# Let's examine a statement



## CuongNhuka (Jun 11, 2008)

I will not say who said this (because it's someone on this board). However, that person knows who he/she is, and can own up to it if he/she wants to.

"I would say that now, with the colonial powers gone, africa is the exact same as it was 200 years ago, but with guns instead of spears. Tribal warfare, ethnic cleansing, all the old evils are back, with a vengence."

From my reading of Pre-Colonial Africa, this statment is a load of crap. Infact, when I read it, I was almost sick. It doesn't help that the Colonial period began with the slave trade (in reality), which started just in this U.S. in 1619 (that's more then 200 years ago). 

So, who has a comment to make about this statement?


----------



## Twin Fist (Jun 11, 2008)

i said it

it's true

tribal warfare? check
ethnic cleansing? check
guns rather than spears? check

Back then, the natives were hostile, now they are hostile and heavily armed.

it's all true. If the TRUTH makes you sick, YOU got the problem, not me.


----------



## Sukerkin (Jun 11, 2008)

Steady now - it does not reflect well on us if we can turn colonial times into a flame war.  

This is a subject that we all should be able to approach with a certain amount of historical perspective, especially those of us who are English, French, Dutch, Belgian or descendents of same.

I would like to get in on this but I'm currently playing GT4 and dialing in a Ford GT '05 at the Nurburgring - hopefully this thread will still be unlocked when I get the chance to add to it ...


----------



## Empty Hands (Jun 11, 2008)

Twin Fist said:


> Back then, the natives were hostile, now they are hostile and heavily armed.
> 
> it's all true. If the TRUTH makes you sick, YOU got the problem, not me.



Well, there is a tinge of superiority about "primitive Africa" being held in check by the superior civilization of the white man that is rather disturbing.  The problem is that in pre-colonial times, Europe was no better.  The entire history of Europe has been filled with constant wars and conflicts, that are not labeled "tribal" only due to the different vocabulary we have to describe the warring groups.  Indeed, Africa tends to come out better in this regard, since there were fewer expansionary empires outside of the 7th/8th century AD (which was geographically limited to the N/NE), and a lot fewer wartime casualties.

Colonialism introduced disruptions and dislocations that produced the more severe problems seen today when the Europeans suddenly vanished.  Europeans who never stopped slaughtering each other during these times, either.  Rival groups were welded together into nations with no regard to previously existing boundaries.  Infrastructure was only put into place to facilitate resource extraction and not the building of modern nation-states.  Organic institutions that could have legitimately governed were not put in place, or even encouraged to grow.  Indeed, they were discouraged at the point of a bayonet.

So then, when the Europeans up and left overnight, we were left with rival groups inside arbitrary boundaries with no infrastructure, no governance, and no institutions that could help ease the transition.  They were set up to fail.  It is no surprise that a rule of the strong ensued.  We have seen very similar results in other places in similar situations, like Europe when the Roman empire fell.  Even that wasn't as bad though since common institutions like the Church were in place.

Until you can understand and encompass all of that, your views look a lot like uninformed racism.


----------



## girlbug2 (Jun 11, 2008)

Twin Fist said:


> i said it
> 
> it's true
> 
> ...


 
Yes, all true. And if you substitute any other number of weapon types (arrows, swords, catapults...) you get a nice history of the whole world, summed up in a tidy package. It's just that the guns came in at different times for different civilizations. The ones who got them first had the tactical advantage over the rest.

Another term for it would be the Human Condition.


----------



## Nolerama (Jun 11, 2008)

Twin Fist said:


> i said it
> 
> it's true
> 
> ...



I guess you're right, but you're coming off as defensive from a American-centric point of view.

That's cool.

But to those with a more...globalized view, it comes off as kinda... well... xenophobic. I wouldn't go as far as saying "racist" but maybe you just fall under those folks that just like to "profile" others.

This is based on some of your previous posts, and from my point of view.

You're interesting to read, though. It's abrasive and raw and good for the soul.


----------



## Twin Fist (Jun 11, 2008)

Nolerama,
I object the your use of the word "xenophobic"

phobic-being afraid of

i am not afraid of other countries or thier people

what i am is brutaly honest. The african countries had a chance to grow up, under the "foster care" of the colonial powers. They were shown how government works, how to care for and feed your citizens. How to be a member of the community of nations. How to use your natural resources for GOOD

When the colonial powers left?

the african countries promptly started killing each other off again, just like they have been since the dawn of time.

Empty Hands,
You are making excuses for them acting like they are. They know better.

Prior to colonial time, European culture  was superior to the sub-saharan african cultures. While DaVinci was painting? the zulus were killing each other with sharp sticks.

go back 500 years? same thing
go back 50000 years? same thing

not ONE sub-saharan culture has ever developed writing, math, permenent buildings or any other check point for an "advanced" culture on thier own.

Sociologists theorize that year long hot tempatures act as a stagnating agent on human culture. No seasons means no crops, no crops means no reason to stay in one place and build houses, no crops means nothing to count, so no math

That may very well be true. Look at the natives of the amazon. Same story, though once exposed to civilazation, they tend to hold on to it better than africans.

And it isnt race. I wont give them the excuse of thier race to explain thier actions. They have no excuse.


----------



## Big Don (Jun 11, 2008)

When the colonial powers, mostly France, Belgium and Germany, pulled out of Africa, they left a vacuum. Much the same as when the French pulled out of Indochina. In Africa, it just took longer (in some cases) for the wars to start.


----------



## Empty Hands (Jun 11, 2008)

Twin Fist said:


> The african countries had a chance to grow up, under the "foster care" of the colonial powers. They were shown how government works, how to care for and feed your citizens. How to be a member of the community of nations. How to use your natural resources for GOOD.



This shows a complete and total ignorance about how the African colonies were run by the colonial powers.  The European powers used them for resource extraction.  Nothing else mattered, and the natives were deliberately kept out of the governing process.



Twin Fist said:


> the african countries promptly started killing each other off again, just like they have been since the dawn of time.



Yes indeed, just like the rest of the world...

Why do you not heap the same scorn on the Europeans?  They managed to drag nearly the entire world into their conflicts.



Twin Fist said:


> You are making excuses for them acting like they are. They know better.



As usual, you cannot distinguish between explanation and excusing.  No one is excusing the warlords.  But not all Africans are warlords.  There are also plenty of wannabe warlords in the "civilized" world who are unable to grab power due to the presence of social institutions which were crippled by the colonial powers in Africa.



Twin Fist said:


> not ONE sub-saharan culture has ever developed writing, math, permenent buildings or any other check point for an "advanced" culture on thier own.



Wrong.


----------



## Nolerama (Jun 11, 2008)

Twin Fist said:


> Nolerama,
> I object the your use of the word "xenophobic"
> 
> phobic-being afraid of
> ...



You're really ignorant.

And wrong.

Good luck with that.


----------



## Twin Fist (Jun 11, 2008)

Empty, 
they may have been kept OUT of government, but they LIVED it, they SAW how it was done, and promptly threw it away

not so fast, Kush, and it's achievements are not proven

your own article:
"&#8220;The exciting thing to me,&#8221; Dr. Williams said, &#8220;is that we are really seeing intensive organization activity from a distance, and the only reasonable attribution is that it belongs to Kush.&#8221;

ergo, they dont KNOW, they are guessing.

but I will give you that ONE

ONE

out of over half the continent.

Europeans did some bad stuff too. they also cultivated art, music, science, the printing press, etc,etc,etc,etc

africa?

sharp sticks

thats about it


Nolerama,
I wont ding you or report you for that blatant ad hom, so long as you can refute anything I said.


----------



## Kacey (Jun 11, 2008)

[playnice]Karen Cohn[/playnice]


----------



## Empty Hands (Jun 11, 2008)

Twin Fist said:


> Empty,
> they may have been kept OUT of government, but they LIVED it, they SAW how it was done, and promptly threw it away



It was taken away, not thrown away.  All that was left of the government were a handful of deserted office buildings.  It would be like taking a few hundred working stiffs from the coal mines and car plants and Starbucks and tell them to form a working government.  Sure, they've seen the President and the Supreme Court on TV, but that doesn't mean they could write a bill or command the military.

Try to think of it from their perspective for a minute.



Twin Fist said:


> not so fast, Kush, and it's achievements are not proven



They had a city, that is proven by archaeological findings.  That alone is enough to refute your claim.



Twin Fist said:


> but I will give you that ONE
> 
> ONE
> 
> out of over half the continent.



There are others.  Did you bother to look?



Twin Fist said:


> africa?
> 
> sharp sticks
> 
> thats about it



Nope.  Try actually looking into the literature on the subject.  There were wide ranging and complex prehistorical cultures south of the Sahara.  Even IN the Sahara the Berbers were fairly advanced, but the desert prevented more traditional settled societies.


----------



## Twin Fist (Jun 11, 2008)

Let me be clear

it is NOT racial

I have already said that but to be clear, I subscribe to the theory that non changing climate stagnates culture growth.

All around the equator, cultures simply went stagnate or didnt grow in the first place.

Empty, I am not really even disagreeing with you. I am just saying that the when the colonial powers left, the tribal mindset took over.

You are right in that they didnt really have the tools to just step in, but it seems like they didnt even try.


----------



## Xue Sheng (Jun 11, 2008)

I should probably stay out of this but I am tired so here goes

Something off topic but I feel still related.

The longest time that Europe has gone without some sort of war was from just after WW II up until the USSR kind of collapsed. Then some European countries went right back to war. Much of Europe was under direct control of the USSR and others were certainly threatened by them. This gave many one villain to despise and of course one overseer that would not allow them to fight unless of course they wished to be killed by said overseer.

Was Europe better off under the control of the USSR or are they better off after at war are they better off now. 

Tribal conflict between certain tribes in Africa has gone on for a very long time it went on during the colonial occupation and it is still going on today. Some tribes NOT all tribes&#8230; but then again how long has the Middle East been at war? 

Now I leave this post to the eventual moderators lock it will eventually recieve


----------



## Twin Fist (Jun 11, 2008)

no reason for this to get locked, only one personal attack thrown, and the subject isnt that controversial.


----------



## 5-0 Kenpo (Jun 11, 2008)

Twin Fist said:


> Empty,
> they may have been kept OUT of government, but they LIVED it, they SAW how it was done, and promptly threw it away
> 
> not so fast, Kush, and it's achievements are not proven
> ...


 
It appears to me, and certainly correct me if I am wrong, that it is ok to slaughter other nations/people on your continent, as long as you have a Divinci.  Interesting.

So let me see here, are you also saying, that since you have seen a very well done play or movie, that you could be an Oscar winning actor as well.  After all, you have seen it done, so you must be capable of it, correct?  I do not think this line of reasoning is very logical.  

How is one to run a government, when one is not taught about organization, leadership, or given even rudimentary education.  It is easy to look at all of this in hindsight and say that they threw it away, but the real question is what did they really have to throw away in the first place. 

I think the concept of getting a bunch of coal miners and Starbucks employees together to form a government in this sense is too genersous.  To an extent, they have had an education regarding government, finance, history, biology, etc.  Its called school.  A better comparison would be to take a bunch of uneducated slaves, ones who have had a bitter rivalry amongst them, put them together, and tell them to form a government.  

I ask you, with what?

And another thing, you are looking at it from an entirely Eurocentric viewpoint.  Who are you to say what cultural values (ie, art, music, dancing) are important?  Africans have always had vibrant intra-tribal social organizations.  You know, sort of like the Celts, the Germanic tribes, the Huns, the Mongols, etc.  (If you didnt catch it, there was an intentional use of early European barbarian cultures).   But look how the people of those cultures, either left to their own devises, or not assimilated (not just subjected to) by other more advanced cultures may have turned out.  They could be still out there with stone and spear themselves.

Why is it that one most form a very particular type of culture to be civilized?


----------



## Twin Fist (Jun 11, 2008)

of course it is not ok. if you got that impression, i would apologize.

but when you look at the WHOLE picture, you have to weigh the good with the bad, and in my opinion, more bad than good, by a large measure comes out of sub-saharan africa

"you have seen a very well done play or movie, that you could be an Oscar winning actor as well"

no, but you could TRY, you dont resort back to the bad old days.

" Why is it that one most form a very particular type of culture to be civilized?"

cuz not everything is equal. You have to have SOME standards, and that the ones the anthropologist and socialogists use.


----------



## Big Don (Jun 11, 2008)

The reason there were no wars in Europe from the end of WWII to the fall of the Soviet Union is pretty simple, there is a three letter acronym for it: MAD


----------



## CuongNhuka (Jun 11, 2008)

Actually, Sub-sahara Africa had a vibrant culture, unique poltical structures (resemebly what we would know call democracy). They were masters of music and dance. Many European monarchs in the pre-colonial periods would commission Central African smiths for things like there throne. East Africa was a hub of international trade and travel. Many parts of East Africa were rich because of large gold mines (keep in mind the first Gold mines in the world were from Africa). 

Did they have tribal war? Yes, but no where nere the exatent that exists now. Was there genocide? No!!!! The idea of wipeing out other peoples whole-sale for no reason is a barbarism that only exists in Europe! I'm surprised you haven't brought up the fact that Africans already had slavery. But, I suppose you wouldn't because you knew there idea of slavery was "you're just below us socially, and if you work hard for a few years, you'll be one of us". Thats actually why the Africans even engaged in the slave trade, they thoght that what the White Devil had was like what they had!!!

Now the, the reason I was almost sick was because I've never heard (and hoped to never hear) someone use White Man's Burden, atleast with my own ears. It's not like coloniasing happened because some crackers decided they were going to help Africa, and they just threw it away. That NEVER happened. It started with the slave trade. The Africans were exchanging a few war captives for some industrial goods. Then some more. And then some more. Eventually, the Africans decided they couldn't continue, mostly because there was hardly anyone left!!!! So, the honkeys simply used the bases they already had 'in country' and took over. They put regional rulers in charge. There was no "watching what government was". There was "I've been told what to do by a tyrant, this must be government". Imagine what how you think government is supposed to operate like when your family for hundreds of years back has been ruled by uncaring tyrants who profit on your turmile? Not to mention when whitey pulled out, he just pulled out. there was no help what so ever when it came to establishing a new government, or anything like that.

Sorry for the white-racial slurs. If it makes any body less offended, I'm 97% white (the remaining 3% is Cherokee Native American)


----------



## Tez3 (Jun 12, 2008)

Firstly TF you need to look up your history of Africa before Colonial times, you will be surprised at the fact there were civilisations there long before European ones. 

http://library.thinkquest.org/C002739/AfricaSite/LMAfricainhistory.htm


No wars in Europe after Second World War?
Greece 1945
Hungary 1956
Czechoslovakia 1968
Northern Ireland 1960 to present day
Balkans 1990s to present day
Cyprus 1956 and 1976



I think what we have here is people with their history as written by Hollywood and thinking oh lets see what we can write that borders on racism and can upset those nice liberals at MT. 
I'm not going to add to the wise and good words already written here by people of sense (I've already thanked them) and yes I think this will be locked too. 


http://www.ena.lu/civil_war_greece_1945-020703252.html


----------



## 5-0 Kenpo (Jun 12, 2008)

Twin Fist said:


> of course it is not ok. if you got that impression, i would apologize.
> 
> but when you look at the WHOLE picture, you have to weigh the good with the bad, and in my opinion, more bad than good, by a large measure comes out of sub-saharan africa
> 
> ...


 
And how do you know there weren't attempts at forming some sort of government?  In fact, there were. 

If you were unable to make your acting career work out, you know, feed yourself, your family, protect them from danger and provide the basic necessities of life, would you continue to try?  Or would you try something else.

Besides, when the U.N. forced people of hostile tribes to be apart of the same country, they already set the system up for disaster.  And the U.N., and its component countries, continue to enforce those boundaries.  Quite frankly, the white man has stacked the deck against Africans, if you were honest enough to think about it.  

As an example, why would the French want to allow the Sudan to fracture into separate countries.  The French get huge sums of natural resources from there.  The genocide in Darfur facilitates action on their parts to continue their activities.  Is it any wonder, that as permanent members of the U.N. Security Council, that they vetoed an attempt to get the U.N. Peacekeeping Forces out of Darfur?

So that being the case, one could make the argument that there is no "after white people left" when it comes to Sub-Saharan Africa, because they continue to interfere.

Another example would be the diamond trade.  It suited Europeans and Americans quite nicely to be able to exploit the many areas of Africa that had them.  And that would include preventing an organized and effective government that would be able to stop the problems there.  But that would mean that an African country would then be able to exploit the natural diamond fields for their own gain.  They couldn't have that, now could they.  A theatrical example would be the movie "Blood Diamond".  

And now you are saying that the standards of culture are to be defined by white anthropologists.  Remember one thing, anthropologists are not historians.  It is a subtle, yet distinct difference.  Anthropologists are concerned with social structure, not the historical issues surrounding a country.  Most anthropologists are not even concerned with the recent history of a country, even if they do try to put things into such a context.


----------



## Tez3 (Jun 12, 2008)

http://africanhistory.about.com/od/kingdoms/a/NokCulture.htm

http://africanhistory.about.com/od/mali/p/Timbuktu.htm

http://archaeology.about.com/cs/africa/a/aksum.htm

http://archaeology.about.com/od/tanzania/a/kilwa.htm

http://historymedren.about.com/od/africanplaces/a/splendorafrica.htm

http://www.wsu.edu:8080/~dee/CIVAFRCA/GHANA.HTM

Of course Africa had no civilisations before colonialism............


----------



## Nolerama (Jun 12, 2008)

I threw the ignorant comment out there because, like Cuong posted, there are a lot of great sub-Saharan African cultures. TF, you should look them up.

They created art.

They created music.

They probably had celebrity artists/engineers as well.

Africans created (for a while) the first peaceful coexistence between Jews, Christians, and Muslims. 

Africans had sticks as well. But then again, so do Westerners. I apologize if you felt personally attacked, it'll heal in time.

I feel kinda wronged with the ding threat, though.


----------



## Sukerkin (Jun 12, 2008)

I have to admit that ancient African history is not something I know a great deal about.  

I know that there is evidence for what we as Classically orientated cultures would call Civilisations but I don't know what evidence in specific and what is known as to their trade, cultural pursuits, spirituality et al.

It might make an interesting research project.  Is there anyone here who can shine a light as to a 'profitable' line of enquiry?


----------



## Twin Fist (Jun 12, 2008)

Nolerama said:


> I feel kinda wronged with the ding threat, though.



You will get over it.

I am about done with this, you people are acting like i said "the people are worthless" when all I said was that thier cultures never developed any of the accepted milestones of an advanced culture.


----------



## Xue Sheng (Jun 12, 2008)

Twin Fist said:


> accepted milestones of an advanced culture.


 
I am curious, what are those exactly?


----------



## CoryKS (Jun 12, 2008)

CuongNhuka said:


> Sorry for the white-racial slurs. If it makes any body less offended, I'm 97% white (the remaining 3% is Cherokee Native American)


 
It's cool.  You're not the first person on these boards to suffer from the Tourettes of Righteousness.  Several others are inflicted; one in particular, I think, reacts strongly to any whiff of racialism partly so that he can use racial epithets with impunity.


----------



## Tez3 (Jun 12, 2008)

Twin Fist said:


> You will get over it.
> 
> I am about done with this, you people are acting like i said "the people are worthless" when all I said was that thier cultures never developed any of the accepted milestones of an advanced culture.


 
Accepted by who exactly, you? what do you regard as higher culture? 

Quote _In the 13th century Mali rose under the leadership of the Malinke_ _Sundiata to become renowned throughout the Arab world for its wealth and learning_ unquote
http://www.bbc.co.uk/worldservice/africa/features/storyofafrica/index.shtml

 Quote _The Coast of East Africa has had a long history of trade, involving constant exchanges of ideas, style and commodities for well over two thousand years. Marriage between women of Africa and men of the Middle East created and cemented a rich Swahili culture, fusing urban and agricultural communities, rich in architecture, textiles, and food, as well as purchasing power _unquote

This is a good site for learning the history of Africa.


----------



## Twin Fist (Jun 12, 2008)

Xue Sheng said:


> I am curious, what are those exactly?


written language
permenant buildings
growing of crops

those are the big three.


----------



## elder999 (Jun 12, 2008)

Twin Fist said:


> written language
> permenant buildings
> growing of crops
> 
> those are the big three.


 

Is this  permanent enough for ya?


----------



## elder999 (Jun 12, 2008)

Written language is a cultural bias most sociologists and anthropologists have rejected. Africa has a long history of oral traditions, and there were people designated and trained to memorize great amounts of data and relate it orally-still are, in some places. With a tradition of "memory keepers" like these, what need was there for "written language?" There was also, where needed, a tradition of mental calculation and memorization-again, no need for written arithmetic, when someone could do it in their head for you.In any case, there were African cultures that had written language.Throughout sub-Saharan Africa, dedication to traditions of scholarship and literary production has ensured that knowledge of the past has survived for hundreds of years. During the Middle Ages, major centers of religious learning arose in both East and West Africa, hastening the spread of literacy and promoting reverence for the power of the written word. Monasteries throughout Christian Ethiopia produced illuminated manuscripts of great refinement and beauty written in Ge'ez, the indigenous written language of the royal court. Literate individuals also produced autobiographical accounts and other writings of a secular nature. 

The Ethiopian Coptic Church is considered by most historians and theologians to be one of the oldest extant Christian sects, btw, with a sustained and relatively unchanged tradition dating to the 4th century.

The idea that "no seasons=no farming" is also preposterous. No seasons means _more_ farming, usually, as there are essentially _two_ growing seasons.. The fact that large-scale cultivation of the kind you envision wasn't evident in most places doesn't mean that villages didn't farm before the coming of Europeans. They just farmed differently, on a smaller-scale, with scattered plots. This method of farming-which, incidentally, Indians in South America also used/*use*-was less intensive, and led to less environmental consequences than clear cutting the land and growing a single crop.


----------



## qwksilver61 (Jun 12, 2008)

Can't make everyone happy,the world is no safer,in fact it's even smaller,and technology *will *enslave all of mankind.Poor humans,they've managed to paint themselves into......well....a piece of the hemisphere.......


----------



## Xue Sheng (Jun 12, 2008)

Twin Fist said:


> written language
> permenant buildings
> growing of crops
> 
> those are the big three.


 

So Ancient Egypt, Greece, Rome and Ancient China as far back as the Zhou Dynasty are all advanced, American Indians are not, no permanent buildings but they grew crops, had writing, but then there were the mound builders do they count as advanced? But yet we based the constitution, at least in part, on the Iroquois Great Law of Peace and the Iroquois would not be considered advanced by your definition. And of course Babylonia is not advanced, no buildings left. But wait there are some ancient races in Africa that have left behind permanent buildings and had writing and grew crops. And there were some that at one time were even Pharos of Egypt who by your definition were advanced. Aztecs are way advanced as are the Inca (I suppose that whole human sacrifice thing doesn&#8217;t count much they had writing, grew crops and had permanent buildings) Eskimos, nope not advanced. Mongols not advanced either, even though they did at one time rule China. The Japanese, yup advanced. Vikings not advanced but they were damn good navigators.

And of course there were the Sumerians that are credited with the earliest known form of written expression aka cuneiform script but I don't know if there are any buildings left so they certainly were not permanent.

But wait the Earth is not permanent it will eventually be incinerated by the sun so nothing is permanent so no one is advanced

You might want to look here


----------



## elder999 (Jun 12, 2008)

Twin Fist said:


> Prior to colonial time, European culture was superior to the sub-saharan african cultures. While DaVinci was painting? the zulus were killing each other with sharp sticks..


 

Oh, and on a more martial note, the weapon of choice for the Zulus was the assegai, a short, _iron headed_ spear. It's equivalent existed in several other African cultures as well-in fact, I own a few.....


----------



## Tez3 (Jun 12, 2008)

Twin Fist said:


> written language
> permenant buildings
> growing of crops
> 
> those are the big three.


 

Then they are well qualified and you have shown that you know nothing about African culture.
Some African written languages
Vai - Liberia
Niger Delta Nsibidi
Cameroon - Banum
Mali - Fulan
and Sesotho a very early written language.

Mali has permanent buildings dating from the 15th century, it had the University of Sankore established in 1581 in Timbuktu which was a centre  of learning as well as  a significent writing tradition. Many of the manuscripts written in fulan and Arabic have been preserved.

I can't imagine why you think Africans don't grow crops, they have been since 1000BC!
http://louisville.edu/a-s/history/herlin/textsup.htm


----------



## Nolerama (Jun 12, 2008)

TF: Back your arguments with facts.

Ethiopic writing was developed in Ethiopia in order to accommodate not only the native Ethiopians, but to acclimate to other languages. Ethiopic was used to write down the Hebrew, Arabic, Greek and (arguably) Latin languages in order to ease trading between the cultures.

"  Ethiopic is an African Writing System designed as a meaningful and graphic representation of knowledge.  It is a component of the African Knowledge Systems and one of the signal contributions made by Africans to the world history and cultures.  It is created to holistically symbolize and locate the cultural and historical parameters of the Ethiopian people.  The System, in its classic state, has a total of 182 syllographs, which are arranged in seven columns, each column containing 26 syllographs.  Ethiopic is a knowledge system because it is brilliantly organized to represent philosophical features, such as ideography, mnumonics, syllography, astronomy, and grammatology."

They still use the written language today. And that's personal testimony.

Senegal has some pretty nifty buildings. They're "permanent", too and are not just straw huts. In fact, one of the oldest standing Christian churches in the world is located in Ethiopia and is compared to the Taj Mahal in its symmetry and beauty. The Church of St. George was said to be built by an Ethiopian King because God told him so. It's considered one of the "wonders of the world."

As far as "the growing of crops" goes, I'm pretty sure you're partially correct. Africa today produces a fraction of the world's export crops. That doesn't mean it doesn't produce crops at all, just not a cornucopia of edibles in the way we're used to in the Western world.

Most of the continent is desert or rainforest, both not the absolute best for growing crops. Many of the sustenance farmers in the river valleys grow enough to feed their families and raise livestock. But they do raise crops, and in the temperate zones in the North and South of the continent, comfort food crops and exportable goods are grown.

You write about how people should back up their statements with facts. You don't.


----------



## Twin Fist (Jun 12, 2008)

Xue,
Dont forget the cliff dwellings built in the american southwest. And no, a building doesnt have to stand for 5000 years to be considered permenent.

But wait, you are just being argumentative.......no offense, but i am not interested in getting into a flame war, or a nick pick fight.



*sigh*
thats what i get for taking Elder off ignore, more of his crap..........but wait, there is actually a gem in the pile:

Elder, that picture you posted? They dont know who built it. The design shows both local and non-local elements. Local legend isnt clear on the issue. It is damned impressive, Thats for sure, and it makes sense to build a trading post over a gold mine. I had never heard of that site before, but it is very cool. It is certainly unique in the area. I am gonna read up on that site. It is very interesting.

as for the Zulu spear, it isnt sub-saharan in origin, but from the Berber region. Apparently though, iron working in sub-saharan african people goes back to about 1000 BC, which i didnt know. makes sense tho.


----------



## Sukerkin (Jun 12, 2008)

Gentlemen, in any debate it is perfectly acceptable and free of blame to admit you don't know something or concede you had a misconception.  This ties neatly in with the thread about 'Open and Closed Thinking'.

If you can do this then not only do you tend to learn more but people in general tend to think better of you.

The reverse is also true and is sadly the more prevelent state of mind in Internetland .


----------



## Tez3 (Jun 12, 2008)

Twin Fist said:


> Xue,
> Dont forget the cliff dwellings built in the american southwest. And no, a building doesnt have to stand for 5000 years to be considered permenent.
> 
> But wait, you are just being argumentative.......no offense, but i am not interested in getting into a flame war, or a nick pick fight.
> ...


 
Do you have to use the word 'crap'?

it's an offensive word.


​


----------



## Twin Fist (Jun 12, 2008)

Nolerama,
I am still waiting for an apology for your blatant ad hom attack. I doubt I will get one though.

i am sure the senegalese do have some nifty buildings. NOW. What did they have before the europeans started landing thier ships there?

hmm? 

BTW-Ethiopia? no really sub-saharan for one thing, and as a coastal area, was exposed to technology from traders from the middle east. Doesnt really count for what i was talking about, but I guess "anything to prove this mean guy wrong" is ok ....................

YOU say I dont use facts, well, buddy, YOU bring in examples that have nothing to do with the subject at hand. We are talking apples and you are over there yapping about oranges. If that sounds "mean" well, as you say "it'll heal in time."


Thats it, I am out, you people can call me whatever names you want to, I dont care. I made a statement, and it pretty much stands.

The site in Zimbabwie is interesting tho, I do want to read up on that.


----------



## Empty Hands (Jun 12, 2008)

Sukerkin said:


> Gentlemen, in any debate it is perfectly acceptable and free of blame to admit you don't know something or concede you had a misconception.



This is the Internet, sir, and I will not stand for this vile calumny!  We are all indisputably correct at all times, in all ways, forever and ever more!  I say Good Day to you, sir!


----------



## Twin Fist (Jun 12, 2008)

Empty Hands said:


> This is the Internet, sir, and I will not stand for this vile calumny!  We are all indisputably correct at all times, in all ways, forever and ever more!  I say Good Day to you, sir!




dont forget EH, on the internet the guys are all 6'4 and tough and the ladies? they are all HAWT


----------



## Empty Hands (Jun 12, 2008)

Twin Fist said:


> I made a statement, and it pretty much stands.



I'm not sure how you can say that.  A number of posters have posted a number of sources contesting your claims.


----------



## Nolerama (Jun 12, 2008)

Twin Fist said:


> Nolerama,
> I am still waiting for an apology for your blatant ad hom attack. I doubt I will get one though.
> 
> i am sure the senegalese do have some nifty buildings. NOW. What did they have before the europeans started landing thier ships there?
> ...



I'm sorry, I can't read minds. And I never insulted you, just stated a fact. I hope you read this and talk your way out of it again.

That's your reality.


----------



## Empty Hands (Jun 12, 2008)

Twin Fist said:


> dont forget EH, on the internet the guys are all 6'4 and tough and the ladies? they are all HAWT



Hey, I AM 6'4" and tough...

OK, I _am_ 6'4"!


----------



## Twin Fist (Jun 12, 2008)

Empty Hands said:


> Hey, I AM 6'4" and tough...



purple belt? you aint THAT tough......:lol:

thats ok, I am not tough either. I cry in sad movies, hell, I cry at sad COMMERCIALS


----------



## Empty Hands (Jun 12, 2008)

Twin Fist said:


> purple belt? you aint THAT tough......:lol:



Oh no, they figured me out! :uhoh:



Twin Fist said:


> thats ok, I am not tough either. I cry in sad movies, hell, I cry at sad COMMERCIALS



ROFL n00b!  I k1ck ur azz 0n teh str33tz!


----------



## Twin Fist (Jun 12, 2008)

All your base are..............


----------



## Xue Sheng (Jun 12, 2008)

Twin Fist said:


> Xue,
> Dont forget the cliff dwellings built in the american southwest. And no, a building doesnt have to stand for 5000 years to be considered permenent.
> 
> But wait, you are just being argumentative.......no offense, but i am not interested in getting into a flame war, or a nick pick fight.


 
But I am not being argumentative, and I do not want a flame war, it is nice way to avoid everything I posted however to accuse me of trying to do that. 

I am pointing out those societies that by your definition are advanced. And some of those are long since dead and some of those are, believe it or not, African. 

You see my take on this is you have some knowledge of a few African tribes not all. And I am no expert either but I do know they are or were, by the definition you provided advanced. Africa is a big place that is made up of many different peoples. 

As to permanent that would be subjective then depending on how many years something has to stand to be called permanent. 

And by your definition the Aztecs were advanced but yet they were big on human sacrifice which, &#8220;IMO&#8221;, that is not all that advanced.

So my point is that I am sorry but your definition does not work for me. That is unless you can point to some *reputable *scientific or archeological study that supports it.


----------



## Twin Fist (Jun 12, 2008)

Xue,
it's ok. I dont need for you to agree. 
I may well be wrong.
I didnt know about the ruins at Zimbabwie for example
but it is just my opinion.


----------



## elder999 (Jun 12, 2008)

Twin Fist said:


> Xue,
> 
> 
> Elder, that picture you posted? They dont know who built it. The design shows both local and non-local elements. Local legend isnt clear on the issue. It is damned impressive, Thats for sure, and it makes sense to build a trading post over a gold mine. I had never heard of that site before, but it is very cool. It is certainly unique in the area. I am gonna read up on that site. It is very interesting.
> ...


 
There's a town in New Mexico called _Aztec_. It's very near  Chaco Canyon,  the site of large, intricate Anaszi ruins that date to about 1000 A.D. When the Spanish "discovered" it, they couldn't believe that the Puebloan people of the region-Dine, Hope, Tewa, etc.-or their ancestors could have been capable of such large-scale, intricate construction, so they falsely attributed it to the Aztecs-hence, the name of the town.

What's happened with Great Zimbabwe is similar, but even more insidious. *While archeaological evidence, and all archaeologists attribute Great Zimbabwe to native origin*, white colonialists had a great investment in minimalizing and even denying its African origin. When the country was called Rhodesia, and run by white settlers, visitors to the site were  told the official Rhodesian story, which you pretty much regurgitated here....

In any case,it's not the only evidence of African culture that met or exceeded your paltry conditions for "civilization."


----------



## Twin Fist (Jun 12, 2008)

so say you, and no offense, but if you told me what TIME it was I would double check.............


----------



## elder999 (Jun 12, 2008)

Twin Fist said:


> so say you, and no offense, but if you told me what TIME it was I would double check.............


 
O course, a trade center would show the influence of other cultures it traded with: CHina, Indonesia, etc., but Zimbabwe is almost certainly indigenous in origin, and no not so say *I*-I'm an engineer and physicist, not an archaeologist. However, rather than beleive Wikipedia or me, perhaps you'll trust NOVA....

...or, maybe not. Maybe you have as much invested in confining all of African culture and history to nakedness,in mud and thatch huts, as Cecil Rhodes and company did. :lol: 

Oh, and I wouldn't be bothered to give you the time of day-or even an unreasonable facsimile thereof. It's just that demonstrated ignorance of the sort you've displayed here (and there's nothing _wrong_ with ignorance-you've taken the first step away from it by saying "I didn't know that") must be replied to.


----------



## Twin Fist (Jun 12, 2008)

thats classy, i disagree with you, you throw a not so subtle accusation of racism my way.

THAT is a good example of why i dont take you seriously.

back to ignore with you, you and your "ideals" are not worth my time


----------



## elder999 (Jun 12, 2008)

Twin Fist said:


> thats classy, i disagree with you, you throw a not so subtle accusation of racism my way.
> 
> THAT is a good example of why i dont take you seriously.
> 
> back to ignore with you, you and your "ideals" are not worth my time


 
Nothing subtle or accusatory about it. Just another of those inconvenient facts you seem to enjoy so much, when they suit you......

Oh-back to ignore*ance*. Why am I not surprised?


----------



## Tez3 (Jun 13, 2008)

Both Nolerama and I have given you permanent buildings in Africa but you chose to argue with Elder? Are we on ignore too I wonder. Makes for a woefully sad discussion.


----------



## Xue Sheng (Jun 13, 2008)

Twin Fist said:


> but it is just my opinion.


 
alrighty then

Later


----------

