you are viewing a single comment's thread.

view the rest of the comments →

[–]AnarchySpeach 5 insightful - 4 fun5 insightful - 3 fun6 insightful - 4 fun -  (6 children)

The comic kind of skips a lot of steps.

The biggest is also represented in the pictures shown: The first group is building their own city. The second group, that never advanced in technology because of their location, was moved into the first groups location. Instead of helping them they were exploited, sold, and when it became morally wrong (aka no longer financially viable because of the industrial revolution) the rest of the world left them to fight over the advanced sci-fi alien-level technology we left behind.

To quote a dude from reddit:

1/. Technology

Africa was technologically behind the rest of the world because of the Sahara desert. Critical technology needed to develop other technologies, like writing systems and the wheel for instance, failed to reach sub-Saharan Africa from the Mesopotamian Civilizations. These technologies reached Europe and North Africa through merchants, nomadic travellers among others. Ethiopia is an exception as they had contact with Egypt and other civilizations that had these technologies. But for most of Africa, these technologies simply didn't arrive until Europeans came barging in.

Think about how there isn't any African script (Ethiopia being the exception of course) like there is a Chinese, Latin and Arabic script. Or how ubiquitous it is to see an African woman with a bucket on her head instead of using a carriage.

2/. State Centralization

OK so this needs a wee bit of explaining. Why were Europeans able to conquer whole swathes of African territory with seeming relative ease? Two main reasons. The first we've already covered in technology. Europeans had guns, which are a technology they gained from the Far East and figured out how to manufacture. Africans either didn't have guns or they traded them and couldn't manufacture their own.

The second reason that is also related to the first is lack of centralized states. Europe's main problem was the scarcity of land. Africa's? The scarcity of people. This difference is critical in understanding why Europe was able to conquer Africa. The competition for land in Europe encourage Europeans to form more centralized states with absolute rulers like Kings and Emperors. These rulers could then levy taxies and raise armies. And they did. So with all this fighting they clearly get experience and improve on their tools, strategies and tactics. Meanwhile, they create more robust structures of government that are more efficient at offering other amenities for control like roads. In Africa, however, land is plentiful. There are no incentives for people to pay tax. If I don't like your tax I'll simply move. This happened a lot. See Great Zimbabwe and its successor the Mutapa Kingdom.

I could go on about this point but its already long enough. But to finish off given the prevailing situation; most African leaders felt they controlled peoples and not land. As a result, when Europeans arrived they would ally with them to ascertain control of the people they didn't have control over rather than defend the land they could potentially own. Europeans took advantage of this to some extent, see The Trans-Atlantic Slave Trade.

3/. Ideas

This point is last because I feel its the most recent but I think its as important as the first point. And just like the first point, the Sahara desert is the stumbling block. Ideas can prove pivotal in how a country fairs in history. Ethiopia got spared colonialism for a long time due to its exposure to Christianity and even among African states, the Ndebele simply dominated many tribes due to the ideas - such as military tactics - they retained from the Zulus. It has been theorized 1 that many countries were able to prosper due to ideals of inclusive economic and political structures that were able to spread from France (after the French Revolution of 1789) and England (after the Glorious Revolution) to mainland Europe and Western English-speaking democracies like the U.S. and Australia. These ideas failed to reach Africa in the 17th and 18th Centuries and hence why Africa lacks democratic and truly inclusive economic institutions to this day.

Conclusion These are only some of the reasons as to why Africa got dominated by Eurasian civilizations. It is still important to note that Africa didn't decline; it was developing at a very steady pace just as the rest of the world was in the 14th to 15th Century. It simply continued developing at this pace as Europeans were discovering other parts of the world and continually improving their economies, governments and militaries. By the early 16th Century the difference was insurmountable for most African polities.

To make matters worse... instead of incorporating them into our society we let the delusion of "black culture must involve being poor" thrive, so they don't have any shame in the way they act, and their expectations are set to the lowest possible degree. It's learned helplessness. This can be seen whenever a black infant is adopted by two white parents. Other blacks ostracize them for being successful and talking like there's hope for the future. Black history should be kept as a viable subject to study, learn from, and pass down to generations, as all histories of every ethnicity should be, but anybody pretending that this current black "culture" is a positive to society is lying to themselves.

[–]bobbobbybob 4 insightful - 2 fun4 insightful - 1 fun5 insightful - 2 fun -  (5 children)

none of the people in the picture were exploited or sold. they chose their path.

you remove their agency, treating them like children. You are deeply imperialistic and racist, but in denial

niggers? gonna nig. it is genetic.

[–]AnarchySpeach 2 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 0 fun3 insightful - 1 fun -  (4 children)

exploited

Brainwashed into believing that leaving an area with poor job opportunities is "giving up" on their community when there's barely a community to begin with.

sold

Never said those in the modern picture were.

they chose their path.

You're right. Peer pressure is no excuse. But that doesn't mean we are powerless to offer a way out for those among them that choose to leave the ruins behind them.

you remove their agency, treating them like children.

Like how you see only hopelessness in their future, and rather than consider the possibility for change you hand wave their existence as predestined for doom? Saying "genetics" and walking away from the burning streets is about as pessimisticaly racist as it can get.

imperialistic

You got me there. Imperialism isn't all bad. It can do great things, but how it hurt the political process in Africa and India is unforgivable, and is a problem we are still dealing with today a hundred years later.

[–]bobbobbybob 2 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 0 fun3 insightful - 1 fun -  (3 children)

Like how you see only hopelessness in their future,

see, there you are colonising their experience again. They will be fine. Grunting, violent animalistic behaviour is their apex, and they are happy doing it.

but how it hurt the political process in Africa and India is unforgivable

colonial hegemony. What makes you say western ideas of democracy are 'better' than indigenous african warlord models? Racism defines you

[–]AnarchySpeach 2 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 0 fun3 insightful - 1 fun -  (2 children)

What makes you say western ideas of democracy are 'better' than indigenous african warlord models?

I never implied it was better than democracy.

Both have their strengths and weaknesses.

For starters, the "warlord model" as you put it works perfectly well in a location where disapproving members are free to leave. That's one of the big advantages of having large areas of unclaimed land. If the land is big enough it could even support several independent warlords. It works fine as long as groups have plenty of space to avoid the other.

Given enough space it would be the universal default.

Modern technology is slowly removing that option from everybody. For example, in America if the outcome of a particular vote hurts you... tough shit. Where do you go? If you wake up one day labeled a criminal, or there's no food, or any number of problems there is no escape. Nowhere to reset and try again.

With nowhere to run people fight. These forced confrontations lead to rapid technological advancements.

Africa had the geography to help spread people out to avoid unnecessary conflicts. One of the reasons why their technology was slower to develop.

Europe didn't have that option. People were continuously forced to fight over every inch of space. One of the byproducts of being forced into a society you can't escape from is group rage. Often at the government that's ordering them to die in pointless wars. To placate the masses voting started to spread.

[–]bobbobbybob 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (1 child)

next time you can just say "ok, you are right"

[–]AnarchySpeach 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

what? lmao