discussion Humanity developed in Africa, yet it is the most disadvantaged continent

[Europe]

Full title wanted to be: "Do You Find It Ironic That Humanity Developed In Africa, Yet It Is The Most Disadvantaged Continent?"

 

I watched a couple of documentaries recently about the evolution of our species and how the first homo sapiens came to be and how they emerged over time to become the dominant species of Earth. It is very interesting but also bittersweet to see that the bulk of our evolution happened in Africa, and then we spread out to other locations. But later on arguably this very place was the most mistreated by later humans.

 

[Starshine]

Tell us why @Europe 

 

[uusagii]

"Europe"

[ugo]

Like Taylor famously said in Daddy I Love him "Growing up precocious sometimes means not growing up at all"

Edited October 27 by ugo

[BOOMBAYAH]

To fully realise its potential and prosper, Africa will need to experience a seismic, global cultural and moral shift. Neocolonialism—orchestrated by Western countries seeking to further enrich themselves by exploiting African resources—continues to hinder progress. Although Western governments often clash over cultural issues domestically, they tend to be bipartisan when it comes to maintaining economic control over African nations. This is why they view China's growing influence in the region with apprehension—not because they oppose Africa being taken advantage of, but because they fear losing their control over the region.

[NEX]

It's the geography, flora & fauna. If you want the full answer check out the book called "Guns, Germs and Steel". But in short, Africa never had the chance to develop to the potential that Europe and Asia did no matter how many thousands of years of headstart they had. Same goes for several other regions. 

[Dei]

was it because they were not a popular trading route in the early days? But then you could argue, how come Dubai made it? So it's an interesting topic

[Loca]

39 minutes ago, ugo said:

Like Taylor famously said in Daddy I Love him "Growing up precocious sometimes means not growing up at all"

What are you trying to say here

[HANZ94]

People always blame colonization but Africa has the most complicated geography and the fauna doesn't help 

it's too hot to the point that makes it really hard to work outside and the land is also not the best for agriculture 

Agriculture is where maths and large communities are born, without it you got nothing.

and Africa is heavily divided by the Sahara desert and the center and south of is was insolated from the rest of the world

 

this is why great civilizations in the north of Africa flourished cause they were in contact with Europe and Asia and therefore trade of goods, treasures and ideas happened 

 

Africa was doomed since the beginning 

[shookspeare]

7 minutes ago, NEX said:

It's the geography, flora & fauna. If you want the full answer check out the book called "Guns, Germs and Steel". But in short, Africa never had the chance to develop to the potential that Europe and Asia did no matter how many thousands of years of headstart they had. Same goes for several other regions. 

Just so you know GG&S is heavily criticized in academic circles and isn't really taken seriously anymore. If anyone is actually interested in this question they should look at Why Nations Fail, which won the Nobel in Economics this year and gives a more updated response to this question. Geography plays a role but so did colonization that prevented reliable economic institutions from emerging in Africa

[Headlock]

19 minutes ago, NEX said:

It's the geography, flora & fauna. If you want the full answer check out the book called "Guns, Germs and Steel". But in short, Africa never had the chance to develop to the potential that Europe and Asia did no matter how many thousands of years of headstart they had. Same goes for several other regions. 

It "never had the potential to develop" because of colonization and the slave trade...

[LegaMyth]

Unfortunately, many African nations should have developed a "Wakanda" mindset, which was NO OUTSIDERS. 

[Letters From Adi]

That's just how the world works, once it revolved around Iraq and today it's basically falling apart

[HeavyMetalAura]

I'm not sure ATRL - where half the users are ready to cry "racist!!1!!" for any given reason, and the other half are attention-seekers who get off on playing "devil's advocate" to start fights and bait the former half - is the place to have this nuanced conversation.

 

In truth, it's both racism/colonialism AND Africa's lesser ability to support mass agriculture and harsher climate (relative to other continents at a time when humans lacked the knowledge/tools/technology to rise above that).

 

But both of those things played a part at a different time. It was moreso a terrain/climate/agricultural issue in the earlier evolution of Homo sapiens that caused the lack of early development, but it's racism/colonialism (mainly via the way resources are hoarded and the relationships richer countries have with one another) that are why it's so disadvantaged today. 
 

Of course, the above is a very simplified explanation of a long, complicated history, but it at least allows for both arguments rather than the people trying to insist it's only one. 
 

In answer to your question though, I'd say it's less ironic but just sad and infuriating. 

[NEX]

50 minutes ago, shookspeare said:

Just so you know GG&S is heavily criticized in academic circles and isn't really taken seriously anymore. If anyone is actually interested in this question they should look at Why Nations Fail, which won the Nobel in Economics this year and gives a more updated response to this question. Geography plays a role but so did colonization that prevented reliable economic institutions from emerging in Africa

 

44 minutes ago, Headlock said:

It "never had the potential to develop" because of colonization and the slave trade...

 

A map of human migration. So you're telling me that the past 500 years of slave trade were more important for preventing that development despite the 160 THOUSAND years head start???? To say Europe prevented Africa from developing despite that 160k gap is insulting to the people of Africa. The people of Africa aren't any different, the people of Europe aren't special. The people of Europe were just lucky to live on lands that allowed them to develop in the way that they did. Geography, crops and animals that can be domesticated is what matters more. 

[shookspeare]

3 minutes ago, NEX said:

 

 

A map of human migration. So you're telling me that the past 500 years of slave trade were more important for preventing that development despite the 160 THOUSAND years head start???? To say Europe prevented Africa from developing despite that 160k gap is insulting to the people of Africa. The people of Africa aren't any different, the people of Europe aren't special. The people of Europe were just lucky to live on lands that allowed them to develop in the way that they did. Geography, crops and animals that can be domesticated is what matters more. 

ok I guess you know more than 2024 Nobel Prize winners atrl user NEX, you may continue citing outdated scholarship

Edited October 27 by shookspeare

[BOOMBAYAH]

1 hour ago, BOOMBAYAH said:

To fully realise its potential and prosper, Africa will need to experience a seismic, global cultural and moral shift. Neocolonialism—orchestrated by Western countries seeking to further enrich themselves by exploiting African resources—continues to hinder progress. Although Western governments often clash over cultural issues domestically, they tend to be bipartisan when it comes to maintaining economic control over African nations. This is why they view China's growing influence in the region with apprehension—not because they oppose Africa being taken advantage of, but because they fear losing their control over the region.

Why is everyone acting confused about neocolonialism 

 

[king_queen]

35 minutes ago, NEX said:

 

 

A map of human migration. So you're telling me that the past 500 years of slave trade were more important for preventing that development despite the 160 THOUSAND years head start???? To say Europe prevented Africa from developing despite that 160k gap is insulting to the people of Africa. The people of Africa aren't any different, the people of Europe aren't special. The people of Europe were just lucky to live on lands that allowed them to develop in the way that they did. Geography, crops and animals that can be domesticated is what matters more. 

Ironically this map doesn't display the transatlantic slave trade 
 

Read books. They teach you things  

[Megan Pete]

52 minutes ago, NEX said:

 

 

A map of human migration. So you're telling me that the past 500 years of slave trade were more important for preventing that development despite the 160 THOUSAND years head start???? To say Europe prevented Africa from developing despite that 160k gap is insulting to the people of Africa. The people of Africa aren't any different, the people of Europe aren't special. The people of Europe were just lucky to live on lands that allowed them to develop in the way that they did. Geography, crops and animals that can be domesticated is what matters more. 

I don't know how people are even arguing with this, it's simple logic. Even in 1500, before the transatlantic slave trade, all places below Northern Africa had farrr less developed infrastructure and agricultural systems. I mean Africa's population was 46mil while Europe, despite being vastly smaller was nearing 70mil.

 

Ofc since industrialization, topography has come to play a much smaller role and colonialism (and to a smaller extent the slave trade) are why African nations haven't been able to catch up, but OPs question was about Africa's 'headstart' compared to Asia and Europe. The answer obviously has nothing to do with events which began thousands of years after European and Asian kingdoms/nations had established themselves

[katara]

1 hour ago, NEX said:

 

 

A map of human migration. So you're telling me that the past 500 years of slave trade were more important for preventing that development despite the 160 THOUSAND years head start???? To say Europe prevented Africa from developing despite that 160k gap is insulting to the people of Africa. The people of Africa aren't any different, the people of Europe aren't special. The people of Europe were just lucky to live on lands that allowed them to develop in the way that they did. Geography, crops and animals that can be domesticated is what matters more. 

Yes exactly, Africa has the Sahara desert and the dense tropical jungle which act like massive communication barriers between people and cultures. It's also too hot to think/do meaningful work. 

 

Interestingly even the fauna is problematic: Africa has a total lack of domesicable animals. Cattle and horses were essential in the development of large scale agriculture in other places.

 

Not to mention all the deadly diseases that are carried by mosquitos/flies there which to this day is still a huge problem. All in all a very problematic place to develop in.

Edited October 27 by katara

[katara]

1 hour ago, shookspeare said:

ok I guess you know more than 2024 Nobel Prize winners atrl user NEX, you may continue citing outdated scholarship

Girl please, that book is more about the recent hundred years and doesn't answer the developement of humanity since 200.000 years ago 

[Europe]

4 hours ago, Starshine said:

Tell us why @Europe 

 

 

4 hours ago, uusagii said:

"Europe"

I'll tell you! Another interesting thing I got from this documentary is that there was basically no food. This is connected to the agriculture topic some users posted about. Our african ancestors ate tree roots for a long time (???) but then when a dry period came this became a lot less viable, some early humans started walking further distances to try to find other food.

 

And the solution they found was to eat carcasses left behind by apex predators like lions: basically we competed with vultures for leftover meat . And eating the raw eye or tounge of a the dead animal counted as a very good thing because it was more fatty & nutrient dense Like what is that!  This is shown at 47:50 in the second video. Very shocking.

[Illyboy]

18 hours ago, NEX said:

It's the geography, flora & fauna. If you want the full answer check out the book called "Guns, Germs and Steel". But in short, Africa never had the chance to develop to the potential that Europe and Asia did no matter how many thousands of years of headstart they had. Same goes for several other regions. 

At uni lectures last week (I study Geography) the teacher literally wanted to insist that Europe doesn't have a "favorable" geography: lots of mountains dividing up the place, poor soils in much of north and western europe (excluding Ukraine/Pontic Steppe because it wasn't covered by ice during the glaciations but rather was on the southern edge of the ice sheet which meant it got all the rich sediments that flowed from the ice). If anything, Europe developed despite it's geography, rather than because of it.

 

OT: I think it's a mix of multiple factors (as in basicalyl anything), Africa did develop civilizations along the Niger-Volta area (Ancient Mali, Songhai, Sokoto, Benin, etc.) and in East Africa (Aksum, Nubia, Swahili); but still most of not all of these pretty much depended on trade with the outside world in one way or another (West Africa with the trans-Saharan routes, East Africa with the Nile and accross the Red Sea and Indian Ocean towards Arabia) and Kongo afaik had relations with Portugal so that's also trade. Geography-wise Africa has a huge rainforest in the middle which is surrounded by desert and savannah to the north and south so that area is pretty much isolated from the outside world (it's comparable to the Amazon except that it's not surrounded by deserts/savannah to the north because there's the Caribbean Sea).

A very important factor (and I think this is the actual reason, because as I said above, Europe developed despite it's geography so technically Africa could also have) is that Africa is basically the world power's backyard. From Europe, to China and beyond many countries benefit from exploiting Africa's resources and labour (which could be used to develop Africa itself instead of benefitting other parts of the world). I think that in order for Africa to develop the local governments would have to "snap" and try to stop depending on foreign investment and industry as much as they do now (i.e. try to do more things locally) but that's difficult not only because those governments are often corrupt and "vassal" to western (or Chinese? ig it depends case-to-case either way money rules so it doesn't matter which country it's coming from in this case) interests so that's a big handicap that hinders it.

South America has something similar going on but to a lesser extent, also other developing regions; it's just shows at the most extreme in Africa.

[Illyboy]

18 hours ago, LegaMyth said:

Unfortunately, many African nations should have developed a "Wakanda" mindset, which was NO OUTSIDERS. 

When people in Europe talk about these ideas("NO OUTSIDERS") for their own countries they're called out for being xenophobic/racist...

[Illyboy]

17 hours ago, NEX said:

 

 

A map of human migration. So you're telling me that the past 500 years of slave trade were more important for preventing that development despite the 160 THOUSAND years head start???? To say Europe prevented Africa from developing despite that 160k gap is insulting to the people of Africa. The people of Africa aren't any different, the people of Europe aren't special. The people of Europe were just lucky to live on lands that allowed them to develop in the way that they did. Geography, crops and animals that can be domesticated is what matters more. 

Half of Europe was under ice not too long ago. Also "development" grew exponientally. During most of those first 160000 years people were using stones and sticks, as the Neolithic only began about 12000 years ago. Africa also has crops and animals to eat/domesticate, for example whereas Europe has wheat and East Asia has rice the Sahel has sorghum.