Afrocentracism

[Incongruous]

This topic interest's me greatly because of the profound changes it might bring about in historical thinking. But I also denounce a few of the scholars that debate over it as they stir up immense racial hatred. One book attempted not to, Not Out Of Africa but some say they have found racial undertones in it.

I suspect many of you might think I wish to underhandedly stir up racial conflict in the forum. I am not.

Here's a link http://www.worldagesarchive.com/Individual%20Web%20Pages/BlackAthena.html

[Papewaio]

So Athens was black based on a vase having silhouetted figures?

Surely there would need to be other clues like cultural package (particular tools used in Athens and Africa), DNA traces, writings and other artifacts of civilisation that would back it up.

[Incongruous]

The Afrocentris's base alot of stuff on the Greek writers.
Also I lean more toward's the people who denounce the movement as they provide more substance and less racial hatred.

[ajaxfetish]

What I've read suggesting Greeks/Ancient Egyptians were black Africans is pretty unconvincing. It seems to want history to conform to personal desires rather than the other way around.

Ajax

[Rosacrux redux]

The "Black Aphrodite", huh? Yes, the most ridiculous theory ever to hit the media, even more ridiculous than theories about (insert XYZ nation here) being the offspring of Atlantian and/or Lemurian origin.

Even Egypt wasn't "black" at any time - besides the time after the restoration of the New kingdom, when the kushites took over the place. But that's it, one dynasty out of ...how many? 40?

Oh, whatever... people are coming up with ludicrous ideas every now and then, that's a given with human nature...

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

The Black Athena theory is a peculiar mix of racism and self loathing. Bernel has decided that, "his race," never did anything worthwhile and so he feels the need to apropriate the Ancient and Classical tradition. Like most charges of Western racism it has no real basis in fact. I would refer him to Nubia and Numidia. Neither the Greeks nor the Egyptians were Black and sooner or later he will have to learn to live with that.

Its like white supremists saying Jesus was white. Sure he was probably a bit lighter than what we think of today as Arabs but he wasn't Germanic.

[nokhor]

pardon my ignorance, but why would Jesus be lighter than what we think of today as Arabs?

[Watchman]

Good question actually. Weren't the Semic folks of the region (among which both the Arabs and Jews get counted AFAIK) pretty similar physically ?

[Adrian II]

What I've read suggesting Greeks/Ancient Egyptians were black Africans is pretty unconvincing. It seems to want history to conform to personal desires rather than the other way around.

AjaxForget the Black Athena nonsense. Blacks were part and parcel of Ancient society on all levels, no more and certainly no less.

Many years ago I studied for an exam on classical archaeology. Apart from studying and copying early Mediterranean kuroi, vase panels and Roman emperor bustes at the municipal museum, I had to read a list of titles. One of those was Blacks in Antiquity which is a classic these days but was rather revolutionary at the time. It is an excellent textbook, well-balanced, painting an interesting picture of blacks -- or 'Ethiopians' as they were generally known -- in ancient Greek and Roman society in their roles of diplomats, servants, ahtletes or warriors. It has many fascinating illustrations. The gist of the book was that blacks were not glorified or despised, but simply accepted as ordinary human beings. In fact the illustrations in themselves already prove this point; they depict blacks with great attention to detail, emotion, expression, circumstance -- in other words: with full artistic empathy.

[Rosacrux redux]

That's nitpicking, really, but Jesus would be (and probably was) in every conceivable way of a semitic build and color complex, so he would be very much like what we know Arabs to be today - or even indigenous Israelites (not those of the diaspora that returned, most of them haven't got any semitic features at all - blame it on interbreeding or on their Khazar ancestry).

But the blond, blue-eyed Jesus and the fair Mary, is a nice post-medieval fairy tale, to make Jesus accesible to whites... I mean, have you people ever seen how they portray Jesus in Japan or in Africa? With Asiatic and Afro characteristics and colours respectively. It's just a way to bring the religion close to the intended audience.

Edited to add: Adrian is right on the general positioning of the Blacks in the ancient societies. Not as much in the classical Greek world, but certainly in the Hellenistic world and even more into Roman times. The stupid invention of Racism came along much, much later - at the time the Blacks were accepted as what they were = human beings on their own merit

[Taffy_is_a_Taff]

I thought that the blond blue-eyed depiction of Jesus was derived from classical depictions of Apollo rather than being a "convert Whitey" ploy by the Jewish Christians.

[Rosacrux redux]

That's an explaination alright, but the first images of Jesus as fair and blue-eyed are a) centered in western europe (in Byzantium he was always portrayed dark-skinned, with dark hair, and brown, green-brown and in few occassions even black eyes) and b) came along way too late to have anything to do with Appolo.

I didn't said it was "a plot by the Jewish Christians", I implied that the western artists, in order to reach their audience, depicted Jesus as they did.

Boy, you are reading too many conspiracy theories ~D

[Taffy_is_a_Taff]

Boy, you are reading too many conspiracy theories ~D

Nah, I just got out of the backroom. It seems to be open season on Jews in there whenever Israel comes up.

Just what I heard as regards Apollo. I'm quite willing to believe it was a mixture of both theories (the familiar portrayal of religious figures as well as happening to look alot more like the locals).

[Samurai Waki]

well technically, Whites (Europeans/Ancient Egyptians) and Middle Easterners (Arabs and Iranians) are nominally caucasian in origin, so its really nothing to get upset over. Its not Jesus's skin that counts, its the message, but I think too many people are daft to realize that.

As far as the Black Athena theory that is laughable. :laugh4: (see I laughed). Genetic Anthropology is thought to be the most reliable form of tracing a people's origins, and has so far, has gone undisputed, and further, it hasn't really unmasked anything we didn't already know. For the greater part of history, African's were rather inclusive, and unexpansive. Kush (modern day Sudan), didn't even really have a Black Majority populace, most of the Blacks came from slave traders into Eretria and Ethiopia. The only African Kingdom that ever made an impact on European economics (until the late 1500s) was the Kingdom of Mali. Its not so much that Black culture was lazy, or didn't do anything per se (in fact I am rather fond of African Culture), its just that nobody in their right mind would travel across the bloody sahara, if they didn't really know what awaited them on the other side.

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

Sorry, to rephrase what I said earlier.

He might have been lighter than what we think of as modern Arabs. What I meant is he could have been lighter skinned than darker Arabs, because there is a variation in skin tone today. There's a Palastinian Christian woman living across the hall here and she just looks tanned when you compare her to me, I'm quite pale. As said above there's very nothing in it anyway.

About the Apollo thing, the halo is derived from the sun rays that were depicted eminating from Apollo's head or brow.

As far as Africans in the Classical World, you only have to look at the number of Romans with niger as a cognomon and you see they were accepted. Racism is a modern invention now perpetuated by its former victims. No white person today should feel any responsibility for slavery, even if our ancestors were involved, we weren't, aren't and we don't support it in any way.

Either way Black Athena is bunk.

[Steppe Merc]

No way, racism always existed, but not as white verus black. Look at how the Romans wrote about the Huns as barely human, or how the Greek and Romans viewed everyone else as barbarians.

Oh, and Iranians were a lot lighter than Arabs, and many were lighter than most Greeks or Romans of the day.

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

Where did I mention Iranians? I said Palastinian, as in Palastine.

As far as Classical racism, look at your examples. The Hun were a terrible force sweeping across Europe and leaving misary and destruction in their wake. The Barbarians were a constant threat to civilization. Racism against blacks was artificially created, or exagerated, to justify slavery.

Pretty much everyone back then thought everyone else was a "barbarian," for lack of a better word, and that includes the barbarians. That doesn't make it any more right but it does make it very different.

[Steppe Merc]

First of all, I was reffering to this post:

well technically, Whites (Europeans/Ancient Egyptians) and Middle Easterners (Arabs and Iranians) are nominally caucasian in origin, so its really nothing to get upset over. Its not Jesus's skin that counts, its the message, but I think too many people are daft to realize that.

Second of all, most "barbarians" were far from a threat to civilization. The Greeks and Romans viewed the Persians then the Parthians then the Sassanians as barbarians, and they were quite cultured, but because they were different they hated them. The Celts were not a threat to culture, because they had their own advanced culture. Yet they were still reviled.

And so you are saying that as long as they are "bad" it's ok to be racist? Many cultures have often dehuminized their enemies, calling them devils, from the Huns to the Mongols. It's still racism. Besides, I'm sure the people the Romans conquered were just thrilled to see them...

[Samurai Waki]

Really racism towards blacks didn't start until Portugal Colonized places like Gambia and Mozambique, they found out that the Black Men were strong and Fierce, yet their technology was vastly inferior to the Colonists, and so they were thought to be simple minded, brutes, with a good strong back. Actually during the Roman Era, Black Slaves were considered quite a prize, because they were so rare... whilst Barbarian Slaves (like Gauls, Germans, Britons) were considered rather inferior, just because they were common.

Steppe Merc: Isn't the meaning of Iran something like "Land of the Aryans"?

[Steppe Merc]

Well many Iranian called themselves Aryan, or some variation (Eran, Alan, etc.) So yeah, but many Iranians did not live in Iran (but they spoke Iranian). That includes Scythians, Sarmatians, Alans etc. Actually certaint groups tended to be lighter than others, and they ranged from blonde/blue eyed to brown hair/brown eye to black hair to brown eyes. But there was a lot of mixing and matching.

And I don't really know much about it, but I think that your right that white versus black didn't start until later, but there was still certaintly racism (just not white versus black).

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

Firstly, sorry, got confused before, second I said it isn't right, its different.

The problem with racism is its a natural reaction to those that are different. Human beings, like all organisms are designed to procreate. Only with us we don't want our kids to just look like us; they need to speak, dress and think like us as well. Anything which threatens our way of life is a threat and as such would naturally neeed to be destroyed.

Racism abounds today in many places and is tolerated because it doesn't follow colour boundries. For example, there is deep rooted racial hatred between the English and the French, on a national level. The Welsh, Scots and Irish all hate the English. There are funny things between the Spanish and Portugese, I understand. North and South America.

All these are examples of racial hatred but nine times out of ten no one bats an eyelid. Why? Because the "racism" is between people who have cultural rather than ethnic differences.

To deal with your examples, the Persian-Greek thing has to do with the Persian Wars. Also the Greeks were very inclusive, being Greek had nothing to do with living in Greece. It was to do with language, culture and religion, tick all three boxes and you're Greek.

The Celts? yes they had an advanced culture and every now and then they tried to export some of it into Northern Italy, while char-grilling the locals. The Celts hated the Romans, and with no more or less justification.

All the above are threats to Civilisation, that Civilisation being Greek and Roman.

Don't turn that round to make me say theirs was the only valid civilisation, the other side of the coin is exactly the same.

[Steppe Merc]

Ok, sorry I misentirpreted your post. Yeah, I think I more or less agree with you then, you end up hating whoever threatens you.

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

Sure, don't worry about it, it's always difficult to have these kinds of disscussions over the internet. The difference with modern racism is its based just on colour, the original reasons for the whole black/white divide are lost in the mists of time for most people and all thats left is hatred. On both sides.

Its like the prejudice against ginger people in England, most people don't like ginger people, but they have no idea why. The reason probably has something to do with the Scots and the Irish but people don't know that so they're just prejudice against people because of two genes they have.

[ajaxfetish]

Forget the Black Athena nonsense. Blacks were part and parcel of Ancient society on all levels, no more and certainly no less.

Many years ago I studied for an exam on classical archaeology. Apart from studying and copying early Mediterranean kuroi, vase panels and Roman emperor bustes at the municipal museum, I had to read a list of titles. One of those was Blacks in Antiquity which is a classic these days but was rather revolutionary at the time. It is an excellent textbook, well-balanced, painting an interesting picture of blacks -- or 'Ethiopians' as they were generally known -- in ancient Greek and Roman society in their roles of diplomats, servants, ahtletes or warriors. It has many fascinating illustrations. The gist of the book was that blacks were not glorified or despised, but simply accepted as ordinary human beings. In fact the illustrations in themselves already prove this point; they depict blacks with great attention to detail, emotion, expression, circumstance -- in other words: with full artistic empathy.
I agree with you completely.

Ajax

[Incongruous]

Bugger the black Athena theory that is stupid, but I merley intended this as a way to show that African peoples were not always savages.
I suppose the Zulu Empire can show you that. As far as some of the Afrocentrist gut's go most of them are racists, like the people who wrote the article I posted here about two months ago.

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

No one here has said African people were savages, that said the South African peoples were less technologically developed, but if neccessity is the mother of invention I guess they never needed bronze etc.

[Incongruous]

I didn't say anyone "here" claimed they were savages.

[Leonin Khan]

Bugger the black Athena theory that is stupid, but I merley intended this as a way to show that African peoples were not always savages.
I suppose the Zulu Empire can show you that. As far as some of the Afrocentrist gut's go most of them are racists, like the people who wrote the article I posted here about two months ago.

europeans are still savages :oops: im one 2

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

Europeans are still savages? Have you taken a look at the African continant lately?

[Leonin Khan]

what is your definition of savages...??? i dont see a reason to call europeans civilised either. oh yeah we like to keep that image up but i dont buy it.

[Rosacrux redux]

I am afraid this starts bordering heavily stereotyping (either Europeans or Africans) and stereotyping borders racism.

I've met many Europeans that are really very much the "barbarians" of the middle ages, and I've met Africans who are the epitomy of civilization. And of course the reverse is also true. So, let's drop it here, ok?

[Steppe Merc]

Agree 100% with Rosa.

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

Being Civilised is just being more advanced and ordered really but in the classic sense Africa is far more savage, AIDs, Civil Wars and dictatorships, gangs of armed bandits. Socially they're at about 1150 AD, if that. That not to say there aren't any good people or even fairly good governments but they're swamped by thre majoriety.

[Samurai Waki]

Africa for the most part with the exception of some of the North African States (Egypt and Morocco) and South Africa, is still under going a lot of reformation after 300 years of occupation, and another 60 years of Civil War. Most African nations have yet to find their voices in the world, and have yet to industrialize or Capitalize on Industrialization. The fact of the matter is, Africa has very little to offer the world in an economic sense, aside from Oil in Nigeria, and Mining, and Tourism in South Africa, Egypt, and Morocco. There are some Countries in Africa at the moment that are showing definant signs of improvement for the better, Nigeria is one of them, which has established very stringent labour laws (no child labour anymore), Nearly Equal opportunity for both Muslims and Christians, Men and Women alike, as well as a prospering (if not a little corrupt) Democracy. There are however, still too many nations in Africa, that could be prosperous but because of social issues or civil war, are not. Actually, the vast majority of them are not prosperous. However, this should not be taken advantage of for racial discrimination, I've been to Kenya and South Africa, and many of the people there (especially kenya) are extraordinarly compassionate, hard workers that want the same things out of life that Everyone else in the world wants. Its just that, Colonialism really destroyed a lot of Africa.

[Papewaio]

Savage:

A person regarded as primitive or uncivilized.
A person regarded as brutal, fierce, or vicious.
A rude person; a boor.

Primitive:

Anthropology. A person belonging to a nonindustrial, often tribal society, especially a society characterized by a low level of economic complexity.
An unsophisticated person.
One that is at a low or early stage of development.

[doc_bean]

The fact of the matter is, Africa has very little to offer the world in an economic sense

That's simply not true, it has the most natural resources of any continent, that's probably why it got so messed up...


But discussing the current situation of Africa is more of a backroom thing innit ? :oops:

[Taffy_is_a_Taff]

recovering after 300 years of colonisation?

the vast majority of the African land grab occurred in the 19th century and ended in the mid 20th century. That makes it roughly 1 century.

[Subedei]

recovering after 300 years of colonisation?

the vast majority of the African land grab occurred in the 19th century and ended in the mid 20th century. That makes it roughly 1 century.


Well the whole thing started with e.g. the West Indies Trading Company (dutch: West-Indische Compagnie), who bought & conquered Ports on the African Coasts, starting round 1620....First for supply, later on to get slaves, ivory, gold (just check out the names of the states on the central West coast) ...and foremost to get to India/ indonesia etc....

I would say, this could be seen as the roots of European Predomination/ Colonisation of Africa....

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

Yes thats true bu the 19th Century was when most of it happened. As I said its not that there aren't plenty of good people. Its a cultural and social thing. What bothers me is that the West tries to rush it along. Ultimately Africa has to sort its self out. As far as I can tell right now its going through the same formation and self definition process Europe went through in the Middle Ages.

Personnally I think we should let them get on with it and just try and help the little people that get caught in the middle.

[Subedei]

Personnally I think we should let them get on with it and just try and help the little people that get caught in the middle.[/QUOTE]

...and stop robbing their ressources!

[Rosacrux redux]

Personnally I think we should let them get on with it and just try and help the little people that get caught in the middle.

...and stop robbing their ressources![/QUOTE]

Jah, that's gonna happen when hell freezes over... twice

Who's gonna let go? The oil companies? The Aluminium giants? The gold diggers? The diamont moguls? the Exotic Fruits for the Masses corps?

Nah, we're in for good. And while we are at it, we could try and compensate some of what we grab, wouldn't you agree?

[Vladimir]

Look at the picture again. Blacks with pointed noses? There is a theory that some believe the Olmecs, one of the most ancient civilizations in Central America, could have come from Africa. This is based on the Negroid features found on many of the "Olmec heads" recently discovered. It wasn't too long ago that some bored, rich white guy was able to cross the Atlantic (Brazil to West Africa) using a primitive boat/raft. Although I believe he traveled in the opposite direction (West to East).

[Leonin Khan]

Being Civilised is just being more advanced and ordered really but in the classic sense Africa is far more savage, AIDs, Civil Wars and dictatorships, gangs of armed bandits. Socially they're at about 1150 AD, if that. That not to say there aren't any good people or even fairly good governments but they're swamped by thre majoriety.

Dude the fact people have AIDS make them savage. the fact that the continent has a good climate for deseases (not talkin bout AIDS) makes them savage. i dont know but almost all if not all panepidemics start in China you call them savage???

dictatorships eh? so when you have a dictator your people are savage??? how you think about the roman empire or Cuba, or Spain maybe.

and why are they at 1150 AD socially i dont know but most people there are more polite and have are more socially evolved than many europeans i know. here everything is about ME ME ME there the family also counts in fact its everything.

[Leonin Khan]

Yes thats true bu the 19th Century was when most of it happened. As I said its not that there aren't plenty of good people. Its a cultural and social thing. What bothers me is that the West tries to rush it along. Ultimately Africa has to sort its self out. As far as I can tell right now its going through the same formation and self definition process Europe went through in the Middle Ages.

Personnally I think we should let them get on with it and just try and help the little people that get caught in the middle.

i agree here. the reason its a mess this big is cuz most people only care about money. they say africa needs to ordened become safe and rich. but for doing that we must hand over a bit, give up a bit of our riches atleast till africa is at the level "we" want them to be. then most people say well then id rather not.

an example. instead of paying prices you want to pay for coffee, you pay the prices the coffee is worth. the "west" just doesnt want to give up their leading position. cuz when we pay the prices the coffee is worth everything becomes way more expensive and people dont like that so they wont buy it and i loose money. but hey they need me (atleast thats what they think) so i just say you accept my price or you keep it...so eventually theyll budge.

[Vladimir]

Dude the fact people have AIDS make them savage. the fact that the continent has a good climate for deseases (not talkin bout AIDS) makes them savage. i dont know but almost all if not all panepidemics start in China you call them savage???


Those who believe raping virgins cures aids are savages. It is not unknown for small children to be raped because of this belief. [Culture]

I tend to believe that the longer a people are settled on a land the less likely they are to advance. (Very) roughly speaking it seems that civilizations that have migrated more recently have a better shot at becoming advanced. I don't know the numbers but I believe Europe was "settled" much later than the rest of the old world. Even though they had a very slow start they came to dominate the world. Many of them migrated West which is now home of the most advanced civilization. The older a society the more, conservative (old, slow) a society. I think Africa can stabilize but that they won't prosper like the west, not due to race but culture. Culture trumps race.

[Leonin Khan]

Jah, that's gonna happen when hell freezes over... twice

Who's gonna let go? The oil companies? The Aluminium giants? The gold diggers? The diamont moguls? the Exotic Fruits for the Masses corps?

Nah, we're in for good. And while we are at it, we could try and compensate some of what we grab, wouldn't you agree?

you cant compensate what is being done there. this way were only digging our own graves and not just 3 feet but 3 miles. dont think that it will take long that the europeans will be in there. maybe a century maybe 2 but well get kicked out.

dont think theyll take the shifted power of riches and stuff. theyll come and get it, with millions at a time. they wont sit there and starve to death while they can see on the internet how rich we are

[Spartakus]

Look at the picture again. Blacks with pointed noses? There is a theory that some believe the Olmecs, one of the most ancient civilizations in Central America, could have come from Africa. This is based on the Negroid features found on many of the "Olmec heads" recently discovered. It wasn't too long ago that some bored, rich white guy was able to cross the Atlantic (Brazil to West Africa) using a primitive boat/raft. Although I believe he traveled in the opposite direction (West to East).

Yeah, thanks man, that's Thor Heyerdahl, voted Norwegian of the century here not long ago. ~:pissed:

And what's the controversy in stating the simple truth that most Blacks in Africa are less civilized than the average European? Claiming anything else would be preposterous.

Ah well, I'll excuse myself from this exercise in political correctness now. ~:rolleyes:

[Leonin Khan]

Those who believe raping virgins cures aids are savages. It is not unknown for small children to be raped because of this belief. [Culture]

I tend to believe that the longer a people are settled on a land the less likely they are to advance. (Very) roughly speaking it seems that civilizations that have migrated more recently have a better shot at becoming advanced. I don't know the numbers but I believe Europe was "settled" much later than the rest of the old world. Even though they had a very slow start they came to dominate the world. Many of them migrated West which is now home of the most advanced civilization. The older a society the more, conservative (old, slow) a society. I think Africa can stabilize but that they won't prosper like the west, not due to race but culture. Culture trumps race.

i dont think the fact that europe is more "advanced" than africa has anything to do with the time they were settled. it has all to do with GUNS. and the sick love for gold (that goes for all humans)

the fact that africa wont prosper yet is becuz the west doesnt wants to give up the leading position. believe what you want but europe wont survive without the world not the other way around.

and spartakus

they are less civilised in some way but not in all. yeah we are more advanced and we have different habits but that doesnt mean they are less civilised

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

Look at the picture again. Blacks with pointed noses? There is a theory that some believe the Olmecs, one of the most ancient civilizations in Central America, could have come from Africa. This is based on the Negroid features found on many of the "Olmec heads" recently discovered. It wasn't too long ago that some bored, rich white guy was able to cross the Atlantic (Brazil to West Africa) using a primitive boat/raft. Although I believe he traveled in the opposite direction (West to East).

So that means genetically they aren't idiots? Well maybe not, but so what? The Continant is still in a state of flux which we have't had in nearly a thousand years. Kenya has actually slipped from third to fourth world status now. Its a cultural isssue to do with speed.

Nelson Mandela wrote about traditional African government in the Thembu nation. Basically all the chiefs got together and decided what to do, if they didn't all agree then they wouldn't do anything. They had a totally different system to us based to Tribal (family) loyalty and inclusion. They simply aren't as socially developed as us because they never needed to be.

Our political system and our ideas of democracy were developed over thousands of years and are a product as well as a part of our society and culture. African culture and society is very different and just setting up European goverenments won't work. The same is true of warfare. Gurilla warfare favours relativly non lethal weapons, when you add guns into the mix you have a much bloodier conflict that remains inconculise.


Dude the fact people have AIDS make them savage. the fact that the continent has a good climate for deseases (not talkin bout AIDS) makes them savage. i dont know but almost all if not all panepidemics start in China you call them savage???

dictatorships eh? so when you have a dictator your people are savage??? how you think about the roman empire or Cuba, or Spain maybe.

and why are they at 1150 AD socially i dont know but most people there are more polite and have are more socially evolved than many europeans i know. here everything is about ME ME ME there the family also counts in fact its everything.

Sorry? Spain is a dictatorship at the moment? I thought they kicked them out. Rome? Rome was not a dictatorship, it was a Principate, which is different. Cuba is not a great place to live at the moment.

You obviously equate developement with being nice. The more primitive a people in general the nicer they are, this is because their State is primitive and doesn't provide for them, so they help each other. The more advanced the State the less nice the people are, because they don't need to be nice.

We always like to think we were worse people in the past, we weren't.

1150 AD becuase at that point Europe was coming out of the dark ages and countries were begining to form but loyalty to a person rather than an ideal was still the norm. Not to mention welfare states and cohesive government had not been developed and war was still rampant.

As for AIDS, Vlad covered it, I would add that the fact that they don't care. Ask an African man if he's worried about AIDs and many will say they don't care.

Like Spartakus said, in the end they are less advanced than we are, they have poor governments in many cases and they place a lower value on life in a lot of cases. Africa is developing but it is painful, bloody and messy. To say its just the same as the West is to just close your eyes and stick your fingers in your ears.

As for Dictatorships, none of the toppled ones have been replaced by anyone better.

[Leonin Khan]

So that means genetically they aren't idiots? Well maybe not, but so what? The Continant is still in a state of flux which we have't had in nearly a thousand years. Kenya has actually slipped from third to fourth world status now. Its a cultural isssue to do with speed.

Nelson Mandela wrote about traditional African government in the Thembu nation. Basically all the chiefs got together and decided what to do, if they didn't all agree then they wouldn't do anything. They had a totally different system to us based to Tribal (family) loyalty and inclusion. They simply aren't as socially developed as us because they never needed to be.

Our political system and our ideas of democracy were developed over thousands of years and are a product as well as a part of our society and culture. African culture and society is very different and just setting up European goverenments won't work. The same is true of warfare. Gurilla warfare favours relativly non lethal weapons, when you add guns into the mix you have a much bloodier conflict that remains inconculise.

First off, dont act like democracy is a great product...its unbalanced and it doesnt work. but its the far best system we have TO rule big places

Sorry? Spain is a dictatorship at the moment? I thought they kicked them out. Rome? Rome was not a dictatorship, it was a Principate, which is different. Cuba is not a great place to live at the moment.

but does that makes the countries uncivilised and savage. i dont think so. spain was a dictatorship until the 70's. rome was a dictatorship when ceasar ruled. and it went quite great. and yeah cuba isnt a great place to live cuz america boycotted it and ruined its economy (well its not only americas fault...theirs 2)

You obviously equate developement with being nice. The more primitive a people in general the nicer they are, this is because their State is primitive and doesn't provide for them, so they help each other. The more advanced the State the less nice the people are, because they don't need to be nice.

thats just stupid

We always like to think we were worse people in the past, we weren't.

1150 AD becuase at that point Europe was coming out of the dark ages and countries were begining to form but loyalty to a person rather than an ideal was still the norm. Not to mention welfare states and cohesive government had not been developed and war was still rampant.

As for AIDS, Vlad covered it, I would add that the fact that they don't care. Ask an African man if he's worried about AIDs and many will say they don't care.

cuz they arent educated about it...go ask a african man who lived in europe about it...or a man who studied in africa and ask him.

Like Spartakus said, in the end they are less advanced than we are, they have poor governments in many cases and they place a lower value on life in a lot of cases. Africa is developing but it is painful, bloody and messy. To say its just the same as the West is to just close your eyes and stick your fingers in your ears.

they are less advanced. YES. Savage NO. less civilised. in some ways YES in most ways NO

As for Dictatorships, none of the toppled ones have been replaced by anyone better.


......

[Watchman]

Sub-Saharan Africa is still very much buggered from some fifty years of Cold War geopolitics, extensively disfigured and skewed economic structures (such as monoculture "cash crops") since the Imperialist period (really about 1880s to the interwar/early post-WW2 period - but you can do some very serious damage in those fifty-seventy years), and the effects almost five hundred years of slave trade in massive scale to the Western coastline had on the workings of the entire continent. Oh, the slave trade had been around since time immemorial, no doubt about that, and the slavers were mainly the locals themselves - but it was the European addition of firearms into the equation and the sheer scope of the new market that did the damage. The old trade had merely been "business as usual"; the new trade changed the entire dynamics of state power. Selling slaves to the Europeans got you guns; guns got you the military power to procure more slaves from neighbors (since no ruler sells his own subjects if he can avoid it), plus of course lots of domestic clout; more slaves gets you stil more guns; to compete, the neighbors need guns too; to get them, they too must exchange them for something vlauable - like slaves...
See the pattern ?

Given that the mere interest most Sub-Saharan African countries pay for their insane foreign debts dwarfs not only the foreign aid they receive but also their state income (and in no small part due to the skewed Imperialism-introduced economic structures mentioned earlier), and must usually be covered by taking more loans, it ought to come as no surprise social and economic progress has been slow. Sociopolitical tensions left over from the divide-and-conquer adminstrative practices and arbitrary border-drawing of the same period don't exactly help. Neither do the legacy of Cold War geopolitical games. Then add in the fact even the First World isn't dealing too well with the ways global economy is developing...

For comparision, some sociohistoricians strongly suspect the reasons East and Central Europe are *still* so buggered compared to the Western part of the subcontinent trace back to about the 1600s and the divergent direction the issue of serfdom took back then...

That said, back in the day Sub-Saharan Africa used to have some seriously advanced high cultures. They just were rather different from the way their peers developed in what some historians call the oikoumene (Greek for "inhabited quarter"; a roughly longitudal axis across Eurasia that encompasses the regions with ecology suitable for rapidly developing civilizations, roughly from the Mediterranean to China), and their comparative isolation meant they were severely "lagging behind" in fields such as warfare (at least compared to the perpetual fratricide that went on between Eurasian societies) which was to eventually cost them dearly. Sahara, even if it wasn't always as vast as it is now, was such a vast ecological, bacteriological (as GURPS Infinite Worlds puts it: "before sending the Legions across Sahara, first come up with an explanation why they don't all die of malaria") and geographical gulf that for most of their mutual history the regions south of it and Eurasia might as well have existed on different planets.

[Adrian II]

Given that the mere interest most Sub-Saharan African countries pay for their insane foreign debts dwarfs not only the foreign aid they receive but also their state income (and in no small part due to the skewed Imperialism-introduced economic structures mentioned earlier), and must usually be covered by taking more loans, it ought to come as no surprise social and economic progress has been slow. Sociopolitical tensions left over from the divide-and-conquer adminstrative practices and arbitrary border-drawing of the same period don't exactly help. Neither do the legacy of Cold War geopolitical games. Then add in the fact even the First World isn't dealing too well with the ways global economy is developing...Excellent post, m8. :bow:

Good discussion. The subject belongs in the Backroom, but the fact that the thread is in the Monastery does no harm to the content at all.
:2thumbsup:

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

Watchman, yes, I'll go with that but I saw a program in which they compared Ghana and, I think, Napal. The two countries gained independance within months of each other but Ghana has slid backwards and Napal is on the cusp of First World status. As I said not sure about the second country but its in Asia and a former British Colony.

Leonin Khan: Democracy is as good as it gets I'm afraid. Anyway, you missed my point entierly. Democracy is ingrained in the West, it isn't in Africa and just trying to transplant the system doesn't work because it doesn't take account of cultural difference. They need to work politics out for themselves.

"but does that makes the countries uncivilised and savage. i dont think so. spain was a dictatorship until the 70's. rome was a dictatorship when ceasar ruled. and it went quite great. and yeah cuba isnt a great place to live cuz america boycotted it and ruined its economy (well its not only americas fault...theirs 2)"

Dictatorships are always negative. Caesar's dictatorship just led to another civil war and more bloodshed. The fact that the Spanish kicked out their dictator is a sign of a love of democracy, which is a hallmark of civilisation.

Go to Cuba, stand in the centre of anytown with a sign saying "I Hate Castro" and you'll be arrested as soon as they translate is. That is uncivilised.

"thats just stupid"

No, its not, for a microcosum look at the difference between a rural village where everyone has to get along and a "civilised" city where no one does. The country folk are nicer. As I said, the more developed the State the less nice people are to each other, because they don't need each other.

"cuz they arent educated about it...go ask a african man who lived in europe about it...or a man who studied in africa and ask him."

They're not the general rule and there are millions every year put into educating the general populace and it doesn't make much of a dent. Like I said, a lot of them don't seem to care. They figure something is going to kill them so why not AIDs, they place a lower value on human life.

"they are less advanced. YES. Savage NO. less civilised. in some ways YES in most ways NO"

You still haven't addressed the massivly corrupt governments, the gangs of armed bandits, the Tribal and National Wars, both very bloody. You also haven't addressed the brutality of many states, the mass exicutions, the raping of virgins, female circumcision.

Need I go on? You talk about education, what you mean, whether you know it or not, is Westernisation. I defy you to look at Africa and say that the only problems they have are disease and poverty.

Ask WHY They have these problems.

This isn't to say that a lot of it isn't our fault, drawing lines on maps don't make countries.

[Vladimir]

My advice to all is to pay attention to China's involvement in Africa. While us Westerners wring our hands over what our ancestors may have done there an older, autocratic country is successfully exploiting the region.

The west tells them what they should do while China gives them what they want.

[Leonin Khan]

Sub-Saharan Africa is still very much buggered from some fifty years of Cold War geopolitics, extensively disfigured and skewed economic structures (such as monoculture "cash crops") since the Imperialist period (really about 1880s to the interwar/early post-WW2 period - but you can do some very serious damage in those fifty-seventy years), and the effects almost five hundred years of slave trade in massive scale to the Western coastline had on the workings of the entire continent. Oh, the slave trade had been around since time immemorial, no doubt about that, and the slavers were mainly the locals themselves - but it was the European addition of firearms into the equation and the sheer scope of the new market that did the damage. The old trade had merely been "business as usual"; the new trade changed the entire dynamics of state power. Selling slaves to the Europeans got you guns; guns got you the military power to procure more slaves from neighbors (since no ruler sells his own subjects if he can avoid it), plus of course lots of domestic clout; more slaves gets you stil more guns; to compete, the neighbors need guns too; to get them, they too must exchange them for something vlauable - like slaves...
See the pattern ?

Given that the mere interest most Sub-Saharan African countries pay for their insane foreign debts dwarfs not only the foreign aid they receive but also their state income (and in no small part due to the skewed Imperialism-introduced economic structures mentioned earlier), and must usually be covered by taking more loans, it ought to come as no surprise social and economic progress has been slow. Sociopolitical tensions left over from the divide-and-conquer adminstrative practices and arbitrary border-drawing of the same period don't exactly help. Neither do the legacy of Cold War geopolitical games. Then add in the fact even the First World isn't dealing too well with the ways global economy is developing...

For comparision, some sociohistoricians strongly suspect the reasons East and Central Europe are *still* so buggered compared to the Western part of the subcontinent trace back to about the 1600s and the divergent direction the issue of serfdom took back then...

That said, back in the day Sub-Saharan Africa used to have some seriously advanced high cultures. They just were rather different from the way their peers developed in what some historians call the oikoumene (Greek for "inhabited quarter"; a roughly longitudal axis across Eurasia that encompasses the regions with ecology suitable for rapidly developing civilizations, roughly from the Mediterranean to China), and their comparative isolation meant they were severely "lagging behind" in fields such as warfare (at least compared to the perpetual fratricide that went on between Eurasian societies) which was to eventually cost them dearly. Sahara, even if it wasn't always as vast as it is now, was such a vast ecological, bacteriological (as GURPS Infinite Worlds puts it: "before sending the Legions across Sahara, first come up with an explanation why they don't all die of malaria") and geographical gulf that for most of their mutual history the regions south of it and Eurasia might as well have existed on different planets.

i wish i could talk like you...i try to explain it like you but i cant :P atleast not in english:shame:

[Leonin Khan]

i agree with the fact that democracy isnt the best thing over there because of the cultural difference. and think it also doesnt belongs in the middle east.

but i also think the intervention of the "west" there is wrong atleast in the way it happens now. its half work. gang wars are everywhere where there is anarchy

and i got lots more to say but i cant really express it in english. its a subject quite close to my heart which makes it even harder. so its not that i dont want to adress these subjects but i cant in a way that it will make any sense to you. so sorry :bow:

[Adrian II]

i agree with the fact that democracy isnt the best thing over there because of the cultural difference. and think it also doesnt belongs in the middle east.There may be cultural differences, but that does not mean that tribal African society is essentially hostile to the concept of democracy. It depends on how you look at things.

I remember interviewing an old Belgian colonel who had worked as a miltary adviser to President Mobutu of Zaire in the 1960's. Mobutu, too, considered democracy to be an alien concept that would never strike roots in Africa. Yet according to the colonel, those roots were already there, firmly implanted in African soil.

He told me a little story to explain. One day in 1965 or thereabout, the two of them were touring the country in a military convoy. When they drove by a village, the President pointed to the large house of the local chief that dominated the village and said: 'Every village in Africa has such a house, every village has its chief who makes the decisions. Pray show me where the house of the opposition is? I will tell you the answer. There is no house of the opposition. For this is Africa.'

The colonel, who as an outsider and military expert knew these villages a lot better than the socially isolated and unsophisticated Mobutu, replied: 'Mr President, do you see that huge old tree in the village square? There the elders of the village gather every night to exchange information, discuss village politics and make sure the chief does not get any funny ideas. That is the house of the opposition, and it can be found in each and every African village.'

Thirty years later Mobutu had to concede defeat to the Zairean opposition led by the Churches, trade unions and some strong civil rights organisations. The Zaireans had deciced to fell trees and turn them into newspapers...

[doc_bean]

Nice story Adrian, but how democratic is Congo now ?

Africa has been exploited by its leaders, whether they be African themselves or not, time and time again. The true concept of democracy is not 'felt' in most places. A friend of mine is doing his doctorate in South Africa, he once tried to explain the belgian situation, 2 culturally distinct groups of people (the flemish and the Wallons) living in the same country with the same government. The South Africans didn't understand how we managed to do that without it coming to a civil war.

There is a strong tribal mentality in Africa and it undermines both their political and economical development.

[Adrian II]

Nice story Adrian, but how democratic is Congo now?I was talking about some of the roots of democracy being present, but that is not the same thing as full-fledged political democracy.

The Mobutus of this world have always had outside support, and even the Zairese opposition was undermined by foreign political and business interference. The De Beers conglomerate has controlled most of the mines in Congo/Zaire for most of the past century, no matter who was formally in control of the territory.

How democratic was Belgium a little under a hundred years ago when King Leopold, who had availed himself of the Congo and exploited it in the most ruthless way for his personal gain, finally turned it over to the government in Brussels? It is hardly fair to expect democracy to establish itself spontaneously in a country with such a history. And yet, ideas of modern political democracy entered Congo along with the Belgian colonists, and unlike their bearers these ideas never left. Nowadays, there is a large and strong civil society in Congo that might be capable of truly democratising the country. Of course if we discount them beforehand as un-African and leave them to their own devices in the face of heavily armed and foreign financed gangs...

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

I'm not saying the roots of democracy aren't there. What I'm saying that imposing a Roman Western model, which is what we have, on Africa is difficult at best. Tribal Mentality is the key, either break it down or integrate it into the system.

The corruption issue has tribal roots as well. My Father says that the further you go from the North Pole the less honest people are, he says this speaking as an Anglo-Swede who has been all over the world.

Sounds a little dodgy? Maybe, until he goes on to explain that honesty mean different things in different parts of the world. In Northern Europe it means what it means in English, telling the truth and treating everyone fairly and openly.

In Italy it seems to mean looking after and being loyal to those who look after you.

In Africa it means being loyal to your tribe and screw everyone else.

Thats the problem, culture gap. The Tribal Elders don't care what the chief does to the other tribe.

[Leonin Khan]

the tribal thing is here 2. just were countries. do you really care that a man in iraq gets shot. NO you dont even hear about it. its just the closer it is (in heart not miles) the more you care about it

[Adrian II]

Tribal Mentality is the key, either break it down or integrate it into the system.Aye, there's the rub. It will have to be integrated so that in the long run it can break itself down. No outside force will accomplish that. The French and British tried to achieve it with modern education, modern industrial and administrative means, and finally with brute force, but they failed to 'de-tribalise' African society and in the past century began to use and abuse it more and more for their divide et impera policies. Speaking of Belgium, the excellent journalist Colette Braeckman has written extensively on Rwanda, Burundi and Congo, a triangle where she has many footsteps herself. In one of her books she describes how the Belgian colonial authorities, clerics and anthropologists copied the linguistic and class division of their own society (a French upper class and Flemish proletariat) onto Rwanda, resulting in an unbridgeable Hutu and Tutsi divide. Shortly before the country became independent in 1960, Flemish clerics incited the Hutu (with whom they identified from the Belgian perspective) to kill all Tutsi (whom they regarded as the Rwandan 'French speakers') in what was to become the first Rwandan genocide...

Your father sounds like a smart, experienced guy. By the way, in China people are loyal to their family and screw everyone else. The Communists failed in over forty years of collectivist education to drive out this 'feudal demon' and turn all Chinese into dutiful children of the state. Confucius still reigns.

[Vladimir]

When looking at failure it is important to not let it eclipse success. Look at the dramatic change that has occurred in Japan since the end of WW II. Japan had a very structured and militaristic caste society and up until a couple hundred years ago they were still wearing ancient armor into battle. Yes we helped them out with some money and reconstruction but the people took that and their newly found freedom and look where they are now. We also reconstructed the southern US and I think that the Japanese have surpassed them in many areas. The most important element needed for democracy to flourish and prosperity to occur is peace, not stability (checks and balances help too). Too many people and cultures think that the stability enforced by oppressive regimes is the same as peace, which it's not.

[Samurai Waki]

Yes, but Japan had a major wake-up call after the complete anihilation of Nagasaki and Hiroshima, they were like "um...yeah...maybe war isn't such a good thing". and not only that, Japan had and to this day still has unswerving loyalty towards the Emperor who told them that they were going to become a democracy, had the Emperor told them to continue fighting they would've fought to the very last.

In Africa there are no strong loyalties to any central figure, as mentioned before. You're first loyalty is family and your second loyalty is your tribe. And this mentality has remained even through wars and genocides, it's almost an unshakeable mind setting for them, because it's been their way of life for 20,000 years.

Colonialism is what really screwed up Africa, but it was unavoidable. The Belgian's started the fire that would end up becoming the Rwandan Genocide, because they labeled the Tutsi as superior to the Hutu and so gave them better education, and most Tutsi lived a better way of life, which seriously pissed off the Hutu. But the Belgian's weren't the only ones who practiced such methods. However, it has to be said, that with the mass importation of guns and weaponry, perhaps Colonialism did more good than harm. Somalia is a prime example, basically the Brit's pushed the few Italian's out during WW2, and left them to their own devices, so Somalia was split by all the different tribes, as it used to be, before the Europeans, but this time they had guns, and after awhile, Tribe A became jealous of Tribe B, because Tribe B had more heads of cattle than Tribe A. So Tribe A crosses their border and massacre's Tribe B, but Tribe C was a friend of Tribe B, so they cross their border and kill all of Tribe A's Cattle, and burn all of their crops... and this is how Somalia continues to exist. Very Tribalistic Country, and a very bad place to live.

[Cronos Impera]

Europe is a sumerian word from ereb ( sunset). Who knows, maybe the greeks borrowed the mythology from african cultures. Maybe...who knows.
But certainly I can support Carpathiancentrism
The oldest writing in Europe ( the Tablets at Tartaria, in sumerian writing)
The oldest European was Australoantropos Olteniensis( 2 million- 1 million years old)
In The Song of the Nibelungs the dacians are mistaken for arabians. At some period in history a darker skinned population reached the Carpathian Mountain range. I guess that Afrocentrism could be replaced with Carpathiancentrism. The greeks in their migrations ( from Pannonia) had contact with the proto-getians. If they could have borrowed their myhs from another population that would be the thracian tribes not the Ethiopians.

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

the tribal thing is here 2. just were countries. do you really care that a man in iraq gets shot. NO you dont even hear about it. its just the closer it is (in heart not miles) the more you care about it

No, Tribal and National identity are different. National identity is loyalty to an ideal, not people. The idea that the people and the nation are different is what makes a country. If your leaders don't conform to your ideals you pull them down because its good for your country. You don't tolerate them because of blood ties.

AdrianII, yes he is both. He has a story about forklifts which may become relevant later.

Vladimir, Its been said but I would add that the Japanese believe the Emperor is decended from the Sun, i.e. God. He is supreme and Japanese ideas of honour are still very central. These ideas of honour are also a big part of what makes democracy work. Honour codes like those in Europe and Japan are ingrained even subconciously and they help keep people honest.

There are loyalties to "Nations" such as the Thembu in Africa but Tribal loyalty and family loyalty are more important. In Europe national loyalty is more important than family, which is why in Western Civil Wars families split.

[Papewaio]

When looking at failure it is important to not let it eclipse success. Look at the dramatic change that has occurred in Japan since the end of WW II. Japan had a very structured and militaristic caste society and up until a couple hundred years ago they were still wearing ancient armor into battle. Yes we helped them out with some money and reconstruction but the people took that and their newly found freedom and look where they are now. We also reconstructed the southern US and I think that the Japanese have surpassed them in many areas. The most important element needed for democracy to flourish and prosperity to occur is peace, not stability (checks and balances help too). Too many people and cultures think that the stability enforced by oppressive regimes is the same as peace, which it's not.

Actually Japan was becoming westernised some 140 years ago. The dramatic change happen in the Meji period (http://www.japan-guide.com/e/e2130.html).


In 1867/68, the Tokugawa era found an end in the Meiji Restoration. The emperor Meiji was moved from Kyoto to Tokyo which became the new capital; his imperial power was restored. The actual political power was transferred from the Tokugawa Bakufu into the hands of a small group of nobles and former samurai.

Like other subjugated Asian nations, the Japanese were forced to sign unequal treaties with Western powers. These treaties granted the Westerners one-sided economical and legal advantages in Japan. In order to regain independence from the Europeans and Americans and establish herself as a respected nation in the world, Meiji Japan was determined to close the gap to the Western powers economically and militarily. Drastic reforms were carried out in practically all areas.

The new government aimed to make Japan a democratic state with equality among all its people. The boundaries between the social classes of Tokugawa Japan were gradually broken down. Consequently, the samurai were the big losers of those social reforms since they lost all their privileges. The reforms also included the establishment of human rights such as religious freedom in 1873.

...

On the political sector, Japan received its first European style constitution in 1889. A parliament, the Diet was established while the emperor kept sovereignty: he stood at the top of the army, navy, executive and legislative power. The ruling clique, however, kept on holding the actual power, and the able and intelligent emperor Meiji agreed with most of their actions. Political parties did not yet gain real power due to the lack of unity among their members.

[Kraxis]

When talking about Japan many would argue that it is not truly democratic, that it is instead a sort of industrial oligarchy, given the strong ties between the state and the major industiries which again have tied their workers hard to them (where the Japanese formerly bound themselves to the military creed it has been trasferred to the industry causing interesting incidents now and then).
The Japanese are fully the same as they were previously, with the difference that some have begun to rebel and become more 'Western free'. How this will play out in the future I can't even begin to imagine.

But Japan is democratic in that the population certainly does vote, and their votes have an impact on who formes a government.

I'm temped at moving the thread, but the nice tone (mostly) would be a nice break from the heated arguments in the Backroom. Just remember that we are in the History section. If it gets too far from that then the thread does not belong here anymore.

[Vladimir]

Actually Japan was becoming westernised some 140 years ago. The dramatic change happen in the Meji period (http://www.japan-guide.com/e/e2130.html).

Yes I am aware of this period of development. I'm not sure what in their normally conservative culture was so attracted to modern technology, probably their militaristic side. I always get a smile on my face with people say corporations are taking over the world. There is some sort of pervasive fear about this sort of power (and rightfully so). What those people don't realize is that it already a reality in Japan. It's called Japan Inc., an "unholy" alliance with business and state to promote economic development. I agree with Kraxis when he says that Japan isn't a true democracy (show me a country that is) but I would argue it's a corporate, elected, government with the prime minister as CEO.

On the future of Africa: Would it make more sense to Balkanize the continent or would that lead to more chaos? Is there anyone here with an education in Central American History? It's an emerging field and I would like to learn something new about the Olmecs and if they indeed came from Africa.

[Kraxis]

I would say that most western countries are more democratic than Japan. Not that their elections are any more true and fairer, but that the impact is more significant. True democracy doesn't exist after Switzland dropped it, and even then is was still not complete. But that was not my point. My point was that the Japanese democracy hardly matters.

The Japanese system you mention is what is called a technocracy. The rule of industry and the commercial world.

Well, the ultimate American fear as has been shown in books, movies and games is not war or disaster. Those things are learned to be winnable.

But the fear is if the system they love (bear with me, I'm not attacking anyone here), the one of economic freedom ect. would go to the extreme. Big consortiums eventually taking over the various tasks of te state until in the end they in fact control everything (Robocop for instance). That is the major fear of strong market capitalism. The fear is less marked in social capitalism as the state still retains a lot of power and work.

I can perfectly understand this 'fear', as I would not like to live in a country that was ruled by 'profit' in every regard. Libraries, roads, soupkitchens, military... twisted to the margin of profit. A scary situation.
If it is going to happen is another thing alltogether.

[Vladimir]

But the fear is if the system they love (bear with me, I'm not attacking anyone here), the one of economic freedom ect. would go to the extreme. Big consortiums eventually taking over the various tasks of te state until in the end they in fact control everything (Robocop for instance). That is the major fear of strong market capitalism. The fear is less marked in social capitalism as the state still retains a lot of power and work.

Freedom to the extreme doesn't equal control, just like an extreme free market doesn't equal a monopoly. How can increased freedom lead to less freedom and increased competition to less? This system you describe is not capitalism but socialism. If business becomes the state and the state controls the major means of production is ceases to be free market capitalism. That's why I've never understood anti-capitalists; they're afraid it will turn into socialism while advocating socialism. (I may be mistaking socialism with communism, if so just substitute the word).

[Watchman]

Too much freedom becomes its own opposite by the simple expedient of there being nothing holding the big shots back from lording it over the rest. Why do you think things like antitrust laws exist in the first place ?

Anyway, the practical division between Socialism and Communism is that the former is reformatory and the latter is revolutionary, or at least used to be until the demise of the USSR. These days they're reduced to just the hardline branch of Socialists in most party systems. One shouldn't be confused by the detail Communist regimes tend to refer to themselves with terms like Really Existing Socialism (which is incidentally a curiously mulitfaceted concept) - after all, they also like to call themselves People's Democratic Republics and suchlike which they patently aren't.

To put it in nutshell, Communists seek to overthrow the existing order and replace it with a Brave New World. Milleniarians, in other words. Socialists settle for reforming the existing order to a hopefully better and less unfair edition. They usually aren't too different from the more centre-oriented Social Democrats in that.

[Vladimir]

Let's see how much I can drag this off topic:


Too much freedom becomes its own opposite by the simple expedient of there being nothing holding the big shots back from lording it over the rest. Why do you think things like antitrust laws exist in the first place ?

What you're describing is the increase of control or the loss of freedom. I understand if you're saying too much freedom for the big shots leads to the loss of freedom. Too much freedom would lead to chaos and spur a reaction to increase control. If you wanted to take it to the farthest extreme too much freedom would result in the destruction of all matter.

[Watchman]

Freedom is a closed circle. Start at the point of "none" and follow it all the way around, getting more freedom all the way - and suddenly you're back at "none" again.

Or, less figuratively, where anarchy fails is that it doesn't last. As I like to say nature and human society both hate vacuums, and power vacuums tend to get filled right fast. Then the people who filled them (who usually aren't terribly nice either) start telling others how to do things, usually for their own benefit and at others' expense. The "warlord economies" of various Third World non-states are a good example of the phenomenom.

Which is really why "big business" is so keen on deregulation. It wants to be able to bring its full weight to bear to overwhelm smaller competitors by plain superior resources without interference, or just plain turn obscene profit without having to worry about pesky things like "reasonable working hours" or "environment" or "human rights" or "minimum wage". In essence a fully free economy becomes its own bane as those left on top of the heap as the smoke clears then employ their nigh-unopposed power to reorder affairs to their own benefit, and among the first order of business is going to be stomping flat or just obstructing any competitors that look troublesome...
I probably don't need to tell why this is Not A Good Thing in the long term, do I ?

Legislature exists to prevent that sort of self-destructive circle, much the same as it exists to keep the society from degenerating into a Hobbesian jungle.

[AntiochusIII]

What you're describing is the increase of control or the loss of freedom. I understand if you're saying too much freedom for the big shots leads to the loss of freedom. Too much freedom would lead to chaos and spur a reaction to increase control. If you wanted to take it to the farthest extreme too much freedom would result in the destruction of all matter.Just for the record, America in the 1890s abd probably earlier wasn't a very nice place to live. At all. It was a time in which the corporates had almighty power under a laissez faire attitude by the government, though even then it was not as absolute as it might wanted to be. And it wasn't nice, unless you like to have child labor, Universities named after thugs-in-corporate-suits, and pretty much a not-so-happy life to live as a "wage slave."

So the fear is justified.

I am most interested in Kraxis' view of Japan as a Technocracy. If you don't mind, could you elaborate on that and what is your opinion of the sub cultures like the otaku cultures and such?

Now I know we're getting off-topic here, but I've never had a problem with such things happen before, if the flow is smooth and courteous, and I don't see why such threads should be closed according to some opinions. After all, this is human nature; the art of thread off-topicking. :sweatdrop:

[Kraxis]

Vladimir, it is not my view... It is the American fear. As mentioned so nicely by Watchman if the big corporations get big enough they can in a very free market system begin to control everything since 'they are free to do it'. That is the fear...
You find it again and again and again in American literature, movies and a few times even in articles.

Personally I just find it highly interesting that the great American dream is ultimately also the great American nightmare, just at different stages (that doesn't have to happen mind you).

And I understand the fear. When you have used so much time, effort and even blood to bring the hgihly beloved system about what could be worse than to discover it is fatally flawed? It is up to us to currently believe wether it is indeed flawed or not...

Antiochus, it is hard to explain. A Technocracy is lead by 'progress' outside the social sphere. If you can't perform for the progress then you worth nothing. That is not very different from other systems, but the fact that it is centered around production of goods and technology makes it different. And that is where Japan comes in.
Workers are supremely loyal to their job, to the extent that some Westerners would call it religious.
Personally I haven't heard of the big corporations actually trying to influence the workers to vote specifically, but I'm not too uncertain that if they needed to they could sway more than enough to vote for 'their' party. But they don't need to as 'their' party has ruled pretty much since democracy was introduced (I think there are few instances of other parties ruling).
The tight combination of the industry and the state has a ring of industrial rule to it, and the Japanese corporations are perhaps on the market enemies but they seem awfully chummy regarding the state.

I don't like saying all this (foolish me for starting it) as I might offend any Japanese who comes in here. So if I do, please tell me I'm wrong (but with proper arguments not just a one-liner).

[AntiochusIII]

Antiochus, it is hard to explain. A Technocracy is lead by 'progress' outside the social sphere. If you can't perform for the progress then you worth nothing. That is not very different from other systems, but the fact that it is centered around production of goods and technology makes it different. And that is where Japan comes in.
Workers are supremely loyal to their job, to the extent that some Westerners would call it religious.
Personally I haven't heard of the big corporations actually trying to influence the workers to vote specifically, but I'm not too uncertain that if they needed to they could sway more than enough to vote for 'their' party. But they don't need to as 'their' party has ruled pretty much since democracy was introduced (I think there are few instances of other parties ruling).
The tight combination of the industry and the state has a ring of industrial rule to it, and the Japanese corporations are perhaps on the market enemies but they seem awfully chummy regarding the state.Ah, my impression as much. But I never viewed these factors as contributing to being a Technocracy before. Most interesting. Thank you.

It was always excused as cultural difference in work ethics, mind you, that the Japanese have so much societal pressure in them to be successful since starting school to retirement. And I always accepted it as such.

There are also those so disaffected that they become reclusive. Methinks the Japanese public used to hate them for being noncomforming, especially at one point in 1989 (right?) which a serial murder by a lunatic caused a crisis against these minorities. However, the situation, according to some sources, is loosening...

What interests me most, and that I am most ignorant, is the true extend of the Japanese corporations' influence over government. I've never heard of them lobbying the hell out of their Parliament like the US Congress, but that might just as well means that they have such a strong bond that they need not lobby, or me being far from the sources.

[Watchman]

Just to nitpick, but look here (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Technocracy_%28bureaucratic%29) for some definitions of Technocracy. My PolSci and Sociology textbooks also tend to use the term in the meaning "rule by experts".

AFAIK the Japanese system is more like an industrial-adminstrational pseudo-oligarchy with severe issues with structurally ingrained corruption. I'm a bit busy now, but I can dig up some interesting critical articles on the subject also available online later.

...although we seem to have drifted pretty far from the original topic by now. It doesn't really bother me much - after all, all informative discussion is good discussion - but it might be worth noting.

[Kraxis]

Hm... rule by experts is good enough for that view. Some woul readily call the big corporations the experts.
But aren't experts just the modern aristocracy? I mean we look to them when we need something explained. They figure heavily in news and other opinion-creating media shows.

In any case, I'm not too knowing about this either. It is just what I have pieced together from people who have been there, the relative lack of political life and the superstrong, almost allied nature of the Japanese industry. And of course what economical analysts say on a daily basis (mind you I'm talking about listening to the little hints here than there, not clearcut statements).
What I do not expect to figure heavily in the Japanese ruling system is corruption and nepotism. There might be a strong financial backign to the industry, but that was the entire point from the beginning. We have those too, they are called subsidies (gah I don't know how it is spelled). Especially the shipyards and the agriculture gets a lot of it.

[Watchman]

Experts as in bureaucrats, engineers, doctors, economists... basically, the trained specialists who do the skill-intensive drudge work of modern societies and economies. Pretty much most of the non-academic intelligentsia really. Normally chosen for merit by their peers and superiors. Very different from aristocracy, which is pretty much by definition hereditary.

And, yes, research into the "structural power" their expert status gives such groups has long been a hot research topic in the social and political sciences.

At least going by this (http://www.newleftreview.org/NLR24701.shtml), the Japanese system is quite corrupt. You could say there's an unhealthy horizontal link between the upper ranks of the private and public sphere. Much of the problems stem, from by what I've read, Cold War geopolitics which led to a decades-long virtual single-party domination of the politics and backroom "gentleman agreements" in many fields; I understand Italy suffers from similar issues for the same reasons, though not to as pronounced degree.

True to form, the NLR has quite an impressive collection of critical views (http://www.newleftreview.org/getResults.asp?StartDate=1960&EndDate=2006&Type=Any&Author=&KeyWord1=&Ordered=0&fullText=0&Subjects=Japan&ShowAuthors=&Page=1) in general. Too bad much of it is subscriber-only, and I can't really go flaunting copyrights by abusing my subscription ID now can I ?

[Kraxis]

Italy was about the most unstable democracy ever, with a new government in about every year.

Aristocracy means not nobility, but The Rule of the Best. But for a long time the nobility was the best, hence the tendency to equate them.
So my point was that we have a situation where the two systems overlap.

[Watchman]

Well, neither of the buggers are answerable to democratic elections...

[son_pacho]

Forget the Black Athena nonsense.QUOTE]

Well I wouldn't actually call it "nonsense" but where you stand depends on where you sit...me having a permanent tan and all...:laugh4:

[QUOTE=AdrianII]Blacks were part and parcel of Ancient society on all levels, no more and certainly no less... In fact the illustrations in themselves already prove this point; they depict blacks with great attention to detail, emotion, expression, circumstance -- in other words: with full artistic empathy.

Thank you for stating the simple obvious truth. There was a time when humans hated for other reasons than color...lol...I believe...and although I have a degree in History I'm no historian...that 'color' prejudices mainly started during 'chattel' slavery (or the American version of the institution) simply because previously used "indentured servants" (Europeans) could easily clean themselves up and pass themselves off as something other than a servant. The indegenious population (Indians for lack of a better term) could/would simply escape and rejoin their intact tribes/family structures. Africans on the other hand...nuff said

As for the book Not Out of Africa, Ms. Lefkowitz is as guilty of bad scholarship as the people she accuses. This is no more evident than in her refutation of Cheik Anta Diop's book Civilization or Barbarism. According to Lefkowitz, "...Diop reiterates his claim that Cecrops, Aegyptus, Danaus, and Erechtheus were all 'Egyptian Blacks,' and that Cadmus was a 'Negroid' who came from Canaan." p. 17

Lefkowitz goes on later on the same page to say, "Diop's source for his claims that the Greek heroes came from Egypt is Diodorus of Sicily, who wrote in the first century B.C. And what were Diodorus's sources? Diop does not say, but Diodorus himself tell us. He is simply reporting what Egyptian priests told him when he visited that country during the 180th Olympiad 960-56BC). Diodorus does not imply that he believed them." p. 18

She goes on to say how this contradicts the Greek account which says that he [Cecrops] simply "sprang from the soil of Attica. His lower body took the form of a snake." p. 18

It sounds as if she is basing her total counter argument on the sentence/idea that "Diodorus does not imply that he believed them" the only evidence she offers to counter his [Diops] interpretation is a creation myth. Lefkowitz sounds as if she feels that a half snake man being the father of a people is more believable than a man sailing across the Mediterranean and getting a lil nookie from a native...lol...maybe they thought his lower half was half snake because he was black...:laugh4: ...ok that wasn't funny....lol

My point is that all throughout her book Ms. Lefkowitz rarely offers any empirical data to refute the claims she is attacking. The bulk of her arguments can be summed up as her saying, "I just see it different."

Noone can really say for certain who was who and where who came from or how light/dark someone was that far back in time...even this example, Ms. Lefkowitz is talking about the period in/around the 18th Egyptian Dynasty (1574-1293) hell the Old Kingdom of Egypt (which started farther south than the New Kingdom) was started and ended thousands of years before Ms. Lefkowitz's own example...who really knows...and it really shouldn't matter anyway...there is only 1 race of homo sapien sapien: human.

Sorry for the long post but her book struck a nerve with me, not for the content but for the absolute lack of empirical data she provided to support her arguments. I also had the pleasure of seeing her on a panel where her book came up...maybe it was the cameras but she didnt look like she was confident of her knowledge...she was flustered and sounded like she knew she was full-o-poop

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

Black Athena is really no better though.

Its not that I don't believe it was possible for the Ancient Greeks to be African, I just don't think it makes any sense.

AFAIK the "Black" Africans, i.e Subsaharan were still, well, Subsaharan at this point. Even if people did emigrate from what is now Africa to Greece I don't think thay'd be ethnically the same as the Africans Bernel seems to talk about. As to the actual evidence I don't think there really is any. The idea that Greece developed significantly from Egypt, is I think, giving no credit to the Greeks. The Greeks believed it because the Egyptions were the oldest civilisation and they wanted to borrow from them.

As to basing things on myths that can go almost entirely out the window.

Add to that what we know about the ethnicity of the Mycenaens, the faces of their death masks and other things.

Then look at the way the Greeks are described in the Odyssey and I think that you can say that at the very least the Dorians were Indo-European and given the general accuracy of details in Homer the Mycenaens probably were as well.

Then in Egypt there is one African dynasty mentioned, which marks it as extraordinary, and that seems to have upset the Egyptions.

Personnally I don't think the Africans would have bothered with Greece and if Bernel was right that would mean someone in prehistory drove them out.

All in all its not the arguement Bernel makes, its why he makes it that bothers me. He seems to think that Africa should be the father of Western civilisation, he needs it to be. Quite frankly I think that's sad, by trying to appropriate someone else' heritage he devalues the real heritage of Africa.

It seems like a sort of racial self loathing.

That saif the whole issue is pointless, as you say it doesn't matter and I don't belong to either "race." So I guess acording to Bernel its not my heritage either way.

As far as I'm concerned Ancient Greece was a great civilisation and I don't see why your skin needs to be a certain colour to apreciate that or to build on it.