|
Post by Deleted on Apr 30, 2010 13:23:31 GMT
Well, when you think of how advanced the South American civilizations were until the Spaniards came to wipe them out...
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 30, 2010 15:36:23 GMT
Colonisation. Good or bad? That's a thread all by itself! Why colonised countries go bad after independence. That's another thread. Mark, would you mind if I take your idea and make a separate thread with it? This subject interests me too.
|
|
|
Post by onlymark on Apr 30, 2010 16:35:26 GMT
I've been out to a school open day and I see you've done so, feel free is what I was going to say.
|
|
|
Post by onlymark on Apr 30, 2010 16:37:54 GMT
Well, when you think of how advanced the South American civilizations were until the Spaniards came to wipe them out... But wasn't that mainly though because of disease? I know they weren't 'culturally sensitive' as well. My history of that area is sadly lacking.
|
|
|
Post by bixaorellana on Apr 30, 2010 17:38:08 GMT
All of the Americas and how they were affected by the European invasions provide a good parallel to Africa and its experience with European exploitation. Take the example of Mexico, which is a tiny landmass compared to Africa. Mexico was not a country when the Spaniards arrived, but a collection of city-states, kingdoms, and empires*. The Spaniards were absolutely dazzled by Tenochtitlan (present-day MxCity) and the civilization flourishing there. This didn't prevent them from destroying it, including its written records, enslaving the population, and importing the Inquisition. The continent of Africa, with it massive and varied terrain, is made up of a huge variation of people and cultures, all or most of which have suffered European domination in their histories. Present-day geopolitical boundaries frequently enclose historically warring factions, something exploited by European overlords and by present political groups. Africans or people of African descent continue to play major roles in all aspects of "developed" civilization -- the sciences, the political arena, the arts, etc. I don't think we, as products of Europe-driven civilizations, can negatively judge Africa on how it evolved way back in history, when in isolation from the rest of the world, nor after the violent introduction of that other world. * wapedia.mobi/en/Pre-Columbian_Mesoamerica
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 30, 2010 17:47:07 GMT
Another thing that popped into my mind today was "what if, instead of teaching Europeans how to make gunpowder, the Chinese had decided to invade Europe and blow everything up?" The new civilization would probably still be digging up artifacts from the ruins of the cathedrals and castles...
Where would the world be then?
|
|
|
Post by onlymark on Apr 30, 2010 18:07:54 GMT
Africans or people of African descent continue to play major roles in all aspects of "developed" civilization -- the sciences, the political arena, the arts, etc. I will give an answer to that, but purely based on statistics that could probably be found with some delving. They may well play major roles, but in the small minority, and because they are a minority it is a cause of the problems we have today with the fact they are a minority. If half those who played major roles in anything were Africans or of African descent, then there wouldn't be, surely? If you did put together all those with influence, I wonder how many were born, raised and educated in western countries, in effect American, British, French or whatever. May well be the only connection they have with Africa is skin colour and ancestors.
I don't think we, as products of Europe-driven civilizations, can negatively judge Africa on how it evolved way back in history, Then it is probably best not to do so. But conversely you are saying the only people qualified to make a judgement are Africans themselves?
when in isolation from the rest of the world, Yet everywhere was isolated, Africa is not the exception.
|
|
|
Post by onlymark on Apr 30, 2010 18:14:26 GMT
Kerouac, my thought from that is what would've happened if the Icelanders had ruled over Europe. What a financial crisis there would've been now.
Hang on a minute......there is anyway. Scrub that thought then.
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 30, 2010 18:45:13 GMT
See? You're back on the fallacious economic analysis of development again!
|
|
|
Post by onlymark on Apr 30, 2010 20:38:47 GMT
Probably. I'll agree more when I work out what you've just said.
|
|
|
Post by spindrift on Apr 30, 2010 20:48:21 GMT
Africa has always had the structure of tribal societies usually at war with each other. This is the version I've heard of why they never progressed...what do you think?
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 30, 2010 20:57:08 GMT
Spindrift, that's kind of the point I was trying to make earlier on in this thread. Many Africans have not changed. Due to...what? Isolation (even now), traditions that have been set out in their own tribes, war..., lack of education etc...
|
|
|
Post by spindrift on Apr 30, 2010 21:02:51 GMT
I have spent 4 years living in Kenya and South Africa. I find it impossible to find the words as to why the average African is so different to his peers elsewhere. Impossible.
|
|
|
Post by onlymark on Apr 30, 2010 21:36:41 GMT
I must say I agree with the last three posts. I'm clueless.
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 30, 2010 21:49:11 GMT
And so what's new?
(sorry I just couldn't resist that comment).
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on May 1, 2010 5:02:47 GMT
I don't think any of us can understand since we're all on the outside looking in. Not our cultures, not our goals...
|
|
|
Post by lola on May 1, 2010 15:56:38 GMT
I can't offer anything informed, just limited ignorant impressions. Forgive me if this seems superficial or racist. This sort of forum is a place where I'd hope people could say what they think, and let others sort it out.
I've been struck lately by how the art and music of sub-Saharan Africa touches the deepest and most universal chord, and thinking it may be related to Africa's being where humans originated.
e.g. These Songs Around the World seem to work with African type music.
Or for instance, spend an hour in the medieval European religious section of an art museum, with the dripping blood and rich patrons portrayed as apostles, encrustations in general. Then look at the African art with its direct spiritual power.
Watching my daughter's dance company, there are moves that even advanced and talented white dancers can't put across.
I spent years working in the black part of our city, and feel there's something that I as a caucasian lack.
|
|
|
Post by bixaorellana on May 1, 2010 17:47:12 GMT
I wrote: Africans or people of African descent continue to play major roles in all aspects of "developed" civilization -- the sciences, the political arena, the arts, etc.
Mark wrote: I will give an answer to that, but purely based on statistics that could probably be found with some delving. They may well play major roles, but in the small minority, and because they are a minority it is a cause of the problems we have today with the fact they are a minority. If half those who played major roles in anything were Africans or of African descent, then there wouldn't be, surely? If you did put together all those with influence, I wonder how many were born, raised and educated in western countries, in effect American, British, French or whatever. May well be the only connection they have with Africa is skin colour and ancestors. |
I haven't answered the above because a) it's pretty jumbled and hard to understand, and b) I object to your whole thrust in this thread, which seems to be that Africans are inferior, based on the premise that "they" (an entire continent of people!) have not performed well on your personal scale of traditional European values. I wrote: I don't think we, as products of Europe-driven civilizations, can negatively judge Africa on how it evolved way back in history,
Mark wrote: Then it is probably best not to do so. But conversely you are saying the only people qualified to make a judgement are Africans themselves? |
I guess I worded that poorly. What I meant was that those of us who are products of Europe-driven cultures tend to see "civilization" and "development" as correct or not based on a sort of universal European form. I wrote: Like other cultures which were disrupted by European presence, we'll never know in what direction they might have gone otherwise.
Mark wrote: But that doesn't account for the thousands of years before European presence. Our influence is relatively recent and for millennia before that they were free to do as they please. |
This is the fundamental difference between how you look at this and how I look at it. Your premise is that "our influence" is good and not living up to that expectation is bad. Lola has made a good point about the depth and perseverance of sub-Saharan arts and folkways. Much of that is in the face of having been stolen away from the ancestral past and systematically marginalized.
|
|
|
Post by onlymark on May 1, 2010 18:48:53 GMT
I am not making judgements about anything. That's why I tried to say that this part could be based on facts.
If you take the UN and their study they find that Africa has performed badly. So it's not just me. It's the whole UN. Not my "personal values" in isolation. You said that Africans or people of African descent continue to play major roles in all aspects of "developed" civilization I stated that this may be so, but they are in the minority, that because they are in the minority it causes problems - and I wondered how many of that minority were born, raised and educated in western countries.
I have stated nothing that is racist. I have not said anyone is inferior or superior to any other race. As unpalatable as the truth may be, it is still the truth. My original question was - "Why didn't over the thousands of years Africa develop also". According to the UN Africa has not developed in different ways - I'm asking why?
I wrote: Like other cultures which were disrupted by European presence, we'll never know in what direction they might have gone otherwise. Mark wrote: But that doesn't account for the thousands of years before European presence. Our influence is relatively recent and for millennia before that they were free to do as they please.
This is the fundamental difference between how you look at this and how I look at it. Your premise is that "our influence" is good and not living up to that expectation is bad.
Nope, never said that. I never said that our influence was good. In the other thread I've said that I think some good has happened because of colonisation - but only in the areas of infrastructure. Your focus seems to be on recent history since colonisation. My question goes much further back and that's why I said - "that doesn't account for the thousands of years before European presence" - hence before our influence.
There is no doubt that few would agree with colonisation, and I'm not one of them. But I'm asking what were the factors that were in play for thousands upon thousands of years that caused, e.g. Europe to colonise Africa and not the other way round? Why did it turn out that way? Why didn't countries in Africa set sail with force of arms and take over Italy? Or Portugal? Why didn't they build anything of note thousands of years ago? Why didn't they discover astronomy, or steam engines, or, or, or....
It's nothing to do with racism, it's plain and simple that they didn't. So why.
|
|
|
Post by fumobici on May 1, 2010 19:17:21 GMT
There are I think two problems especially in play here. Without taking sides on the issues under discussion, I see:
Firstly, the conflation of the ideas of race and culture- and not just here but in the world at large. To me race is purely about genetic lineage, but commonly used moreso about visually obvious phenotypical variations in the expression of the human genome that we tend to use as the basis for the mostly arbitrary distinctions that pass as racial typing. In common usage it has little scientific basis or precision, so people tend to paint in their own ad hoc meanings. To some, criticizing cultural artifacts that have some correlation to ethnic identities is prima facie racist. Culture thus becomes sacrosanct, not a good basis going forward for substantive discussion.
Secondly, there is the extraordinarily inflammatory nature of the word "racism". It functions- particularly given the conflations of race and culture heaped upon the extreme imprecision and non-scientific common usage of the word "race" on which we base our perceptions- more as a rhetorical grenade inciting emotional responses than actual functional word with a fixed and common meaning. And once that fuzzy rhetorical grenade is tossed, typically rational discourse is pretty difficult. Which is I think largely why discussions of "race" seldom lead anywhere besides emotional venting- which is a huge shame as the subject infuses the cultural subtexts just below the surface of so much of what we do and talk about. Having this all taboo simply perpetuates the existing ambiguities, misunderstandings and imprecisions that preempt a useful dialog happening.
|
|
|
Post by onlymark on May 1, 2010 19:55:13 GMT
moreso about visually obvious phenotypical variations in the expression of the human genome
I wish I knew words like that. I do, I really do. Maybe I could get my point across better. Then Bixa wouldn't write - it's pretty jumbled and hard to understand I'm sure she gets what you say straight away.
|
|
|
Post by bjd on May 1, 2010 20:08:31 GMT
Or for instance, spend an hour in the medieval European religious section of an art museum, with the dripping blood and rich patrons portrayed as apostles, encrustations in general. Then look at the African art with its direct spiritual powerYou mean I'm supposed to prefer this to this? Well, no. Sorry.
|
|
|
Post by bixaorellana on May 1, 2010 21:30:25 GMT
moreso about visually obvious phenotypical variations in the expression of the human genomeI wish I knew words like that. I do, I really do. Maybe I could get my point across better. Then Bixa wouldn't write - it's pretty jumbled and hard to understandI'm sure she gets what you say straight away. I get it, just not straight away. Maybe it's the correct, scholarly way to write something, but it makes for unnecessary work to read it. And with due respect, Mark, if you'll look back at your section that I said was jumbled, I think you'll see that it is not written with your usual clarity. I'm asking what were the factors that were in play for thousands upon thousands of years that caused, e.g. Europe to colonise Africa and not the other way round? Why did it turn out that way? Why didn't countries in Africa set sail with force of arms and take over Italy? Or Portugal? Why didn't they build anything of note thousands of years ago? Why didn't they discover astronomy, or steam engines, or, or, or.... This is just going around in a circle. You are implying that the value of a people lies in these types of achievement. I am saying that the cultures out of which you and I came predispose us to think that way, but that they can't rightfully be considered true yardsticks for the entire world. Anyway, it seems that powerful African civilizations rose and fell in the dawn of history. www.culturekiosque.com/art/exhibiti/rhesouda.htm
|
|
|
Post by Jazz on May 1, 2010 22:08:56 GMT
I have been working and just now read this thread. This is a fascinating question. If life originated in Africa, why did Africa develop technology more slowly than Europe? If you accept the premise that it did. We do seem to be thinking rather recently, perhaps the last thousand years. For the past two days I have been trying to remember the one explanation that made sense to me because I have often thought about this. It is contained in an excellent book Guns, Germs and Steel, by Jared Diamond. It is also an excellent documentary series. Esssentially it is based on Maslov’s hierarchy of needs. en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Maslow's_hierarchy_of_needs We deal with the basics, then move upwards. Physiological: breathing, food, water, sex, sleep, homeostasis, excretion. Safety is next: security of body, resources etc. Self Actualiation is last: creativity, problem solving etc. Here is a brief précis of Diamond’s theory, ... I very strongly suggest that you check out "Guns, Germs, and Steel" by Jared Diamond. There are far too many factors relevant to this answer to detail here and his is the most exciting theory that I have read on the topic. Europe essentially profitted from a feedback loop that made energy production expontentially more efficient...It's all about the math.
The truth is frustratingly simple, but difficult to realize: the primary factor that determines the rate that a civilization develops seems to be the ratio between the amount of energy required to produce food (primarily labor, including that required to build irrigation, tools, and crop shrinkage to feed the animals) and the amount of energy that the food provides. Nearly all of Europe's food products are high energy grains (wheat is king, baby!) that are easy to grow and actually originated in the Middle East and Africa. Tragically, a lack of agricultural knowledge, refined irrigation techniques, and perhaps climatic change allowed the overproduction of grain and animals in the Mideast and Africa, and apparently caused permanent damage to the ecosystem similar to what temporarily occured in the American midwest 75-125 years ago. Europe received the best (and most efficient, in genetic terms) plants and animals from ancient migrations escaping the depleted Mideast. Thus Europeans required less energy to grow their food and got more energy in return. This energy (and time) surplus allowed people to invest in the development of agrarian farming principles and crop selection, which in turn further increased energy efficiency. Since fewer people and resources were required to sustain the population more individuals could spend their time building better places to live and more creative things to do with their free time like making laws, forming a military, and codifying religion.
Meanwhile, the people of Africa and the Middle East were still producing food at the same ratio as their ancient forbears. In an environment where so much energy is devoted to necessity certain luxuries just aren't worth the time. For example, although the Pacific islanders had no maps or scientific astronomy they were crossing the open ocean in canoes using starcharts to find resources before Europeans had crossed the Mediterranean! The Egyptians built the pyramids without the wheel. These powerful early developments seem to indicate that these cultures had a potent head start on the Europeans, and they did. If the answer relies solely on science and technology as proof of development then the Europeans were last on the list! Therefore the answer must be something else, something earlier or more basic...
Unfortunately, very advanced and developments in anthropology, genetics, botany, biology, archaeology, and geology were required before the truth could be separated from deeply held social and political issues that are now entenched rascist convention. Africans and Europeans are the same species and neither has "evolved" since Homo Sapiens replaced Homo Neanderthalis. It's a subtle difference but indicates the difficulty in answering the question objectively... The above does make sense, but then we have to think of far more ancient history. Kerouac has mentioned mathematics, the pyramids were an astounding invention. I need to think about this.
|
|
|
Post by lola on May 1, 2010 22:19:37 GMT
ha ha bjd. No, you're not supposed to prefer the top one.
|
|
|
Post by lola on May 2, 2010 0:51:04 GMT
I've heard good things about that book, Jazz. Will have to get it.
What I was talking about were cultural, rather than racial, now that you mention it, and I meant to say that the arts reflected the character or soul of the people. I don't think a discussion like this leads to, or causes, or encourages the dangerous kind of racism.
I don't equate advanced technology with intelligence. My impression is that the Plains Indians were plenty intelligent, though they didn't leave monuments.
|
|
|
Post by fumobici on May 2, 2010 1:13:40 GMT
If you want to see a highly evolved technology that evinces obvious great intelligence, look at the Inuit culture about the Arctic and the tools and clothing they developed from a very limited selection of materials. It's actually astounding- the full equal of modern technology in its own way.
|
|
|
Post by onlymark on May 2, 2010 2:52:02 GMT
Interesting link. It's filled in a few gaps in my history knowledge. However, the African civilisations mentioned are not south of the Sahara which was my original query, they are in the Sudan, in the north of Sudan above Khartoum and associated with the Egyptians and Nubians. You are implying that the value of a people lies in these types of achievementYou are inferring it. I am not implying it. I am still not saying anyone is better, inferior, more valued or whatever. I am saying that certain areas achieved things other areas didn't. So why didn't those areas? It's the achievement, or lack of it, itself I'm querying, and has nothing to do with the value placed upon it. Jazz may be onto something though, I need to look at it again.
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on May 2, 2010 5:37:28 GMT
Maybe I am just imagining it, but I have some vague memory of some major (?) sub-Saharan civilizations that were discovered, except that just about every trace has disappeared due to the fact that they built everything out of wood instread of stone.
Then again, the equatorial regions have some of the nastiest diseases on the planet which probably have held back (our sort of) development regularly over the centuries. When you see what AIDS and Ebola have done over the past 30 years, if that sort of thing has been cropping up once or twice every century, the people didn't have a chance.
|
|
|
Post by bjd on May 2, 2010 6:40:26 GMT
I have read Guns, Germs and Steel and agree that it's a good book and offers explanations for many things.
Another factor, mentioned by Kerouac, is one of the disease + climate. In one of Kapuscinski's books about Africa, he mentions that many Europeans arriving in Africa think Africans are lazy, but don't take into account how difficult the climate is to live in. This, of course, concerns Western Africa. I must say that I found the Kenyans I saw extremely hard-working -- at least the women and kids. Some of the men too. As far as quick arithmetic thinking goes, the assistants to the matatu drivers who keep all the fares and change in their heads, give the right change to someone who got on a while earlier. I was constantly impressed.
|
|