(September 21, 2017 at 5:07 pm)Crossless2.0 Wrote:(September 21, 2017 at 4:21 pm)Drich Wrote: lol... Someone doesn't know the socioeconomic placement the sum total of African ran countries had before colonialism. Again at best most countries were akin to what a bronze age city state would look like. the vast majority were still well placed in the stone age.
You are right to say the african countries did not ever develop, but again they never left the stone age for the 10's of thousands of years that preceded colonialism either. (there was a reason colonialists were shoot tribes men with muskets, that were armed with cows hide shields and stone tipped spears.)
it is not a fault or failing of a content of people. The development of the "africa"/nations is only less developed when you compare it to modern society. They were simply on a different path, one that lent itself to the status quo rather than change.
A different path . . . lol . . . and someone else hasn't read Guns, Germs, and Steel. Eurasian ascendancy was the outcome of a cumulative process that didn't happen in a vacuum. If a people has a decisive head start in terms of certain useful resources (e.g., flora and fauna that easily lend themselves to domestication) or benefit from surroundings that favor the spread of ideas and goods, and then have to innovate to overcome other challenges their environments impose on them, then it shouldn't come as a great surprise that they tend to dominate other peoples when their paths cross. (Of course, a population -- long inured -- carrying virulent diseases that other people lack resistance to doesn't hurt either.)
So yeah, sub-Saharan Africa didn't develop along the same lines as Europe. The question is, to what do you attribute the difference? Differences in racial/ethnic intelligence levels? A predilection for the status quo rather than change? If this last, how do you determine that, and how do you account for the fact that almost every "backward" people, upon coming into contact with materially superior outsiders, almost immediately seek to acquire this better technology for their own use? Apparently, they had no trouble recognizing a good thing when they saw it and didn't mind such change.
And don't underestimate the effects of colonialism in shaping the destinies of many of these nations. Set arbitrary national borders, plunder a land long enough, pit tribes against each other, infantilize the "natives" and then what? Pretend to be surprised when things are fucked up when you leave or finally are chased out?
I don't think you guys are read up on colonialism as you think.. it wasn't just to inject "white people into foreign lands" it was to assimilate the indigiousness population as well. whether that be though slavery or better yet an educated who could plant trap weave and pay tax. So these colonists fast tracked a stone age people to a preindustrial people. those who could not be taught were enslaved. Some took to it created a life and or even moved on. It took waring clans and turned them into towns and cities. Those are the nations who are doing the BEST today albeit they also are all guilty of commiting crimes against humanity to stay in power. Here's the thing Eurpoe did not colonize all of africa. Now look at the bits it didn't. are the better or worse when compared to the European model of modern society? (Some are still head hunting/canibles)
You asked what i attributed this change to.
IDK. Who to say that their way of life is not better? we have comparing the european way t their way and look what we have done according to some to our climbate or air our resurces our bodiesminds and ourselves... maybe a simple warrior's life is for the best, or maybe in that there lies your answer in what makes some of us move on while other stay behind.
maybe staying and doing what we always do on a Friday night is not my gig. maybe I want to see what is going on over in that place on a friday night. and then like you first paragraph suggests it is easier for some to be more effective warriors. and so on.
