Thread: How come every single european nation prospered by but only 1 african nation prospered.

I can't say I am an expert on the subject but I will take a guess. I think perhaps the reason is because there was never a great empire that unified the African nations. When you think about it, there was several empires In Europe, the middle east and in Asia. Things like the Roman Empire, the Ottoman Empire, the Mongols, and even China has big wars to unify it into a single country, and there was many more as well.

Some would say war help to spur advancement, but that may only be part of the story. Tribal warfare probably doesn't do very much, but just get people killed. However when groups combine into large groups for very organized efforts of war, progress does come a lot faster. Then afterwards the large empire absorbs the cultures of the different groups and combine them, and people learn many things from each other. Education and knowledge is also then spread out from the strongest parts of the empire to the weaker parts(the ones that were conquered).

Africa never had any large driving forces to unify everyone, and so they didn't experience a lot of things that came with large nation building. Perhaps one of the biggest things the Roman empire did was build roads all across Europe. The roads all across help to connect the people and spread information and wealth across the entire area.

Africa still doesn't have a very good road system. If all of Africa was interconnected with a effective road system, they might be far better off today.

The question in the title is what the book Guns, Germs and Steel is about.

Creationists and other "Humanities" types will call it "environmental determinism".

But that's just a lazy way of admitting that Jared Diamond is right without looking bad.

Originally Posted by Alric

I think perhaps the reason is because there was never a great empire that unified the African nations.

Why wasn't there a great empire to unify the African nations?

Diamond's documentary on his thesis is on Netflix if you care to watch it, Thatperson. Or anybody else for that matter.

We went over it last semester in my World History class. Seemed reasonable enough.

Ironically, European nations.

No, really. Colonialism pretty well fucked Africa.

Isn't the colonial period pretty largely attributed to the state of affairs in Africa? I tend to think they had their own version of prosperity before that, but it just looked quite a bit different.

edit: Supernova ninja'd me I see.

What was there in africa before colonialism?

Originally Posted by Thatperson

What was there in africa before colonialism?

Rich diverse cultures that placed emphasis on celebrating the human spirit, family, community and gratitude for all the small things (by way of ritualizing even mundane tasks). Versus the imperialistic cultures that placed emphasis on profit and technological advancements.

Had colonialism never happened, Africas cultures could have proven to be the most sustainable of all.

There are so many horrifying stories of how women, children and the sick are abused in Africa - rape, neglect, abondonment - that people naively assume Africa was always this way.

But this is the result of suddenly injecting (racist) capitalism into communal cultures: the values that held everything together fall apart in a world where money is everything. I say racist capitalism because the capitalism imperialism brought to Africa wasn't the American dream that anyone can be a star - no originally the capitalism brought to Africa was to be cheap labor. And those were the good days after slavery.

It also needs to be understood, African nations (many times throughout history) that wanted to remain as independent as possible from the imperialists, were driven out to the most barren, driest inhospitable lands. This displacement, and war over natural resources, continues in Africa today.

Europe is more seasonal. By their nature, seasonal cultures are more future/past oriented while equatorial cultures are more present oriented. The result is that seasonal societies get more shit done. This is a cultural generality.

Let me guess; it was because of melanin, right?

Diamonds. Some people gots rich.

Originally Posted by Xei

Let me guess; it was because of melanin, right?

I very much doubt melanin alone contributed.

Is there any evidence of a prosperous pre-colonial africa? While colonialism was immoral, It did anything but harm their properity. It wasn't like sudan was some powerhouse that was destroyed by colonists.

Originally Posted by Thatperson

How come every single european nation has prospered yet only a single african nation every propered, that being south africa. What caused this?

black people are dumb

This is the answer you want, right?

Originally Posted by Thatperson

Is there any evidence of a prosperous pre-colonial africa?

Is there any evidence of a prosperous pre-renaissance Britain?

Originally Posted by Thatperson

I very much doubt melanin alone contributed.

Is there any evidence of a prosperous pre-colonial africa? While colonialism was immoral, It did anything but harm their properity. It wasn't like sudan was some powerhouse that was destroyed by colonists.

That really depends on how you define prosperity. I think many people see it as requiring some sort of hegemonic civilization that would make a noticeable blip on the historical radar. My personal view of prosperity is quite different. I think that all prosperity really requires is a healthy community, which can be achieved at the tribal level.

But I suppose you're defining prosperity as rising above tribalism, like that step is an indispensable benchmark for any type of success for a human culture. Is this more or less correct? I think colonialism destroyed African prosperity, but to follow me on this, you have to accept that the African and European definition of prosperity differ.

I agree that prosperity does not require one to rise above tribalism, and I should have should a better word than 'prosperous', yes what I did mean was rising above the tribalism benchmark to a civilisation and the technological advancments that come with it.

Xei, there was the bronze age and many other periods, perhaps not a full industrial revolution for quite a while, but a civilisation with technology and economic prosperity yes.

There wasn't a civilisation, there were isolated groups of tribes with primitive beliefs and technology and frequent skirmishes. The Egyptians were far more advanced, far before.

Egypt? you mean the one in Africa?

Egypt is somewhat isolated from what most people perceive as Africa.

Originally Posted by IndieAnthias

Egypt? you mean the one in Africa?

Yes, Egypt and the Nile are unequivocally in North-eastern Africa.

Originally Posted by Marvo

Egypt is somewhat isolated from what most people perceive as Africa.

Sir, certainly you do not mean to suggest that generalizations are ever of limited utility.

Well egypt did prosper, but today it has regressed to 2nd world status. Every single european nation is prosperous now, and only South africa comes anywhere near prosperity. The thing is the romans introduced technology to other european areas, and they maintained that technology, the colonialist introduced concepts and technology to africa, yet since the colonialists left it has begun to regress again. Haiti is a perfect example of a colonial territory regressing once the colonialists have left.

Brown people did the whole civilisation and technology thing first. British people just sat around and sucked for thousands of fucking years. I'm declaring this a win for the brown peeps.

Originally Posted by Xei

Brown people did the whole civilisation and technology thing first. British people just sat around and sucked for thousands of fucking years. I'm declaring this a win for the brown peeps.

British people may have 'sat around and sucked for thousands of fucking years' but eventually all european nations prospered, along with a few non european nations, but africa still to this day hasn't, apart from south africa which is now regressing backwards.