Africa: the White man's burden????

I agree with you

Everyone is equal we all are from one race the human race

And i don't think that these groups are trying to claim that the Native Americans were not intelligent enough to establish those civilizations.

And yes i would like to know more about the ancient Amerindians. I myself have native-American in me

OK cool

Are you native American?

My great grandmother was full native American from the Blackfoot Indian tribe.

So i have a very small amount of native American in me.

Okay, seriously. There is no simple answer to the question of the reason why Africa is the way it is in terms of its socioeconomic and ploitical challenges.

First off, in terms of its Ancient history. Do we hold Europe against the standards of Greece and Rome before or during the same time period? no we don't. The fact is that before Roman contact, Western Europe was on the same technological level as many so called primitive African societies. In fact if you look at Celtic architecture at the time you would see that they lived in round huts with thatched roofs identical to those you would find in many parts of Africa. This did not change until Roman domination, and not until much later in the Norse lands. However, these are points that are generally over looked. They certainly have been thus far.

Monumental architecture and technology are not the only hall marks of a sophisticated society. The nomadic Bedouin Arabs of the desert lived in tents and pretty much lived at an almost stone age level of technology, but would we consider them primitive? I don't think so. No do we tend to see the Native Americans of the plains or Eastern Woodlands from the perspective of primitivism. The fact of the matter is that every continent on the face of the Earth, with the exception of Antarctica and Australia has had its examples of sophisticated social structures, impressive technology and architecture as well as more simple societies with lower levels of technology. EVERY CONTINENT and every "race". And even those societies with simpler technology have demonstrated the capacity to learn and modify more advanced technology once they came in contact with it.

Part of the present problem with Africa is due to economic and political destabilization as a result of contact with Europe, which continues to this day, but that is not by any means the only reason.

Prior to European colonization, many areas of Sub Saharan Africa were sparsely populated. The reason for this was that the inhabitants lived in harmony with their environmet. They did not allow their populations to grow past a certain level and they avoided living in certain areas where infectious insects were plentiful. By the way, the Natives of the Eastern woodlands also lived in a similar fashion. However, once they were colonized, their settlement structures were forcibly abandoned. In many cases they were displaced and forced to live in inhospitable environments which they would have avioded in the past, same as has been done to most Natives in the U.S. tjis is just a very simplistic explanation for why they experience the kinds of poverty and mortality due to thinngs like malaria and other debilitating diseases.

Prior to this there were many well organized and managed kingdoms with sophisticated governmental structures, such as Congo. It is also a historical inaccuracy to state that the Europeans and Arabs found these people in a primitive state. The question would be which people. Yes there were some who were very simple, but there were many who were not. With regards to the West African Empires, their civilization was not based on sparks of knowledge gained by contact with Arabs or Berbers. They had contact with Berbers way before the Arab expansion into North Africa, but these people were nomadic pastorialists, where as the West Africans were settled urban societies. We don't know a lot of what was there because its received little attention and because there was no written laguage, (which says nothing since the Maya had no written language, nor did Western Europe at the same time B.C, nor many others).
Nevertheless, we do know that before the Christian era there was a wide spread iron age culture in the area of Nigeria we now call the Nok Culture.

As for the Sahara being a barrier, yes to an extent. It is a mistake to claim that it wasn't until the Arabs that trade routes were established across the Sahara. The area between Morocco, Algerian and Western libya in the north and Mali and Niger in the south is littered withpictographs of chariots. There were in fact trade routes that connected the north and south as far back as the Roman period and possibly before. Of course these trade routes increased during the time of the great Empires when there was a very healthy trade running not only from north to south, but east to west as well. There was regular and booming trade with Egypt and Sudan. Once again, Arab traders and travelers to the area did not find these societies in a state of poverty or chaos, but were amazed at the level of organization wealth and social order that they found. The same was the case with the Portugese when they first established contact with Congo, and Benin.

As for the comment that was made about West African civilizations being unsphisticated. What do you know of African religions? I would dare say not much. As a practitioner, I can tell you that its not what its been made out to be by the Western press. It does have a spiritual philosophy that is every bit as sophisticated and in many ways more complex than many mainstream religions. They are no different in practice than the religious traditions of India we call hinduism. As for anamism. Its hasn't impeded the developement of the Chinese, the Koreans, the Japanese, nor any of the peoples of South East Asia. What they lack, is the bad press and demonization in the Western mind.

I would just like to caution people not to look for simplistic explanations for things that are very complex. Africans are not backward, Arabs are not fundamental terrorist savages bent on the destruction of the west and Italians are not all a bunch of mobsters, Eastern Europeans are not brain less and toothless and the Irish were never the bog crawling sub-humans the British made them out to be. i guess what I'm trying to say is don't make assumptions. Pick up a book or two and read it, travel, and don't just watch your evening new to explain why certain countries are in a state of crisis. There are very real and complex issues which have impacted these parts of the world and we should be aware of them and not be tempted to make simplistic and uninformed general statements.

Originally posted by think Could you go on more with the Chinese an Arabic re-location ?

If you are sayng could their lands be settled in the way as they have as in Africa? You should try reading the newspapers! But go back a couple of centuries and you will find the same pattern of colonization in other lands.

Originally posted by Rakasnumberone Monumental architecture and technology are not the only hall marks of a sophisticated society. The nomadic Bedouin Arabs of the desert lived in tents and pretty much lived at an almost stone age level of technology, but would we consider them primitive? I don't think so. No do we tend to see the Native Americans of the plains or Eastern Woodlands from the perspective of primitivism. The fact of the matter is that every continent on the face of the Earth, with the exception of Antarctica and Australia has had its examples of sophisticated social structures, impressive technology and architecture as well as more simple societies with lower levels of technology. EVERY CONTINENT and every "race". And even those societies with simpler technology have demonstrated the capacity to learn and modify more advanced technology once they came in contact with it.

Why are we talking about the "White" man's burden and not the french,english,spanish,dutch,belgian,german and austrian man's burden?I don't remember any poles or russians colonisating Africa (unfortunately).

Originally posted by Kapetan Kush, Nubia, Ethiopia, Egypt, Morrocco, Congo, Mali, Songhai, Zulu, Kanem, Ghana, have all been civilizations/empires of importance in Africa. ....  And today's Africa is mostly the result of dumbass and careless decisions of whitey's from Western Europe. Mainly British and Dutch and a few others. Combined with the same problems all poor people with crappy leaders have, and you have disaster.

Edited by pinguin - 15-Jul-2008 at 01:51

Originally posted by pinguin   First, whitey participate in the development of the following cultures: Ethiopia, Egypt, Morrocco, Mali, Shonghai and Ghana.  The first three have always had links with the Middle East. The last three started thanks to transaharan commerce with withey, and impulsed by Arab and Muslim traders.   Second, whitey not only colonized Africa but Asia, the Middle East, Latin America and Australia as well. Some of those lands suffered a lot more and a for a longer time the impact of European colonization. All of them, with some exceptions, are these days a lot better than SS Africa. Even North Africa does a lot better than the Africa at the south of the Sahara!   I don't think everything can be blame on whitey, particularly when SS African leaders have shown corruption, mediocrity and lack of concern for theirs fellow countrypeople.

Without a doubt!