Wheres africa been????
Printed From: History Community ~ All Empires
Category: Regional History or Period History
Forum Name: African History
Forum Discription: Talk about African History
URL: http://www.allempires.com/forum/forum_posts.asp?TID=11691
Printed Date: 21-May-2024 at 01:15
Software Version: Web Wiz Forums 9.56a - http://www.webwizforums.com
Topic: Wheres africa been????
Posted By: Guests
Subject: Wheres africa been????
Date 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. |
Replies:
Posted By: Decebal
Date 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) 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 
|
Posted By: Guests
Date 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. ------------- |
Posted By: Tobodai
Date 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 |
Posted By: Decebal
Date 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.
http://www.mabot.com/eastafrica99/lalibela1.html - http://www.mabot.com/eastafrica99/lalibela1.html
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.
http://www.homestead.com/wysinger/nubian105.html - http://www.homestead.com/wysinger/nubian105.html
Check out the following links for example of the high skill of medieval Benin
sculptors and metalworkers.
http://www.hamillgallery.com/BENIN/BeninHorsemen/BeninHorsemen.html - http://www.hamillgallery.com/BENIN/BeninHorsemen/BeninHorsemen.html
http://www.randafricanart.com/Benin_bronze_hip_masks.html - http://www.randafricanart.com/Benin_bronze_hip_masks.html
http://www.zyama.com/benin/pics..htm - http://www.zyama.com/benin/pics..htm
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. ------------- 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
|
Posted By: Anujkhamar
Date Posted: 17-May-2006 at 17:34
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. |
Posted By: Guests
Date 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. ------------- |
Posted By: Decebal
Date 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
|
Posted By: Chilbudios
Date Posted: 18-May-2006 at 08:48
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
 |
Posted By: Decebal
Date 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. ------------- 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
|
Posted By: Chilbudios
Date 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:
http://www.nationalreview.com/books/hanson200505200837.asp - http://www.nationalreview.com/books/hanson200505200837.asp
|
Posted By: Tobodai
Date 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 |
Posted By: Chilbudios
Date 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? 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. |
Posted By: Decebal
Date 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
|
Posted By: Tobodai
Date 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 |
Posted By: hugoestr
Date 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.
------------- |
Posted By: Chilbudios
Date Posted: 20-May-2006 at 19:38
 ).
Your previous claims about your knowledge are now bitterly hilarious.
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? 
Ad nauseam. Check that previous link but also the following ones: http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2002/04/0411_020411_africacattle.html - http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2002/04/0411_020411_africacattle.html http://www.afrol.com/printable_article/11986 - http://www.afrol.com/printable_article/11986 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aurochs - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aurochs http://www.embryoplus.com/cattle_nguni.html - http://www.embryoplus.com/cattle_nguni.html - feel free to explore other types of African cattle, you will find a historical brief for each
 ), iron working, codes of laws, flourishing agriculture and economies. .
|
Posted By: Tobodai
Date 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 |
Posted By: Chilbudios
Date Posted: 22-May-2006 at 08:14
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.
|
Posted By: Bulldog
Date 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 |
Posted By: Decebal
Date Posted: 22-May-2006 at 19:26
|
Miltarily, economically, stability? Depends on the time period... Nubia around 750BC was able to conquer Egypt. Axum/Ethiopia lasted for longer than than 2000 years. Mali could field an army of 200,000 in the 14th century. The Zulu even managed a victory against the might British empire... It's very subjective. ------------- 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
|
Posted By: Quetzalcoatl
Date Posted: 26-May-2006 at 04:57
Well Egypt was fundamentally a black culture which was diluted as they expanded north. It is a fact the military might of Egypt was mostly under the influence of black element, of the southern part. As the latest dynasty was becoming increasing unstable with more asiatics moving into the population, the black militaristic elements did move north to reconquer the territories and restored order. But the elites tended to marry asiatics and gradually became more asian looking. But egytp in essence was black. There features would match more that of the ethiopian than the bantu though. The Egypt could differentiate themselves from nubians and asiatics: they were black but not the type with large noses or big lips.
They would pretty much exactly like those Ethiopian
 Fundamentally one can even say true civilisation started in Africa and expanded into asia and everywhere else. ------------- |
Posted By: Guests
Date Posted: 26-May-2006 at 13:05
|
Mmmm i wonder if the above picture has been tampered with ------------- |
Posted By: Guests
Date Posted: 09-Jun-2006 at 07:37
There wasn`t any "Great Civilization" in Subsaharan Africa,Zimbabwe could be an exception,but as far as i know it served only as a fortress and maybe as a cult center for the few people who lived inside(And surrounding).We cannot count Nubia,Axum,Napata,The Swahili Coast,etc,because they`re all mixed bloods and they built these civilizations because of external influences(The Portuguese castles in Ethiopia are an example...).In West Africa(Ghana,Mali,Songhai,Kanem-Bornu,The Hausa-Fulani Towns,etc...)only exists clay civilizations,i know in Tombuctu there where few illiterates,but they learn in Arabic,so we cannot count as an African achievement. ------------- |
Posted By: Guests
Date Posted: 09-Jun-2006 at 07:55
The majority of the ancient Egyptians look like the modern Egyptians. ------------- |
Posted By: Decebal
Date Posted: 09-Jun-2006 at 12:15
|
and what exactly does "mixed blood" as you call it have to do with the achievements of a civilization? Saying that "they built these civilizations because of external influences" also misses the point. Using this logic, I could say that Rome never truly constitued a great civilization, because it was based on foreign (Greek, Etruscan and Syriac) influences. But I'd be wrong , wouldn't I? Regardless, of the influences on a civilization, it should get the credit for its own achievements. You really should learn more about civilization such as Axum/Ethiopia before you make such statements. They had an advanced culture starting in the 2nd century BC, and had castles long before the Portuguese. "clay civilizations"... to dismiss a civilization because of the materials of construction which it used is ludicrous. Using your logic, Sumer would not count as a civilization because they would be a "mud civilization", using mud bricks for their buildings... Also, yes, in West Africa, the Arabic language was dominant, but civilizations such as Ghana started way before Islam even appeared (around 400AD), and centuries before it reached the region. Should we disconsider the intellectual achievements of say Egypt before the Arab conquest as well, because they speak Arabic now? ------------- 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
|
Posted By: Guests
Date Posted: 09-Jun-2006 at 14:41
Mixed blood means someone with mixed ancestry,in these specific cases, these civilizations were only built just because of these "external influences".
You cannot deny that the caracteristics of these East african civilizations are very diferent of the cultures of the entire continent.
They´re not pure African,that`s my point!
Sumer is a very diferent case,don´t mix things!
The Arabic language wasn`t dominant(Only as a liturgical language.).
I make a mistake,sorry,they don´t learn in Arabic(except the Korhan and some other things.),it`s the alfabet they`ve used that was Arabic. ------------- |
Posted By: Decebal
Date Posted: 09-Jun-2006 at 15:42
|
Is that something we know for sure: that these civilizations were built "only because of external influences"? Axum and Ghana had evolved way before Non-Africans got to those lands. What exactly constitutes an African civilization, when we're talking about a huge continent, which has probably the greatest linguistic variation in the world, and where thousands of different populations, each with their own culture coexist? To outsiders, sub-saharan Africa may seem like a homogenous cultural bloc, but it is very far from that. Talking about a "pure African" civilization is a flawed premise: can we talk about a pure European civilization? Should we disconsider Rome's cultural achievements because they were so influenced by Greece? Should we dismiss Japan's civilization because it was so influenced by thos Chinese outsiders? To me, this attitude is another example of the biased approach taken by Western historians towards Africa. ------------- 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
|
Posted By: Tobodai
Date Posted: 10-Jun-2006 at 04:33
|
Even assuming Abakar was right (which he is not, just who did the Nubians mix with? There were more Nubians in Egypt than vice versa depsite the political control going the other way) that all these civilizations are mix bloods, Decebal is also right to bring up that one could say the same for any civilization. Monotony is the enemy of progress and all new nations are built on the frontiers of old ones who clashed. Rome was influenced by many other peoples cultures and to deny the foreign element in Chinese culture and history would be preposterous but no one would say Rome and China couldnt be counted as Roman or Chinese acheivements. ------------- "the people are nothing but a great beast... I have learned to hold popular opinion of no value." -Alexander Hamilton |
Posted By: Guests
Date Posted: 12-Jun-2006 at 00:18
|
Whats strange is that some people think Africa had these great civilizations. Yet Western Europeans where just Barbarians who were cavemen until the Romans introduced their ways to them. Alot of people do think this aswell.
------------- |
Posted By: Decebal
Date Posted: 12-Jun-2006 at 09:25
|
Well machine, maybe you should browse more of the forum before you start believeing that a lot people just think that Europeans were barbarians before Rome. Here are some topics to the contrary:
http://www.allempires.com/forum/forum_posts.asp?TID=6877&KW=gumelnita - http://www.allempires.com/forum/forum_posts.asp?TID=6877&KW=gumelnita
http://www.allempires.com/forum/forum_posts.asp?TID=10234 - http://www.allempires.com/forum/forum_posts.asp?TID=10234
http://www.allempires.com/forum/forum_posts.asp?TID=9974 - http://www.allempires.com/forum/forum_posts.asp?TID=9974
http://www.allempires.com/forum/forum_posts.asp?TID=9721 - http://www.allempires.com/forum/forum_posts.asp?TID=9721
http://www.allempires.com/forum/forum_posts.asp?TID=5730 - http://www.allempires.com/forum/forum_posts.asp?TID=5730
http://www.allempires.com/forum/forum_posts.asp?TID=1032 - http://www.allempires.com/forum/forum_posts.asp?TID=1032 ------------- 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
|
Posted By: Tobodai
Date Posted: 12-Jun-2006 at 13:59
|
Hell Europeans were probably alot better off as individuals under Gaul and German rule than under Roman rule. ------------- "the people are nothing but a great beast... I have learned to hold popular opinion of no value." -Alexander Hamilton |
Posted By: edgewaters
Date Posted: 13-Jun-2006 at 03:30
Whoa ... name a European or Asian civilization that evolved in a vacuum and didn't have vast foreign influences, then! You can't just discount civilizations because they benefitted from diffusion. If that's the case, then no civilization ever produced in Europe or Asia counts. |
Posted By: Guests
Date Posted: 13-Jun-2006 at 19:23
|
Living in a time of free will coupled with an abundance of credible literature on just about every subject, I feel that ignorance is a choice. Sometimes ignorance truly is bliss.. If staying ignorant allows one to continue to perpertrate their agenda then it most definately is blissful. What I mean is for some believing that Africa had no civlization, innovations or great leaders serves a purpose for that individual.
Maybe it gives them some sort of false sense of superiorty, so believing in the lowly African and the dark continent helps to facilitate those beliefs. Therefore they really have no interest in learning about African history, but are only interested in perpetuating their stereotypical views in order to feel validated. The African continent has been shun for quite sometime and still holds many secrets that have only begun to be told, but what little that is known is quite fascinating to say the least. Besides what greater contribution could a continent give but life itself? Just my 2 cents.
|
Posted By: Tobodai
Date Posted: 13-Jun-2006 at 20:20
|
Thats a very good post, I agree completely. ------------- "the people are nothing but a great beast... I have learned to hold popular opinion of no value." -Alexander Hamilton |
Posted By: Guests
Date Posted: 14-Jun-2006 at 14:51
|
Thank you. I just could never wrap my head around this need for some to deny or dismiss black achievment in antiquity. How is this beneficial to anyone? It reminds me of the my father is stronger than your father spats we have as children. For those of us who enjoy history, isn't the goal to attain a well rounded, balanced, non bias view of history? Or maybe this is the minority view.
Another thing I find interesting is that people speak of Africa as if they have it all figured out. It's not as if there as been this intense interest in Africa outside of Egypt. It's not as if scholars and archaeologist have been knocking each other over trying to get to Africa to study ancient civilizations. Those few scholars and archaeologist that have had an interest Africa outside of Egypt more times that not haven't even recieved enough funding to complete their research.
This leaves us with a very incomplete puzzle, therefore, the information we do have about Africa is fragmented. The last 20 years or so there has been an increased interest in the kingdoms of Nubia, and somewhat in Timbuktu spurred on by SA government and that's about it. I was having a chat with my professor a few weeks back about Nubia and after he scuffeled through his archives, he came across an article that was published in TIME called The Niles other Kingdom by Scott Macleod. French archaeologist discovered exquisite ceramic figurines, bowls and funerary objects at sites in Sudan/Nubia that date from at least 8000 b.c. These findings predate prehistoric finds in Egypt by 3,000 yrs. The article seems to suggest that Nubia not Egypt may have been the first true African civilization.
The excavations still seem to be ongoing. This to me only shows how much we still don't know about Africa, it's shows how much there still is to learn not just in Nubia but the entire continent. I think those of you who want to dismiss black African achievements as less than or inferior need to keep this in mind. Also if it were not for those Africans and that continent none of us would be living and breathing at the moment. I can't think of any contribution bigger than that, I'd think that should garner just a little respect, don't you?
|
Posted By: edgewaters
Date Posted: 14-Jun-2006 at 17:49
That's simple. It makes the question of why Africa is in the situation it is, a more comfortable one to answer. People don't like to take responsibility for their history! It's a history that can potentially embarrass everyone - imperialists, proponents of free trade, proponents of mixed economies, even African nationalists. All these things have failed and in one way or another contributed to the situation. This way, the fundamental flaws in all these ideas don't have to be examined.
Well, that's a factor of the situation in Africa moreso than disinterest. African governments, for the most part, simply don't have the funds or the stability. Archaeology is usually an investment by the local government, in the interest of promoting tourism. So not only do they not have the funds, but the end is often unattainable even if they did due to the often volatile political situation in those countries. No matter how magnificent the history, tourists aren't flooding Iraq, for instance. |
Posted By: Kapikulu
Date Posted: 14-Jun-2006 at 20:58
I would say Mali, with all its achievements,richness and glory. ------------- We gave up your happiness Your hope would be enough; we couldn't find neither; we made up sorrows for ourselves; we couldn't be consoled; A Strange Orhan Veli |
Posted By: Guests
Date Posted: 15-Jun-2006 at 13:48
|
"That's simple. It makes the question of why Africa is in the situation it is, a more comfortable one to answer. People don't like to take responsibility for their history! It's a history that can potentially embarrass everyone - imperialists, proponents of free trade, proponents of mixed economies, even African nationalists. All these things have failed and in one way or another contributed to the situation. This way, the fundamental flaws in all these ideas don't have to be examined." Ahhh yes, this makes perfect sense. It's attempt to justify failures and or the mistreatment of a people by rationalizing that these people deserved this mistreatment(slavery, colonialism) due to some kind of an inherent inferiority. So rather than analyze the present situation in Africa in it's entirety, it's much easier to say they are just inferior to begin with and therefore only have themselves to blame, a somewhat of the survival of the fittest mentality. Recognizing black achievement in antiquity would counter these beliefs, therefore black achievement is denied or dismissed. Makes really good sense, thanks.
"So not only do they not have the funds, but the end is often unattainable even if they did due to the often volatile political situation in those countries. No matter how magnificent the history, tourists aren't flooding Iraq, for instance."
Good point.
|
Posted By: edgewaters
Date Posted: 15-Jun-2006 at 14:16
I think it's even broader than that. I don't think there are many people today who try to justify slavery or the excesses of colonialism. I think a wide variety of systems people have applied to Africa - be it imperialism, or globalized economics, even the independance movements in Africa in the sixties - through their failure to realize promises in Africa, show fundamental errors in each ideology. Africa is above all a place of paradox. If Africa's culture or history were the problem and imperialism were the cure, how come the promises of imperialism never materialized, Africa never industrialized, and there was never the emergence of a middle class or political stability? But if imperialism was the reason for all of Africa's problems, how come things have got much worse in places like Zimbabwe under the independance governments? Every ideology applied to Africa has been wrong. If you can lay the blame on Africa itself you don't have to question your own favorite ideology. |
Posted By: viola
Date Posted: 15-Jun-2006 at 17:55
|
hi all good posts 1.where do you lot get your sources from about african history? 2.does anyone know any websites where i can get peer reviewed studies of all scientific disciplines about african history.
|
Posted By: viola
Date Posted: 15-Jun-2006 at 18:38
|
"debecal says"
"im 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".
can you elaborate on this please.
|
Posted By: Guests
Date Posted: 16-Jun-2006 at 13:07
Ok, I got you now. Rather than look deeply into trying to understand why these various systems in Africa have failed it's much easier to blame in on Africa itself. It's a difficult question answer and I'm not sure there is just one answer there may be many. I have some of my own ideas on why most of Africa is in the state it's currently in, none that I"m entirely confident in though. It's a tough question that most would rather avoid.
|
Posted By: Guests
Date Posted: 16-Jun-2006 at 13:12
Well, as for myself I get the vast majority of my information from text, specifically archaeological text but history text aswell. When I do look online I usally go to archaeological/anthropological sites. I'm sure the other posters can give you more information on specific sites than I can.
|
Posted By: viola
Date Posted: 23-Jun-2006 at 21:49
|
Posted By: Guests
Date Posted: 27-Jun-2006 at 13:23
Posted By: edgewaters
Date Posted: 27-Jun-2006 at 13:38
| You should really give the author or source for that piece. |
Posted By: Guests
Date Posted: 27-Jun-2006 at 16:38
| I receive several e-mails daily from fellow grad students regarding archaeological digs, bio-anthropology and ancient history, so it's not always possible to know exactly where each article is coming from. However, from what I understand this is a collection of citations put together by a fellow grad student. It highlights the works of leading African historian Basil Davidson and archaeologist Randall-MacIver. The sources are listed below the article, anyone with a further interest should read the books listed, particularly those written by Davidson, Allen and Middleton. I would also recommend Medievial Rhodesia by Randall-MacIver.The purpose of my previous post was that I felt the books that were cited were highly relevant. I'm not here to be anyones teacher or try to change anyone's mind, I recieved an e-mail that I found to be condensed yet relevant so I wanted to share it. Therefore do with it what you'd like. |
Posted By: Guests
Date Posted: 27-Jun-2006 at 19:19
|
Those interested should check out these sources aswell.
David Phillipson. 2005. African Archaeology: Third Edition. Cambridge University Press, London.
Mark Horton. 1998. Kilwa. In Oxford Companion to Archaeology, edited by Brian Fagan. Oxford University Press, London. J.E.G. Sutton. 2002. The Southern Swahili Harbour and Town on Kilwa Island, 800-1800 AD: A chronology of booms and slumps. In The Development of Urbanism from a Global Perspective, an online book available at Uppsala University. Said Hamdun & Noel King, Ibn Battuta in Black Africa, Princeton, NJ & New York: Markus-Wiener Publishing, Inc., 1994
|
Posted By: Guests
Date Posted: 29-Jun-2006 at 00:09
|
The Times (London)
July 28, 2003, Monday
HEADLINE: Tomb reveals Ancient Egypt's humiliating secret
BYLINE: Dalya Alberge
Dalya Alberge reports on how details of crushing defeat by another Nile superpower were kept hidden.
Ancient Egyptians "airbrushed" out of history one of their most humiliating defeats in battle, academics believe.
In what the British Museum described as the discovery of a lifetime, a 3,500-year-old inscription shows that the Sudanese kingdom of Kush came close to destroying its northern neighbour.
The revelation is contained in 22 lines of sophisticated hieroglyphics deciphered by Egyptologists from the British Museum and Egypt after their discovery in February in a richly decorated tomb at El Kab, near Thebes, in Upper Egypt.
Vivian Davies, Keeper of the museum's Department of Ancient Egypt and Sudan, said: "In many ways this is the discovery of a lifetime, one that changes the textbooks. "We're absolutely staggered by it."
The inscription details previously unknown important battles unprecedented "since the time of the god" the beginning of time. Experts now believe that the humiliation of defeat was one that the Ancient Egyptians preferred to omit from their historical accounts.
Contemporary Egyptian descriptions had led historians to assume that the kingdom of Kush was a weak and barbaric neighbouring state for hundreds of years, although it boasted a complex society with vast resources of gold dominating the principal trade routes into the heart of Africa. It did eventually conquer Egypt, in the 8th century BC.
Mr. Davies, who headed the joint British Museum and Egyptian archaeological team, said: "Now it is clear that Kush was a superpower which had the capacity to invade Egypt. It was a huge invasion, one that stirred up the entire region, a momentous event that is previously undocumented.
"They swept over the mountains, over the Nile, without limit. This is the first time we've got evidence. Far from Egypt being the supreme power of the Nile Valley, clearly Kush was at that time.
"Had they stayed to occupy Egypt, the Kush*tes might have eliminated it. That's how close Egypt came to extinction. But the Egyptians were resilient enough to survive, and shortly afterwards inaugurated the great imperial age known as the New Kingdom. The Kush*tes weren't interested in occupation. They went raiding for precious objects, a symbol of domination. They did a lot of damage."
The inscription was found between two internal chambers in a rock-cut tomb that was covered in soot and dirt. It appeared gradually as the grime was removed.
Mr. Davies said: "I thought it would be a religious text, but it turned out to be historical. Gradually, a real narrative emerged, a brand new text inscribed in red paint, reading from right to left."
The tomb belonged to Sobeknakht, a Governor of El Kab, an important provincial capital during the latter part of the 17th Dynasty (about 1575-1550 BC).
The inscription describes a ferocious invasion of Egypt by armies from Kush and its allies from the south, including the land of Punt, on the southern coast of the Red Sea. It says that vast territories were affected and describes Sobeknakht's heroic role in organising a counter-attack.
The text takes the form of an address to the living by Sobeknakht: "Listen you, who are alive upon earth . . . Kush came . . . aroused along his length, he having stirred up the tribes of Wawat . . . the land of Punt and the Medjaw . . ." It describes the decisive role played by "the might of the great one, Nekhbet", the vulture-goddess of El Kab, as "strong of heart against the Nubians, who were burnt through fire", while the "chief of the nomads fell through the blast of her flame".
The discovery explains why Egyptian treasures, including statues, stelae and an elegant alabaster vessel found in the royal tomb at Kerma, were buried in Kush*te tombs: they were war trophies.
Mr. Davies said: "That has never been properly explained before. Now it makes sense. It's the key that unlocks the information. Now we know they were looted trophies, symbols of these kings' power over the Egyptians. Each of the four main kings of Kush brought back looted treasures."
The alabaster vessel is contemporary with the latter part of the 17th Dynasty. It bears a funerary text "for the spirit of the Governor, Hereditary Prince of Nekheb, Sobeknakht". Now it is clear that it was looted from Sobeknakht's tomb, or an associated workshop, by the Kush*te forces and taken back to Kerma, where it was buried in the precincts of the tomb of the Kush*te king who had led or inspired the invasion.
The El Kab tomb was looted long ago, probably in antiquity. There is more to investigate at the enormous site and the Supreme Council of Antiquities in Egypt is now making such work a priority.
|
Posted By: Ponce de Leon
Date Posted: 08-Jul-2006 at 23:55
| I heard that if the Africans could have a calvary of rhinos, then they would win any battle hands down. Too bad the Africans couldnt tame them. Although i heard they tried |
Posted By: Preobrazhenskoe
Date Posted: 05-Sep-2006 at 02:01
|
Dude, please tell me this is some sort of sick and twisted joke where a comical drum beat kicks in and everyone laughs at how not dumb and racist you are because you're supposedly being sarcastic.
No notable figures in African History? Dude, where do you come from? Does Mansa Musa ring a friggin bell, at all? No African structures? Hello? The city of Timbuktu, the fortresses of Zimbabwe, the large cities of Nubia and Aksum, let alone the enormous steles built by the Axumites.
King Ezana's Stele in Aksum, King Ezana living in the 4th century AD
How about the Kingdoms of Egypt, Nubia, Kush, Aksum (dear God, please tell me you've heard about Aksum in ancient Ethiopia, which was one of Rome and Byzantium's most avid foreign trading powers), the great fortress builders of Zimbabwe, and the large, ancient kingdoms of Mali and Ghana (Malinke, Wagadou, and Songhai, the latter being the largest African kingdom in history). Dude, do the world a favor, buy a text book on general and well-known History and read it very, very hard, and then come back here and sound smart. Thanks.
Eric ------------- |
