| Author |
Message
|
| kojax |
 Posted: Sun May 25, 2008 1:17 pm Post subject: Why didn't middle and lower Africa ever get civilized? |
 |
|
Forum Ph.D.
Joined: 27 Mar 2007
Posts: 1058
|
I figure one possibility is that it stayed so uncivilized because civilized people could never make it down there without getting sick from things the locals were immune to, but I'm not sure that's enough by itself.
Asia was just so far away from Europe the trip wouldn't be worth the trouble (in either direction), except for the occasional merchant. And yet, both continents independently managed to develop highly civilized cultures. Or maybe they just both got it from the middle east? (Funny irony, that one).
Was Ethiopia ever really a power?
I guess I'm just wondering why, of the three connected continents Europe, Asia, and Africa : Africa was so full of people no more civilized than the North American Indians.
I know this could turn racist really fast, if the wrong kind of person decides to post, but I'm really looking for other considerations. |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
| georginho_juventusygr |
| Posted: Sun May 25, 2008 2:32 pm Post subject: Re: Why didn't middle and lower Africa ever get civilized? |
|
|
Forum Freshman
Joined: 05 Jan 2008
Posts: 32
Location: Le Château de Moulinsart
|
| kojax wrote: |
I figure one possibility is that it stayed so uncivilized because civilized people could never make it down there without getting sick from things the locals were immune to, but I'm not sure that's enough by itself.
Asia was just so far away from Europe the trip wouldn't be worth the trouble (in either direction), except for the occasional merchant. And yet, both continents independently managed to develop highly civilized cultures. Or maybe they just both got it from the middle east? (Funny irony, that one).
Was Ethiopia ever really a power?
I guess I'm just wondering why, of the three connected continents Europe, Asia, and Africa : Africa was so full of people no more civilized than the North American Indians.
I know this could turn racist really fast, if the wrong kind of person decides to post, but I'm really looking for other considerations. |
The last time I read history books was long, long time ago. 
Euh ... Asian countries were chosen by European ones to be imperialized and to be colonialized because Asian countries were rich of materials, such as spices and silk. European countries needed spices much.
African countries, on the other hand, didn't have much to be taken.
Apparently.
_________________
We hold these truths to be self evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights, that among these are life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| icewendigo |
| Posted: Sun May 25, 2008 5:25 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Forum Senior
Joined: 21 Jun 2006
Posts: 378
|
A few thousand years ago, some of the first civilizations we know about were in Iran(Persia), Iraq(Mesopotemia), and Egypt, back then Europeans were almost cavemen.
Then it appears the mediterranean became a hub of trade and travel. You had the Greeks and later on the Roman Empire which brought aspects of civilization to western europe.
Exchages with the middle of africa were probably few and far between because of access.
Meso America civilization apparently emerge independantly. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| Harold14370 |
| Posted: Sun May 25, 2008 6:40 pm Post subject: Re: Why didn't middle and lower Africa ever get civilized? |
|
|
Forum Professor
Joined: 13 Apr 2007
Posts: 1668
Location: Pennsylvania
|
| georginho_juventusygr wrote: |
The last time I read history books was long, long time ago.
Euh ... Asian countries were chosen by European ones to be imperialized and to be colonialized because Asian countries were rich of materials, such as spices and silk. European countries needed spices much.
African countries, on the other hand, didn't have much to be taken.
Apparently. |
That explanation doesn't sound right at all. There was a thriving trade for centuries. Africa provided ivory, gold, and slaves for the European and American trade. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| BumFluff |
| Posted: Sun May 25, 2008 10:52 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Forum Senior
Joined: 06 Mar 2008
Posts: 393
Location: Canada
|
I think it has a lot to do with the environment of Africa as well as the political and economic atmosphere of the area compared to the environment and economic atmosphere of Europe. One is a completely harsh desert climate while the other is a lush agricultural climate.
_________________
"The trouble with the world is that the stupid are cocksure and the intelligent are full of doubt" - Bertrand Russell |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| Harold14370 |
| Posted: Mon May 26, 2008 1:50 am Post subject: |
|
|
Forum Professor
Joined: 13 Apr 2007
Posts: 1668
Location: Pennsylvania
|
| BumFluff wrote: |
| One is a completely harsh desert climate while the other is a lush agricultural climate. |
What? We are talking about Sub-Saharan Africa, aren't we? Zimbabwe had some very productive farms until Mugabe killed the white farmers and took their property. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| Ophiolite |
| Posted: Mon May 26, 2008 1:51 am Post subject: |
|
|
Forum Radioactive Isotope
Joined: 25 Jul 2005
Posts: 4804
Location: Scotland
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| Pendragon |
| Posted: Mon May 26, 2008 4:27 am Post subject: |
|
|
Moderator
Joined: 07 Jan 2005
Posts: 1160
Location: Nederland
|
Yea there have been highly developped civilizations in Africa, also sub-Sahara, although they clearly didn't grow into world empires.
One hypothesis: investing in irrigation and plowing technology gives a high return in countries with a somewhat temperate climate and a suitable soil (one often follows from the other; both too much and too few rain gives a shallow, unfertile soil). In Europe, China and parts of the America's the thick, fertile soils could produce stable crop yields if irrigated, without much risk of soil degradation. The same field can give somewhat predictable yields for centuries, so you can build cities filled with people who do other things than agriculture. However without big investments in irrigation and plow technology temperate zone lands give very limited food.
I think most of Sub-Saharan Africa has exactly the reverse situation: without irrigation and plows you can still get reasonable amounts of food from the land (more fruit and game available than in temperate zones), and irrigation gives very limited benefit. If you clear a tropical jungle and plow the ground it gives high yields for a year or two, but then it's exhausted and may turn into hard Laterite (more suitable for making bricks than for agriculture). So the investment is less needed, and gives a far lower return.
Ergo Sub-Saharan African communities got by without irrigation and plowing technology and had little incentive to develop them. But it means no big cities and a lack of 'technology-push' that could start up the technological and scientific development that Europe and East-Asia experienced.
Problem of the hypothesis: North-America doesn't fit. It's just as suitable for irrigation and plowing as Europe and East-Asia, but the incentives didn't translate into technological development and largescale urbanization until Europeans applied there what they had developped at home.
Perhaps there's an element of chance to whether people recognize and use the opportunities available to them. If say 6 world regions have the necessary environment (North-America, Meso-America, Europe, Middle East, India, China) and 5 out of 6 regions spawn highly developped civilizations then that may still work as a 'probabilistic theory'. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| sunshinewarrior |
| Posted: Wed May 28, 2008 6:40 am Post subject: |
|
|
Forum Ph.D.
Joined: 26 Sep 2007
Posts: 1018
Location: London
|
I will not tire of referring questions like these straight to Jared Diamond's magisterial Guns, germs and steel, and in this case specifically to his chapter called "How Africa became black".
FWIW, the book is entirely anti-racist and he provides very plausible explanations, along with a wealth of research and references as to why (and I think Kojax you got it in one) livestock and crops initially domesticated in the so-called fertile crescent either took so long to reach sub-Saharan Africa that the Europeans got there first by boat, or could not get there at all and therefore had to wait upon independent domestication of, as it happens, less fruitful local stock. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| Faron |
| Posted: Wed May 28, 2008 8:42 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Forum Freshman
Joined: 27 Dec 2007
Posts: 62
|
| Africa is still rich in resources, right? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| ishmaelblues |
| Posted: Thu Jun 05, 2008 10:26 am Post subject: |
|
|
Forum Freshman
Joined: 27 Mar 2008
Posts: 90
|
| Why didn't middle and lower Africa ever get civilized? - wow how ignorant and eurocentric! |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| KALSTER |
| Posted: Thu Jun 05, 2008 10:45 am Post subject: |
|
|
Forum Cosmic Wizard
Joined: 08 Sep 2007
Posts: 2208
Location: South Africa
|
Let me just point something out in case someone doesn't know: Africa is a VERY LARGE continent with a wide variety of climates, including grass lands, tropical and sub-tropical environments etc. While clearing relatively poor forest soil limits the life of a new clearing, the same is not true for the vast grass fields. I just get the feeling that people regularly talk of "Africa" with a simplistic and vague understanding about it.
AFRICA
_________________
"Gullibility kills" - Carl Sagan
As jy dom is, moet jy kak.
Last edited by KALSTER on Thu Jun 05, 2008 10:49 am; edited 1 time in total |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| Pong |
| Posted: Thu Jun 05, 2008 10:49 am Post subject: |
|
|
Forum Professor
Joined: 08 Apr 2008
Posts: 1392
|
| ishmaelblues wrote: |
| Why didn't middle and lower Africa ever get civilized? - wow how ignorant and eurocentric! |
The civilisation they're talking about is what everybody wants. Like roads, and water piped from the mountains. It's not Eurocentric. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| SuperNatendo |
| Posted: Thu Jun 05, 2008 3:35 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Forum Masters Degree
Joined: 10 Dec 2007
Posts: 518
Location: Nashville, TN USA
|
| kojax wrote: |
I figure one possibility is that it stayed so uncivilized because civilized people could never make it down there without getting sick from things the locals were immune to, but I'm not sure that's enough by itself.
Asia was just so far away from Europe the trip wouldn't be worth the trouble (in either direction), except for the occasional merchant. And yet, both continents independently managed to develop highly civilized cultures. Or maybe they just both got it from the middle east? (Funny irony, that one).
Was Ethiopia ever really a power?
I guess I'm just wondering why, of the three connected continents Europe, Asia, and Africa : Africa was so full of people no more civilized than the North American Indians.
I know this could turn racist really fast, if the wrong kind of person decides to post, but I'm really looking for other considerations. |
Um, first, what is your definition of "civilized" I think the definition followed by the Europeans was that to become civilized their society must partake in land grabbing, technology theft, and philosophy theft.
Second, Ever heard of South Africa?
Thirdly, You need to read your history books, while you mention mid to south Africa, you neglect civilizations such as Ancient Egypt, Kush, and more, (just as Ophiolite pointed out in an earlier post)
Additionally, Africa is the world's second most-populous continent The first known example of the domestication of plants for agricultural purposes on the continent occurred in the Sahel region circa 5000 BC, when sorghum and African rice began to be cultivated. Around this time, and in the same region, the guinea fowl became domesticated.
Sounds pretty civilized to me!
You act as though the inhabitants cannot become civilized because they have less contact with "White Folk"
| kojax wrote: |
| civilized people could never make it down there without getting sick from things the locals were immune to, but I'm not sure that's enough by itself. |
But I say that this very interaction between Europeans and the inhabitants of Africa is what hindered its development the most.
Most of the Diamond mines in Africa are owned by white families who gained it by land-grabbing.
Sounds pretty eurocentric to me.
_________________
“It’s no wonder that truth is stranger than fiction. Fiction has to make sense.” - Mark Twain |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| Harold14370 |
| Posted: Thu Jun 05, 2008 4:07 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Forum Professor
Joined: 13 Apr 2007
Posts: 1668
Location: Pennsylvania
|
| SuperNatendo wrote: |
Thirdly, You need to read your history books, while you mention mid to south Africa, you neglect civilizations such as Ancient Egypt, Kush, and more, (just as Ophiolite pointed out in an earlier post)
|
Last time I checked, they were north of the Sahara. The OP was about Sub-Sahara.
| Quote: |
Additionally, Africa is the world's second most-populous continent The first known example of the domestication of plants for agricultural purposes on the continent occurred in the Sahel region circa 5000 BC, when sorghum and African rice began to be cultivated. Around this time, and in the same region, the guinea fowl became domesticated.
Sounds pretty civilized to me!
You act as though the inhabitants cannot become civilized because they have less contact with "White Folk" ... But I say that this very interaction between Europeans and the inhabitants of Africa is what hindered its development the most.
Most of the Diamond mines in Africa are owned by white families who gained it by land-grabbing.
Sounds pretty eurocentric to me. |
No need to get on your high horse. Kojax asked a valid question, though probably too broad a generalization and politically incorrect. I think everybody knew what he meant. How about if it were restated as most of subsaharan Africa is economically underdeveloped. The explanation about exploitation by Europeans is rather dubious. The Americas were exploited too, and so were India, China, etc. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
