|
Post by Educate Me on Jan 11, 2006 16:15:00 GMT -5
ther reason why it never happened in the americas is they didnt have horses or cammels, they had to relly on professional runners for communications, trade.
A llama is only good enough to carry your super market bags, you had huge empires were the only for of communication was walking/running, can you imagine the persians seding runners through their royal road from Susa to Sardis instead of horse riders?
|
|
|
Post by anodyne on Jan 11, 2006 16:24:50 GMT -5
You're unaware of the major negative effects the African slave trade had on the development of subsaharan Africa. Nothing can be compared to it. I sugget you check the estimated numbers that the Muslims in enslaved and the Europeans. You can not compare African tribal slavery with the Muslim/European slave trade. It sapped the energy of both east and west Africa. Nor is your argument that civilization is based on slavery relevant considering both Arabs/Turks/Persians and Europeans weren't exactly having difficulties progressing at the time the African slave trade started for either.
|
|
|
Post by kwalka on Jan 11, 2006 16:35:49 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. No, it is quite unreasonable to infer either from what I said. The discussion was already talking about tribal societies - to mention ones that had other societal structures would be simply irrelevant, except for perhaps mentioning them to demonstrate that certain groups did create cities and empires under similar conditions as the ones who didn't, which might lead me to conclude that the ones that didn't simply didn't want to. But I didn't mention those groups because there was no need to, and there still is no need to. Obviously I know about the incas and the aztecs - that's like 5th grade history. Listen to any rap song and you'll hear about civilizations in Africa. I don't know what you're trying to prove by bringing these things up, besides of course my ignorance (which, even if demonstrated, is only incidental to the point I was making), but you're not really contributing anything. And tribal life IS civilization. Okay, many gave it up. Many didn't, and many continue to live in tribal societies even to this day. What's your point? Different people choose different things, and often choose them against their will. That still doesn't make civilization "better," nor does it prove that any single group was not content with their former way of life (or in some cases, their current way of life). Name one civilization in all of history that wasn't based on slavery. Even today's empires are based on slavery in some form or another, whether it be capitalist exploitation of lower classes, neo-colonialism, or actual physical slavery as exists in many counties, including the US. Any form of advanced civilization is dependent on a slave class. I still don't see how the fact that blacks also partook in the slave trade has any bearing on my analogy. Obviously they had to since it was a trade, but my point wasn't that he is like a black slave trader exploiting his own people. It was that he is similar to a white slave trader justifying his actions through his limited view of "civilization." Black slave traders have nothing to do with this, and I thought that was pretty clear by me including them in the same sentence as missionaries.
|
|
|
Post by anodyne on Jan 11, 2006 17:48:38 GMT -5
The question was whether Africa tribal cultures united things would be better off in dealing with outside aggressors. So other forms of social structures are relevant to the discussion. Someone made a good point. Although they did not mention the African civilizations that did exist the logical conclusion was that Africans would have been less vulnerable since there is strength in numbers and advanced organization.
Your assumption that certain groups didn't form civilizations because they didn't want to is not based on anything tangible. Whether a civilization rises among a people depends on the geography. Should we be surprised that the Inuit didn't create a civilization?
I don't listen to rap but I'm sure those rappers think silly things about African civilizations. One of them being that the original Egyptians were Negroids, which is a fun monthly debate here.
I have contributed. I brought up geography, which no one has of yet. You attempt to make a point. Your point is faulty. Why is it wrong from me to address your arguments if you address Mike?
Definition of civilization: An advanced state of intellectual, cultural, and material development in human society, marked by progress in the arts and sciences, the extensive use of record-keeping, including writing, and the appearance of complex political and social institutions.
Tribal life doesn't fit within that definition.
Compare the standard of living among people living in civilization to people living in tribal life and I'd say civilization is better than tribal life. Imagine being an Ameridian in the Amazon and your wisdom teeth start coming in.
Your use of the word slavery is very broad and, in fact, inapplicable. Capitalist "exploitation" falls flat considering 1) choice is involved 2) people have this tendency to think an apple in the USA costs the same in Mexico. The average wage in Mexico to an American seems terrible but consider the difference in prices 3) American factories settle in Mexico, well keep using Mexico as an example, and offer what seems to be low wages but actually pays more than working in the local industries. So they do the logical thing and work where there's more money. In other words, they make a choice.
With regards to your comment on civilization and slavery you asked yourself is slavery necessary for civilization. You say it is because every ancient civilization has had slavery but is that evidence that slavery is necessary to build civilization? Well, considering that I can't think of any ancient civilization off the top of my head, nor do I think there is one, that didn't have a form of slavery as an part of their society one could say you're correct. But I'd say the foundation is having some sense of property rights in which slaves fall under considering they are deemed property. So the real basis of civilization is a primitive view of property rights.
What was being said is that they could have defended themselves better if they could have united and formed a better politicla unit. The Slavs were under the same stress from Germans and Muslims and were finally left alone when they could create a political unit that could adequately defend them from attacks. The word slave comes from the ethnic term Slav. Black Africans were at the mercy of better organized black Africans, Arabs, and Europeans. So it makes more sense to believe, considering the slavs and actual African history, that coming together for mutual defense would ahve benefited. This isn't a "eurocentric" view of civilization, which is the impression I think you're getting.
You said Mike's thinking was no better than that of slave traders and missionaries. It was a strange accusation since he took the logical conclusion that unity would have benefited the continent. This isn't "ethnocentric" but the reality of life. The weaker someone is the more likely others will take advantage of them. This was true of Slavs and was true of Africans. You're right there was no point in bringing up black slave traders (except that they were the part of the problem of an unstable west Africa) and there was no point in bringing up slave traders and missionaries in reference to Mike.
|
|
|
Post by galton on Jan 11, 2006 18:39:58 GMT -5
Black Africans did have empires and cities. Those of any significance weren't started and created by negroes, but by arabs and Europeans.
|
|
|
Post by kwalka on Jan 11, 2006 18:43:51 GMT -5
The question was whether Africa tribal cultures united things would be better off in dealing with outside aggressors. So other forms of social structures are relevant to the discussion. Someone made a good point. Although they did not mention the African civilizations that did exist the logical conclusion was that Africans would have been less vulnerable since there is strength in numbers and advanced organization. No, the question I was addressing was why it is "too bad" that certain groups didn't form huge empires which would have later allowed them to ward off later invaders. Ones that did do this are clearly not relevant to an argument specific aimed towards those that didn't. I was NOT addressing whether or not they would have been better off dealing with outside aggressors - I'd say they probably would have been. The point I was making is that it's unfair to say that it was "too bad" that they didn't create empires - why not just say it was too bad for them that the rest of the world did? The point I was making was essentially that large civilizations and empires are not necesarily better than tribal societies - not just in terms of military strength, but in general. It's based on the quite tangible fact that given the option to join an industrialized western style society, many groups still choose not to. Many Native American groups even today still mourn the loss of their traditional social structures. Even tribes that did form alliances did so only to combat a common enemy, not because they had any great aspirations to empire, and these groups still maintained their individual tribal identities and resisted Western style society. I'm less well versed on the specific dynamics of African tribal relationships, but I would imagine that they are analogous. Basically what I'm saying is that you shouldn't just assume that they didn't because they couldn't. Sometimes it's more complicated than that. The point was that it's basic common knowledge, so much so that it even makes its way into popular rap songs. and yea, they do think silly things, especially ones influenced by the nation of islam - but again, that's irrelevant. It's not - what I'm saying is useless is for you to try to discredit me based on my failure to mention things that are irrelevant to the debate. To me, it just appears that you are trying to assert yourself by contradicting me on whatever you can grasp at. Then maybe something is wrong with the definition, eh? When you look to a western dictionary to define a concept that doesn't exist among the peoples you are trying to classify, you're obviously going to run into some problems. That is a very limited definition, yet tribal life still manages to fit into it in most respects. The concept of civilization is in some ways inherently ethnocentric, and your dictionary is going to reflect that. Personally, I think [post-]modern civilization is one of most uncomfortable and unnatural states of being imaginable. Maybe it alleviates my pain when my wisdom teeth come in, but emotionally it produces nothing but anxiety. Imagine actually having a sense of your place in the world? Imagine not having to deal with a constant influx of information, or not having to witness the arrogant domination of nature? Imagine actually having leisure time and rest? I know, it doesn't get more subjective than that, but you brought your opinion into it first. What I mean by "slavery," in the indirect sense, is the exportation of labor to some other, a "slave class," to remove the burden from the group who reaps the benefits. That's the only way civilization can progress, and yes, it seems like as time goes on more and more become enfranchised, but in actuality the burden is just shifted to something or someone even more alien or out of sight. I see what you're getting at now. The original post however wasn't framed in terms of benefitting the continent in terms of the later consequences of their failure to organize and unify. Rather, the poster was "imagining" the great civilizations, with the art and architecture and cities, that could have been, which is what I was primarily disagreeing with. I see now that the post I was replying to was less concerned with that aspect, and I apologize for perhaps taking the first sentence of "mike's" post and applying it to context of the OP. Yes, it probably would have affected their exploitation by outside forces, but I still believe that that's more the fault of the outside forces poor behavior than any "failure" on the part of the Africans who didn't conform. But I guess that's an inevitable tragedy of history.
|
|
Nist
Junior Member
Posts: 58
|
Post by Nist on Jan 11, 2006 22:13:33 GMT -5
Black Africans did have empires and cities. Those of any significance weren't started and created by negroes, but by arabs and Europeans. This always ticks me of. Yoruba, Mali, Ghana, Zimbabwe, the Swahili states where all African. Their constitutions, laws, languages, architecture where all native too their region.
|
|
|
Post by anodyne on Jan 11, 2006 22:25:59 GMT -5
Black Africans did have empires and cities. Those of any significance weren't started and created by negroes, but by arabs and Europeans. I mentioned the Arab influence. Foreign influence is a big factor for many civilizations.
|
|
|
Post by galton on Jan 12, 2006 2:35:25 GMT -5
Those of any significance weren't started and created by negroes, but by arabs and Europeans. This always ticks me of. Yoruba, Mali, Ghana, Zimbabwe, the Swahili states where all African. Their constitutions, laws, languages, architecture where all native too their region. LMAO!! Whether those societies you've listed were native or not is of no importance because what you have listed is of little or no significance to mankind and civilization currently or in history. What will you list next? Zulus? Fulani? the Crips? the Bloods?
|
|
|
Post by galton on Jan 12, 2006 2:41:12 GMT -5
Those of any significance weren't started and created by negroes, but by arabs and Europeans. I mentioned the Arab influence. Foreign influence is a big factor for many civilizations. I meant the foreign factor to be more significant than an influence. It's like saying Indian casinos are influenced by whites.
|
|
Nist
Junior Member
Posts: 58
|
Post by Nist on Jan 12, 2006 4:10:56 GMT -5
This always ticks me of. Yoruba, Mali, Ghana, Zimbabwe, the Swahili states where all African. Their constitutions, laws, languages, architecture where all native too their region. LMAO!! Whether those societies you've listed were native or not is of no importance because what you have listed is of little or no significance to mankind and civilization currently or in history. What will you list next? Zulus? Fulani? the Crips? the Bloods? Is there some kind of instrument to measure a civilizations contributions? Kind of unscientific. But my response wasn't about that was it? The influence of other cultures/religions in SSA civs was only shallow. It's like saying that The Swedish castle 'tre kronor' is Arab because the architect was inspired by them. Then you leave out that it was western engineering that designed and built it. I won't respond to anything else you have to say. You don't know jack sh*t about African history. Let's leave it at that.
|
|
|
Post by galton on Jan 12, 2006 10:21:37 GMT -5
LMAO!! Whether those societies you've listed were native or not is of no importance because what you have listed is of little or no significance to mankind and civilization currently or in history. What will you list next? Zulus? Fulani? the Crips? the Bloods? Is there some kind of instrument to measure a civilizations contributions? Kind of unscientific. But my response wasn't about that was it? Kind of dim, aren't you? Yes, there is an "instrument" to measure a "civilization's" contributions and it's scientific. Try to figure it out, if you can. The influence of other cultures/religions in SSA civs was only shallow. It's like saying that The Swedish castle 'tre kronor' is Arab because the architect was inspired by them. Then you leave out that it was western engineering that designed and built it. You're kind of clueless, aren't you? I won't respond to anything else you have to say. You don't know jack sh*t about African history. Let's leave it at that. LOL
|
|
|
Post by dukeofpain on Jan 12, 2006 11:20:20 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.... Slavs were constantly in-fighting, yet they still had empires and such. With a little help in some cases (Rurik) but none the less, even with outside sources Africa hasn't amounted to shit.
|
|
|
Post by Ras-Xafun on Jan 12, 2006 13:45:47 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.... Slavs were constantly in-fighting, yet they still had empires and such. With a little help in some cases (Rurik) but none the less, even with outside sources Africa hasn't amounted to shit. Lol, you guys are full of it. Tell what empire or civilizations Europeans have ever had (minus the med areas)? And don't talk about western civilization coz this is a collective creation from all continents. You keep mentioning that Africa whatever it had was influenced from outside. Now tell me even one exclusive "European civlization" (if it ever existed) that is indegenous? 90% of Europe were in the same condition as most of Africa 5-600 years ago. The only thing that pulled Europeans out of their dark age history was due to the renaissance which was derived from the foundation and knowledge laid by the muslim expansion. Some ambitious countries took advantage of this opportunity and campaigned for enlightment and then spread it further north to the rest of the isolated communities. Now besides the vandals and the vikings and other barbarian communities(if you want to call these kingdoms), what civilization has Europe ever had? (I'm refering to most of Europe minus Rome and ancient Greece and nearby communities which were imo more closer to near-eastern countries than rest of Europe). The arrogance and ignorance on this thread is unbelievable. Did Europe even ever had a writing script before the Greek scripture? which btw was influnce by the phonecian script and these civilizations were both by structure close to each other than any other European country ever were at that time. Just face it European history(that is worth talking about)just started some five-six hundred years ago, the rest is just some minor details (not comparible to other regions history) and further exagerated by western historians so to create something out of nothing.
|
|
|
Post by Planet Asia on Jan 12, 2006 13:48:44 GMT -5
Slavs were constantly in-fighting, yet they still had empires and such. With a little help in some cases (Rurik) but none the less, even with outside sources Africa hasn't amounted to shit. Lol, you guys are full of it. Tell what empire or civilizations Europeans have ever had (minus the med areas)? And don't talk about western civilization coz this is a collective creation from all continents. You keep mentioning that Africa whatever it had was influenced from outside. Now tell me even one exclusive "European civlization" (if it ever existed) that is indegenous? 90% of Europe were in the same condition as most of Africa 5-600 years ago. The only thing that pulled Europeans out of their dark age history was due to the renaissance which was derived from the foundation and knowledge laid by the muslim expansion. Some ambitious countries took advantage of this opportunity and campaigned for enlightment and then spread it further north to the rest of the isolated communities. Now besides the vandals and the vikings and other barbarian communities(if you want to call these kingdoms), what civilization has Europe ever had? (I'm refering to most of Europe minus Rome and ancient Greece and nearby communities which were imo more closer to near-eastern countries than rest of Europe). The arrogance and ignorance on this thread is unbelievable. Did Europe even ever had a writing script before the Greek scripture? which btw was influnce by the phonecian script and these civilizations were both by structure close to each other than any other European country ever were at that time. Just face it European history(that is worth talking about)just started some five-six hundred years ago, the rest is just some minor details (not comparible to other regions history) and further exagerated by western historians so to create something out of nothing. Very well said.
|
|