Why did black africa decline?

[Armand2REP]

but what use of the ambition and progress that only led them to become slave traders,how does one tell a developed culture from the lesser culture,when both were content trading in slaves.I would rather settle in favor of the one that carried less pretense of a developed culture.Surely technology and organization can make modern man gas millions in a matter of days,or reduce a bustling city to cinder in a matter of minutes,what use is this progress for humanity.....

Forget all the things progress has brought us and focus only on the negative. The pros far outweigh the cons. Africans were never talking about human rights, freedom, and democracy.

Africa probably probably had a theory or two on how humanity could be content with itself,its to their eternal misfortune that Africa ended up trading it's flesh and not its knowledge,when renaissance man stepped into his world,modern man had no use for Africa's knowledge.Somehow we still don't care to look beyond our African prejudice,we still think they are a miserable lot,that they have nothing to offer us accept the natural resources they own by accident of geography.

The first thing necessary for higher order thought is time to think. When you are living day to day wondering where the next meal is coming from, one of the last things you think about is humanity. It is all about survival and doing WHATEVER is necessary, including slaughter of your fellow man. I certainly don't blame Africans for being backwards by any lack of innate intelligence, they just never had the opportunity to develop a society to last long enough to alter their way of life and thinking. Now that they have been exposed to Western values, several countries are making great strides but it is a long road to instill that in everyone.

Every culture developed in it's own space and had its own measure of what constituted progress,the most developed man was the one who was content with himself.

I am sure they were really content starving, constantly being assaulted by the next tribe, being sold into slavery, not having a spare second to really do what they wanted. If anyone was content, it was because they didn't know they could have a better life. Ignorance is bliss don't cut it man.

 

[civfanatic]

Slave trade was rampant in Africa before the Europeans showed up. Now it must be noted that slave trade has been a universal step in the development of man all over the world and in virtually every culture which essentially negates the judgment. In fact it was the Europeans who were the first ones to abolish slavery and promote upliftment of the lowest sections of society.

Allow me to quote from Indika, the description of ancient India by the Greek ambassador to the Mauryan Empire, Megasthenes.

"....all the Indians are free, and not one of them is a slave. The Lakedaemonians (Spartans), and the Indians are here so far in agreement. The Lakedaemonians, however, hold the Helots as slaves, and these Helots do servile labour; but the Indians do not even use aliens as slaves, and much less a countryman of their own."

From Fragment XXVI, "The Manners of the Indians".


While most people in Europe were busy living in caves and killing each other, some other societies in the world had already progressed quite far in terms of social development.

 

[AOE]

Agriculture does play a big part here, but people are forgetting that most of mainland Africa was cut off from the rest of the world; contact was immensely important for the growth of empires in the Mediterranean and Middle-East, not to mention the many schools and libraries built to share knowledge. It's a similar reason why China suffered a similar fate in the end, although China had much more civilization to its name than most African states. If anyone here has read Guns, Germs, and Steel by Jared Diamond, they'll know what I am talking about.

Slavery is universal, and was practiced in India at least as far back as the Mauryans if you have read the Arthashastra which details how slaves are to be treated and how one can obtain them. It is true though that the first major attempt to abolish slavery was during the age of enlightenment by the Europeans and Americans.

 

[cw2005]

Africans imitate blindly their former colonial masters. They copy the workers' union system when they should encourage workers to work hard first and enjoy later. They copy the strict environmental policy when the country has only a few industries. They copy the government system when the people is not equally educated and disciplined as the former master. They even developed a taste of bread when their country is not suitable to grow wheat. None of such thing happened in Asia. Asian knows what should be followed and what should be not.

One British businessman told me in the early 80s in Lagos, he said, I came here intending to escape from the Union problem, reduce environmental cost and for easy labor recruitment. But I found out that the Union here is even worse than back home. The environmental cost is higher. Yes, there are a lot of labors but in extremely low quality and training. On top of this, there is this bribery. I am going home for good.

 

[S.A.T.A]

On the contrary, history shows that the civilizations which became "content" and considered them selves to be self sustaining thereby isolating themselves crumbled. Only the discontent ones that kept expanding and engaging the outside world attained success.

Now clearly one can debate the definition of "success" since its a wide and multifaceted issue. However, one universal determinant is the ability of a culture to improve the quality of life of its people. It is this factor that discerns development from underdevelopment and/or regression. African societies have failed miserably to improve the condition of its people. Heck at this point they rely upon the rest of the world for their basic sustenance.

Slave trade was rampant in Africa before the Europeans showed up. Now it must be noted that slave trade has been a universal step in the development of man all over the world and in virtually every culture which essentially negates the judgment. In fact it was the Europeans who were the first ones to abolish slavery and promote upliftment of the lowest sections of society.

True modern man can potentially reduce a bustling city to cinder. But why have you overlooked the fact that it has done far, far more in terms of human development? Something as simple as anti biotics and vaccines have influenced humanity far more than nuclear weapons. In fact it is impossible to construct a bustling city without the assistance of modern inventions.

But what happened to these discontented civilizations that kept looking outside for reassurance against discontent,are they here and if they are are they content.The nature of discontent societies is that when they perchance happen to come across content societies they fail to recognize the nature of their contentment and then rationalize that this contentment is misplaced,hence you have the Europeans calling Africans,or should we say most non Europeans,as backward,disorganized or uncivilized.This was largely a verdict based on their own native experience tinged as it were with their natural prejudice.

A discontent European leaves his native shores, traverses a thousand league into Africa and then seeing the content tribal of Africa labels him as inert and since that quality is not necessarily what he would claim as his own,hence the inert African, content to remain in the bliss of his soil,is not content but lazy and the laziness is the sign of his being backward and uncivilized.This is neither success nor progress,but merely rationalizing the nature of his discontent and everything that followed its wake.He brought disease and then provided the cure,he brought slave traders and then abolished it,against their established nature,he organized the people and land of Africa(perhaps hoping to exploit the natural bounties)and then witnessing the resulting chaos and anarchy,thought the African does not know to live organized because of his innate backwardness and uncivilized nature.

Modern civilized man,not just Europeans or western,is naturally discontent and hence cannot find any thing rational in content way of life,goes about setting right the natural content order and then having witnessed the wrong results undoes it and then claims it as progress or success.so who doe one pity, the content Africa as it once was or the modern man who absorbed in his discontent and unable to fathom the African life of contentment,reshaped it after his own and spread his discontent upon Africa.

 

[KS]

"When the Missionaries arrived, the Africans had the land and the Missionaries had the Bible. They taught how to pray with our eyes closed. When we opened them, they had the land and we had the Bible." - Jomo Kenyatta

 

[AOE]

But what happened to these discontented civilizations that kept looking outside for reassurance against discontent,are they here and if they are are they content.The nature of discontent societies is that when they perchance happen to come across content societies they fail to recognize the nature of their contentment and then rationalize that this contentment is misplaced,hence you have the Europeans calling Africans,or should we say most non Europeans,as backward,disorganized or uncivilized.This was largely a verdict based on their own native experience tinged as it were with their natural prejudice.

A discontent European leaves his native shores, traverses a thousand league into Africa and then seeing the content tribal of Africa labels him as inert and since that quality is not necessarily what he would claim as his own,hence the inert African, content to remain in the bliss of his soil,is not content but lazy and the laziness is the sign of his being backward and uncivilized.This is neither success nor progress,but merely rationalizing the nature of his content and everything that followed its wake.He brought disease and then provided the cure,he brought slave traders and then abolished it,against their established nature,he organized the people and land of Africa(perhaps hoping to exploit the natural bounties)and then witnessing the resulting chaos and anarchy,thought the Africa does not know to live organize because of his innate backwardness and uncivilized nature.

Modern civilized man,not just Europeans or western,is naturally discontent and hence cannot find any thing rational in content way of life,goes about setting right the natural content order and then having witnessed the wrong results undoes it and then claims it as progress or success.so who doe one pity, the content Africa as it once was or the modern man who absorbed in his discontent and unable to fathom the African life of contentment,reshaped it after his own and spread his discontent upon Africa.

This is not entirely true. There were and are still many differing political factions in the west today, and those who are responsible for helping to bring an end to slavery and colonialism are not responsible for the actions of a group of people who wished to keep the status quo. That is tarring everyone with the same brush, and I bet you wouldn't accept the same logic if we applied it to other countries like China, India, Iran, etc... when it comes to historical injustice.

The main problem with Africa failing to compete with other civilizations is the fact that it was largely isolated until the muslim slave traders came a long, followed by the christian ones nearly 1000 years later. People go on endlessly about the latter but will rarely mention the more brutal and calculated former. We are now at a point in history where we are now subjected to blame games with no foreseeable end date in sight of what is wrong with Africa and why it's all the fault of the Europeans. 100 years will pass and people will still go on about the effects of colonial rule in Africa, rather than take responsibility for themselves and work hard to make their lives better; an important step to creating civilization. When my ancestors from Ireland and Scottland were arrested by the British in their homelands during the 1700s and 1800s when people were hanged and thrown in the Themes, or thrown in a grimey English prison for 65+ years for just about anything, even stealing food to survive (as most of them did); mine were deported to Australia as criminals who would be treated as second class citizens (especially since they were Irish) for well over a century, living in poverty all of their lives. They didn't sit around and whine all day about the English, they instead worked hard and tried to make something of their lives; despite all of this. Be glad that colonialism is over and that the world has moved towards a more prosperous and free state than it was a thousand years ago, otherwise we wouldn't be sitting here having this conversation. Africa is marginally better today than it was prior to colonialism, and is plagued with tribalism, warlordism, and plenty of dictators. They will need to overcome all of these things if they are to prosper and live freely.

 

[S.A.T.A]

^
It cannot be denied that slavery in the western world, during the age of enlightenment,had a very high degree of social tolerance(even a legal status)despite the fact that it stood very much against the fundamental tenets Christian world view which recognized the equality of all men.What i hoped to illustrate in my above posts is the flaw in the argument of decline and progress of societies anchored as they are to the theories of what internal characteristics of these societies propelled their progress and decline.The notions of so called progress and decline are subjective to societies,some times progresses aren't progress,declines aren't decline.

 

[AOE]

You missed my point S.A.T.A, I am saying that those who lobbied for the abolition of slavery are not responsible for the actions of those who wanted to keep slavery. The age of enlightenment was the period where that opposition became much more active, and it largely centred in places like the US and Britain.

 

[S.A.T.A]

@AOE

Yet both were products of the same putative progressive culture,does one disown the other,no because slavery and abolition are the fragments of the same progress,the former gave rise to the latter,prevalence of slavery was the 'cause' for the abolition,hence the abolition is not an isolated instance of cultural progress.

 

[AOE]

@AOE

Yet both were products of the same putative progressive culture,does one disown the other,no because slavery and abolition are the fragments of the same progress,the former gave rise to the latter,prevalence of slavery was the 'cause' for the abolition,hence the abolition is not an isolated instance of cultural progress.

So does this logic apply to everyone or just Europe?

 

[S.A.T.A]

It applies to all so called modern societies,since many modern states owe their outlook on progress and modernization to the European influence,this is a Neo-European outlook.

 

[AOE]

It applies to all so called modern societies,since many modern states owe their outlook on progress and modernization to the European influence,this is a Neo-European outlook.

So the evils committed in the past by other countries do not apply? This seems awfully like a double-standard.

 

[S.A.T.A]

good,evil and morals are the cultural prejudices which does not have a universal standard,Human sacrificing native cultures of America may have evoked the notion of evil among Europeans,The idol worshiping Hindus may have evoked the sense of wrong among the European Christians and and Muslims,so long as you see other cultures from the prism of your own cultural prejudices there will always be 'rights' and 'wrongs','good' and 'evil','progress' and 'regress',these are subjective notions and to label them as such will be erroneous.

The Africans and the Europeans and Asians have committed mass killings,in the jungles,in the gas chambers,in their cities and in the Warfields ,who has the right to claim progress and label the other as backward.

 

[AOE]

You're kidding, right? Calling human sacrifice barbaric is 'prejudicial'? So when islamists blow themselves up and kill other people in the process, calling that by its name is also prejudicial? What about the tens of millions killed by communism in this world, is that bigotted of me to call that evil?

This is moral equivalency and Orwellianism at its finest. A democracy does not = religious extremism, or tyranny. Europe, no.... the west of today is not the west of a few centuries ago. This is illogical on several levels.

 

[civfanatic]

Slavery is universal, and was practiced in India at least as far back as the Mauryans if you have read the Arthashastra which details how slaves are to be treated and how one can obtain them. It is true though that the first major attempt to abolish slavery was during the age of enlightenment by the Europeans and Americans.

Have you even read the Arthashastra? The use of the word "slave" in the English translation of the book is a misnomer, because those "slaves" were paid and there were punishments for not giving a "slave" his proper income. A proper term would be "indentured servant". It should also be noted that only mlecchas (foreigners) were used as indentured servants, and the citizens of the Mauryan Empire itself were all freemen. Citizens of the Mauryan Empire were, however, allowed to voluntarily become indentured servants in times of financial difficulty, and were protected by laws that prevented abuse. This was at a time when most "civilized" societies in Europe had large numbers of slaves, in the true sense of the word, within their own population.


Chapter XIII - Rules Regarding Slaves and Labourers:

"THE selling or mortgaging by kinsmen of the life of a Súdra who is not a born slave, and has not attained majority, but is an Arya in birth shall be punished with a fine of 12 panas; of a Vaisya, 24 panas; of a Kshatriya, 36 panas; and of a Bráhman, 48 panas. If persons other than kinsmen do the same, they shall be liable to the three amercements and capital punishment respectively: purchasers and abettors shall likewise be punished. It is no crime for Mlechchhas to sell or mortgage the life of their own offspring. But never shall an Arya (Indian) be subjected to slavery.

But if in order to tide over family troubles, to find money for fines or court decrees, or to recover the (confiscated) household implements, the life of an Arya is mortgaged, they (his kinsmen) shall as soon as possible redeem him (from bondage); and more so if he is a youth or an adult capable of giving help.
Any person who has once voluntarily enslaved himself shall, if guilty of an offence (nishpatitah), be a slave for life. Similarly, any person whose life has been twice mortgaged by others shall, if guilty of an offence, be a slave for life. Both of these two sorts of men shall, if they are once found desirous to run away to foreign countries, be slaves for life.

Deceiving a slave of his money or depriving him of the privileges he can exercise as an Arya (Aryabhava), shall be punished with half the fine (levied for enslaving the life of an Arya).

A man who happens to have taken in mortgage the life of a convict, or of a dead or an afflicted man shall be entitled to receive back (from the mortgager) the value he paid for the slave.

Employing a slave to carry the dead or to sweep ordure, urine, or the leavings of food; keeping a slave naked; or hurting or abusing him; or violating (the chastity of) a female slave shall cause the forfeiture of the value paid for him or her. Violation (of the chastity) of nurses, female cooks, or female servants of the class of joint cultivators or of any other description shall at once earn their liberty for them. Violence towards an attendant of high birth shall entitle him to run away. When a master has connection with a nurse or pledged female slave against her will, he shall be punished with the first amercement; a stranger doing the same shall be punished with the middlemost amercement. When a man commits or helps another to commit rape with a girl or a female slave pledged to him, he shall not only forfeit the purchase value, but also pay a certain amount of money (sulka) to her and a fine of twice the amount (of sulka to the Government)."


I have posted the entire Arthashastra here. Feel free to look through it.

Slavery was never abolished in India because slavery in the European sense never existed in India, except in rare situations. Usually, the only "slaves" in India were those that were brought in by foreigners. An example would be the Turkish slaves of the Afghan ruler Ghauri, who later established the so-called "Slave Dynasty" in Northern India during the 13th century.

 

[civfanatic]

Calling human sacrifice barbaric is 'prejudicial'?

Absolutely.

So when islamists blow themselves up and kill other people in the process, calling that by its name is also prejudicial? What about the tens of millions killed by communism in this world, is that bigotted of me to call that evil?

Apples and oranges.

A democracy does not = religious extremism, or tyranny.

What if the majority of the population are religious extremists? Doesn't that mean, by the laws of democracy, the country as a whole would be religious extremist?

What if the majority of the population use their collective influence to oppress certain minorities, as America has historically done in regards to the Native Americans, African Americans, Japanese Americans, etc. Isn't this simply a "tyranny of the majority" under the guise of democracy?

Things are never as clear-cut as you paint them to be.

 

[AOE]

Absolutely.

Why?

Apples and oranges.

That doesn't address my point.

What if the majority of the population are religious extremists? Doesn't that mean, by the laws of democracy, the country as a whole would be religious extremist?

The people; yes. The system itself; no.

What if the majority of the population use their collective influence to oppress certain minorities, as America has historically done in regards to the Native Americans, African Americans, Japanese Americans, etc. Isn't this simply a "tyranny of the majority" under the guise of democracy?

Unless it explicitly states within the political system (democracy for example) to enslave or treat people in an unequal manner, then no that political system is not responsible for the actions of the people under it.

Things are never as clear-cut as you paint them to be.

Nothing of what you or SATA is saying here is clear.

'Indentured servants' seems to be a euphemism, what about those who were on the bottom end of the caste system who were basically treated as slaves? I have read this text, and nowhere does it abolish the notion of slavery; as I said it gives instructions that may have been more strict than christian or muslim definitions of what a slave is, but that does not mean they weren't enslaved when the Mauryans or other Indian kingdoms captured foreign territory. There seems to be a double-standard for what Europeans did in the past, but a white-wash of what others have done.

 

[civfanatic]

Why?

Because, as S.A.T.A has pointed out, different people have different concepts of good and evil. Human sacrifice may seem evil and barbaric to you and me, but it was not to many other people in the world. In fact, it was considered an honor to be sacrificed. No one in the Aztec or Mayan civilizations viewed it as "evil", but the Spanish did, and they used their prejudiced view of Mayan culture as a justification for genocide and mass (forced) conversion.

We should not make the same mistake, in the modern era, of being close-minded in our view of other cultures. We have no right to force our judgement of "right" and "wrong" on other people.

That doesn't address my point.

You were comparing unlike things, so you didn't have a point in the first place.

Human sacrifice is an ordained ritual in many Mesoamerican religions, just as praying five times a day is an ordained ritual in Islam. You cannot change this.

However, killing people in the name of Jihad is not an ordained part of Islam, nor is totalitarianism and the use of secret police an ordained part of Communism. No where in any Islamic or Communist text does it justify this. In fact, both movements preached the exact opposite when they began. Both jihadism and Stalinist totalitarianism can thus be labelled as "extremist" because they diverged from their original movements to become rather different and incongruent things.

Human sacrifice, on the other hand, cannot be labelled as "extremist" because it part of the mainstream religion of Mesoamericans. That is the difference.

The people; yes. The system itself; no.

And that is why democracy, in itself, is not the answer. In order for democracy to succeed, other things need to be present, such as a strong legal system, a well-established system of education, and a relative degree of socioeconomic equality. Without things like these a democracy is doomed to fail.

Unless it explicitly states within the political system (democracy for example) to enslave or treat people in an unequal manner, then no that political system is not responsible for the actions of the people under it.

The U.S. Government passed laws that specifically targetted minorities throughout its history. These laws were passed through the "democratic process".

Indentured servants' seems to be a euphemism, what about those who were on the bottom end of the caste system who were basically treated as slaves?

Slaves are not paid, protected under the law, or guaranteed their freedom after a certain period of time. Indentured servants are, and that is the difference.

The concept of "human property" is a foreign concept in India. You will find no such reference of 'slaves' in Indian literature. Even the labourers on the bottom end of the caste system were guaranteed their right to freedom and were protected by law. It is ironic that people criticize the caste system when it was probably the freest system of ancient times; India was one of the few societies where outright slavery did not exist. It was only until much later that the caste system became oppressive and limited social progress.

I have read this text, and nowhere does it abolish the notion of slavery

Why do you need to abolish something that doesn't exist? The concept of "abolition" requires the concept of "slavery".

but that does not mean they weren't enslaved when the Mauryans or other Indian kingdoms captured foreign territory.

There were only two instances in history when an Indian state captured foreign territory. The first was in the 4th century B.C.E, when the Mauryans conquered present-day Afghanistan from the Seleucid Greeks. The second was in the 11th century C.E., when the Chola Empire conquered Indonesia and Malaysia. In both cases, there is no evidence that Indian rulers enslaved the peoples of those regions.

In fact, there are Greek sources that specifically state that slavery was not practiced by the Indians, which I have already posted.

There seems to be a double-standard for what Europeans did in the past, but a white-wash of what others have done.

There is a reason why this is.

No other people in the history of the world depopulated an entire hemisphere, and then enslaved countless millions of people from another continent in the other hemisphere and sent them over to the depopulated hemisphere. It was a demographic shift of unprecendented proportions, and unprecedented suffering. That is why the Europeans are blamed more than anyone else, which they deserve to be.

 

[Virendra]

"When the Missionaries arrived, the Africans had the Land and the Missionaries had the Bible. They taught us how to pray with our eyes closed. When we opened them, they had the land and we had the Bible."
-Jomo Kenyatta


Regards,
Virendra