Africa: the White man's burden????
Printed From: History Community ~ All Empires
Category: General History
Forum Name: General World History
Forum Discription: All aspects of world history, especially topics that span across many regions or periods
URL: http://www.allempires.com/forum/forum_posts.asp?TID=13214
Printed Date: 28-Apr-2024 at 16:18
Software Version: Web Wiz Forums 9.56a - http://www.webwizforums.com
Topic: Africa: the White man's burden????
Posted By: Kids
Subject: Africa: the White man's burden????
Date Posted: 08-Jul-2006 at 04:53
|
I hope this discussion would not lead to any offensive racial discussion.
The Allempires forum have included many discussions on various civilizations: China, Japan, Egypt, Iraq, Mayan, Persia, Turkish, Greek, Roman, etc. Yet, I havnt heard any discussion regarding of the contribution Black Africans made to this world.
If you go to China, Chinese would tell you that if it want the great Chinese inventions, Europe wouldnt achieve modernity.
If you go to India, they would tell you about Indians' tremedous contributions in relgions and mathmatics.
If you go to Greece (I went there to attain 2004 Summer Olympic game in Athens), Greeks would tell you it was Greeks revolutionized our thought (although a Greek university student told me that if it wasnt Greeks, Europeans would still live in cave and running naked!!)
If you meet a Muslim (my roomate is a Muslim), they would tell you that Iraq was the cradle of civilizations (including Greek civilizatoin) as they invneted wheel, numbers, writing, etc. and Muslim perserved the Hellenic tradtion during the Dark Age..
etc. etc......
But, how about Africa? When I took courses on ancinet civilizations in university, they covers most of civilizations we most talked about here in this forum. BUT, they never mentioned the Africa. Certainly, African did have empires such as Nubian. But, none of them had any significant place as other major civilizations or achieve the sophistication that Greeks and Chiense done.
I am a political science honor student and proverty in Africa has always hot debate in my class. Most of my classmates blame European colonization and a African friend argue white people have 100% responsiblity for the proverty and AIDS in Africa. However, I know that South Korea was much poorer than most of Afrian countires 50 years ago, and China and India wasnt better than Africans few decades ago. Yet, today they are the driving force of global economic growth.
So, whats wrong?
I know that the sophistication of Confucian ideology and well-estalbished imperial government (bureaucracy tradition) helped East Asians to adopt Western ideologies rapidly. As some modern economist claimed Chinese culture endorsed commerce as Chinese immigrants rivals Jewish in the Western world: Chinese immigrants controled around 40% of South East Asian economy yet their population only occupied less than 5%.
The East Asian miracle have been well-studied since 1970s, but recent economic growth in India support native Indian argument that Indian culture emphasize in education especially in mathmatics.
These two giants along other little Dragons (Singapore, Taiwan, Korea are all under the Confucian sphere of influence) had well established culture and ethic that are conpatible with Western capitlaism and legal system.
The proverty in Africa today, other than the problem of racism colonianism (which occured in Asia too) and AIDS, the lack of well-established government and kingdoms prior the contact with Europeans prevent a much smoother trasition to industrialization. In other words, a huge gap exists between a tribal society and a industrialized state. Whereas China and India were agricutlure-based economies and therefore experienced smoother transitions than that of tribal societies in Africa. This too can be demonstrates in Japan's case during the Meiji restoration which many historians argued the modernization began before the encoutner with Americans. That is, under Tokugawa rule, Japan was well-governed, the the population was well-educated, and Japan did experience trade boom during the Tokugawa period. As a result, it was a rather rapid trasition during the Meiji restoration as ruling Samurais had experience as bureaucrats in government and thus quickly adopted the western-style admisnistration in few years. Japan's transition was comparable with other late industralized nations such as Germany, France, and Russia which had much larger argricutlure-based economies.
|
Replies:
Posted By: gcle2003
Date Posted: 08-Jul-2006 at 17:07
|
I assume you're talking about sub-Saharan Africa.
------------- |
Posted By: Omar al Hashim
Date Posted: 08-Jul-2006 at 19:27
Western Ideologies have naught to do with the much older chinese tradition of aquiring money. The biggest problem about sub-saharan africa is the extreme ignorance that non-africans (including myself) have about sub-saharan africa. If you asked a european 200 years ago about chinese achievments they would have no idea. Same problem now towards sub-saharan africa. The first thing you can't do; is refer to the whole area as 'africa' ------------- |
Posted By: Tobodai
Date Posted: 09-Jul-2006 at 01:15
|
Every week we get one of these questions, Im sick of answering them. Lets just say this, because you and many others are ignorant of African civilizations doesn not mean they do not exist. Nubia is one of many, and by far not the most impressive one. Perhpas you should go enlighten yourself, its not the hard. The key to old civilizations lies in many modern countries names, theres hint number one. ------------- "the people are nothing but a great beast... I have learned to hold popular opinion of no value." -Alexander Hamilton |
Posted By: Kids
Date Posted: 09-Jul-2006 at 02:59
|
I guess you have mistaken my discussion. I didnt say any "inferiority" about Africans. I simply try to answer the failure of African modernization and whether WEST is fully responsible for it.
In terms of so-called African civilization, I also took a course on it, but my prof. (who is an African) told me that the Western definition of civilization is too narrow. In other words, tribal societies do not include within the definition of civilization.
Tobodai, if you can give me examples that show that the so-called "African cvilizations" does exist and "comparable" to any other civilization, please show me. Civilizations, like Edward Said said in his revolutionary theory "Orientalism", is Western intention to group OTHERS in relation to itself. As a result, academic historians and textbooks (ask your classic and history professors) do no include Africa as civilizations. Thus, to call African civilization simply intend to "orientalize" African cultures, which place African culture in inferior relation to others. As long as people and academic world do not redefine "civilizations", African and Natives of America would always be treated as "less sophisticated". When I took the African history, there are only 15 people in my class whereas there are overwhelming 120 people in my Hellenic studies. Why? It is simply that "Africa" do not "comparable" with other classic civilizations (likewise, it is also shown in our forum where fewer people interests in "African civilization" than other sections and fewer discussions on it).
Recently, there are voices in Canada that calls a education reform in order to address the overwhleming uneducated Native children. When one report asked a Native girl why she is not interests in school works, she replied: "Why would I be interests, when the textbook is about White men stuffs; technology, writing, Westrn art...". How can African and Native cutlures be treated respectuflly if people include them with other civilizations; it is inevitable for people to interpret it in relations with "classical definiton of civilization: writing, religions, agriculture, philosophy, and technology".
|
Posted By: gcle2003
Date Posted: 09-Jul-2006 at 04:33
When European or Arab cultures first encountered them they were 'less sophisticated'. So?
That's not a value judgement, it's simply an objective fact.
What seems to get mixed up here (as so often) is some idea that 'sophisticated' is good and 'unsophisticated' is bad - or vice versa. There's no basis for either judgement.
Human cultures and societies quite obviously do not develop and have not developed at the same rate everywhere all the time. Some change more than others.
The only things that are wrong are to (a) think that more developed means better and (b) not changing fast is an inherent genetic fault in the people involved. ------------- |
Posted By: babyblue
Date Posted: 09-Jul-2006 at 05:52
|
If Africa was a burden, why would it be just the white man's burden? That's like saying the white man's doing heaps to help Africa whilst penalising itself in the proccess, whereas all non-whites are doing nothing to help Africa.
Even though racism is pretty much a thing of the past in the western world, a kind of a 'post colonialism menatality' still exist sub-conciously, and I stess the word sub-conciously. Even here in Australia, such things can be seen day in day out across the board on all levels. Kid's example where he suggested text books to include African civilisations among others is a good step towards stemming out those mentalities that lies beneath the surface. ------------- 
|
Posted By: Guests
Date Posted: 09-Jul-2006 at 05:58
|
I would tend to agree with you that a few sub saharan countries were inferior cultures to the one that encountered them, otherwise there would not have been colonisation at that rate.
But no culture or nation is always superior and no culture or nation is always inferior. ------------- |
Posted By: malizai_
Date Posted: 09-Jul-2006 at 10:12
I think that the wonderfull comments by GCLE aptly illustrate the narrowness of the approach to this subject, the problem as he has rightly pointed out is with the basic premise used for the "value judgement".
To simplyfy the issue, i would argue they didint because they didnt need to.(develop) ------------- |
Posted By: malizai_
Date Posted: 09-Jul-2006 at 10:19
It is like saying, that Ibrahim Lodhi's 100 000 were from an inferior culture to Zahiruddin Babar 20000. Obviously not. It was not a success based on culture but technology. ------------- |
Posted By: Greek Tragedy
Date Posted: 09-Jul-2006 at 10:35
| maybe im missing the point of this.. but isnt egypt, africa? who said they werent black africans ever in egypt? why do people love to set it apart. besides you dont have to be dark black 'running after tigers' to be african either, and i think that has to do with race problems and some people only want certain people to get recognition in their text books. and it still exists. and modern wise i dont know why theres so many issues in africa let alone iraq with all the killings and etc. theres problems in alot of places, but they all have their civilzations they are known for. yes even africa, egypt is pretty big but others civilizations should be known more as well in africa too. same as theres more than one european country of history, known. |
Posted By: flyingzone
Date Posted: 09-Jul-2006 at 11:51
I agree with Malizai. This is such an excellent point that I hope more people will pay attention to. It is not wrong or politically incorrect to say that some cultures are more "developed" than others because that is, as gcle put it, an "objective truth". Even the most politically correct person cannot possibly claim that an illiterate society is at the same level of development as a literate one, for example. However, making such claim does not mean that the latter is BETTER than the former because the level of development itself is not a yardstick for "goodness" or "badness" of a culture. Who can say that a tribe living in the Amazons or Papua New Guinea, being self-sufficient and living in perfect harmony with nature, is more "miserable" than the citizens of a country plagued with crimes and suffocated by pollution? I think it's very arrogant of us to assume that since some people do not have a microwave or access to the internet, they must NEED us to tell them how to get those things. ------------- |
Posted By: Tobodai
Date Posted: 09-Jul-2006 at 14:44
|
Make no mistake Kids, I have no problem with empires and think that conquest is the best way to exchange ideas before the internet. Nontheless I think your logic is flawed in that it is reversed. It is not that nobody is intrested in Africa because nothing happened there, it is that nobody knows what happened there and thus is not intrested.
European empires messed with the borders, but they brought many things with them as well. The empires arent to blame for lack of development, but the slave trade is. A contient with low population density, robbed of 20 million people, and a trade that became the entire economy, and then stopped suddenly. Thats a big deal, and its not just Africa, the more slave dependent a place was the worse off its economy is around the world. In the United States the former slave states are observably poorer and more backward, so too in Europe where the east with the "slavs" who were subject to slavers tend to be worse off than the west. ------------- "the people are nothing but a great beast... I have learned to hold popular opinion of no value." -Alexander Hamilton |
Posted By: viola
Date Posted: 09-Jul-2006 at 20:09
|
sparten says:
"i would tend to agree with you that a few sub saharan countries were inferior cultures to the one that encountered them, otherwise there would not have been colonisation at that rate.
But no culture or nation is always superior and no culture or nation is always inferior."
gcle2003 says:
"When European or Arab cultures first encountered them they were 'less sophisticated'. So?"
who tells you this? where do you get your sources from?
look up: timbuctoo
ghana
zanj
were these not comparable to european civilizations at the same time frame?
greek tragedy says:
"maybe im missing the point of this.. but isnt egypt, africa? who said they werent black africans ever in egypt? why do people love to set it apart."
youre right.you will be surprised how many people have still got a 1920,s viewpoint on african civilizations.
lets divide european civilizations and say any european country higher then greece and rome are sub meditteranean and are not of the same race.
|
Posted By: Quetzalcoatl
Date Posted: 09-Jul-2006 at 20:59
|
You know the greatest gift Africa gave to mankind--it is one that Darwin understood: the Africans, somehow, were the first to gain some mastery over nature and provided mankind an avenue to progress to its present state: a battle between the wilderness and man, failure would have meant extinction. That's why we should all be grateful to Africans. They were the founders. ------------- |
Posted By: mamikon
Date Posted: 09-Jul-2006 at 22:47
|
Africa's greatest gift to mankind is mankind
------------- |
Posted By: Guests
Date Posted: 10-Jul-2006 at 01:03
Culture is inclusive of technology. The japanese were clearly inferior to the Americans under Commodore Perry, however 50 years later they were the superior of many a European power after Taushima. ------------- |
Posted By: gcle2003
Date Posted: 10-Jul-2006 at 05:14
Pretty well everywhere really.
Timbuktu was a place where the more sophisticated Arab culture met the indigenous one. Culturally it was in effect an Arab colony, certainly an Islamic one. Islam is undoubtedly more sophisticated than the animism of West Africa.
Maybe you should look up 'sophisticated'.
When the Arabs first got to the area that became known as the Ghanaian Empire (not, incidentally, present-day Ghana), the local inhabitants did not even have the camel - but camel transport became a key factor in the development of the culture. Raising of other livestock was also introduced by the Arabs.
Again, too, Islam is more sophisticated (a later cultural development) than the Ghanaian religion, in which the Emperor was regarded as divine, along with some other mythological figures derived from animism.
Don't know so much about the Zanj (in particular about pre-Islamic religions in the area), but again the comparison here has to be with the Arabs.
What have the Europeans got to do with it? We were talking about first contact so the key comparative culture in these examples (as I indicated) was Arab (perhaps using 'Arab' a bit loosely to include other Arabic-speaking peoples).
The Arabs at this point in time were certainly more sophisticated than the Western Europeans, at any rate. (Byzantium was still keeping pace I guess.)
------------- |
Posted By: malizai_
Date Posted: 10-Jul-2006 at 07:25
You are rigt to state that culture is somewhat inclusive of technology, if Michelangelo's paint brush represents the technology that is. But i view culture as the ethereal that led to the use of the brush, the paintings themselves.
I dont think that the addition of factories adds directly to culture. Multinationals dont add to culture either. Mongols ransacking of Baghdad did not mean a superior culture meeting an inferior one. Hence the courts of Ibrahim Lodhi were silenced not by Babars superior culture but his superior firearms. Hence, i see culture itself on a higher plane than technology.
------------- |
Posted By: Guests
Date Posted: 10-Jul-2006 at 08:19
|
I tend to see a superior culture as one which survives and triumphs. And in your example, just two years after Baghdad, came Ayn Jalut.
And the Mongols were not uncultured at all. At least in Halagu's time.
------------- |
Posted By: malizai_
Date Posted: 10-Jul-2006 at 15:24
|
The Ayuubids recognized the Abbasids as the centre of the caliphate, having ended the regional polarity created by the Fatimds. The Mamluks came into power after the last Ayuubid. They did not reinstate the Abbasid caliphate but held to the lands governed by the Ayuubids. Namely Damascus and Egypt. So in fact it wasn't the survival of the Abbasids, but the survival of the Mamluks. they halted the mongols in Syria and Egypt but did not dislodge them from Mesopotamia and Iran. Although the mamlukes claimed to rule in the name of the Abbasids to draw on a source of legitimacy. The mamluks could however not protect themselves from an even greater 'culture', that of Napoleon. Obviously not, they lost to superior firepower.
As i have said before cultures can not be supplanted and they gradually evolve under varying influences. Culture is what makes humans human, we all posses it. Mongols, turks, cambodians, zulus, etc.. ------------- |
Posted By: Aster Thrax Eupator
Date Posted: 20-Jul-2006 at 16:39
|
Forgive me if i'm wrong; i have the most appaling knowledge of Islamic Middle Ages history, but wasn't Saladin from the Ayuubid Caliphate? ------------- |
Posted By: Preobrazhenskoe
Date Posted: 27-Jul-2006 at 16:22
|
What baffles me most is when many people throughout the past disenfranchised African history by saying nothing of global significance or great importance was ever achieved on that continent, and that cultural achievements were relatively primitive in comparison to other regions of the world. They, of course, forgot to mention the kingdoms, states, and empires of the dynasties over ancient Egypt, Carthage in Tunisia (although spawned from a Phoenician colony), the Nubians and Kush, the Christianized Axumites of the Kingdom of Aksum in modern-day Ethiopia, the ancient kingdoms of Mali and Ghana, Islamic centers like Mombassa, etc.
Eric
 P.S. Ayuubid Caliphate? Not sure if there was a concurrent Caliphate with that of the Abassid Caliphate centered in ancient Baghdad, as Saladin lived during these times and of the same time of Richard the Lionheart of England, during the Middle-Age crusades in the Middle-East. Of course, the Abassids weren't finished as a Caliphate until the invading Mongols sacked Baghdad in the first half of the 13th century AD.
------------- |
Posted By: Joe Boxer
Date Posted: 01-Jul-2007 at 12:23
|
Egyptian Empire
Nubia-Kush
Axumite Empire
Mali Empire
Ghana Empire
Songhay Empire
Kanem-Bornu Empire
Zulu Federation
Hausa Federation
Ashante Federation and more . . .
Two reasons its hard to pin down African History and Contributions . . .
no record of indigenous literature/written language
As for Africa being white man's fault fault: there is partial truth to this. However the whole truth is the Africans' inability to cope with themselves.
The economy of slavery that black people love to blame on whites; blacks were selling each other to the Europeans. Once the slave trade ended, the tribesmen of the enslaved wanted to get even on the slave merchants on behalf of their enslaved and shipped compatriots.
Hence we have wars. Then the Europeans created the states based on arbitraty (or designed to induce friction) state lines. Hence Africa is where it is today.
Are Africans stupid by nature? No.
Are Africans capable of putting up a war? Ask the British who died at the hands of the Ashante; the Zulu and the French who called Samori Toure the Napolean of the Sudan.
Truth be told, white people had a superiority complex - as anyone can imagine they would. Doesnt excuse them of course. ------------- Mughal-e-Azam |
Posted By: Guests
Date Posted: 01-Jul-2007 at 12:54
Where do you get that? Do you really believe people think on Mayans as "less sophisticated"?
First, why you put Africans and Native Americans in the same set? They are not more related than East Indians with Inuits, for instance.
Now, the studies of the civilizations of the Americas is very complex and advanced. The Americas had dozens of different civilizations in a degree of development that could compite easily with ancient Greece of China.
Schollars know that. The study of the maya writing alone have dozens of professionals that dedicate the full life to that.
I don't know what you want with Africa, but it is interesting to notice that civilizations stand by theirs own merit. Everybody knows Mayans and Incas, not because they were Amerindians, but because they were extraordinary.
That's what really counts.
Pinguin
|
Posted By: edgewaters
Date Posted: 01-Jul-2007 at 19:56
| Go back far enough - and we're all Africans. :) |
Posted By: pekau
Date Posted: 01-Jul-2007 at 23:28
South Korea after the Korean War was extremely poor... but we got back from the track like Japan mainly due to tons of Western aids, investments... fearing the Communist expansions from China. This does not necessary mean that South Koreans are "superior" than Africans. Koreans just happen to be in the right place at the right time.
Look at Israel, a nation quite close to Africa. In the beginning, there were almost nothing. Literally. Then the Israelites came and settled there. They got massive aids from the West (Especially from America) and now... they are certainly doing well.
Africa is largely ignored because these nations are not necessary endangering the Western civilization... yet. Western world do not need to help Africa to get back to its feat because it is not necessary.
I don't know for sure, but it's possible that Western world will profit when Africa is in chaos. Rebels and government fighting need weapons. Where are the weapons produced? In the Western world. When there are famines, where do the rich Africans get their food? From the West.
Of course, I am not saying that African culture is irrevelent from the reason of African decline... ------------- http://swagbucks.com/refer/Malachi"> 
Join us. |
Posted By: think
Date Posted: 02-Jul-2007 at 00:09
Your comparing Africans to Russians an you really think thats a reasonable comparison ? The problem with Africa is African culture. I see no reason why people should make excuses for other peoples troubles. Turkey never industrialised because of their culture an mindset, people accept that but when discussing Africa excuses or blaming the White man is acceptable.
Exactly. |
Posted By: Guests
Date Posted: 02-Jul-2007 at 00:32
Absolutely!
Look at the Americas, destroyed by Europeans and repopulated in large scale. Look at the centuries of suffering in wars against Europe, in endless revolts and with communism and drug traffic. However, the Americas developed in a great degree. And today we can't blame others of our problems but ourselves.
Look at Japan, Korea and China, countries literality destroyed by wars and hunger, and the way they have developed thanks to hard work.
Look at Europe itself, destroyed during the second world war and rebuild in a decade.
Everywhere one looks, there are people trying hard to progress, and don't blaming anyone else for theirs success or failure.
Like Omar Kaddafi once said, Africa has to stop playing the role of beggar of the world and that the challenge of developing in theirs own hands. There is no other way out.
Pinguin
|
Posted By: elenos
Date Posted: 02-Jul-2007 at 01:16
|
Calling One example
I know of (not African) is of ------------- elenos |
Posted By: Aster Thrax Eupator
Date Posted: 16-Jul-2007 at 14:27
|
Well, Timbuktoo and the Songhai empire were both veritable Bastions of civilization- even in pre-Islamic times, Timbuktoo held a vast literary and scholastic repution. Great Zimbabwe was a pretty advanced civilisation too :) ...But let's be frank- most of the major developments in civilisations happened in the corssover point between Africa and Eurasia- Mesopotamia, Iran, India and Egypt. That, nobody can deny. As several people mentioned earlier, the climate was simply so harsh, and thus the mortality rate so high, that many thousands of people moved north to Mesopotamia and the other areas that i've mentioned.
I think that sometimes (and no doubt that what I'm going to say will get me branded as a rascist and ignorant) political correctness cancels out historical fact, and people have to admit that some countries have advanced civilisations in a way that they quite frankly have not. No doubt that nations like the Songai and Great Zimbabwe did, but all the major developments were made, nobody can deny, in Mespotamia, Egypt, Iran and India. ------------- |
Posted By: elenos
Date Posted: 16-Jul-2007 at 18:30
|
I just noticed Earl Aster, you have passed your 500th post, congratulations! Even some world leaders privately call the development of Africa as a basket case and leave it, but we wouldn't want to do that would we? ------------- elenos |
Posted By: Aster Thrax Eupator
Date Posted: 16-Jul-2007 at 19:29
|
No, but political correctness seems to often blame the WHOLE issue on Africa's colonial heritage. Actually, many African nations did quite well in the immediate years after the colonial occupiers left in the '50s and '60s, so frankly it's not all due to European oppression- many other factors come into it as well. ...Oh! But for saying that, i'm a Rascist, aren't I???
....YAY! 500th post! ------------- |
Posted By: elenos
Date Posted: 16-Jul-2007 at 19:58
|
You bring up an interesting point, Earl Astor. How well countries rule themselves is not a racist question, there are many other questions involved. To say all countries of the world are the same and are all born equal is starry-eyed rubbish. Of course not! So far as I know my family haven't sacrificed a goat or danced around a totem pole, not that they told me about anyway. It would be interesting if they did. I have been brought up in certain way because they were brought up in much the same way. The same goes for Africa. Somehow it breaks my heart to see the Africans becoming cloned Europeans, or their dictators becoming barbarians. Yet there has been no variation from the old formula, once an old way of way breaks up there always have been wars, slaughters and mass murders until the country becomes reestablished into the ways of new era and that can take generations. ------------- elenos |
Posted By: Aster Thrax Eupator
Date Posted: 17-Jul-2007 at 07:13
|
Yes, I understand that after all that they've been through, Africans will want to (and In many cases quite justifibily) celebrate their civilisation, but for us seemingly by guilt to be almost forcing into saying that they were more progressive than Sumer is rubbish. Many African nations were still nomadic tribes when Sumer was in organised cities, or when the first mechanical clock was being perfected. ------------- |
Posted By: Parnell
Date Posted: 17-Jul-2007 at 07:22
|
I think the most important question to ask is if treating the Black man in a paternalistic manner is doing more harm than good. The problem is, when any white man tries to do some real progress in Africa he gets shouted down by such evil men like Mugabe in Zimbabwe. ------------- |
Posted By: Guests
Date Posted: 17-Jul-2007 at 11:20
 , ignorance |
Posted By: Parnell
Date Posted: 17-Jul-2007 at 11:41
|
Bit rich. ------------- |
Posted By: Aster Thrax Eupator
Date Posted: 17-Jul-2007 at 12:26
|
It's not so much treaty a black person in a paternalistic manner, it's more accepting historical truths - I don't think that the fact that civilization fully took off in the ancient near east gives anyone the right to have any kind of racial prejudice. I don't know why people think that neccesarily admiting historical truths will end in someone treating Africans in a more paternalistic way. ------------- |
Posted By: Guests
Date Posted: 18-Jul-2007 at 23:35
|
We should ask ourselves what is more important "political correctness" or truth. If we go for truth, it is quite obvious that most of Subsaharan Africa was, measured by any standards, one of the less developed regions of the old world. And it was in that state up to the arrival of the Arabs during the Middle Ages. Pínguin
|
Posted By: Malik
Date Posted: 19-Jul-2007 at 00:00
| Id advise everybody to ignore pinguins opinions due to the fact that its been proven that hes racist. |
Posted By: elenos
Date Posted: 19-Jul-2007 at 01:34
|
So throw around the word racist, but that sort of talk achieves nothing so far as learning. The word should be used with caution when referring to those who care and do wish to learn more, this is a history forum where we are open to the hard questions. Would anybody deny modern history that millions of Africans have risked death and work at menial jobs for the rest of their lives to escape Africa and get into Europe? Africa, although it could be a rich commonwealth of nations if all African leaders worked together, have consistently failed to realize their own potential. If you want to change the problems of anywhere on earth, no matter who the people are, first of all you must identify what the problems are and then find the best ways to fix them. If you can suggest any other way then please do so, sooner than be critical. ------------- elenos |
Posted By: Aster Thrax Eupator
Date Posted: 19-Jul-2007 at 03:31
|
I'm aware of that Elenos - I wasn't being prejudice - I'm just saying that such a terrible history has created a degree of political correctness in the historical study of those countries. ------------- |
Posted By: elenos
Date Posted: 19-Jul-2007 at 04:30
|
I know you weren't being prejudiced Earl Aster, I was saying the other reply to Pinguin was unfair. The writer does not show any knowledge of the problems and not a shred of evidence. I have heard hundreds of stories of missionaries going to a third world country, converting one family, and then leaving hoping the converted family will spread the word and send money to the family every week to keep up the good work. The mission gets back glowing reports for years of the rate of conversion and all, then someone from the charity goes over on a surprise visit. What they find is the one family gets the money, lives in the biggest house in town, shares nothing, and haven't converted anybody accept for a few sponging relatives who they pay to come in and back them up. I have been involved in welfare work and can honestly say I have seen with my own eyes this sort of thing happening in white countries let alone black. The great problem is that most of Africa is poor and cannot even afford to give handouts like in the first world countries. ------------- elenos |
Posted By: Malik
Date Posted: 19-Jul-2007 at 04:43
I have evidence of his racism actually from another forum.I already notified the mods,and im sure they circulated it alittle.However,im not about to make a big deal about it and flood the thread up with evidence out of respect for the mods. |
Posted By: elenos
Date Posted: 19-Jul-2007 at 07:54
|
hanks for explaining your point further, Malik. Now I understand what
you are saying. Pinquin has some extreme views and may at times express
beliefs others may not agree with and so gives offense. I have not been
here long yet the impression I get of nice guy who tries
despite what else he may believe that comes from his peer group. Over time we all change. Nothing
worse than loving history and not being able to discuss it. Anyway to get back on topic, if you are keen on preventing racism, what is the answer for Africa and how should people go about discussing it? As a history forum we discuss the past and look at previous evidence. As I pointed out, one problem among many is the welfare cycle that seems impossible to break and yet has built up on good intentions that have gone wrong. ------------- elenos |
Posted By: Guests
Date Posted: 19-Jul-2007 at 10:52
You have to go to the topic and prove something on there. You can't prove anything just saying I am a racist. As far as I know 99% of the wonderful claims about SS Africa are artificial make-ups by people motivated by political reasons.
Africa has its merits, indeed, but there is the necessity of some that they be more glorious than they really were.
|
Posted By: Reginmund
Date Posted: 19-Jul-2007 at 10:54
|
How come very few people have the ability to discuss the history of Negroid peoples without becoming so tense about political correctness you'd think they had a cactus up their asses? Whenever this topic comes up people seem more interested in pointing fingers and arguing over who's more racist, than treating the subject at hand. For those few of us who rather prefer doing the latter it's extremely tiresome to have to scroll through several posts of "omg is it racist to say this?" followed by "not at all, relax" and then "that is SO racist!". ------------- |
Posted By: Malik
Date Posted: 19-Jul-2007 at 14:41
Pinguin, I dont have to prove anything,due to the fact that its already been proven that your a racist bigot.Ask the the admin of AE.The fact that you lie about your racist bigotry is hysterical as well.All im doing is warning these other users about the intent in some of your posts.I already proved you racism towards blacks and "gringos" so whats there to prove? |
Posted By: Seko
Date Posted: 19-Jul-2007 at 15:07
|
I would like everyone on this thread to feel comfortable in discussing the original topic. I would also like to share that any flaming bewteen members is not welcome. Yes, I and the moderating staff have been informed by Malik of Pinguin's past. This information was offered to us. Since we received it we have continued to make it our job to enforce only our Codes of Conduct. Nothing less and nothing more.
There will be no finger pointing. Only actions on AE are what interest us.
Continue with the topic. Oh, and by the way, as Regimund said you don't have to be politically correct. Just try to be correct with tact. ------------- |
Posted By: Guests
Date Posted: 19-Jul-2007 at 15:20
|
I haven't done any racist comment in this thread. I find the accusation I have received an injustice, particularly from posting comming from other contexts and reasons.
I believe in AE we are for discussing facts. Nothing else.
I leave this thread though, so I don't disturb anybody.
Pinguin
|
Posted By: elenos
Date Posted: 19-Jul-2007 at 22:29
|
We need some discussion around here, despite the lack of it by some. One contention is the sudden explosion of population in Africa over the last couple of hundred years has destablised the whole continent
In the poorest countries Ethiopia, Eritrea, Somalia and Sudan, the population has risen from 60 million in the 1960s to 190 million in 2000. ------------- elenos |
Posted By: Aster Thrax Eupator
Date Posted: 23-Jul-2007 at 03:39
|
Simple - third world countries demographics - they need to have loads of children because the infanty mortallity rate is so high, and also so that they can have help with work and so that they are insured that they will be looked after when they are old. Since in the 1960s Africa was generally in a better state, and the mortallity rate was less, less children would be born because economic conditions were better and thus less children were needed to help work. It's simple demographics - most third world countries have this general pattern. ------------- |
Posted By: elenos
Date Posted: 23-Jul-2007 at 04:24
|
Economic mismanagement elsewhere is nowhere near the scale in Africa. Corruption is endemic and the money that comes in goes down the sink. Sure, you can point to one country or another and say they are doing well, but just wait until next year if they are!
------------- elenos |
Posted By: Aster Thrax Eupator
Date Posted: 23-Jul-2007 at 05:05
|
That reminds me of an interesting story - my father works for the British council and in the 1980s he was posted in Sudan. He and the Consulate worked on a plan to donate school books for Sudanese children. When he and my mother unpacked their furniture, guess what they found the Sudanese packers had placed it in? Shredded up school books.
Pouring money into Africa won't help - infrastructure and framework has to be placed in before that money goes in. Without that crucial infrastructure, the money, as you said, goes down the drain. Many people give money to charity organisations without realising this simple fact. If you want to help Africa, vote for parties that will make serious political changes - more and more money won't do a thing with the political situation like it is overall. ------------- |
Posted By: elenos
Date Posted: 23-Jul-2007 at 05:50
|
Yes, infrastructure is the right word. But one recent problem, if I dare say it there has been huge increase of Arabic and Chinese relocation to Africa. They build up cities from what was jungles twenty years ago, but the original natives are outside dwellers. Infrastructure is coming in but the natives are still on the fringes on the wealth being generated.
------------- elenos |
Posted By: Aster Thrax Eupator
Date Posted: 23-Jul-2007 at 05:53
|
Well, at least it's a start... One good thing is that it could help reduce the problem of fundamentalism occuring in the northern Muslim areas. Also, another great piece of news is that a huge lake has been discovered undernearth Darfur which could end the conflict by making more land ariable. ------------- |
Posted By: elenos
Date Posted: 23-Jul-2007 at 06:46
|
That is good news. However is land what the conflict is all about or power? ------------- elenos |
Posted By: edgewaters
Date Posted: 23-Jul-2007 at 07:30
|
One of the big problems for Africa, ironically enough, has been the introduction of more intensive agriculture ushered in under the Green Revolution of the 1960s.
The new agriculture was more mechanized and required more inputs in the form of credit - causing many farmers to be displaced from their land and ushering in agribusiness, which employed only a small fraction of the more labour-intensive agriculture. The overall result was an increase in food supply and lower food prices, but, less access to employment and the disruption of the subsistence economy. Since little industry was available to provide new forms of employment, the subsistence economy was not really replaced with anything for millions of former small farmers - they ended up living in squalid conditions in the cities. Greater food supply also increased populations, which led to some localized ecological problems, including droughts which resulted in famine. |
Posted By: elenos
Date Posted: 23-Jul-2007 at 09:20
|
You would think they would have thought of that beforehand. The people needed the subsistence farming to fall back on at least. So many do-gooders interfere that the situation still is a mass confusion. To allow the Africans work their way through their own problems with a minimum of assistance is still not a popular idea, still too much emotion attached. ------------- elenos |
Posted By: Aster Thrax Eupator
Date Posted: 23-Jul-2007 at 11:44
|
Well, I suppose that in the 1960s, with many new states being set up and the grip of colonialism finally falling away, the nations just wanted to modernise, despite what would have happened afterwards. The other problem is the governmental structure - when the colonials left, the old states of Africa (which were now being run in a pseudo-colonial fashion) which the Africans were familiar with, were doing fairly well. But when nationalism set in, however, and people began to set up their own states, they did so without any european assistance and thus the entire framework for the states was flawed. Also, tribal warfare and competition crept into these new states, with nepotism and corruption in the government being rifle. ------------- |
Posted By: Almazy
Date Posted: 21-Aug-2007 at 21:15
|
just ignorance and nothing else truth is africa had many civilizations and created kigdoms waaay before "the white man" came. the reason why africa has so much problems today is because of colonialism. |
Posted By: Guests
Date Posted: 21-Aug-2007 at 22:54
I have always though that the problems of Subsaharian Africa started before colonialism. Actually, it was with slave trade. The fact is that North Africa start slave trade on SS Africans long before the Europeans landed in there.
------------- |
Posted By: Surmount
Date Posted: 21-Aug-2007 at 23:44
| Africa has a very rich history which has been downgraded and pushed to the side. But Africa it looks will regain its position. The Chinese African connection is helping China giving them resources for their new booming economy. And Africa is being helped with their modernization and other things. |
Posted By: Surmount
Date Posted: 21-Aug-2007 at 23:49
| And there is no difference between sub-Saharan Africa and northern Africa as far as being a continent. That's just a label that was put on Africa. It just means south of the Sahara desert. But Africa is Africa. |
Posted By: elenos
Date Posted: 22-Aug-2007 at 00:09
|
Have you ever heard of the equator Surmount? To me it means the temperature changes when you pass through it. What does it mean to you? And also do you think Europe is Europe and those pale-skinners are all the same? Come on tell us your real agenda!
------------- elenos |
Posted By: Guests
Date Posted: 22-Aug-2007 at 21:25
Africa is not homogenious, fellow. Is like to say Spaniards are Mongols because they live in the same land mass than Chineses
 Africa North of the Sahara has a different history when compared with East Africa and West-Central-South Africa.
The difference? The degree of isolation.
A region like the Maghreb has a lot more in common with Europe rather than with SS Africa. Even the people looks similar. Besides, during most of the history the people of the Mediterranean has gone back and forth by sea with a lot easy than crossing the Sahara.
Don't twist reality with ideologies, please.
Pinguin
------------- |
Posted By: Surmount
Date Posted: 22-Aug-2007 at 22:01
|
Sub-Saharan Africa is the term used to describe the area of the http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Africa - African continent which lies south of the http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sahara_desert - Sahara desert . Geographically, the http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Demarcation - demarcation line is the southern edge of the http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sahara - Sahara Desert. http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/8/80/Sub-Saharan-Africa.png">  All it means is south of the sahara |
Posted By: Constantine XI
Date Posted: 22-Aug-2007 at 23:29
But there is more meaning to it than that. The Sahara acted as a natural barrier to trade and population movement between North Africa and the rest. North Africa was largely isolated from the rest, with the exception of the Nile and some trans-Saharan traders. North Africa was therefore influenced by one of the greatest conduits for cultural and population transportation the world has ever known: the Mediterranean Sea. It was this channel of water which linked North Africa to the civilisations of the Middle East and Europe, which have provided by far the greatest influence on the development of civilisation in North Africa. ------------- |
Posted By: Guests
Date Posted: 22-Aug-2007 at 23:39
|
Co-sign
Now, compare this map
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/8/80/Sub-Saharan-Africa.png">
With the map of the Afroasiatic languages:
 And you get a pretty clear idea that Africa is not a single entity.
That's a matter that is was always known since the beginning of history.
Pinguin
------------- |
Posted By: Surmount
Date Posted: 22-Aug-2007 at 23:44
|
No The only difference is north Africa was Arabized Arabization is the gradual transformation of an area into one that speaks http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arabic_language - Arabic and is part of the http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arab - Arab http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Culture - culture . It can also mean the replacement or http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Forced_migration - displacement of a http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Indigenous_peoples - native http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Population - population with Arabs, although this rarely happened in ancient times, as there weren't nearly sufficient numbers of original Arabs to replace or displace existing populations. The rest of Africa is of the same black negroid race 
|
Posted By: elenos
Date Posted: 22-Aug-2007 at 23:46
|
Nice post pinquin! But there are more languages than that?
------------- elenos |
Posted By: Surmount
Date Posted: 22-Aug-2007 at 23:51
|
The only difference is the very top countries of north Africa was Arabized Arabization is the gradual transformation of an area into one that speaks http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arabic_language - Arabic and is part of the http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arab - Arab http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Culture - culture . It can also mean the replacement or http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Forced_migration - displacement of a http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Indigenous_peoples - native http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Population - population with Arabs, although this rarely happened in ancient times, as there weren't nearly sufficient numbers of original Arabs to replace or displace existing populations. The rest of Africa is of the same black negroid race  |
Posted By: Guests
Date Posted: 22-Aug-2007 at 23:55
Yes. I know that the figure is even more complex than that.
By the way, I am interested in the archaeology of Nigeria and the bronzes of Ife. However, with so many wild afrocentric claims going on, people won't even understand why is important to divide Africa in its region and keep things real. Otherwise, it is impossible to see its achievements.
It is a pitty that most people that study SS African archaelogy are either British or Germans....
Pinguin
------------- |
Posted By: Byzantine Emperor
Date Posted: 22-Aug-2007 at 23:56
I think everyone is more than aware that this is your stance on most issues involving Africa. I suggest that you and pinguin accept that you have differing opinions and one will not convince the other of anything. The major point that everyone has gotten out of this is that there are radically different theories about the ethnicity/race of Africans no matter what the reality might be.
------------- http://www.allempires.net/forum_posts.asp?TID=12713 - Late Byzantine Military http://www.allempires.net/forum_posts.asp?TID=17337 - Ottoman perceptions of the Americas |
Posted By: Surmount
Date Posted: 22-Aug-2007 at 23:58
|
I agree with you Byzantine everyone is entitled to their opinion |
Posted By: Surmount
Date Posted: 23-Aug-2007 at 00:03
And for once I agree with pinguin (who treats me as his enemy) on what he said about who studies African archeology. |
Posted By: Guests
Date Posted: 23-Aug-2007 at 00:13
|
I don't treat you as an enemy Surmount.
I only exposse facts.
And I will always deffend the heritage of Amerindians against you, Afrocentrists, the Mormon Church (Lamanites; Jesus in the Americas), the New Agers (Extraterrestials in Tikal), India-centrists (Maize in ancient India), Sino-centrists (Chinese Olmecs), Japanese-Centrists (transoceanic travel), Irish-centrists (middle ages' monks reaching America), Hyperdifussionists (Thor Heyyerdhal et al.) and hundred of other fellows that are trying to robb the heritage of Amerindians.
I am fascinated with the heritage of the Ancient Americas, and I wish people discover it someday... I hate those fantasies that prevent people for knowing more about the real Amerindians.
Nothing personal.
Pinguin
------------- |
Posted By: Surmount
Date Posted: 23-Aug-2007 at 00:20
|
Ok i see what your trying to defend. But why do you label all those groups you listed, why do you refer to them in the way you do? Those groups you listed have no malicious intention. Don't feel like they are attacking you. |
Posted By: Guests
Date Posted: 23-Aug-2007 at 00:34
They are producing a damage indeed, either if it is malitious or not. It doesn't matter.
They are preventing people from seeing the genious of the Native Americans.
Still today some people believe Amerindians are inferior people that need master to teach them. That's is a form of racism addressed against them.
I have studied Amerindian cultures all my life, and I have access to material most people in the planet doesn't know (material in Spanish, local museum and knowledge, etc.), so although I am not a specialist, I know a little bit about the topic...
And I tell you. Ancient Amerindians were very intelligent people. After all they were human beings like anyone else.
If you ever want to know more about them, just let me know.
Pinguin
------------- |
Posted By: Surmount
Date Posted: 23-Aug-2007 at 00:42
|
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 |
Posted By: Guests
Date Posted: 23-Aug-2007 at 00:50
|
Great!
Rush into the "History of the Americas" section of this forum. You are welcome...
I will post some serious stuff in the "History of Africa" section later. Let hope you follow the threads. ------------- |
Posted By: Surmount
Date Posted: 23-Aug-2007 at 00:55
|
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.  |
Posted By: Guests
Date Posted: 23-Aug-2007 at 01:00
|
I am not Native American but full Chilean. That mean: you could bet I am at least 20% Amerindian.
In my country exists a great respect for local Amerindian heritages. Don't forget that where I lived were lands of the Inca Empire.
Pinguin
------------- |
Posted By: Rakasnumberone
Date Posted: 06-Sep-2007 at 01:23
|
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. |
Posted By: think
Date Posted: 06-Sep-2007 at 01:39
Could you go on more with the Chinese an Arabic re-location ? |
Posted By: elenos
Date Posted: 06-Sep-2007 at 02:42
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. ------------- elenos |
Posted By: South
Date Posted: 06-Sep-2007 at 03:06
|
Don't neglect the African area island societies.
Places like Canary Islands, Azores, Sao Tome and Principe, Mascarene Islands (Mauritus, Reunion) and Madagascar, had societies that matched others outside the area.
The social, economic and political difficulties were later.
|
Posted By: Guests
Date Posted: 06-Sep-2007 at 21:45
Absolutely agree. Besides, the concept of primitive and civilized people is sloppy and doesn't reflect reality at all.
Exactly!! I agree. In all continents there were "primitive" and "advanced" peoples.
That's wrong. However, for your analogy, you should compare Ancient West Africa to the Inca Empire, that also lacked written language. Mayas had a very sophisticated written language that was a mystery for a long time, but that today specialist read as a matter of routine.
For ancient West African traditions look for transcript of griot traditions. In particular look for the book Sundiata, the classic of Mali that was preserved orally and that served, curiosly, for the script of Lion King.
Marvelous art, indeed.
In the matter of religion, most of the beliefs of the so called "primitive" people are very sophisticated. As an schollar of the Mapuche believes of the Natives of my country, I can testify they are unbelievable complex and of a beauty without parallel. Even people that is usually downplayed, like the Australian Aborigins, they have very complex and sophisticated systems of believes.
By the way, the "Western mind" also have certain alternative systems of believes that have been repressed by Inquisition and rationalism. The traditions of arts, Western magic and esoterism, Kabbala and also Freemasonry is very rich and as complex as indigenous religious. However, they are done on hidding because the "Western Mind" downplay it....
Absolutely agree!!
Pinguin
|
Posted By: Odin
Date Posted: 30-Jun-2008 at 04:27
|
IMO Africa's main problem is ethnic tribalism and the war, inter-ethnic violence, nepotism, and corruption associated with it. IIRC it was one of Nigeria's founding fathers that said that his country was "not a nation, but a geographical expression." African countries need to weaken tribal ties and replace them with national identities and non-tribal civil societies. There needs to be an emphasis on infrastructure, education, crack-downs on corruption, and stability in order to encourage economic growth, entrepreneurialism, and investment.
------------- "Of the twenty-two civilizations that have appeared in history, nineteen of them collapsed when they reached the moral state the United States is in now." -Arnold J. Toynbee |
Posted By: Władysław Warnencz
Date Posted: 30-Jun-2008 at 15:12
| 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). |
Posted By: Guests
Date Posted: 15-Jul-2008 at 00:41
|
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. ------------- |
Posted By: Guests
Date Posted: 15-Jul-2008 at 01:49
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.
------------- |
Posted By: Aurorum
Date Posted: 29-Sep-2008 at 04:36
The Koreans even developed an alphabet. Despite being closer than the Far Easterners to the inventors of the wheel, West Africans did not manage to use the wheel very often. They have, however, successfully attached really, really large and shiny spinning things onto cars in those united States. |
Posted By: Aurorum
Date Posted: 29-Sep-2008 at 04:38
Without a doubt! |