Turn on thread page Beta

Why were african's always victims? watch

    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by EskimoJo)
    I don't think we were disagreeing! What's an MRP?! Should I be worried? Is it safe to turn the lights off? :woo:
    No, no its not.

    :nothing:
    Offline

    16
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Krakatoa)
    The Illuminati.
    Damn! I knew it! :eek: :woo:
    Offline

    13
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by jonjon123)
    Throughout history different ethnic groups came to Africa and used the "Africans" as cheap labour. The Arabs used them and then the Europeans. Why hadn't the Africans ever tried to invade the Middle East or even Europe through Egypt or morocco? I mean it was the Arabs that conquered Spain? Why was it always Europeans or Arabs that have had golden ages and what not? I mean middle eastern and European history are very interesting, yes they have some exploitation but look most of the African history is very depressing. FFS, we used to exploit our own people, who does that? Most people use other people, e.g. the Arabs are using Bengali’s/Indians as builders and the Ethiopians as servants and maids. Yes, I know china does it but when china does it, it is beneficial to its economy I mean china and India are becoming developed very fast. The Europeans basically wiped out poverty and the European version of poverty is Africa version of middle class. The middle easterners weren’t that good with money BUT they do look after their CITZENS (Arabs) very well e.g. Qatar and UAE. Even the "Arab" African countries have less poverty even though some African generates more income?

    PS, I am black.

    PSS, I am talking about native Africans, you know not Algerians and Moroccans.
    I'm not going to give you a complete answer because that would take two long, instead I'm going to give you a simplified version. I'm going to address slavery and why it was possible as I assume that's what you mean when you say exploit.

    All ethnicities have exploited their own people in the past and it can be argued still do now. That you think it was only Africans is a factual error. Your initial problem with approaching this question is by grouping all people from Africa as Africans. It is only in the 20th century that any group within Africa began to have any notion of being African as opposed to a member of their own nation such as an Igbo, Akan, etc. Slavery was a part of African society, however, unlike when the Europeans got involved a person became a slave for one of two reason. They were captured in war or they committed a serious crime for which the punishment was slavery. The Arabs exploited this system to purchase African slaves as the expansion of Islam in Arab lands meant they could no longer use Arab slaves (its against Islam to enslave another Muslim).

    The reason the Arabs and then the Europeans could do this was economic. The logic behind the slave trade was that the labour of an enslaved African working in a European plantation was worth more than the labour of a free African working in Africa. With this being true a European could offer an African leader more for the slave than he would earn by allowing the man to work his land in Africa. In this period the primary production method was agricultural and there were two primary agricultural tools, the plow and the hoe. The plow allowed for far more to be produced and was used in the Arab lands, in north Africa and in Europe whereas in Africa they used the hoe. This meant they could produce far less and consequently Europeans could afford to buy Africans cheaply and make a large profit from there labour.

    The reason central Africa didn't use the hoe was because the tsetse fly and sleeping sickness made using draft animals difficult and the lateritic tropical soil responded badly to plowing and was easily leeched. These conditions made the hoe the best option for production in the conditions but meant outside merchants could afford to purchase vast numbers of slaves.

    Not all African leaders wanted to sell slaves to outsides but the continent was politically fragmented and there was always someone willing to sell slaves. The wealth the leader who sold slaves allowed them to exert more influence and created more slaves.

    There is more to it than that as its a very complex issue but that is a simplified explanation as to why Africans have been in a position to be exploited.
    Offline

    15
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Bishamon)
    No, no its not.

    Good thing I can sleep with the lights on then! :p: An upbringing of falling asleep at late finishing Nigerian parties means I can sleep in any sort of light and with lots of background noise.
    Offline

    15
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by ChaoticMaster)
    ...Many interesting things...
    In case OP doesn't reply, just letting you know that I enjoyed reading that post and found it highly informative. :yy: Where do you learn all these things? :sad:
    Offline

    13
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by EskimoJo)
    In case OP doesn't reply, just letting you know that I enjoyed reading that post and found it highly informative. :yy: Where do you learn all these things? :sad:
    glad you appreciated it I'm doing a history degree and done a module on slavery in the Caribbean last semester. There are a lot of good books out there you can read on the subject. I could recommend a couple if your intrested.
    Offline

    16
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by jonjon123)
    FFS, we used to exploit our own people, who does that?
    exploiting your own people is nothing racial. it's human! all cultures have once exploited their own people
    Offline

    15
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by ChaoticMaster)
    glad you appreciated it I'm doing a history degree and done a module on slavery in the Caribbean last semester. There are a lot of good books out there you can read on the subject. I could recommend a couple if your intrested.
    Yes please!
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    Africans weren't always victims lad. But with modern times, a large portion to the underdevelopment of the states in the continent is plainly due to government corruption.
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    Cos they deserve it.
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    Kamehameha (>o.o)>====0 (x_x)
    Offline

    12
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by jonjon123)
    Throughout history different ethnic groups came to Africa and used the "Africans" as cheap labour. The Arabs used them and then the Europeans. Why hadn't the Africans ever tried to invade the Middle East or even Europe through Egypt or morocco? I mean it was the Arabs that conquered Spain? Why was it always Europeans or Arabs that have had golden ages and what not? I mean middle eastern and European history are very interesting, yes they have some exploitation but look most of the African history is very depressing. FFS, we used to exploit our own people, who does that? Most people use other people, e.g. the Arabs are using Bengali’s/Indians as builders and the Ethiopians as servants and maids. Yes, I know china does it but when china does it, it is beneficial to its economy I mean china and India are becoming developed very fast. The Europeans basically wiped out poverty and the European version of poverty is Africa version of middle class. The middle easterners weren’t that good with money BUT they do look after their CITZENS (Arabs) very well e.g. Qatar and UAE. Even the "Arab" African countries have less poverty even though some African generates more income?

    PS, I am black.

    PSS, I am talking about native Africans, you know not Algerians and Moroccans.

    troll....a rather pointless thread, to be honest.....
    Offline

    16
    ReputationRep:
    You could ask the same about the Jews.
    When the Jews were freed as slaves and were led out of Egypt I bet they thought "Great, now our troubles are over. Our people will never have to go through anything like this again."
    Offline

    16
    Because places in Europe had huge empires as well as massive trading links. As well as that the countries in Europe had much more advanced technology and training so they wouldn't stand a chance.
    Offline

    15
    ReputationRep:
    because they had to fight lions and elephants and all we had to put up with was rabbits
    Offline

    19
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by jonjon123)
    Source for the ethiopia claim? Also, africa where the largest slaves. I mean afro-turks, afro-arabs, african americans and black british.
    The Aksumite Empire is located in Ethopia and Eriterea. It's where the biblical Queen of Sheba reigned
    (Original post by Wikipedia)
    The Empire

    The Empire of Aksum at its height extended across most of present-day Eritrea, northern Ethiopia, Yemen, southern Saudi Arabia and northern Sudan. The capital city of the empire was Aksum, now in northern Ethiopia. Today a smaller community, the city of Aksum was once a bustling metropolis, cultural and economic center. Two hills and two streams lie on the east and west expanses of the city; perhaps providing the initial impetus for settling this area. Along the hills and plain outside the city, the Aksumites had cemeteries with elaborate grave stones called stelae, or obelisks. Other important cities included Yeha, Hawulti, Matara, Adulis, and Qohaito, the last three of which are now in Eritrea.

    In the 3rd century, Aksum began interfering in South Arabian affairs, controlling at times the western Tihama region among other areas. By the late 3rd century it had begun minting its own currency and was named by Mani as one of the four great powers of his time along with Persia, Rome, and China. It converted to Christianity in 325 or 328 under King Ezana and was the first state ever to use the image of the cross on its coins. At its height, Aksum controlled northern Ethiopia, Eritrea, northern Sudan, southern Egypt, Djibouti, Yemen, and southern Saudi Arabia, totalling 1.25 million km².[8]

    It was a quasi-ally of Byzantium against the Persian Empire of the day and declined after the 7th century due to unknown reasons, but informed speculation suggests the rise of Islam heavily impacted its ability to trade with the Far East in the era when shipping was limited to coastal navigation as well as cut it off from its principal markets in Alexandria, Byzantium and Southern Europe.
    Offline

    19
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by jonjon123)
    Listen, I said native Africans. Stop being in denial.
    Berber Africans of Morroco are 'proper Africans' . Egypt are full of arab emigrants I agree. But if you are trying to say Black Africans, then just clarify.
    Offline

    14
    ReputationRep:
    Africa lacks the prerequisite political development to be really successful, even to this day African politics are corrupt and tribal. A lot of Africans have much more loyalty to their tribe than to the abstract concept of a 'nation'.

    Largely derives from the fact that the Europeans foistered enlightenment ideals of democracy, nation states, representative government etc on the Africans when they weren't ready for it. African society was lightyears behind Europe when it was colonised and has never really adapted it's culture and social systems to well functioning states with the exception of a few like Botswana. For all South Africa is promoted as beacon of hope in Africa, it's actually been slipping backwards and becoming ever more corrupt since the end of Apartheid.

    This is why Africa is so backwards and economically retarded, most African nations could probably use a dose of Chinese style 'Authoritarian Capitalism' but no one in Africa really has the power to impose that. Even if they did, they'd just use it to their own benefit by siphoning off money to Swiss Bank Accounts unlike the Chinese who are actually committed to furthering their country and relatively much much less corrupt.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    Basically Europe had guns(even though didn't really use these, weapons are used as a deterrent for war), west africa didn't...America needed a cheap workforce to build up the continent...no cheaper than slaves....the place with enough workers to fund the need was west africa. Plus it made it a lot easier that west africans was just selling their own people for pathetic trade deals really and west africa while still a fair distance...was the closest place to america that had enough people to use as slaves.

    Obviously africa is still a mess today....but africans really should look to change their own governments and corruption at the moment rather than looking to blame everything in the past, which will achieve nothing.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by MJlover)
    Berber Africans of Morroco are 'proper Africans' . Egypt are full of arab emigrants I agree. But if you are trying to say Black Africans, then just clarify.
    anthing north of the sahara are pretty much arab types and caucasians.......600AD they came in and took north africa...the desert does act as a good barrier....hence the term sub-saharan african....ethiopians and somalians are grey areas.
 
 
 
The home of Results and Clearing

3,052

people online now

1,567,000

students helped last year
Poll
How are you feeling about GCSE results day?
Useful resources

The Student Room, Get Revising and Marked by Teachers are trading names of The Student Room Group Ltd.

Register Number: 04666380 (England and Wales), VAT No. 806 8067 22 Registered Office: International House, Queens Road, Brighton, BN1 3XE

Write a reply...
Reply
Hide
Reputation gems: You get these gems as you gain rep from other members for making good contributions and giving helpful advice.