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

[Illyboy]

16 hours ago, katara said:

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.

Cattle and horses can be carried around using trade or other means, the Native Americans got horses from the Spanish for example. Oranges made their way to Spain all the way from China. I haven't researched Africa fauna enough to know about domesticable animals but I would be surprised if they didn't have an equivalent of cattle (whether native to Africa or brought from somewhere else later on).

Also, Asia and also has many diseases and so do/did other continents but they since been restrained if not eradicated because of advances in healthcare and whatnot.

[LegaMyth]

1 hour ago, Illyboy said:

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

Gtfoh

 

We're talking about a continent that has had outsiders take EVERY-DAMN-THING, and continues to rip them off. Europeans being the main continent. 

[Illyboy]

2 hours ago, LegaMyth said:

Gtfoh

 

We're talking about a continent that has had outsiders take EVERY-DAMN-THING, and continues to rip them off. Europeans being the main continent. 

I was just pointing out the "inconsistency" chill

[BrokenMachine]

23 hours ago, Europe said:

"Do You Find It Ironic That Humanity Developed In Africa, Yet It Is The Most Disadvantaged Continent?"

It's not ironic. It's the most recent region that European powers took advantage of (and still do at some extent). The American continent got rid of European colonialism 200 years ago and still there's some big consequences that remain till this day, so it's gonna be more evident for nations that are still currently fighting to get sovereignty

[dumbsparce]

There's a reason our ancestors migrated from there.

[BrokenMachine]

22 hours ago, NEX said:

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.

Well, yes?? Since Europe took away every development Africa had at the time, and stole their resources big time. Of course they're gonna be at disadvantage

[Raphy23]

Heat is a disadvantage of construction and development. Which is why colder climates tend to have larger buildings and skyscrapers.

[Europe]

9 minutes ago, BrokenMachine said:

It's not ironic. It's the most recent region that European powers took advantage of (and still do at some extent). The American continent got rid of European colonialism 200 years ago and still there's some big consequences that remain till this day, so it's gonna be more evident for nations that are still currently fighting to get sovereignty

Actually one of the less known interesting facts is that it was not just Europe: Middle-Eastern countries were very active in slave trade and benefited a lot from it. For example the Trans-Saharan Slave Trade operated for 1300 years and traded enslaved people from West Africa to the Middle East. I just found out about it yesterday, very shocking and not classy

[BrokenMachine]

23 hours ago, NEX said:

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.

And yet Europe have only prospered the last decades thanks to African resources. It's not about their 'land', it's about who controls and makes profit out of said land

[Revolution]

Wbk humans are evil and exploitative even towards the motherland 

[BrokenMachine]

5 minutes ago, Europe said:

Actually one of the less known interesting facts is that it was not just Europe: Middle-Eastern countries were very active in slave trade and benefited a lot from it. For example the Trans-Saharan Slave Trade operated for 1300 years and traded enslaved people from West Africa to the Middle East. I just found out about it yesterday, very shocking and not classy

Slavery and their trade was kinda the norm all around the world, so it's not very shocking, some African kingdoms got benefited from selling slaves at the time. Everything changed once Europe divided the whole continent for themselves tho

Edited October 28 by BrokenMachine

[NEX]

16 minutes ago, BrokenMachine said:

Well, yes?? Since Europe took away every development Africa had at the time, and stole their resources big time. Of course they're gonna be at disadvantage

 

7 minutes ago, BrokenMachine said:

And yet Europe have only prospered the last decades thanks to African resources. It's not about their 'land', it's about who controls and makes profit out of said land

History does not start with transatlantic slave trade. The OP asked why European nations were able to conquer those other nations despite them having a massive head start. The answer is because the conditions in which Europeans lived in helped facilitate higher forms of technological development that allowed them to overwhelm any other human societies they came across. If you removed all other world powers from existence and leave sub-saharan Africa to its own devices without outside interference it would still never industrialise because its geography did not support industrialisation in the first 20,000 years of human existence. It would not have developed in the past 500 years either. On the other hand if native americans had a few more thousand years without European interference they would have industrialised because their geography allowed it. 

[Illyboy]

32 minutes ago, Raphy23 said:

Heat is a disadvantage of construction and development. Which is why colder climates tend to have larger buildings and skyscrapers.

I would say earthquakes do more damage than heat but whatever you say. Dubai is hot af and has some of the tallest skyscrapers.

[Raphy23]

1 minute ago, Illyboy said:

I would say earthquakes do more damage than heat but whatever you say. Dubai is hot af and has some of the tallest skyscrapers.

that is only very recently. 

[Illyboy]

9 minutes ago, NEX said:

History does not start with transatlantic slave trade. The OP asked why European nations were able to conquer those other nations despite them having a massive head start. The answer is because the conditions in which Europeans lived in helped facilitate higher forms of technological development that allowed them to overwhelm any other human societies they came across.

The blatant eurocentrism/white supremacy...

10 minutes ago, NEX said:

If you removed all other world powers from existence and leave sub-saharan Africa to its own devices without outside interference it would still never industrialise because its geography did not support industrialisation in the first 20,000 years of human existence. It would not have developed in the past 500 years either. On the other hand if native americans had a few more thousand years without European interference they would have industrialised because their geography allowed it. 

For no continent it did?? The Industrial Revolution took place in the XVIII Century...

[Illyboy]

1 minute ago, Raphy23 said:

that is only very recently. 

okay true

[Illyboy]

28 minutes ago, Europe said:

Actually one of the less known interesting facts is that it was not just Europe: Middle-Eastern countries were very active in slave trade and benefited a lot from it. For example the Trans-Saharan Slave Trade operated for 1300 years and traded enslaved people from West Africa to the Middle East. I just found out about it yesterday, very shocking and not classy

Oman literally had "colonies" from Somalia to Zanzibar not long before the scramble for Africa, it surprises me how many people don't know this despite that it wasn't that long ago

It was even featured on Bill Wurtz's "history of the entire world, i guess":

Quote

The sultan of Oman lives in Zanzibar now

 

[NEX]

4 hours ago, Illyboy said:

The blatant eurocentrism/white supremacy...

For no continent it did?? The Industrial Revolution took place in the XVIII Century...

Actually the absolute opposite of eurocentrism. If you read through my posts again you'll see that I'm saying Europeans are not special. All humans are the same species, there's no such thing as race. People inhabiting European lands were just lucky to be living on lands that supported higher forms of development. Humans inhabited Africa for 200k years. They didn't industrialise in those 200k years. Humans arrived in Europe 40k years ago, yet they managed to industrialise and conquer the rest of the world despite having started the race so many thousand years later. Are you saying some special smarter humans chose to migrate to Europe? Or perhaps you can finally hear me say that the conditions that they inherited were much more favourable for the exchange of ideas that lead to rapid development. Besides it's not just Europe. China also has favourable geography like that. North America as well, but humans arrived there much later, so they had time disadvantage despite geographical advantage. 

[AlanRickman1946]

On 10/28/2024 at 3:11 AM, HANZ94 said:

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 

 

 

 

 

[AlanRickman1946]

6 hours ago, NEX said:

 

History does not start with transatlantic slave trade. The OP asked why European nations were able to conquer those other nations despite them having a massive head start. The answer is because the conditions in which Europeans lived in helped facilitate higher forms of technological development that allowed them to overwhelm any other human societies they came across. If you removed all other world powers from existence and leave sub-saharan Africa to its own devices without outside interference it would still never industrialise because its geography did not support industrialisation in the first 20,000 years of human existence. It would not have developed in the past 500 years either. On the other hand if native americans had a few more thousand years without European interference they would have industrialised because their geography allowed it. 

But why hadn't the native Americans done so before the Europeans got there?

I kinda think the answer is all countries take turns being top dog 

[Heirloom]

It's too generalizing and far away to compare first human condition to human today. And Africa is big lmao, humans are theorized to originate from Northern Africa when the Sahara desert begin to dried up. Central and Southern Africa were always been harsh climate to live that it even still has pockets of pygmies and only been populated in big scale later by Bantu people thanks to their agriculture innovation.

 

If we're talking about Africa condition now then yes, colonialism play a part. 

Edited October 29 by Heirloom

[NEX]

1 hour ago, AlanRickman1946 said:

But why hadn't the native Americans done so before the Europeans got there?

I kinda think the answer is all countries take turns being top dog 

Look at the human migration map (on first page) and you'll have your answer. North America was only starting to get populated (and very sparsely) 15 thousand years ago. By then Mesopotamia started to develop agriculture. That 25 thousand year headstart for Eurasia was very important in this case. Developments don't happen overnight.  

 

[AlanRickman1946]

On 10/29/2024 at 10:30 AM, NEX said:

Look at the human migration map (on first page) and you'll have your answer. North America was only starting to get populated (and very sparsely) 15 thousand years ago. By then Mesopotamia started to develop agriculture. That 25 thousand year headstart for Eurasia was very important in this case. Developments don't happen overnight.  

 

What about Mexico? They had an ancient civilisation 

[NEX]

7 hours ago, AlanRickman1946 said:

What about Mexico? They had an ancient civilisation 

The Americas were populated by humans much later than the rest of the world (especially South America). I'm not entirely sure what geographical potential the Mayans had, but they were disadvantaged by thousands of years of headstart that the Europeans and Asians had. So they were inevitably going to get conquered by another civilisation that managed to develop a strong long distance navy. 

[Ichinaru19]

On 10/27/2024 at 3:53 PM, HeavyMetalAura said:

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. 

I don't think people who are saying its due to racism/colonialism is denying the fact that climate is also a contributing factor.