Hey there! Sign in to join this conversationNew here? Join for free
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by -Invidious-)
    But what made them lag behind the Europeans/Asians in the first place so as to be easily conquered?

    Edit - I've skimmed the wikipedia page of that Guns, Germs and Steel Book, seems quite a good theory.
    They weren't lagging behind necessarily at all.

    Possibly one answer may be that in africa, there are thousands of different ethinc and cultural groups. After colonisation, the groups were split up and mixed with other cultural groups to make the modern african nations we see today (hence all the civil war). However before each tribe was probably relatively small, so when a massive tribe like the british come to take over, there's not much 200 of an african tribe can do about 1000 scots raining down on them.

    Essentially africa was like the uk, before the english colonised the uk, there were many different tribes throughout, just like in africa. In scotland alone you had the picts, the scots, the celtics, some northern european tribes etc. This was the case in england (wales) and ireland. Then one tribe decided to colonise the other tribes and hence england became a country then scotland then it became the uk. Once the powers had succeded in colonising the uk, they sought to colonise the rest of the world, and hence africa suffered the same fate as the picts, celts, scots, cornish etc.

    Essentially the uk had a few savage tribes that decided to colonise the uk, then once they succeded there they did the same in africa.

    That's not to say african tribes weren't doing the same, however they hadn't succeded to make a large enough tribe to take over the rest, like the british and other european countries had. Or they just weren't as savage as the europeans and decided not to take over the tribe next to them for their own selfish interests.

    Before colonisation, africa was just as civilised as any other country in the world. There just weren't as many large kingdoms as there were in europe and asia.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by -Invidious-)
    But what made them lag behind the Europeans/Asians in the first place so as to be easily conquered?
    Why do you consider Africans to be the least successful? consider all the other populations that were conquered, including the native americans and australians?

    Why is it always africans who are described as under-developed or primitive despite the many examples of civilisations which existed in places like ethiopia, zimbabwe, benin and despite the many other peoples who have lived in more 'primitive' conditions across the americas, australia, pacific islands etc
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    14
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by pantagathus)
    Why do you consider Africans to be the least successful? consider all the other populations that were conquered, including the native americans and australians?

    Why is it always africans who are described as under-developed or primitive despite the many examples of civilisations which existed in places like ethiopia, zimbabwe, benin and despite the many other peoples who have lived in more 'primitive' conditions across the americas, australia, pacific islands etc
    Because African's despite slavery, have had in recent times the exact same opportunities as whites. However, they are still massively under represented in the workforce (hence affirmative action programs) and over represented in crime. I guess I could also group in the aborigines but they seem pretty harmless and content with drinking themselves to a stupor - The Australians on this board would know what im talking about.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by -Invidious-)
    Because African's despite slavery, have had in recent times the exact same opportunities as whites. However, they are still massively under represented in the workforce (hence affirmative action programs) and over represented in crime. I guess I could also group in the aborigines but they seem pretty harmless and content with drinking themselves to a stupor - The Australians on this board would know what im talking about.
    So you think aborigines and native ameericans are not under represented in the workforce in their respective countries? Your arguement doesn't really hold up.
    I thought this discussion was about Africans in Africa but it seems you want to discuss ethnic minorities and to say they have all had the exact same oppportunities doesn't really hold up if you go back more than twenty or thirty years here and in many countries.

    For example aborigines were only given the right to own property in the 1970s, do you think a whole people can go from owning nothing to complete equality in a few decades?
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by -Invidious-)
    Because African's despite slavery, have had in recent times the exact same opportunities as whites. However, they are still massively under represented in the workforce (hence affirmative action programs) and over represented in crime. I guess I could also group in the aborigines but they seem pretty harmless and content with drinking themselves to a stupor - The Australians on this board would know what im talking about.
    You are extremely naive and ignorant if you think that the exact same opportunities open to whites are open to black people. Institutional racism, although diminished, still exists, and in the case of many African countries the education system is defunct. Unemployment and decaying infrastructure is rampant in these countries due to the unequal effects of globalisation and the legacy of colonialism - they have been locked out of any trade opportunities, and during colonialism infrastructure was only created that facilitated resource exploitation and export, not social or political development. Even if your blatantly untrue statement was reality there would be a lagtime of many years before the employment and crime figures would see any change.

    P.S. I was born in Australia and I find your Aborigine comment very offensive. Poverty and crime are economic problems, not a racial ones.
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by therealOG)
    You are extremely naive and ignorant if you think that the exact same opportunities open to whites are open to black people. Institutional racism, although diminished, still exists, and in the case of many African countries the education system is defunct. Unemployment and decaying infrastructure is rampant in these countries due to the unequal effects of globalisation and the legacy of colonialism - they have been locked out of any trade opportunities. Even if your blatantly untrue statement was reality there would be a lagtime of many years before the employment and crime figures changed.

    P.S. I was born in Australia and I find your Aborigine comment very offensive. Poverty and crime is an economic problem, not a racial one.
    :congrats: You've been the voice of reason on this thread
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by amsie/)
    :congrats: You've been the voice of reason on this thread
    Awww-shucks
    I'm just really surprised by the ignorance displayed here. It's a student forum after all, you'd think that users would be kinda clued up about worldly affairs, both current and historical. I guess I was wrong....:sigh:
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    There's a really good documentary on Channel 4 called 'Civilisation: Is The West History?' It talks a lot about how the West overtook all the other civilisations of the past (and why other civilisations e.g. the Ming Dynasty, the Spanish takeover of South America, etc) were less successful than the West. It would answer a lot of your questions. It's the last episode on Sunday but I'm sure you can find it online.
    Offline

    8
    ReputationRep:
    SLAVERY...SLAVERY...AND OH YES...SLAVERY...some people don't no the economical effect slavery has had on africans...when you see familys with no food,hardly any clothes...citys in countries like nigeria when they only have electricity for like 15 hours a day etc...you now no why..SLAVERY
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by -Invidious-)
    Because African's despite slavery, have had in recent times the exact same opportunities as whites. However, they are still massively under represented in the workforce (hence affirmative action programs) and over represented in crime. I guess I could also group in the aborigines but they seem pretty harmless and content with drinking themselves to a stupor - The Australians on this board would know what im talking about.
    I live in Australia and no, I don't know wtf you're talking about. I agree with TheRealOG here. Your opinion is, at best, exceedingly naive.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    Africa hasn't been given a chance to progress by Europeans and Arabs when they came in. They were doing fine before colonisation came and to me thats the main reason why it is so 'backwards'. These countries came in and began using resources for their own interests at the expense of the people living there And now even though a lot of them are 'independent' from Europeans, you could say Europeans are still in charge. Also Europe have been around for many centuries so they had way more time to develop compared to Africa.
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by ussumane)
    Only 3 were Sultanate. As for contrubuitions, although I agree there is hardly none, check my first post, I added something for that.
    Just because they were sultanates doesn't mean they weren't African. The Berbers of the North consider themselves African and would die rather than be called "Arabs" and the same goes for those people in East Africa who also used the term.

    The Warsangali Sultanate, The Sultante of Hobyo, Ajuraan Sultanate and the Dervish state were all Somali, are they not Africans? Ignore the fools Ussumane!
    Offline

    15
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by In2deep)
    Just because they were sultanates doesn't mean they weren't African. The Berbers of the North consider themselves African and would die rather than be called "Arabs" and the same goes for those people in East Africa who also used the term.

    The Warsangali Sultanate, The Sultante of Hobyo, Ajuraan Sultanate and the Dervish state were all Somali, are they not Africans? Ignore the fools Ussumane!
    yes, my bad But I guess you, therealOG and U.S Leece already owned the idiots
    Offline

    16
    ReputationRep:
    I've also read this book too and it makes sense.
    However does it justify all the bad stuff that's happened? I seem to get the impression that Europeans got there first and murdered everyone simply because they could and because they were better equipped and so that makes it alright.
    Are there any other books similar to this? Ian Morris' Why The West Rules For Now is something i've been planning to acquire for a while now.
    • Political Ambassador
    Offline

    17
    ReputationRep:
    Political Ambassador
    (Original post by ikoghoo)
    This should just be shut down now.
    Why? Its a topic of debate.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Silver Arrow)
    I've also read this book too and it makes sense.
    However does it justify all the bad stuff that's happened? I seem to get the impression that Europeans got there first and murdered everyone simply because they could and because they were better equipped and so that makes it alright.
    Are there any other books similar to this? Ian Morris' Why The West Rules For Now is something i've been planning to acquire for a while now.
    I'm halfway through Ian Morris' book. While Jared Diamond focuses a lot more on the geographical/ecological aspect in the evolution of society (and therefore, in my opinion, answers the question far more directly), Ian Morris tends to narrate the major historical events concerning human societies in just the eastern and western cores (China and Europe/Middle East).....however I've only read half the book so I can't really evaluate how good it is yet....It's very interesting though from a History point of view.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    One aspect of the effects of the Arabs and Europeans in Africa which often gets overlooked was that European colonialism really got going after the inadvertent introduction of Rinderpest, a cattle disease which had previously been confined to Eurasia, killed 80-90% of cattle in sub-Saharan Africa, brought about massive famines and wrecked many then-pastoralist economies. Nobody's fault, just bad luck; but it's something I was a little surprised to not see mentioned in Guns, Germs, and Steel, given how well it fits the main thesis of the book.

    (Luckily, Rinderpest has now been eradicated... being only the second disease in history to be eradicated, and the first disease of livestock.)
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by didgeridoo12uk)
    they did have multiple civilisations and had done quite a bit of trade with asia. you're just ignorant
    This. A lot of people don't know how advanced Africa and other parts of the world were before everything changed. I'm not going to try and explain in detail here because quite frankly people are either too ignorant or too stupid to understand.
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    14
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Young Spade)
    This. A lot of people don't know how advanced Africa and other parts of the world were before everything changed. I'm not going to try and explain in detail here because quite frankly people are either too ignorant or too stupid to understand.
    What was that big change then, what caused it? That's the question I originally asked.
 
 
 
Poll
Do you agree with the PM's proposal to cut tuition fees for some courses?
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.