MischievousMonkey
Gor bu dëgër
@Jesus is my protector @Samori Toure
@mbewane
Thoughts? If yall had to give your top 3 reasons what would they be?
Why the African continent fell
- Thread starter MischievousMonkey
- Start date
@Jesus is my protector @Samori Toure
@mbewane
Thoughts? If yall had to give your top 3 reasons what would they be?
Gonna watch video but I bet it is much more complicated.
Secure Da Bag
Veteran
I always assumed that part of the reason was because Africans were more consumers than producers. Especially when it came to weapons of war.
MischievousMonkey
Gor bu dëgër
If we're talking colonization I agree breh. But personally I date Africa fall to the fracture of its mega empires, and that was before that...
Secure Da Bag
Veteran
When he gets into how African kings behaved with the Europeans, aside from the Congolese King, how many of the others were Christian? Muslim?
EDIT: Congo - Christian. Songhai - Muslim.
So Africa's passivity to foreign invasion attributed largely to its downfall as well.
MischievousMonkey
Gor bu dëgër
Expand on it breh. PleaseAfrican continent never "fell"
Secure Da Bag
Veteran
InGodWeTrust
Tall & Handsome in ATL
We didnt have the gun
If I had to give my top three reasons(and again, this is all more complicated than this)
Keep in mind that this isn't in any particular order
1. Lack of the dominant states/Empires that existed a few centuries earlier(Mali for one) made it easier for the Euros to pick apart the tribes one by one
2. A good portion of Africa was disconnected from the dominant Mediterranean trade routes. Which meant it was difficult for African states to purchase the latest weaponry. There were some Empires who could have purchased firearms(Songhai), but in Songhai's case they didn't have the foresight to invest in it.
3. The African states naivety when it came to dealing with the Euros
I'll watch the video a bit later, but I do like this dudes youtube page
Keep in mind that this isn't in any particular order
1. Lack of the dominant states/Empires that existed a few centuries earlier(Mali for one) made it easier for the Euros to pick apart the tribes one by one
2. A good portion of Africa was disconnected from the dominant Mediterranean trade routes. Which meant it was difficult for African states to purchase the latest weaponry. There were some Empires who could have purchased firearms(Songhai), but in Songhai's case they didn't have the foresight to invest in it.
3. The African states naivety when it came to dealing with the Euros
I'll watch the video a bit later, but I do like this dudes youtube page
mbewane
Knicks: 93 til infinity
Yeah I don't know about this one. I'm no expert but I feel like he's watching things with a modern view of how politics works, which didn't really apply back then. For example all the talk about diversity being a problem obviously comes from a modern nation-state point of view, when we know that all Empires everywhere had lots of diversity within their population. That was actually the case up until the 19th century, including in Europe, so I'm not sure that African diversity per se was an issue then. To this day it's well-known that people speak many languages and share cultural values and whatnot, so...if anything I would say that it's more of an issue now that the nation-state model has been imposed on Africa and that every ethnic group is vying for position, in a political system that isn't homegrown.
Also I think one must keep in mind the sheer size of Africa, which probably meant that there was not constant war being waged, which in turn might lead to more "pacific" and "humanistic" views, what he calls "naive". Look at the size of Europe and the scarcity of its ressources, everyone knows that the continent has been in a constant war since forever up until...1945. Obviously with that history you're bound to only think in ways to take advantage of others. Asians were in Africa quite early too if I'm not mistaken, but the interactions seem to have been different. And also, what he seems to not be taking into account is that those African Kings saw these people they have never heard travel half the world with huge boats and firearms. I know everyone wants to believe that all these kings were ultra-powerful, but maybe some were...shook and were hoping to find a way to ensure some form of peaceful cohabitation in front of superior armies.
Also and I've said that somewhere else, the fact that Africa was turned inward as opposed to Europe that was turned outward explains why Europe developped its maritime power, which basically back then was what the air force is today. In those days, if you didn't control the sea you didn't control shyt. And Europeans NEEDED to get out of Europe to survive, Africans didn't (since like he said, ressources were already there).
And...
The fact that most of Africa was disconnected from the Mediterranean trade routes means that lots of new weaponry and a whole of other "modern" things just didn't make it all the way to mainland Africa. North Africa being separated from the rest by the Sahara and the rest just being so far away. And we already know that African kingdoms didn't have massive maritime fleets. Of course they were connected to the world, but not at the same level as all the Mediterranean and European powers, that obviously played a part. There's a reason that for so long the "center of the world" was the Mediterranean Sea.
Also I think one must keep in mind the sheer size of Africa, which probably meant that there was not constant war being waged, which in turn might lead to more "pacific" and "humanistic" views, what he calls "naive". Look at the size of Europe and the scarcity of its ressources, everyone knows that the continent has been in a constant war since forever up until...1945. Obviously with that history you're bound to only think in ways to take advantage of others. Asians were in Africa quite early too if I'm not mistaken, but the interactions seem to have been different. And also, what he seems to not be taking into account is that those African Kings saw these people they have never heard travel half the world with huge boats and firearms. I know everyone wants to believe that all these kings were ultra-powerful, but maybe some were...shook and were hoping to find a way to ensure some form of peaceful cohabitation in front of superior armies.
Also and I've said that somewhere else, the fact that Africa was turned inward as opposed to Europe that was turned outward explains why Europe developped its maritime power, which basically back then was what the air force is today. In those days, if you didn't control the sea you didn't control shyt. And Europeans NEEDED to get out of Europe to survive, Africans didn't (since like he said, ressources were already there).
And...
The fact that most of Africa was disconnected from the Mediterranean trade routes means that lots of new weaponry and a whole of other "modern" things just didn't make it all the way to mainland Africa. North Africa being separated from the rest by the Sahara and the rest just being so far away. And we already know that African kingdoms didn't have massive maritime fleets. Of course they were connected to the world, but not at the same level as all the Mediterranean and European powers, that obviously played a part. There's a reason that for so long the "center of the world" was the Mediterranean Sea.
dora_da_destroyer
Master Baker
I was recently watching a YouTube vid about how Africa’s geography basically “doomed” it re: development. First is its orientation, NS vs EW, going NS means you cross more climate zones and thus people couldn’t migrate as easily because they weren’t adapted to the different climates. This makes sense to me as most the great empires come from the wider part of Africa above the equator where more EW movement was allowed.
Many parts of Africa also don’t have consistent weather patterns, thus things like drought meant people were more nomadic and couldn’t establish lasting civilizations/societies as they sought water/fertile grounds for crops.
Then of course you have things like the Sahara and rainforests in the interior which meant differnt people couldn’t easily pass through to different areas which of course limits trade, exchange of skills, ideas and technology. A lot of development/advancement happened because ideas, goods, trade, scientific and mathematical discoveries were able to be exchanged along the Silk Road which connected Europe, North Africa, the middle east, India and east Asia.
Sub-Saharan Africa was isolated from this, therefore it leads to them not being able to fight off folks with advanced tech and “modern” societal architecture...and thus colonialization which raped the land all while not helping to build stable societies/economies and nations born from boundaries drawn by Europeans with no regard to cultural and ethnic groups which of course led to all these civil wars...when Europeans pulled out you’re left with nations that had no development, conflicting groups in the same borders, and no clear transition of government which led to fighting, corruption and war. And thus the present day quandary of Africa...
Anyway, that video really made me think about how Africa’s geography and climate really had an affect on development and participation in the old/known world and how that left them suceptible to being pillaged by Europeans (and Arabs) for centuries.
Many parts of Africa also don’t have consistent weather patterns, thus things like drought meant people were more nomadic and couldn’t establish lasting civilizations/societies as they sought water/fertile grounds for crops.
Then of course you have things like the Sahara and rainforests in the interior which meant differnt people couldn’t easily pass through to different areas which of course limits trade, exchange of skills, ideas and technology. A lot of development/advancement happened because ideas, goods, trade, scientific and mathematical discoveries were able to be exchanged along the Silk Road which connected Europe, North Africa, the middle east, India and east Asia.
Sub-Saharan Africa was isolated from this, therefore it leads to them not being able to fight off folks with advanced tech and “modern” societal architecture...and thus colonialization which raped the land all while not helping to build stable societies/economies and nations born from boundaries drawn by Europeans with no regard to cultural and ethnic groups which of course led to all these civil wars...when Europeans pulled out you’re left with nations that had no development, conflicting groups in the same borders, and no clear transition of government which led to fighting, corruption and war. And thus the present day quandary of Africa...
Anyway, that video really made me think about how Africa’s geography and climate really had an affect on development and participation in the old/known world and how that left them suceptible to being pillaged by Europeans (and Arabs) for centuries.
Last edited:
The Wall Is Undefeated!
Superstar
When it comes why Africa 'fell' the answer are complex.
Physical Geography is defo the biggest culprit. The Sahara was a massive barrier against trade and with that the spread of knowledge and ideas. Not to mention tropical rainforests are fukking brutal. The rain and deadly diseases are a nightmare. Then there's the tsetse fly that limited animal husbandry. If there wasn't rain, there were prolongued droughts.
Guns. Not the shytty musket tupe but mounted machine guns and cannons. Also lack of navies played a part too.
African naivety. No doubt about that. Adopting christianity and islam and becoming as pious as possible. Meanwhile, Euro and ragheads didn't give a damn about piety. Face facts Euros found Africans easy to play.
Physical Geography is defo the biggest culprit. The Sahara was a massive barrier against trade and with that the spread of knowledge and ideas. Not to mention tropical rainforests are fukking brutal. The rain and deadly diseases are a nightmare. Then there's the tsetse fly that limited animal husbandry. If there wasn't rain, there were prolongued droughts.
Guns. Not the shytty musket tupe but mounted machine guns and cannons. Also lack of navies played a part too.
African naivety. No doubt about that. Adopting christianity and islam and becoming as pious as possible. Meanwhile, Euro and ragheads didn't give a damn about piety. Face facts Euros found Africans easy to play.
mbewane
Knicks: 93 til infinity
@dora_da_destroyer and @Mhofu totally agree with the geographical elements. One of the reasons Europe developped and ideas and innovations spread so fast through the continent is obviously its small size but also the big amount of rivers and easy to travel "internal" seas (adriatic sea, black sea, baltic sea, north chanel, aegan sea, etc...). Up until trains it was quicker and more efficient to move on water than on land.
The Wall Is Undefeated!
Superstar
Just gotta mention. The only Africans that made seafaring a priority were North Africans (The Mediterran) and East Africans like the Swahili, Somali and Ethio-Semites (across the Indian Ocean)