Africa - Made Better or Worse by European Colonisation?

[Skullheadhq]

In regards to inventions, if you take in to account the climate and environment mixed in with the isolation of civilisations, you would realise that their inability to advance at the same technological pace as Eurasia is because they were lacking in the same materials that civilisations elsewhere had which enabled them to produce the weaponry they did (as an example) while having access to more luxurious materials which mean little militarily or architecturally. The way I see it, if you don't have the material to make something, and can't procure said material from another source then how can you be blamed for not making it?

I'm quite confident that if at some point we swapped the areas inhabited with white people with blacks (and vice versa) we would end up with an advanced black civilisation and a 'primitive' white one.

Afrikaners are the living proof that you're wrong.

[Lysimachus]

Afrikaners are the living proof that you're wrong.

Have they been given thousands of years to improve themselves in conditions similar to those of the Fertile Crescent or the Mediterranean? Of course they haven't. The earliest recorded civilisation is Sumer (5th Millenium BC) so it would only be fair to give my hypothetical situation that as a starting point.

[Skullheadhq]

Have they been given thousands of years to improve themselves in conditions similar to those of the Fertile Crescent or the Mediterranean? Of course they haven't. The earliest recorded civilisation is Sumer (5th Millenium BC) so it would only be fair to give my hypothetical situation that as a starting point.

Uh, Afrikaners build a good civilisation and cultivated a part of Africa despite the 'ecological barriers' you spoke of, thus proving the 'Africa didn't develop because of the climate' thing is a myth. Also Central Africa is very fertile, more so than the Mediterrean and Africa's main export is raw recources, so the 'no recourses' argument is nonsense as well., but I think you don't know who Afrikaners are.

[Lysimachus]

Uh, Afrikaners build a good civilisation and cultivated a part of Africa despite the 'ecological barriers' you spoke of, thus proving the 'Africa didn't develop because of the climate' thing is a myth. Also Central Africa is very fertile, more so than the Mediterrean and Africa's main export is raw recources, so the 'no recourses' argument is nonsense as well., but I think you don't know who Afrikaners are.

After taking a look at that article, there's a few flaws with your argument. In regards to your first part about them building a good civilisation, seeing as they were white colonists they would obviously know how to build in a similar style to the states back in Europe. To the next point about it being very fertile, if you take a look here you'll see the following:

Climate

The climate of Africa ranges from tropical to subarctic on its highest peaks. Its northern half is primarily desert or arid, while its central and southern areas contain both savanna plains and very dense jungle (rainforest) regions. In between, there is a convergence where vegetation patterns such as sahel, and steppe dominate.

As i'd states earlier, the African climate lays on the extremities of the scale with the more moderate climates simply being hard to sustain a population on since they lack the necessary rainfall.

[Skullheadhq]

So, if the Afrikaners could cultivate South-Africa why couldn't those who lived there for ages do it? Same ecological limits.

[gaelic cowboy]

So, if the Afrikaners could cultivate South-Africa why couldn't those who lived there for ages do it? Same ecological limits.

Africans never domesticated the horse so they couldn't plough large fields, large scale agriculture gives surplus food leading to higher civilisation.

[Fragony]

There is no early colonisation only trading posts, the actual colonisation was in the late 19th century, and it was probably the greatest crime against humanity ever. Even a catious estimate is good for 50.000.000 people dead, and that's just the Belgium Congo. Pure rape is more like it, 'we' completely destroyed a whole continent, sliced it up.

[Skullheadhq]

Even a catious estimate is good for 50.000.000 people dead, and that's just the Belgium Congo.

But that's just because Belgium is very, very evil

'we' completely destroyed a whole continent.

Hard to destroy some desert continent with a maximum of 10 huts on it.

sliced it up.

Well, nobody claimed it, it was there for us to grab, unlike China or Japan, which was never colonised.

Africa would probably still as primitive if it wasn't for glorious European Imperialism, they shouldn't be ungrateful.

[Lysimachus]

So, if the Afrikaners could cultivate South-Africa why couldn't those who lived there for ages do it? Same ecological limits.

"Settlements of Bantu-speaking peoples, who were iron-using agriculturists and herdsmen, were already present south of the Limpopo River by the fourth or fifth century CE"

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/South_Africa#History

Hard to destroy some desert continent with a maximum of 10 huts on it.

If you're not even going to be constructive then please don't post in this thread.

Well, nobody claimed it, it was there for us to grab, unlike China or Japan, which was never colonised.

Africa would probably still as primitive if it wasn't for glorious European Imperialism, they shouldn't be ungrateful.

While European imperialism and colonisation bought a vast amount of technology to the continent, the construction of poorly planned urban metropolises simply causes the population to live in poverty and considering the climate, heavily increases the chances of diseases spreading as so many people have been brought in to close contact with one another. Prior to colonisation, African society tended to be fragmented with villages far apart from one another which meant that if there was a disease outbreak in a village it wouldn't spread, whereas now it spreads at an extremely rapid pace and is now rampant across the continent.

[Fragony]

But that's just because Belgium is very, very evil

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 mock

[Pannonian]

Africa would probably still as primitive if it wasn't for glorious European Imperialism, they shouldn't be ungrateful.

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.

[CBR]

It's not like the Afrikaners had to reinvent everything from scratch. So isolated or not, having gunpowder was quite nice along with other stuff.

For the environmental/climatic determinism argument there is Guns, Germs and Steel by Jared Diamond. He describes the problems that African cultures faced compared to the Eurasian region.