|
Post by gelaye on May 14, 2005 9:17:47 GMT -5
i was wondering - what is the origin of the whole slavery, historical negligence, etc of negroid populations throughout africa? I randomly thought for a moment maybe it was their HAIR TYPE! (!!!) as negroids are the only population in the world who have this wolly hair type (not including melanesians) - but in comparison to other races - eg mongoloids and indian subcontinent etc - Europeans have neglected african culture etc and created a stereotype that Africa is 'less' cultured and didnt offer the world anything (while it praises indian and chinese cultures)
any ideas why?
|
|
|
Post by Igu on May 14, 2005 9:35:25 GMT -5
i was wondering - what is the origin of the whole slavery, historical negligence, etc of negroid populations throughout africa? I randomly thought for a moment maybe it was their HAIR TYPE! (!!!) as negroids are the only population in the world who have this wolly hair type (not including melanesians) - but in comparison to other races - eg mongoloids and indian subcontinent etc - Europeans have neglected african culture etc and created a stereotype that Africa is 'less' cultured and didnt offer the world anything (while it praises indian and chinese cultures) any ideas why? It is Because Indian and chinese civilizations offered much better than what sub-saharans offered. there is no conspiration, it exists only in your mind.
|
|
|
Post by humantag on May 14, 2005 10:04:54 GMT -5
i was wondering - what is the origin of the whole slavery, historical negligence, etc of negroid populations throughout africa? I randomly thought for a moment maybe it was their HAIR TYPE! (!!!) as negroids are the only population in the world who have this wolly hair type (not including melanesians) - but in comparison to other races - eg mongoloids and indian subcontinent etc - Europeans have neglected african culture etc and created a stereotype that Africa is 'less' cultured and didnt offer the world anything (while it praises indian and chinese cultures) any ideas why? The physical differences between Europeans and Negroids are arguably somwehat more prononced than the physical differences between Europeans and Indians or Europeans and Mongoloids, and this might have been a contributing factior to their uniquely harsh treatment. But more important than differences in physical apperance was, I suspect, the relative lack of development in Sub Saharan Africa. The Sub Saharan blacks were perceived by the Europeans as primitives, with limited intellectual and moral capacities. They do not seem to have regarded them as possessing the same degree of humanity as the peoples of India and China, and treated them accordingly. Horrible stuff to be sure.
|
|
|
Post by topdog on May 14, 2005 10:11:04 GMT -5
It is Because Indian and chinese civilizations offered much better than what sub-saharans offered. there is no conspiration, it exists only in your mind. Nonsense.
|
|
|
Post by nockwasright on May 14, 2005 10:31:06 GMT -5
It is Because Indian and chinese civilizations offered much better than what sub-saharans offered. there is no conspiration, it exists only in your mind. I agree completely with Igu here. To deny such a thing is really out of the world.
|
|
|
Post by topdog on May 14, 2005 10:56:08 GMT -5
I agree completely with Igu here. To deny such a thing is really out of the world. What is better is relative to that individual person and is highly subjective. It isn't out of this world.
|
|
|
Post by MC anunnaki on May 14, 2005 11:28:47 GMT -5
But more important than differences in physical apperance was, I suspect, the relative lack of development in Sub Saharan Africa. The Sub Saharan blacks were perceived by the Europeans as primitives, with limited intellectual and moral capacities. They do not seem to have regarded them as possessing the same degree of humanity as the peoples of India and China, and treated them accordingly. Horrible stuff to be sure. I second that. I think that if Sub-Saharan Africa was as developed as Europe (or even more developed) this negative attitude and stereotypes would not have arisen. Visual differences are only striking if you're not used to them. Spend some time in Africa and all those faces will no longer look unfamiliar or be difficult to relate to. It was basically the primitive living standards of Sub-Saharan Africans that made it easy for invaders to exploit them.
|
|
|
Post by gelaye on May 14, 2005 11:47:21 GMT -5
africa may have appeared to have little to offer but maybe that was only due to the difficulty that African civillizations had in reaching european civilizations (sahara desert, mediteraenian - no silk road?)
also, chinese, persian and indian empires traded with african kingdoms - but i dont know if they regarded negroids(the race - not just individual kingdoms - because obviously every civilisation considered the other 'less' civillisized) as primitive.....
anyone know what theyr perceptions were?
(also i really strongly agree about the point that africans were treated differently due to appearance - imagine if negroids had long straight hair, dont you think slavery would have been less pronounced or would it have even existed?) sounds crazy but i find it difficult to imagine. Maybe the wooly hair texture gave the appearance that africans were toughened to harsh environments and were less fragile than eurp/asians?
|
|
|
Post by MC anunnaki on May 14, 2005 12:04:15 GMT -5
I think back in ancient times (2000-3000 years ago) black Africans were probably considered "different" but not exactly primitive. I don't know if people back then thought in the terms of primitive and progressive and such, it seems to be a post 1500-term for everyone non-European...
|
|
|
Post by Igu on May 14, 2005 12:23:57 GMT -5
africa may have appeared to have little to offer Happy that you admit it.
|
|
|
Post by gelaye on May 14, 2005 13:04:44 GMT -5
- i only said 'may appeared' axum (ethiopia - subsaharan africa) is listed as one of the worlds greatest civilisations so it must have had SOMETHING to offer, right?
|
|
|
Post by Minstrel on May 14, 2005 13:08:43 GMT -5
Mostly geography (africa is across the atlantic from america) the economics of slavery, the political ambitions of europe (and the neccessity of dehumanising others to justify harsh treatment and exploitation) Oddly enough, europeans are a rather recent subset of africans (http://www.chip.org/board/read.cgi?bid=1&aid=43&p=3 ) 50,000- 35,000 years ago the two groups are'nt all that distant, african groups are probably more distant from each other There are some REALLY coarse/curly haired europeans (like some swedes and danes) and curly/wavy haired africans, (in west africa it is the fulani) But the trends are reverse of that africans tend to be curly-haired, europeans straight haired while asians have the straightest hair of all on average. But khoisan and some pygmies have even nappier/coarser hair than other africans. In terms of accomplishment "civilizations" really it's just the lack of information on sub-saharan africa of all things. LOl for instance, up untill the 1900's colonialism era only four europeans visited timbuktu, the city of fables for so long, but none made it out alive. There might have been accomplishments there people have no living idea of, likewise africa is still the "dark continent" archeologically and historically. Though some of the better known civilizations such as aksum or nubia were at times on par with any accomplishments anywhere else and carved out relatively short lived empires. There was no shortage of accomplishment in west africa to say the least at all. To quote the recent washington post article on west african slaves: www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A45889-2005Feb23.htmlA city in central-west africa (loango) the fact is, black africans were no less impressive than anyone else, and at different points in history such societies excelled, unfortunatly, there was little continuity and diffusion from more advanced cultures on the continent was slow, almost non-existent. There is still much to be discovered in sub-saharan africa, but lingering racsist attitudes still dwell on in the minds of mainstream scholarship.
|
|
|
Post by alexandrian on May 14, 2005 13:09:20 GMT -5
- i only said 'may appeared' axum (ethiopia - subsaharan africa) is listed as one of the worlds greatest civilisations so it must have had SOMETHING to offer, right? Too bad your great Axum was founded by Arabians and is virtually nothing in comparison to Egypt, Babylon, Greece, Rome, Carthage, India, or China.
|
|
|
Post by Igu on May 14, 2005 13:10:04 GMT -5
- i only said 'may appeared' axum (ethiopia - subsaharan africa) is listed as one of the worlds greatest civilisations so it must have had SOMETHING to offer, right? In your dreams. please, do not compare the achievements of a religious CITY with great civilizations like India or china. Axum just prooves that a negroid influence does not make you inferior (if you use it in that context, it's fine).
|
|
|
Post by alexandrian on May 14, 2005 13:11:54 GMT -5
Okay, you guys can list all these African accomplishments but just look at the time frame. I can't stand it when people compare the Aztecs to the Egyptians. The Aztecs cam aboue 3500 years after the Egyptians, and in that considerable amount of time, did nothing to develop themselves further. If a civilization that arose in the 1300s can come close to something that arose in 2000 BC, I think we know which one was more impressive and more developed in the eyes of the Europeans. Furthermore, keep in mind that East Africans weren't enslaved by Europans, probably because they knew of their history. However West AFricans, who were undeniably primitive compared to the other civilizations of the Known World, were regarded as strangers and lesser forms.
|
|