They were in Africa also. Africans probably fought with sub-machine guns also but since they don't teach teach that history (it's out there but you have to go dig) people assume they were all savages.
__________________ "Where ignorance is bliss, 'tis folly to be wise." - Thomas Gray
That was obviously sarcasm on my part, but everyone traded with Africa first. All sorts of shit was taken from Africa and then said to be original knowledge of the Greeks, for example. There are still many things the ancients from all around the world did that we can not replicate so maybe they have lightsabers.
I don't want to seem like an ass, but a lot of stuff would never be known unless you decided to take interest in it. I'm not trying to seem like I'm this know-it-all but these things are documented even in my history courses in college. Those in the field almost take it as common knowledge while it skips over the rest (including myself) most of the time.
__________________ "Where ignorance is bliss, 'tis folly to be wise." - Thomas Gray
African Democracy: I meant BEFORE the great Greek civilization that showed us all the way to the guiding light!
Mud huts: Well, long story short, Africa was invaded from the North and the East. Afterwards you had people running around from everywhere trying not to be captured. They lived like nomads and never stopped to settle (hence the savage images we see today).
__________________ "Where ignorance is bliss, 'tis folly to be wise." - Thomas Gray
not that I don't agree with your point if it is applied to social and political institutions, but if Africans had a distinctive technological advantage over the Europeans, they certainly didn't take advantage of it while being conquered.
also, due simply to climate and geography, its reasonable to suspect that even the most powerful African nations were never able to be as technological as Europeans (trade included). Like, look at just how difficult farming is there, and how few animals exist that are capable of domestication.
I totally agree with your history statement though. Africans are not given the proper respect they deserve, historically. However, that can be said of almost any group that never developed writing, as it is only recently that we are able to dig stuff up and draw those types of conclusions.
Yeah im not suprised. I just haven't reasearched that much into African history.
I was thinking about like the middle-ages to 16th century. In particluar what some Portugese travellers said about The Mandingos....memories a bit hazy didn't take any notes maybe it was earlier.
Hmm I was mainly thinking of West Africa. I don't know if they made guns but im sure they could have at least obtained them easily.
Im not too sure what that books about but I was under the impression that the reason why West African nations didn't develop so well as Eureopeans was simply because of in-fighting.
Last edited by Deadline on Aug 26th, 2008 at 03:33 PM
I don't know about "Guns, Germs, and Steel" but sounds like it is about the conquest of the Americas. Biological warfare was not new like is often quoted in books. It was used on Africans also.
To explain the details of what happened to Africans, in complete context, would take a minute because you have to explain what is left out and made up in what is now "common sense" knowledge, but you were right to mention geography because it plays a huge part in how the fall began.
__________________ "Where ignorance is bliss, 'tis folly to be wise." - Thomas Gray
Generally speaking, the people who ran off together were family and lived like the cavemen we imagine. They rarely settled because people were being sold off as slaves. Other Africans sometimes joined in so if you were a wandering African and you saw an African you didn't know, you were going to attempt a Solid Snake on his ass because the assumption is that he would rat you out (and since dialects varied, verbal communication was often useless).
__________________ "Where ignorance is bliss, 'tis folly to be wise." - Thomas Gray
The question "Guns, Germs, and Steel" asks is, why did Europe develop so well, but the rest of the world not. Why, when 90% of the planet was living of subsistence agriculture or basic hunter-gatherer economies, were European powers marching around professional armies and developing sciences. If we assume that people born everywhere in the world are of equal intelligence and creativity, there must be another reason.
While the political answers you guys give is, to me, very salient, the book also talks about them. Stable states come from large, organized populations. To stabilize large populations, one requires some things, like domesticated animals and a variety of crops. To progress technologically, they require access to mineral wealth and other such things.
Europe basically was a land mass that provided the things necessary for modern society to a larger degree than other places, and developed faster. Blah, go brief summaries. I personally loved the book.
actually, no, I don't think they had firearms, though there are lots of stories about how the introduction of firearms into aboriginal communities totally disrupted their millennia old culture.
the Zulu were totally unknown until the British invaders ran into the edge of their empire, in South East Africa.
British soldiers, experiencing almost no resistance in North and West Africa, started taking major losses to the highly organized Zulu army. Because of certain cultural practices and resources, the Zulu were able to develop beyond the normal nomadic tradition of the rest of Africa.
KMC Community Forums
Aug 26th, 2008 03:12 PM
