Why was sub-Saharan Africa not developed (historically) as much as their Eastern and Western counterparts? By historically, I mean beyond the past 500 years. Why do we not see or hear of great empires, cities, architecture, or historical figures?
>>863904
>Why was sub-Saharan Africa not developed (historically) as much as their Eastern and Western counterparts?
Tsetse flies, malaria, yellow fever, lack of any staple crops until the southeast asian crop package arrived, regular coastline, no calm rivers, 2nd or 3rd lowest world population density, etc.
>Why do we not see or hear of great empires, cities, architecture, or historical figures?
Because assuming you're not from Africa its history if irrelevant to you
Much like how Americans know fuck-all about siberia, polynesia, and australia
Or sometimes europe for that matter unless they're heritagefags
>>863975
but I'm aware of the greeks, romans, ottomans
>this thread again
>why was x not up to my standard of y
I dunno, OP, you tell me.
Go read some books instead of sitting around waiting for: "bcos niggers lol"
>>864118
that wasn't the point I was making at all
Because Zebras! If it weren't for those fucking Zebras Africa would be a thriving civilization I tell you!
>>864168
I think they could make good horses
>Why was sub-Saharan Africa not developed (historically) as much as their Eastern and Western counterparts?
Because it takes thousands of years for civilization to arise after agriculture is introduced to a region, assuming it arises at all, unless it is introduced from abroad. Agriculture arose in the Fertile Crescent about 8000 BC or earlier. Civilization arose there after 3000 BC. It took about 5000 years for civilization to arise. Agriculture didn't emerge in West Africa until about 2500 BC, and it took thousands of years longer to spread across the rest of the continent. Since Africa was generally isolated from Eurasia (except for North and Northeast Africa, which were themselves isolated from the rest of Africa), civilization could not be adopted from abroad like it could be in Europe or Southeast Asia. Also, as >>863975 pointed out there are enormous constrains on development in much of Africa, the tsetse fly being especially bad.
There was no time for civilization to arise on its own, and no way for it to be introduced from abroad. That said, limited civilization did arise independently in southern Nigeria after 1000 AD, and with the growth of the trans-Saharan trade after 800 AD literate states began to arise in the Western Sudan. They had very little time to develop before the slave trade crippled development and eventually the continent was colonised.
None of this applies to the Ethiopians or Sudanese, who have always been closely connected to Eurasia and did have large civilizations. There's also the case of the Swahili cities, which grew after about 1000 AD into literate Islamic cities but never expanded inland.
>>864292
Some more stuff about the tsetse fly.
>http://healthpolicy.fsi.stanford.edu/sites/default/files/tsetse_working_paper.pdf
>The TseTse fly is unique to Africa and transmits a parasite harmful to humans and lethal to livestock. This paper tests the hypothesis that the TseTse reduced the ability of Africans to generate an agricultural surplus historically. Ethnic groups inhabiting TseTse-suitable areas were less likely to use domesticated animals and the plow, less likely to be politically centralized and had a lower population density. These correlations are not found in the Tropics outside of Africa, where the fly does not exist. The evidence suggests current economic performance is affected by the TseTse through the channel of precolonial political centralization.
>>864310
How do you pronounce Tse-Tse?
>>864168
JARED YOU MADMAN
>>864348
Set-sy. I think.
>>864348
Exactly like you write it, unless you're an Anglotard.
>>864088
Because they hold an important place in western History, which is, shockingly, the main focus of history education in the west. Areas whose traditional historical narrative is deeply tied to Europe cover a large area due to colonial dominance. Whereas historical empires and figures in Africa had more local relevance than global reach, and so you are less likely to hear about it unless you search for info/live in an area where it affected your history.
This is true for most of the world. How much do you know of historical developments in Southeast Asia, or India, or Central Asia/ the Himalayan Plateua/ Tarim Basin?
State funded education has limited resources to teach any topic, so policy makers need to make decisions on what is to be prioritized in the curriculum. When history is concerned, that usually means "what is directly associated with our national history/ the history of our ancestors/ our cultural precedents."
>>864422
>State funded education has limited resources to teach any topic, so policy makers need to make decisions on what is to be prioritized in the curriculum. When history is concerned, that usually means "what is directly associated with our national history/ the history of our ancestors/ our cultural precedents."
This brings up an interesting question. What is the purpose of teaching/learning history? And more specifically, what's the purpose of teaching history to youth?
>>864471
to not repeat it :^)
>>863904
They had a nice spawn position, which didn't force them to work as hard to achieve basic things like food.
>>864506
Your smiley indicates that this is an ironic meme.
>>864530
to a degree
but whenever a student asked in class back in high school, that always seemed to be the response
then someone would give a snarky reply "but what about the good stuff"
and the teacher would cry and call in the SRO
>>864569
So what if MY reason is to learn from the past, both the good and bad?
>>864590
-context
-using it as tool for decision making, modeling, and pattern development
-makes certain girls wet (unproven)
-good as a discussion topic
-for the sake of learning
-some see it as a hobby, like I do
>>864292
North and Northeast Africa were never isolated from one another or the rest of Africa, literacy and Islam came not from trans-Saharan trade but rather the militarist expansion of Tebu led Kanem of Central North Africa after the conquest of Sao.
Swahili also expanded inland, Copperbelt Swahili is still spoken throughout Southeast DRC but also Kilwa and other sites have been around for quite some time before Islam.
Ethiopian lowlanders and Sudanese live off the same crops West and historically southern African farmers ate, sorghum and pearl millet.
>>864348
I've always heard it as Tset-see
>>865137
Tseee-tseee
>>864292
What about the west African kingdoms like Ghana? Those were sub-saharan and some got pretty rich.
>>865078
>North and Northeast Africa were never isolated from one another or the rest of Africa
Not from each other, but definitely from the rest of Africa. While lowland pastoralists in Somalia and modern Ethiopia once extended into eastern/southern Africa and probably interacted with other pastoral Africans, the agriculturalists of highland Ethiopia never interacted with the interior, and the civilizations of Nubia didn't have more than a marginal interaction with the interior of Africa for most of their history. Nubia and Ethiopia are both largely surrounded by wastelands which isolated them from other population centers in Central and Western Africa.
>literacy and Islam came not from trans-Saharan trade but rather the militarist expansion of Tebu led Kanem of Central North Africa after the conquest of Sao.
I don't know where you're getting this shit from. Islam was introduced to West Africa from across the Sahara as it was adopted by West African leaders and merchants in many societies, including Kanem, Ghana, Mali, and Takrur. These empires adopted it from the North, which they had contact with through trade. Trans-Saharan contact barely existed before the rise of that trade, mostly after 800 AD.
>Swahili also expanded inland
Not until very late, in the 18th and 19th century, and then mostly in the form of slave raids.
>Kilwa and other sites have been around for quite some time before Islam
Small settlements existed in the first millennium AD, but they only became an urban and maritime society in the second millennium.
>Ethiopian lowlanders and Sudanese live off the same crops West and historically southern African farmers ate, sorghum and pearl millet.
I don't see your point.
>>865144
Like I said, literate states formed in the Western Sudan after about 800 AD (maybe a bit earlier in Ghana's case).
>>865196
Oh sorry, missed that.
>>863904
>Mali
>Great Zimbabwe
>Ethiopia
There are some examples.
>>865220
Could you add Sudan and Yemen to that list?
>>865231
>Yemen
>>865236
They had a lucrative trading state that lasted for over a thousand years, and later, were crucial in Islamic conquest. I'm not sure why you're meming.
>>865256
Don't play dumb, you know exactly why I'm memeing.
>>865256
>Sub-Saharan Africa
>Yemen
>>865256
Yemen's not in Africa, chum.
>>865274
But the Middle East is in Asia, you troll. Yemen is in the Middle East, therefore not African.
>>865274
What.
>>865278
But Yemeni people are closer geographically to Africa, so they can't be Asian. The ME is divided into two parts: Africa and Asia.
The African parts are Iraq, Iran, and Syria. The Asian parts are Saudi Arabia, Turkey, and Israel.
>>865290
>The African parts are Iraq, Iran, and Syria. The Asian parts are Saudi Arabia, Turkey, and Israel.
There's bait and then there's this. Not even warranting a proper reply.
>>865290
>African parts are Iraq, Iran, and Syria
>>865290
Biting the bait, but.
<Iran
Really?
>>865174
This is false, we did interact with other Africans. Kano was in contact with Darfur. Hausa held stronghold in Aïr and regularly remained in contact with other North Africans as did Wolof/Serer in Senegal and Marutania, Fulani not only had extensive contact with North Africans, they have North African ancestry. Songhai and Ghana had contact with North African. Somali were in contact with Bantu south to Southeast Africa.
Highlanders had contact with Oromo, Ari and other groups. Gurage especially. My people Beta Israel at one time were in Eastern most Sudan.
Kanem was the first Islamic superpower that spread throughout West Africa, Kane is older than Ghana, Mali and Takrur
Doesn't matter if it's later, your statement about Swahili is incorrect and even then Swahili was still found inland of the east African coast.
The history of pre-Persian Swahili coast was one of key urban markets for international trade.
African has had long term contact with other populations, eurocentric desires to divide the continent and isolate us is not based on culture, language or genetics.
Please stop talking when you only read Wikipedia articles.
I'm just shitpostin
>>865316
They're Eurasian.
Same as Libya or Egypt.
>>865320
>Kano was in contact with Darfur
When? I don't think Kano even existed before 1000 AD. I'm sure Kano had contacts with Darfur in the late medieval and early modern periods, but that's not really relevant to the discussion.
>Hausa held stronghold in Aïr and regularly remained in contact with other North Africans as did Wolof/Serer in Senegal and Marutania, Fulani not only had extensive contact with North Africans, they have North African ancestry. Songhai and Ghana had contact with North African
Same as above. All of this happened late in Africa's history, after 800-1000 AD.
>Somali were in contact with Bantu south to Southeast Africa.
Only After the development of the Swahili cities. After 1000 AD. There were also Cushitic tribes in southeast Africa in prehistoric times, but they have no relevance to the spread of civilization.
>Highlanders had contact with Oromo, Ari and other groups. Gurage especially. My people Beta Israel at one time were in Eastern most Sudan.
Highland Ethiopians had contact with their immediate pastoral neighbors, not with the agricultural regions in Africa's interior. I've never seen any evidence that the Beta Israel had anything to do with Sudan, but that's not really relevant.
>Kanem was the first Islamic superpower that spread throughout West Africa, Kane is older than Ghana, Mali and Takrur
Show me any proof of a Kanem 'supepower' (if that's what controlling some desert trade routes makes you) before Ghana or Mali.
>Doesn't matter if it's later, your statement about Swahili is incorrect and even then Swahili was still found inland of the east African coast.
If you understand the point of my entire post, it is very relevant.
>The history of pre-Persian Swahili coast was one of key urban markets for international trade.
No it wasn't: http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/aman.12171/full
Africa was literally made up by Europeans. Stop buying into Pan-African bullshit.
>>865369
The genetic reality is I have a north central African haplogroup and I'm Beta Israeli, it extends down to Namibia and Botswana there is an extremely long history of migration that existed much longer than any recorded works.
The oldest marker in North Africa is 20k years old and comes from East Africa.
East Africans migrated to Southern Africa thousands of years ago.
People are no isolated, it's Eurocentric to try and cut up genetically very mixed people's on the continent. The name Africa may derive from outsiders but the continent and it's people have been intermingling long before that exonym was made.
Get over yourself Jared Diamond.
>>865417
>East Africans migrated to Southern Africa thousands of years ago.
I already mentioned that, and like I said it has nothing to do with my point.
>Eurocentric
What an utterly meaningless term. Is that what Pan-Africanist's call anything that might challenge their ideology?
>to try and cut up genetically very mixed people
So basically, you're one of those people you think that culture and civilization are irrelevant, but race comes above everything.
>the continent and it's people have been intermingling long before that exonym was made.
As have people everywhere one Earth. Believe it or not, everyone came from Africa, and Eurasian migrated back into Africa. Africa isn't some isolated culture with no foreign influence. Many parts of Africa are more closely related to parts of Eurasia than other parts of Africa. Madagascar has more to do with China than Kenya. Ethiopia has more to do with Israel than Chad. The Yoruba have nothing to do with the Sudanese. Identities, cultures, and civilizations are not based on Haplogroups.
It's pretty obvious you've completely missed the point of my argument, which was about the rise and spread of civilization and culture (things that matter) rather than race and genetics (things that don't matter). It's also pretty obvious that you're heavily biased and invested in the idea that you have some kind of mystic primordial connection with all other Africans, and nothing to do with those white devils across the Red Sea.
I'm not replying to you again, because you're clearly more interested in your own ideology than historical reality.
Low population density areas don't have much in the way competition, competition forces innovation and communication.
When there's no need to compete, people become content, Sub Saharan Africa and the Americas were fucked from the start.
>>865501
You're the same person ive been arguing with for quite some time on these threads. migration and cultural dissemination are hallmarks of all societies. Trying to claim Africa had any isolated regions or people is not based on reality.
Ethiopia is an African society based in an ancient red sea relationship, Madagascar has a fusion Austronesian and Bantu society influenced by pre-Bantu african Vazimba and Swahili seafarers, Sudanese had sustained contact with west African Fulani, Hausa and others seeking Hajj as noted by the Fulani who remain there to this day. Darfur and Wadai Darfurians had sustained contact with Kano.
The migrations of Africans have always been a reality, A00 the oldest known haplogroup on earth has spread across the entire continent. It's nothing to do with magic, Africans were not, are not isolated, they moved like every other people on earth.
>>864292
Oh look it's >our resident African historian
>>864310
Why didn't they just get the hell out of there? Tsetse flies are horrible.
>>864292
>thinking there's a rigid time between agriculture and civilization
Retard.
>>865594
I said I wouldn't reply, but I'll leave it at this.
There is no historic reality behind Africa or Asia. You could just as easily draw a circle around any arbitrary group of cultures and call it 'Atlantis', and then claim that all those cultures were 'Atlanteans' with your proof being that all of them have indirectly interacted with each other at some point in their history, no matter how marginally and no matter how much more closely related those cultures were with other non-'Atlantean' cultures. That 'Atantis' would have as much basis in reality as your 'Africa'.
>>865634
Did you even read my post? I said that civilization appeared in the Middle East 5000 years after agriculture, and in Africa closer to 3000 years after. That's a 2000 year difference, hardly a rigid set of time.
However, it is generally true that it takes several thousand years after agriculture is introduced to a region for civilization to emerge unless it is introduced from outside (either directly, or though indirect economic influence). The Indus Valley arose roughly 4000-5000 years after agriculture was introduced there, the same applies to the Olmecs and Chinese. Sumer and Egypt arose about 3000 years after agriculture was introduced to southern Mesopotamia and the Nile. There are other examples too, but the point is that civilization doesn't just appear a few centuries after agriculture unless it is actually introduced or its growth stimulated through contact with another civilization.
>>865652
The landmass known as Africa is real regardless of the fact that Africa the name is foreign in origin
Get over yourself and your Guns, Germs and Steel views.
>>865705
Landmass =/= Shared culture or identity
I could just as easily say that because Afro-Eurasia is technically one landmass, that we're all Afro-Eurasians and that and Afro-Eurasian identity is more important that African, Asian, European, or anything of a smaller scale. This has nothing to do with Africa's name. I don't think you're actually reading/considering/understanding my posts.
>Guns, Germs and Steel
What is your obsession with Jared Diamond? I guess it's a nice way of dismissing any argument you don't like. Are you going to call me a Nazi next? How about a Marxist? /pol/? Don't just stick to one, there's a wide selection out there.
I don't know why I'm still arguing with you.
>>864292
>They had very little time to develop before the slave trade crippled development and eventually the continent was colonised.
But the various chieftains/leaders sold slaves to Europeans. Why would they have sold so many as to cripple the development of their civilization?
Also, were they not capable of fighting off Europeans? Technology difference aside, that's way too many people to govern without revolt. Sorry about the questions. I just have lack of knowledge about Africa's colonization.
nigger jew BTFO itt
>>865790
>But the various chieftains/leaders sold slaves to Europeans. Why would they have sold so many as to cripple the development of their civilization?
I'm simplifying here, but basically the more Europeans demanded slaves from West Africa, the more valuable slaves became, and the more wars and raids became profitable. So of course, warfare increased. In contrast to fairly civilized states like Benin and Ife, the powers that benefited and grew dominant through the slave trade such as Dahomey were more 'barbaric' states that were interested above all in raiding and capturing captives rather than building a territoriality based, bureaucratic state. Benin, for example, both the most powerful, cultured, and industrious kingdom in the West African coast during the 16th and 17th centuries had only a marginal interest in the slave trade at that time, but in the 18th and 19th centuries declined as its dependencies, gaining wealth from the trade, broke off and Benin was ultimately forced to reply the trade too. By the 19th century is was pretty much a shithole.
The Ashanti seem to have been an exception since the profits they made from the gold trade made them more interested in securing territory and resources. They captured and traded slaves, but not at the expense of disrupting the gold trade.
I'm hugely simplifying here, and this stuff mostly applies to the West and Central African coasts. East and Central Africa saw a separate slave trade run by Arabs/Swahilis, while the Sahel/Sudan was affected more by the declining trans-Saharan trade, the growth of Islamism, and an increasingly arid environment.
>>865835
Also, the slave trade does seem to correlate to a modern lack of development as well as generally unhealthy societies.
>http://scholar.harvard.edu/files/nunn/files/the_long_term_effects.pdf
>http://www.princeton.edu/~lwantche/The_Slave_Trade_and_the_Origins_of_Mistrust_in_Africa_Use_This_One
>Also, were they not capable of fighting off Europeans? Technology difference aside, that's way too many people to govern without revolt. Sorry about the questions. I just have lack of knowledge about Africa's colonization.
Africa was mostly colonized in the late-19th early 20th century. The technological difference that existed at that point was enormous. While a few of the more well organized armies like the Zulus and Ashanti could hold of Europeans for a while, in most cases there was no real contest. Maxim guns beat spears and outdated rifles. Rebellions happened all the time, but with maxim guns, railroads, steamboats, and eventually aircraft they were never too hard to put down.
>>865852
What's the explanation for Africans not having access to standard weaponry at the time? By the early modern period, they should have full contact and trade with Europeans and Arabs. With something as crucial as weapons, their technology should at least be marginally close.
I say this as Ethiopians had access to Maxim guns which was a result of trade from Russians and it paid off with their fight against Italians. Somalis also had this as well but to a lesser extent.
>>865890
They did have things like muskets and cannon, but generally the latest innovations were out of their reach. Ethiopia was a bit of an exception since they had stronger relations with people like the Russians due to their Christianity, plus I think they captured some artillery from the Egyptians before Adwa. I can't really help you that much here, but by the 19th century Europeans generally weren't interested in giving Africans any military advantage. I don't know all that much about the late 19th century though, my interest is mostly in earlier history.
>>865852
>>http://scholar.harvard.edu/files/nunn/files/the_long_term_effects.pdf
>>http://www.princeton.edu/~lwantche/The_Slave_Trade_and_the_Origins_of_Mistrust_in_Africa_Use_This_One
So are these economics papers or history papers? Or both?
>>865918
I guess a mix of history, economics, and sociology.
>>865809
>>865731
You're arguing with me because I'm not eating the spoon fed shit you're giving to others because I actually know about the continent of my birth and am not an apologist.
Like you literally think plant domestication is the beginning of agriculture and no one has even stated how flawed such a position is.
I'm calling you Jared Diamond because you have to same exact knowledge base as him except behind your universalism is Eurocentricism and a lot of Eurasian wanking.
>>867931
Anon, the reason you're arguing with me isn't because you actually have a reason to doubt the argument I made. You haven't posted anything that contracts what I said about the development of civilization in Africa. The only reason you replied to me is because I included in my argument a few points that upset your naive Afrocentric worldview, which caused you to throw a hissy-fit (as you do every time I post about Africa).
>you literally think plant domestication is the beginning of agriculture
In almost every case it is, and the only reason it was different in Africa was because cattle were introduced from outside. There's also a huge difference between pastoralism and crop-based sedentary farming, since the latter actually allows for the development of civilization and is thus the only form of agriculture that's relevant to my argument. Of course that's completely lost on you, because you don't even understand the basics of my argument.
>I'm calling you Jared Diamond because you have to same exact knowledge base as him
I really have no idea what you're on about. Unlike you, I don't have an obsession with Jared Diamond and I couldn't care less what his 'knowledge base' is.
>behind your universalism is Eurocentricism
Again, utterly meaningless. If you want to believe you have nothing in common with Eurasia and everything in common with Africa, fine, go ahead, but you're deluding yourself.
You desperately want to believe in the idea that Africans are all brothers and sisters and everyone outside Africa is completely different; that people in Ethiopia have more in common with Yorubas than with Arabs or Syrians or Greeks, and idea born out of the ancient Mediterranean world's vague understanding of everything south of the Sahara and the modern myth of continents. You got upset because what I said challenged that view. You don't care about the argument itself, which you never addressed. All you're interested in is justifying your own 'African' identity.
