|
Post by gelaye on Jan 3, 2006 16:24:49 GMT -5
imagine for example, that all the mande speakers in west africa united to form a single nation, comparable in size almost to china, and the same thing happened across africa, with various large empires divided by language. Im sure they would then have created massive cities and monuments and architectural styles, maybe even developed new technologies etc. I'm sure this would have made them less vulnerable to slavery, and maybe even earn them respect from Europeans. I could imagine european scholars talking of the great African empires of the South, with large cities of populations of millions and temples etc. And maybe a writing system would have developed (which I know did in places, but it would have remained)!! JUST IMAGINE!!! lol Africa would be a very different place today. it wouldnt be split up how it is now, but maybe west africa would be one country (or something like that).... lol heres a random map i drew earlier....
|
|
|
Post by galton on Jan 3, 2006 17:46:02 GMT -5
Imagine it. Now, can the Africans imagine it? Have they ever imagined it?
|
|
|
Post by Mike the Jedi on Jan 3, 2006 19:36:33 GMT -5
It is indeed too bad it never happened. History might have turned out differently. And I think the reason it didn't happen is because of the incredible diversity of language in that continent. Same thing happened with the Americas. Too many tribes, not enough large empires and united peoples.
|
|
|
Post by greatness on Jan 3, 2006 20:40:53 GMT -5
yeah the diversity.
and yiou also have to consider that after years of European colonialism many awkward nations were forged out of nothing but political ambitions. Kind of like Iraq where Kurds, Sunnis and shias were all lumped together to appease the British desire for that colony.
|
|
|
Post by pacificrim on Jan 3, 2006 21:58:10 GMT -5
It is indeed too bad it never happened. History might have turned out differently. And I think the reason it didn't happen is because of the incredible diversity of language in that continent. Same thing happened with the Americas. Too many tribes, not enough large empires and united peoples. China though also had a great diversity of (spoken) language, spans a wide area of land (deserts, jungles and mountains) and different ethnic groups, but they formed themselves into one large empire and relatively early on in its history. It has fragmented and re-united many times, but always seemed to retain some sort of "unity". Now if Africa and/or the Americas had only been like that...
|
|
|
Post by galton on Jan 3, 2006 22:49:59 GMT -5
|
|
|
Post by dodona79 on Jan 5, 2006 16:40:13 GMT -5
How the hell do you compare a poor farmer that never went to school to a european scientists IQ
|
|
|
Post by dodona79 on Jan 5, 2006 16:40:51 GMT -5
IT is like th egg and chicken thing. What comes first? High iq or schools?
|
|
|
Post by galton on Jan 8, 2006 1:39:06 GMT -5
|
|
Siafu X
Full Member
Is man one of God's blunders or is God one of man's blunders
Posts: 206
|
Post by Siafu X on Jan 8, 2006 13:15:04 GMT -5
will the huge Red state have a ruling class of Berber and Southern Euro colonists??? and Black labour?? what are your thoughts?
|
|
|
Post by gelaye on Jan 9, 2006 12:21:58 GMT -5
Sorry Gelaye but that map is pure crap A "better" scenerio North West Africa Never going to happen though it was never meant to be anything realistic in the first place....lol and i swear that map you posted is the geopolitical map of northwest africa today? that isnt what this post is about.
|
|
|
Post by kwalka on Jan 11, 2006 14:29:43 GMT -5
It is indeed too bad it never happened. History might have turned out differently. And I think the reason it didn't happen is because of the incredible diversity of language in that continent. Same thing happened with the Americas. Too many tribes, not enough large empires and united peoples. Why is it "too bad" that it never happened? Can't people just exist in the way that they see fit without us feeling bad that they never wanted or tried to form the same political associations as we did? Diversity of language isn't an issue if people want to cooperate and live together - langages are abandoned, others merge or take words - common sense. Rivalries disappear if there's a better good to be had by it. Can't we just accept the fact that africans, like the native americans, were content with their tribal structures and didn't need to organize for self-sufficiency or to dominate others? Might they not feel just as bad for us for creating these empires, cities, technologies? Seriously, you're no better than the missionaries and slave traders, imposing your view of civilization on them. "Would have made them less vulnerable to slavery" - CIVILIZATION IS BASED ON SLAVERY. Was that a serious statement? And I'm sure the respect of the Europeans was one of their primary concerns. Come on now.
|
|
|
Post by anodyne on Jan 11, 2006 15:03:22 GMT -5
No one mentioned geography. Africa's rivers (except the Nile) are only navigable for short distances, unlike in Europe. A navigable river assists in trade, which obviously is part building a civilization. Also, Africa has few natural ports. How the hell do you compare a poor farmer that never went to school to a european scientists IQ You can be an illiterate and still have a high IQ. It has nothing to do with school. Charles Manson has an IQ of 121 and his educational background is minimal. ------ Are you not aware of Aztec and Incan history? Also, since when haven't black Africans not dominated other black Africans? Europeans acquired slaves from black Africans. That's well known, or at least I thought it was well known. Black Africans did have empires and cities. When you speak of slave traders you should include black Africans.
|
|
|
Post by kwalka on Jan 11, 2006 15:12:06 GMT -5
Um, these are both completely irrelevant points. Yes, I'm completely aware that there were both Native American and African cities and empires and civilizations. I was responding to a post that was talking about the groups that DIDN'T create these.
As for blacks dominating other blacks - that's precisely my point. Slavery is a natural human condition that is not exclusive to the exploitation of blacks by whites and would not disappear had black Africa not been dominated by the Europeans - it is the basis of civilization.
No, I shouldn't, because they are outside the scope of my argument. Try to focus, here.
|
|
|
Post by anodyne on Jan 11, 2006 15:51:34 GMT -5
This is your quote:
"Can't we just accept the fact that africans, like the native americans, were content with their tribal structures and didn't need to organize for self-sufficiency or to dominate others? Might they not feel just as bad for us for creating these empires, cities, technologies? Seriously, you're no better than the missionaries and slave traders, imposing your view of civilization on them."
Based on that quote we can ascertain 1) you were not aware that native americans or africans had civilizations of their own since you made no distinction 2) you believe tribal structure and life was what can only be found in Africa and the Americas. 3) you're unaware that tribal life is not civilization.
Apparently it's a "fact" that they were content with their tribal structures but yet many in Western Africa gave it up when in contact with Muslim from the north and formed civilizations as a result.
Slavery isn't the basis of civilization. It's just a hold over from the more primitive forms of living.
You brought up missionaries and slave traders when speaking of Europeans and their influence on Africa so therefore its relevant for the fact that both black Africans and Europeans partook in it together. How can Mike be just as bad as "missionaries and slave traders" for what he stated if black Africans partake freely when given the chance.
|
|