the leaders in science, economical ideas, social changes, fashion, name it; everything comes from the United States, and not Europe.
 
Add to that list, the development of nukes, the space program, the development of the computer, modern mathematical techniques, modern economy, etc. Without even taking into account the U.S. military power! The contribution of the United States is outstanding and surpasses by far the European.
 
And when those ideas don't come from Europe they come from Japan: from Mario Bros. to the mangas, I bet Japan has more weight in pop culture than Europe. If anything, Europe is anecdotical, but the center is in the states.
 
In such landscape, Europe has lost a lot of its importance. Of course the intelectual contribution of Europe's golden age aren't forgotten, but that doesn't means Europe is the center of the wheel anymore. You can notice it as well in the interest of people for China, India, Arab and other cultures.
 
 
 


Edited by pinguin - 21-May-2009 at 18:36
Back to Top
Parnell View Drop Down
Suspended
Suspended

Suspended

Joined: 04-Apr-2007
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 1409
  Quote Parnell Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 21-May-2009 at 17:12
Its all relative. The political developments of Chile in the 1970s are of much greater significance to 'your' world than they ever could be for mine. Similarily the Irish troubles of the second half of the 20th century have shaped my world, and hence of relevance and interest to me.

But for the broader picture, as in the very basics of globalisation and international trade, the history of Europe has to be considered most important to the shaping of the modern world. Since it all essentially emerged from Europe. (And of course you could point out that both the cradle of life and civilisation was in the African continent)
Back to Top
Guests View Drop Down
Guest
Guest
  Quote Guests Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 21-May-2009 at 16:43
Just an observation. Europeans of course would focus on Europe above all, because it is theirs land. Other countries overseas will consider Europe important but not the focus of everything. Chinese, Indians, Middle Eastern and other peoples consider theirs local history as important as European, if not more. With respect to people of the Americas, it is true that North Americans still focus mainly in Europe, but in Latin America, particularly in Hispanic America, our local civilizations  (Mayan, Aztec, Moche, Incas, etc.) and cultures (Taino, Guarani, Tupi, Quechua, Mapuche) are important to us. With respect to Europe, we see that continent from the Iberian perspective.
 
So, I don't agree that Europe is the center of the pie, at least not anymore. If anything, the focus is in the U.S. since last century.


Edited by pinguin - 21-May-2009 at 16:45
Back to Top
Parnell View Drop Down
Suspended
Suspended

Suspended

Joined: 04-Apr-2007
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 1409
  Quote Parnell Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 21-May-2009 at 16:30
Originally posted by Kwame

It seems like someone obviously has no bloody idea of how a steam engine works or of what relative little importance John Locke's (not unique, not the first) thoughts are actually are, or from whence a lot of the knowledge written down by the ancient Greeks came from; then again, this forum serves a specific purpose for a specific group of people. Go ahead, stoke your egos all you want.
 
Always realize that human societies, until very recently, behaved like the human being: unchainging until otherwise forced. As such, I'm pretty sure that if the ancient Greeks were isolated in the jungles of Nigeria, they'd have ended up pretty much where the Nigerians were hundreds of years ago.


You see, your throwing the racial thing about. I never said about Africans, all I'm saying is that the area's of interest to a historian are naturally focused towards Europe because that is where our modern world has been shaped.

I agree with you that geographical and climatic conditions are ultimately what decides the progress of a people; Great idea's and political development cannot sprout forth when the soil doesn't grow anything. But just because I focus on 'these ancient Greeks' as you like to call them, doesn't mean its for racial reasons. I'm not denying that a colony of black people in the Mediterranean in the Classical era could have potentially ahcieved just as much as a colony of white people, so please leave that sort of thinking at the door.
Back to Top
Carcharodon View Drop Down
Baron
Baron


Joined: 04-May-2007
Location: Sweden
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 486
  Quote Carcharodon Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 21-May-2009 at 12:35
Originally posted by pinguin

Obviously, everything invented up to 60.000 years ago was done in Africa.
I don't think, so, that's what it meant the guy that opened this thread.
 
The earliest ceramics in west Africa correponds well in time with East Asian ceramics, round 11000 - 13000 BP. What kind of influence those ceramic traditions had on other parts of the world is not fully understood yet though.
 
 
Back to Top
Guests View Drop Down
Guest
Guest
  Quote Guests Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 21-May-2009 at 01:46
That's true. Eurasia developed because it was a network of civilizations tied together by roads, like the famous Silk road. The Greek developed because they were at the center of a web of commerce that spead from Iberia to India and beyond.

With respect to the steam machine it is well known the first prototypes of turbines were made in Greece. However, it is less known that Jeronimo Ayanz, Spanish, invented the first steam machine to take out water from mines, a century earlier than Newcomen.

What is the world indebt to relative recent Subsaharan Africa? Probably iron. Another thing it may be the binary system, and the earliest fractals. I put a post in the section on Africa about African Mathematics where I explained that.

(With respect to egos, I am a lot more interested in the Americas than in Eurasia, Africa or the Pacific. After all, I am from the New World, so my ego goes with Ancient local civilizations, like Aztecs, Mayas, Moches, Incas, and all the other.)





Edited by pinguin - 21-May-2009 at 01:51
Back to Top
Kwame View Drop Down
Immortal Guard
Immortal Guard


Joined: 20-May-2009
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 3
  Quote Kwame Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 21-May-2009 at 01:30
It seems like someone obviously has no bloody idea of how a steam engine works or of what relative little importance John Locke's (not unique, not the first) thoughts are actually are, or from whence a lot of the knowledge written down by the ancient Greeks came from; then again, this forum serves a specific purpose for a specific group of people. Go ahead, stoke your egos all you want.
 
Always realize that human societies, until very recently, behaved like the human being: unchainging until otherwise forced. As such, I'm pretty sure that if the ancient Greeks were isolated in the jungles of Nigeria, they'd have ended up pretty much where the Nigerians were hundreds of years ago.
Back to Top
Dolphin View Drop Down
Arch Duke
Arch Duke

Suspended

Joined: 06-Feb-2007
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 1551
  Quote Dolphin Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 21-May-2009 at 01:12
WinkTongueSmileTongueWinkTongue
Originally posted by pinguin

Originally posted by Dolphin

Once again you have surpassed yourself Pinguin. I really can't be getting into this tonight I have an exam in the morning, but let me say this much. How do you define 'development'? What does 'development' actually mean? Can you say assuredly that the changes made in the society, industry, economy etc of the China, India, Europe are 'better' than that of Sub Saharan Africa? What objective tool are you using to measure that?
 
I defined my terms very clearly. I was talking about science and technology, or science and engineering if you preffer. How you measure it? Simple, by the number of inventions, and the impact of them in the development of science and technology.
 
Originally posted by Dolphin


 If all we have to offer each other is inventions, then by God, you'd be right, Sub Saharan Africa has nothing to offer any of us.
 
That was the point.

And a point well made Pinguin. I must concede you have won this one! I surely have seen the error of my inferior judgement. Well done and have a nice day SmileTongueWinkBig smileSmile
Back to Top
Guests View Drop Down
Guest
Guest
  Quote Guests Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 21-May-2009 at 00:46
Obviously, everything invented up to 60.000 years ago was done in Africa.
I don't think, so, that's what it meant the guy that opened this thread.
Back to Top
Carcharodon View Drop Down
Baron
Baron


Joined: 04-May-2007
Location: Sweden
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 486
  Quote Carcharodon Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 20-May-2009 at 23:34

Inventions and technological development is also a matter of time. At different times the initiative of important inventions was in different parts of the world.

There was a time when sub saharan Africa invented very important things and concepts that lay the ground for further development and inventions. For example advanced, bifacial points was invented in Africa, the earliest examples of rock art (shaping of cliffs in caves) was from Africa. The earliest bone points, bone knives and harpoons are from Africa. The earliest known forms of necklases and similar adornment are found in Africa.  And, together with East Asia, Africa also have the earliest ceramics. Many of these invetions are crucial for later development and later technological advances in other parts of the world.
 
And one can also find that the earliest signs of advanced religion comes from Africa, a factor that would become extremely important for the future of mankind.
Back to Top
Guests View Drop Down
Guest
Guest
  Quote Guests Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 20-May-2009 at 20:57
Originally posted by Kwame

... 
To me, that's presumptive (euphemism). Afterall, if we are to believe the progression of human evolution, then precisely what ranks higher: the invention of pottery or refrigeration? Secondly, who gets the credit for an invention when the development of knowledge is not as simplistic as too many here seem to want to think? How much credit does one give to the Islamic civilizations who built on the work of the eastern roman empire? How much credit does one give to the inventions of the europeans who took from what the muslims had built unpon? How do you classify an European civilization? And when you say subsharan Africa do you take into account how recent some areas became fully inhabited? How relevant a statement is it to say that southern Africa hasn't achieved much when in reality the middle east has known settled humans for much, much longer? How big is the American continent for you too group so easily?
 
I don't believe in the progress of human evolution. Social evolution has few things to do with genetics at all. There are societies more advanced than others in technology and science, and that has nothing to do with genes. In other terms, that a region has developed less inventions than other doesn't assure that will continue to be the same in the future at all.
 
Originally posted by Kwame

... 
It's these kinds of broad generalizations that makes the threads on here so irritating to me, especially when posts are made with such arrogance. No, you are wrong to suggest that your simplistic and utterly subjective ranking of "inventions" supercedes anything.
 
I am right in saying that the number of invention is a way to measure the relative advancement of civilizations; not people. After all, the West invented the art of fugue, Calculus, Mathematical Physics, Chemistry, the steam machine, airplanes, telecommunications, and most of the material things of the modern world. That's a fact. We shouldn't deny that to accomodate agendas or to fight for social justice.
 
Back to Top
Guests View Drop Down
Guest
Guest
  Quote Guests Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 20-May-2009 at 20:47
Originally posted by Dolphin

Once again you have surpassed yourself Pinguin. I really can't be getting into this tonight I have an exam in the morning, but let me say this much. How do you define 'development'? What does 'development' actually mean? Can you say assuredly that the changes made in the society, industry, economy etc of the China, India, Europe are 'better' than that of Sub Saharan Africa? What objective tool are you using to measure that?
 
I defined my terms very clearly. I was talking about science and technology, or science and engineering if you preffer. How you measure it? Simple, by the number of inventions, and the impact of them in the development of science and technology.
 
Originally posted by Dolphin


 If all we have to offer each other is inventions, then by God, you'd be right, Sub Saharan Africa has nothing to offer any of us.
 
That was the point.
Back to Top
Parnell View Drop Down
Suspended
Suspended

Suspended

Joined: 04-Apr-2007
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 1409
  Quote Parnell Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 20-May-2009 at 20:35
Originally posted by Dolphin

Originally posted by Parnell

Its not that people deny sub saharan Africa has been an equally valid example of human experience, its just that we don't believe it is or should be considered amongst the pinnacles of human achievement.


Who are 'we'? Is there a collective conscious on AllEmpires that I haven't tuned into? Plus, taking the example of sub Saharan Africa and saying that it shouldn't be considered amongst the pinnacles of human achievement is a little arrogant and presumptuous in my view. Who are you, or me, or anyone, to decide what the pinnacles of human achievement are? Is Western history more 'glorious' than African? Do you believe the Occident is superior to the Orient?


 
I don't believe that west is superior to east (I read much of 'Orientalism' earlier in the year, Said bored the hell out of me to absolutely frank. Maybe I should keep away from postcolonial threads such as this...)
Back to Top
Parnell View Drop Down
Suspended
Suspended

Suspended

Joined: 04-Apr-2007
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 1409
  Quote Parnell Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 20-May-2009 at 20:32
Look Dolphin, I recognise everyone as genetically equal to each other, and that there are no inferior or superior races or anything like that. And I recognise the equal importance of all peoples and the equal importance of their history. But if I'm talking about the way in which my world has been shaped (And you're right, it is a western world) then the art of Michaelangelo, the thought of John Locke and the Second World War are all of superior importance to the development of the western world and of the human mind in general. But I should say that when I say 'importance' I really mean that as a very relative term, obviously I view 'the triumph of the west' as of more importance than a Ghanian figure painting. 
 
To be blunt, liberal democracy and all which that entails did not emerge from the African savannah.
 
 


Edited by Parnell - 20-May-2009 at 20:38
Back to Top
Dolphin View Drop Down
Arch Duke
Arch Duke

Suspended

Joined: 06-Feb-2007
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 1551
  Quote Dolphin Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 20-May-2009 at 20:03
Originally posted by pinguin

It depends on how do you measure "superiority". Of course people knows there are no reason to believe in genetical superiority anymore. At least not after the tragical events of WW II.

However, if you measure the developments in science and technology, field by field, and compare Subsaharan Africa with Europe, of course the comparison would be a disaster for Subsaharan Africa. The simply fact is that European culture developed a lot more and invented a lot more things than Subsaharan Africa. That's simply the truth. In inventions alone Subsaharan Africa can compare with Australia and New Guinea, but hardly with the Pacific Cultures, Southeast Asia or the Americas, and of course it can't compare at all with China, India, the Muslim world or Europe.

 
 


Once again you have surpassed yourself Pinguin. I really can't be getting into this tonight I have an exam in the morning, but let me say this much. How do you define 'development'? What does 'development' actually mean? Can you say assuredly that the changes made in the society, industry, economy etc of the China, India, Europe are 'better' than that of Sub Saharan Africa? What objective tool are you using to measure that?

It's the same old story, Africa 'just didn't develop' like everywhere else. It's a 'fact'. They are 'more primitive'. This sort of discourse has been spouted for hundreds of years. The truth of the matter is that development is necessarily construed according to the prevailing ideology of the construer, and for you that is of a dominant western-orientated viewpoint. You see development one way, and judge all other areas according to that. Why not just accept that 'development' cannot be a word thrown around without qualification, as even now it is used by western nations to justify imperialist action against weaker nations, all under the veil of helping those who can't help themselves, and saving those who believe they can. If you think a country, or area, or continent is 'superior' according to the amount of inventions it produces, then you live in a very conscribed world and have a weak view of the human condition. If all we have to offer each other is inventions, then by God, you'd be right, Sub Saharan Africa has nothing to offer any of us. But you can't prove that either. European culture did, of course, develop a lot more. But you can't show me how. So instead of bandying the same old cultural superiority complexes about under the guise of objective and quantifiable reality, just come straight out next time and say what you mean, because at the minute it makes you look a little bit silly.

Back to Top
Kwame View Drop Down
Immortal Guard
Immortal Guard


Joined: 20-May-2009
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 3
  Quote Kwame Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 20-May-2009 at 19:57
Originally posted by Dolphin

Originally posted by Kwame

 

European domination of the world brought with it, European cohesion after millennia of fighting for a relatively small piece of real estate. European domination brought with it, an increase in his sense of superiority-- the European, relative to the other cultures. He then took history and shaped it to fit his worldview, because anything that contradicted this vision of superiority was undesirable to say the least. Over time, minor kingdoms became behemoths, minor kings became emperors, and all good things started from Greece, because after all, they could somehow identify with them? Funny how Asia and its accomplishments are so often dismissed when it seems from the moderate perspective, the world's "greatest" civilization probably existed in China and India! Great cultures have existed everywhere. Some are lost in the jungles of Indonesia and elsewhere. Let's not mistake our ignorance for absence. The track of human history is long, full, and everyone has a place.

 

Either way, keep the conversation going, but don't be crass or get so caught up in the times and a defeatist ideology that seemingly permeates everything, and NEEDS to die because it inevitably slows true progress. And by the way, I am of African descent, in case the name was not a big giveaway. I was born and raised mostly in a village in Ghana, until my early teens-- for those who care when they really shouldn't. Peace.



Hi Kwame,

The question of western thought with regard to the Orient (in terms of how Said defined it) has recently been of interest to me due to college studies, and I must say the course has opened up my eyes a little. I had an exam on postcolonialism today in fact! Are you aware of the field? Not that I know a lot, but the likes of Achebe, Thiong'o, and Homi Bhabha add an interesting insight into things, especially Achebe. His critical theory is a little weak, but his storytelling is brilliant, and not sugar-coated either. I could go on all day about it, but I need to study for tomorrow.

Anyways, you should stick about, you can make a better point when you're here than when you're not! 
I wasn't aware that it was an actually intellectual field, but I have some knowledge of post european coloniasm fo africa-- we are afterall living it, but as with anything, it can always grow. Glad you are enjoying your studies; to me, there's nothing more interesting that the study of human cultures....
 
Achebe and his like worked with a very limited set of knowledge and from a very defensive standpoint, so that inevitably flawed his/their theories and made them highly repulsive to the very same people who probably needed to read his/their message. I saw we take the good from him/them, and not criticize them/him too much, and ignore the bad. We"ll see about sticking around. At least for the day, I'm here. Thanks for your welcome.
Back to Top
Kwame View Drop Down
Immortal Guard
Immortal Guard


Joined: 20-May-2009
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 3
  Quote Kwame Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 20-May-2009 at 19:51
Originally posted by pinguin

However, if you measure the developments in science and technology, field by field, and compare Subsaharan Africa with Europe, of course the comparison would be a disaster for Subsaharan Africa. The simply fact is that European culture developed a lot more and invented a lot more things than Subsaharan Africa. That's simply the truth. In inventions alone Subsaharan Africa can compare with Australia and New Guinea, but hardly with the Pacific Cultures, Southeast Asia or the Americas, and of course it can't compare at all with China, India, the Muslim world or Europe.
  
 
To me, that's presumptive (euphemism). Afterall, if we are to believe the progression of human evolution, then precisely what ranks higher: the invention of pottery or refrigeration? Secondly, who gets the credit for an invention when the development of knowledge is not as simplistic as too many here seem to want to think? How much credit does one give to the Islamic civilizations who built on the work of the eastern roman empire? How much credit does one give to the inventions of the europeans who took from what the muslims had built unpon? How do you classify an European civilization? And when you say subsharan Africa do you take into account how recent some areas became fully inhabited? How relevant a statement is it to say that southern Africa hasn't achieved much when in reality the middle east has known settled humans for much, much longer? How big is the American continent for you too group so easily?
 
It's these kinds of broad generalizations that makes the threads on here so irritating to me, especially when posts are made with such arrogance. No, you are wrong to suggest that your simplistic and utterly subjective ranking of "inventions" supercedes anything.
Back to Top
 Post Reply Post Reply Page  12>

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 0.125 seconds.