Let's examine a statement

[CuongNhuka]

I will not say who said this (because it's someone on this board). However, that person knows who he/she is, and can own up to it if he/she wants to.

"I would say that now, with the colonial powers gone, africa is the exact same as it was 200 years ago, but with guns instead of spears. Tribal warfare, ethnic cleansing, all the old evils are back, with a vengence."

From my reading of Pre-Colonial Africa, this statment is a load of crap. Infact, when I read it, I was almost sick. It doesn't help that the Colonial period began with the slave trade (in reality), which started just in this U.S. in 1619 (that's more then 200 years ago).

So, who has a comment to make about this statement?

 

[Twin Fist]

i said it

it's true

tribal warfare? check
ethnic cleansing? check
guns rather than spears? check

Back then, the natives were hostile, now they are hostile and heavily armed.

it's all true. If the TRUTH makes you sick, YOU got the problem, not me.

 

[Sukerkin]

Steady now - it does not reflect well on us if we can turn colonial times into a flame war.

This is a subject that we all should be able to approach with a certain amount of historical perspective, especially those of us who are English, French, Dutch, Belgian or descendents of same.

I would like to get in on this but I'm currently playing GT4 and dialing in a Ford GT '05 at the Nurburgring - hopefully this thread will still be unlocked when I get the chance to add to it ...

 

[Empty Hands]

Back then, the natives were hostile, now they are hostile and heavily armed.

it's all true. If the TRUTH makes you sick, YOU got the problem, not me.

Well, there is a tinge of superiority about "primitive Africa" being held in check by the superior civilization of the white man that is rather disturbing. The problem is that in pre-colonial times, Europe was no better. The entire history of Europe has been filled with constant wars and conflicts, that are not labeled "tribal" only due to the different vocabulary we have to describe the warring groups. Indeed, Africa tends to come out better in this regard, since there were fewer expansionary empires outside of the 7th/8th century AD (which was geographically limited to the N/NE), and a lot fewer wartime casualties.

Colonialism introduced disruptions and dislocations that produced the more severe problems seen today when the Europeans suddenly vanished. Europeans who never stopped slaughtering each other during these times, either. Rival groups were welded together into nations with no regard to previously existing boundaries. Infrastructure was only put into place to facilitate resource extraction and not the building of modern nation-states. Organic institutions that could have legitimately governed were not put in place, or even encouraged to grow. Indeed, they were discouraged at the point of a bayonet.

So then, when the Europeans up and left overnight, we were left with rival groups inside arbitrary boundaries with no infrastructure, no governance, and no institutions that could help ease the transition. They were set up to fail. It is no surprise that a rule of the strong ensued. We have seen very similar results in other places in similar situations, like Europe when the Roman empire fell. Even that wasn't as bad though since common institutions like the Church were in place.

Until you can understand and encompass all of that, your views look a lot like uninformed racism.

 

[girlbug2]

i said it

it's true

tribal warfare? check
ethnic cleansing? check
guns rather than spears? check

Back then, the natives were hostile, now they are hostile and heavily armed.

Yes, all true. And if you substitute any other number of weapon types (arrows, swords, catapults...) you get a nice history of the whole world, summed up in a tidy package. It's just that the guns came in at different times for different civilizations. The ones who got them first had the tactical advantage over the rest.

Another term for it would be the Human Condition.

 

[Nolerama]

i said it

it's true

tribal warfare? check
ethnic cleansing? check
guns rather than spears? check

Back then, the natives were hostile, now they are hostile and heavily armed.

it's all true. If the TRUTH makes you sick, YOU got the problem, not me.

I guess you're right, but you're coming off as defensive from a American-centric point of view.

That's cool.

But to those with a more...globalized view, it comes off as kinda... well... xenophobic. I wouldn't go as far as saying "racist" but maybe you just fall under those folks that just like to "profile" others.

This is based on some of your previous posts, and from my point of view.

You're interesting to read, though. It's abrasive and raw and good for the soul.

 

[Twin Fist]

Nolerama,
I object the your use of the word "xenophobic"

phobic-being afraid of

i am not afraid of other countries or thier people

what i am is brutaly honest. The african countries had a chance to grow up, under the "foster care" of the colonial powers. They were shown how government works, how to care for and feed your citizens. How to be a member of the community of nations. How to use your natural resources for GOOD

When the colonial powers left?

the african countries promptly started killing each other off again, just like they have been since the dawn of time.

Empty Hands,
You are making excuses for them acting like they are. They know better.

Prior to colonial time, European culture was superior to the sub-saharan african cultures. While DaVinci was painting? the zulus were killing each other with sharp sticks.

go back 500 years? same thing
go back 50000 years? same thing

not ONE sub-saharan culture has ever developed writing, math, permenent buildings or any other check point for an "advanced" culture on thier own.

Sociologists theorize that year long hot tempatures act as a stagnating agent on human culture. No seasons means no crops, no crops means no reason to stay in one place and build houses, no crops means nothing to count, so no math

That may very well be true. Look at the natives of the amazon. Same story, though once exposed to civilazation, they tend to hold on to it better than africans.

And it isnt race. I wont give them the excuse of thier race to explain thier actions. They have no excuse.

 

[Big Don]

When the colonial powers, mostly France, Belgium and Germany, pulled out of Africa, they left a vacuum. Much the same as when the French pulled out of Indochina. In Africa, it just took longer (in some cases) for the wars to start.

 

[Empty Hands]

The african countries had a chance to grow up, under the "foster care" of the colonial powers. They were shown how government works, how to care for and feed your citizens. How to be a member of the community of nations. How to use your natural resources for GOOD.

This shows a complete and total ignorance about how the African colonies were run by the colonial powers. The European powers used them for resource extraction. Nothing else mattered, and the natives were deliberately kept out of the governing process.

the african countries promptly started killing each other off again, just like they have been since the dawn of time.

Yes indeed, just like the rest of the world...

Why do you not heap the same scorn on the Europeans? They managed to drag nearly the entire world into their conflicts.

You are making excuses for them acting like they are. They know better.

As usual, you cannot distinguish between explanation and excusing. No one is excusing the warlords. But not all Africans are warlords. There are also plenty of wannabe warlords in the "civilized" world who are unable to grab power due to the presence of social institutions which were crippled by the colonial powers in Africa.

not ONE sub-saharan culture has ever developed writing, math, permenent buildings or any other check point for an "advanced" culture on thier own.

Wrong.

 

[Nolerama]

Nolerama,
I object the your use of the word "xenophobic"

phobic-being afraid of

i am not afraid of other countries or thier people

what i am is brutaly honest. The african countries had a chance to grow up, under the "foster care" of the colonial powers. They were shown how government works, how to care for and feed your citizens. How to be a member of the community of nations. How to use your natural resources for GOOD

When the colonial powers left?

the african countries promptly started killing each other off again, just like they have been since the dawn of time.

Empty Hands,
You are making excuses for them acting like they are. They know better.

Prior to colonial time, European culture was superior to the sub-saharan african cultures. While DaVinci was painting? the zulus were killing each other with sharp sticks.

go back 500 years? same thing
go back 50000 years? same thing

not ONE sub-saharan culture has ever developed writing, math, permenent buildings or any other check point for an "advanced" culture on thier own.

Sociologists theorize that year long hot tempatures act as a stagnating agent on human culture. No seasons means no crops, no crops means no reason to stay in one place and build houses, no crops means nothing to count, so no math

That may very well be true. Look at the natives of the amazon. Same story, though once exposed to civilazation, they tend to hold on to it better than africans.

And it isnt race. I wont give them the excuse of thier race to explain thier actions. They have no excuse.

You're really ignorant.

And wrong.

Good luck with that.

 

[Twin Fist]

Empty,
they may have been kept OUT of government, but they LIVED it, they SAW how it was done, and promptly threw it away

not so fast, Kush, and it's achievements are not proven

your own article:
"“The exciting thing to me,” Dr. Williams said, “is that we are really seeing intensive organization activity from a distance, and the only reasonable attribution is that it belongs to Kush.”

ergo, they dont KNOW, they are guessing.

but I will give you that ONE

ONE

out of over half the continent.

Europeans did some bad stuff too. they also cultivated art, music, science, the printing press, etc,etc,etc,etc

africa?

sharp sticks

thats about it


Nolerama,
I wont ding you or report you for that blatant ad hom, so long as you can refute anything I said.

 

[Kacey]

[playnice]Karen Cohn[/playnice]

 

[Empty Hands]

Empty,
they may have been kept OUT of government, but they LIVED it, they SAW how it was done, and promptly threw it away

It was taken away, not thrown away. All that was left of the government were a handful of deserted office buildings. It would be like taking a few hundred working stiffs from the coal mines and car plants and Starbucks and tell them to form a working government. Sure, they've seen the President and the Supreme Court on TV, but that doesn't mean they could write a bill or command the military.

Try to think of it from their perspective for a minute.

not so fast, Kush, and it's achievements are not proven

They had a city, that is proven by archaeological findings. That alone is enough to refute your claim.

but I will give you that ONE

ONE

out of over half the continent.

There are others. Did you bother to look?

africa?

sharp sticks

thats about it

Nope. Try actually looking into the literature on the subject. There were wide ranging and complex prehistorical cultures south of the Sahara. Even IN the Sahara the Berbers were fairly advanced, but the desert prevented more traditional settled societies.

 

[Twin Fist]

Let me be clear

it is NOT racial

I have already said that but to be clear, I subscribe to the theory that non changing climate stagnates culture growth.

All around the equator, cultures simply went stagnate or didnt grow in the first place.

Empty, I am not really even disagreeing with you. I am just saying that the when the colonial powers left, the tribal mindset took over.

You are right in that they didnt really have the tools to just step in, but it seems like they didnt even try.

 

[Xue Sheng]

I should probably stay out of this but I am tired so here goes

Something off topic but I feel still related.

The longest time that Europe has gone without some sort of war was from just after WW II up until the USSR kind of collapsed. Then some European countries went right back to war. Much of Europe was under direct control of the USSR and others were certainly threatened by them. This gave many one villain to despise and of course one overseer that would not allow them to fight unless of course they wished to be killed by said overseer.

Was Europe better off under the control of the USSR or are they better off after at war are they better off now.

Tribal conflict between certain tribes in Africa has gone on for a very long time it went on during the colonial occupation and it is still going on today. Some tribes NOT all tribes… but then again how long has the Middle East been at war?

Now I leave this post to the eventual moderators lock it will eventually recieve

 

[Twin Fist]

no reason for this to get locked, only one personal attack thrown, and the subject isnt that controversial.

 

[5-0 Kenpo]

Empty,
they may have been kept OUT of government, but they LIVED it, they SAW how it was done, and promptly threw it away

not so fast, Kush, and it's achievements are not proven

your own article:
"“The exciting thing to me,” Dr. Williams said, “is that we are really seeing intensive organization activity from a distance, and the only reasonable attribution is that it belongs to Kush.”

ergo, they dont KNOW, they are guessing.

but I will give you that ONE

ONE

out of over half the continent.

Europeans did some bad stuff too. they also cultivated art, music, science, the printing press, etc,etc,etc,etc

africa?

sharp sticks

thats about it


Nolerama,
I wont ding you or report you for that blatant ad hom, so long as you can refute anything I said.

It appears to me, and certainly correct me if I am wrong, that it is ok to slaughter other nations/people on your continent, as long as you have a Divinci. Interesting.

So let me see here, are you also saying, that since you have seen a very well done play or movie, that you could be an Oscar winning actor as well. After all, you have seen it done, so you must be capable of it, correct? I do not think this line of reasoning is very logical.

How is one to run a government, when one is not taught about organization, leadership, or given even rudimentary education. It is easy to look at all of this in hindsight and say that they threw it away, but the real question is what did they really have to throw away in the first place.

I think the concept of getting a bunch of coal miners and Starbucks employees together to form a government in this sense is too genersous. To an extent, they have had an education regarding government, finance, history, biology, etc. Its called school. A better comparison would be to take a bunch of uneducated slaves, ones who have had a bitter rivalry amongst them, put them together, and tell them to form a government.

I ask you, with what?

And another thing, you are looking at it from an entirely Eurocentric viewpoint. Who are you to say what cultural values (ie, art, music, dancing) are important? Africans have always had vibrant intra-tribal social organizations. You know, sort of like the Celts, the Germanic tribes, the Huns, the Mongols, etc. (If you didnt catch it, there was an intentional use of early European barbarian cultures). But look how the people of those cultures, either left to their own devises, or not assimilated (not just subjected to) by other more advanced cultures may have turned out. They could be still out there with stone and spear themselves.

Why is it that one most form a very particular type of culture to be civilized?

 

[Twin Fist]

of course it is not ok. if you got that impression, i would apologize.

but when you look at the WHOLE picture, you have to weigh the good with the bad, and in my opinion, more bad than good, by a large measure comes out of sub-saharan africa

"you have seen a very well done play or movie, that you could be an Oscar winning actor as well"

no, but you could TRY, you dont resort back to the bad old days.

" Why is it that one most form a very particular type of culture to be civilized?"

cuz not everything is equal. You have to have SOME standards, and that the ones the anthropologist and socialogists use.

 

[Big Don]

The reason there were no wars in Europe from the end of WWII to the fall of the Soviet Union is pretty simple, there is a three letter acronym for it: MAD

 

[CuongNhuka]

Actually, Sub-sahara Africa had a vibrant culture, unique poltical structures (resemebly what we would know call democracy). They were masters of music and dance. Many European monarchs in the pre-colonial periods would commission Central African smiths for things like there throne. East Africa was a hub of international trade and travel. Many parts of East Africa were rich because of large gold mines (keep in mind the first Gold mines in the world were from Africa).

Did they have tribal war? Yes, but no where nere the exatent that exists now. Was there genocide? No!!!! The idea of wipeing out other peoples whole-sale for no reason is a barbarism that only exists in Europe! I'm surprised you haven't brought up the fact that Africans already had slavery. But, I suppose you wouldn't because you knew there idea of slavery was "you're just below us socially, and if you work hard for a few years, you'll be one of us". Thats actually why the Africans even engaged in the slave trade, they thoght that what the White Devil had was like what they had!!!

Now the, the reason I was almost sick was because I've never heard (and hoped to never hear) someone use White Man's Burden, atleast with my own ears. It's not like coloniasing happened because some crackers decided they were going to help Africa, and they just threw it away. That NEVER happened. It started with the slave trade. The Africans were exchanging a few war captives for some industrial goods. Then some more. And then some more. Eventually, the Africans decided they couldn't continue, mostly because there was hardly anyone left!!!! So, the honkeys simply used the bases they already had 'in country' and took over. They put regional rulers in charge. There was no "watching what government was". There was "I've been told what to do by a tyrant, this must be government". Imagine what how you think government is supposed to operate like when your family for hundreds of years back has been ruled by uncaring tyrants who profit on your turmile? Not to mention when whitey pulled out, he just pulled out. there was no help what so ever when it came to establishing a new government, or anything like that.

Sorry for the white-racial slurs. If it makes any body less offended, I'm 97% white (the remaining 3% is Cherokee Native American)