Sorry I meant to say the Africans in Sub-Saharan Africa never domesticated the horse obviously.Quote:
Originally Posted by Brenus
People in Southern regions never developed a type of agriculture capable of creating a very highly advanced society.
Printable View
Sorry I meant to say the Africans in Sub-Saharan Africa never domesticated the horse obviously.Quote:
Originally Posted by Brenus
People in Southern regions never developed a type of agriculture capable of creating a very highly advanced society.
Anytime you deprive a human of his rights and liberties no good can come of it.
I'd rather be an uncivilized freeman than a civilized serf breaking my back and watching as my land is being exploited by another person.
No doubt the African continent lagged behind Europe in every possible measure but that does not mean "the white mans burden" becomes a valid arguement, merley an opaque excuse for exploitation
That's what I said since post 1 ;)Quote:
Originally Posted by gaelic cowboy
This is not because they are inferior and it does not justify their subjugationQuote:
Originally Posted by Skullheadhq
In the OP I wrote just below the map:Quote:
There are indeed some horrible and seemingly never ending conflicts like in Angola. Mozambique seems to have come out of their civil war before it escalated into yet another Angola. And I guess the jury is still out for Congo after the last war.
Hopefully things will improve as we no longer have a Cold War to divide the continent even more. Economic problems has AFAIK also played a role. e.g. It does not help when we are utter hypocrites and demands free trade only to destroy African agriculture because of our heavily subsidised farmers.
Edit: I do think Africa in this discussion means the Sub-Saharan part.
"Known areas circled. For the case of this post, exclude the circling of Egypt, Morocco, Algeria and Tunisia. This is on about Central and Southern Africa."
So like you said, it's to discuss the areas below North Africa.
Wdll the last few words sum it up.The borders were drawn from the European point of view. In doing this they ignored cultural boundaries which of course has now left areas of the continent in anarchy as groups fight each other over a disputed territory.Quote:
“Africans by drawing arbitrary borders across the continent which don't consider tribal boundaries”: Absolute non-sense. Europe did have non-arbitrary borders and it didn’t prevent wars. America has strait lines borders and it didn’t provoke wars.
More seriously, what kind of borders would you draw in the Sahara, or in the Tropical Rain Forest? And what would make more sense?
If you study the creation of borders, you will soon see that they were all but arbitrary. They were either geographical (Congo) or Political but from the European Balance of Power point of view.
That would have been the solution, yes. In doing so it limits the level of friction between ethnicities and religions and minimises the risk of war breaking out. Of course, knowing what humans are like, war is inevitable but we can at least attempt to minimise the risk.Quote:
Now, give me inter-States African Wars… The post Colonial Wars were not between States but most of them were Civil Wars. So was the solution: to partition Africa following ethnicities, languages or Religions? And can you explain how it would have avoid wars, as it didn’t really worked out, in Europe or Asia…
I've never claimed they were good people, just that massive scale enslavement and murder of blacks in Africa was entirely unacceptable. Slavery was always practiced on the continent, seeing as Arabs did it themselves, but not to the extent that the Western world achieved.Quote:
The other trap to avoid about Africa is the “good and unspoiled” savage “à la Rousseau”.
Africa had wars between Kingdoms long before European set a foot…
The African Kingdoms (e.g. Ghana, Songhai, Bamana Empire) were waging wars to their neighbours and were not nice people and were de facto the slavers…
Ethiopian Empire existed from 13rd Century to 1974 and the fall of the Emperor.
Shaka, creator of the Zulu Empire had quite drastic methods to put people on line…
I'm sorry but that's just incorrect. Disease in Africa is atrociously rampant and this is drummed in to our minds every day with adverts about donating to charities to help the people there.Quote:
Now, was Africa made better?
In term of heath, yes,
I agree with you there.Quote:
transportation, yes, and in a lot of aspects.
But the thing here is that the mass enslavement was entirely unnecessary. What purpose did it really serve besides to make the rich richer? They'd subjugated their own populations for centuries during the Middle Ages and now they were going out of their way to inflict this absolute domination over others. On the other hand, one could argue with your Stalin analogy that it was necessary to an extent because he had modernised ex-Imperial Russia at such a rapid rate to keep up with the rest of the world. If you think about it, if it wasn't for this industrialisation then they may not have been able to hold off the German armies during Operation Barbarossa which was done at heavy expense in real life anyway.Quote:
Does it make colonisation good? No.
It is always the same problem: Did Stalin modernised Feudal Russia? Yes. But at what price!!!
Did the Gaul were better of after the Roman Conquest? After Caesar on his on admission killed a quarter and enslaved a quarter… Yes, but again at what price…
I am the one recognising that those who say “better starving than slavery” never starved…
But it doesn’t make slavery acceptable….
It's good to see this thread's taken off anyway, I thought it would have just been left to die because the Monastery seemed so quiet :no:
It is not about education. It is about respect and common decency, to maintain an acceptable standard of debate.Quote:
Originally Posted by Skullheadhq
Maybe an example can make my point clear:
L: 'What do you guys think? Is Hawking a brilliant scientist or a mere mediocre?
X: 'I think despite his being a popular media darling Hawking's a genuinely great astronomer and'
S: 'Disagree! Stephen Hawking is a stupid cripple!'
Moderator: 'Please keep the discussion civil'
S:' 'Oh I'm sorry, I thought Hawking was a cripple in a wheelchair. If not, then I'm, sorry, perhaps I should have better educated myself'
It is not clever. It is not witty sarcasm. It is sheer defamation, of a most unpleasant tone. Agressive belittling of others, almost as if seizing the opportunity to pose as a contribution to an ongoing debate. A debate which is then sadly dragged down into the gutter by it.
Leopold II is really one of the few persons in history I would call evil. To do what he did for nothing but selfish reasons makes him the unchallenged #1. Maybe you do need to educate yourself on what happened there. You should read 'King Leopolds ghost' by Adam Hochshild, if you don't put it away a few times you certainly are more vigilant than me. It's worse than the holocaust, it's really no thing to mockQuote:
Originally Posted by Skullheadhq
Brenus is right. We can't see it into white - black colours. Some part of colonisation were bad and some were good.
Good was industrial development and new level of civilisation. You mentioned about ancient civilisations of Africa. But into 19th century they were already ancient.
Theis level of development was far worse than even worst european country. Colonisation was possibility to perform industrial revolution there.
On the other hand massive killing, extermination of whole tribes and atlantic slavery trade are one of the worse part of history. Of course we can't blame only white people for slave trading. Some african tribes took part into slave trading as traders not "trade material".
All in all - colonisation made Africa better. But for what price?
BTW - do you know who did worst thing for Africa imo. Soviet Union. They gave AK 47 people who some years ago left stone age. This made normal tribal wars into massive killing.
You know, Leopold II wanted to invade the Netherlands once and turn Limburg and N-Brabant in a second Congo, I wouldn't have minded though.Quote:
Originally Posted by Fragony
Yeah I know that. If he would do that to his neighbours imagine what he would do against the blacks who were considered to be nothing but talking apes at the time. I really can't think of a more vile chapter in western history. Read the diary's of mr Stanleyhat, it's stunning how Blacks were seen as mere animals, he describes mindless killing as if it was a hunt, which it was. The greatest crime in modern history, also the most unknown. Words cannot describe how Africa got :daisy:, it's an avalanche of mindless crueltyQuote:
Originally Posted by Skullheadhq
The Boers didn't do a particularly good job of civilisation though, hence why we British had to come in to put them down. Britain - now there's a civilisation worth talking about, unlike the Dutch-speaking pretenders.Quote:
Originally Posted by Skullheadhq
Edit.
Baiting.
You make it sound so easy ~;)Quote:
Originally Posted by Pannonian
Edit.
Taking the bait.
You are really being tasteless about the greatest tragedy that ever happened to living and breathing people. Joseph Comrad wrote his Heart of Darkness after a trip to the Congo, it's movie adoptation set in Vietnam mentions the cutting off arms, that was standard policy in the Congo. For every bullet fired a hand was to be returned. After a while they didn't bother wasting bullets and just cut of the arms, and sold the bullets on the black market. Besides the 50.000.000 PEOPLE who died there are a lot more that got mutilated that way, many more milliions than these mere 50, some are alive even today as it lasted till the twenties of last century,Quote:
Originally Posted by Skullheadhq
I feel this answer to be not right... How is Africa better? We not only lack of enough objectivity but subjectivity too to answer such question, only Africans can answer it.Quote:
Originally Posted by KrooK
I personally think it's not better, or at least is not the better it should be to justify such colonization. I have the impression that if nobody had messed with the African continent the situation today couldn't be worse. What is done is done... but justify it... thats something I'm not able to do.
One could argue that it was good because of the technology it bought, but do Africans themselves generally find this better than the way things would have been if it had never happened? Was tribal life actually worse than before the Europeans came over?
Some things changed. I think changed on better.
1. There are almost no slavery into Africa (with some exeptions like Western Sahara).
2. Some of the countries are gaining cash (for example from tourists).
3. They generally do not eat themselves (with some exeptions).
4. Countries and citizens of these countries are generally richer. Of course not as rich as western europe or usa but much richer than they were.
5. African countries have possibilities like rest of the world. They do not use it. But it does not mean that they have no possibilities.
I personally think that price was very high but equal. Civilisation jumps always costs much (Poland is best proof how much sometimes).
This thread is an obscene reflection of how the Org's demographic can lead discussions down a rabbit hole of stereotype, partitial truths and jingoism, tied off with supposedly well meaning condescension.
Contemplating the ball of :daisy: some here consider thought, I don't even know where to start unravelling it. I am impressed with the will of those who have tried, mostly it just frightens me.
I have to respond to one point in particular, and a very minor one at that though:
The use of horses to plow in Europe was indeed a key medieval agricultural development, but it was due to the spread of Chinese technology (put that in your "white is right" pipe and smoke it!) - namely the Horse collar, which allowed a horse to better pull a plough (previous designs tended to strangle the horse, the harder it pulled). The point has already been made of how isolated and un-horse friendly much of sub-saharan Africa was, so it's hardly surprising that neither the horse, nor horse drawn plowing, was adopted there.
Prior to horse drawn ploughing, the trend was for Oxen to be used. Cheaper to own and run, and more resilient than a horse, Oxen were still used in Europe up untill the 1950s in some places.
They didnt use oxen either in sub-saharan africa cos they did not have any they did have cattle but they are are not really suitable for ploughing hence no large scale agri developedQuote:
Originally Posted by alh_p
So you denied people all the rights you enjoyed and put them under subjugation for hundreds of years
And most of you think they are better off?
I feel like dropping some of you in Zambia
You realize the stereotype of the African savage is an excuse right? There were advanced civilzations in Afirca....
Were all Africans when you get right down to it.Quote:
Originally Posted by Strike For The South
My thoughts exactly, although I might give them a quick sex change and substitue Zambia for DRC.Quote:
Originally Posted by Strike For The South
Nevermind.
Little correction Alh_P, the heavy plow that was used here comes from Easter-Europe
Heh, did not expect to get into a discussion on the history of agriculture (as fascinating as it is), I wasn't talking about the plough itself, but the attachment and beastie that pulls it along and through the earth. :bow:Quote:
Originally Posted by Fragony
These evolved because ploughs changed, they grew smaller and were easier to pull, these big swords weren't needed for the softer soil in Western-Europe, easily pulled by the multi-purpose horses.Quote:
Originally Posted by alh_p
Nothing is ever made better or worse by anything, except from a subjective point of view. Arguing that European imperialism was good because of railroads or bad because of slavery requires one to have set preferences in favour or disfavour of one or the other, it's not at all a question about whether Africa was made better or worse objectively speaking but whether it developed according to our tastes. Today most people like railroads but not slavery, in the past you had people who liked slavery but not railroads. Suffice to say; Europeans brought both railroads and slavery and neither made Africa better or worse, merely different. From there on it's up to you to decide how to feel about those differences based on your own convictions.
So, how would the borders issue be resolved? At least for the Americas, countries were allowed to de jure take over land so Chile could take Bolivia's coast line, America could take Mexico's northern territories, Paraguay could get shrunken. Are the America's more peaceful because of it? Or are they simply more peaceful because they wiped out or heavily bred with the natives and wiping out separate ethnic identities of the previous inhabitants? And in Europe, borders were established over many years. Eventually, many got a nation states. But even so, there are still nations without their own states and here and there, they've been a bit violent in the last 50 years.
So, how would borders be reapportioned and who would decide it? And how would you get some nations to accept the split?
And Africans colonizing Europe. Carthage owning eastern Spain, and several African Muslim groups moving into Spain and either displacing Christians or other Muslims.Quote:
Originally Posted by gaelic cowboy
Oh Geez, I'm not going to report you now lets get to the part where you call me Fraulein :love:Quote:
Originally Posted by PanzerJaeger
[Language and personal insults to third poster removed]