Boko Haram and the kidnpping of the school girls

[Orogun01]

There were several major African civilizations not named Egypt and I think the one in Ethiopia that you're thinking of was either Axum/Aksum or Abyssinia

I might have come up with a theory as to why there are so few great civilizations on such a rich continent; it is precisely because its so rich. When there is scarcity it forces humans to compete with one another for resources, on places where goods are in just one place it forces people to group along those locations. As groups are formed others of smaller size are assimilated or eliminated, while the most capable is sure to triumph on a state of nature. Eventually as groups grow there need to be rules to facilitate order, people specialize and proto society is born which eventually grows into an Empire which couldn't happen on a wealthy continent since smaller groups rather than fight for resources could easily find them elsewhere.

 

Not related the thread in any way but I don't have many people to talk to and ancient African Empires doesn't come up in conversations that much. It did about a year and half ago but it hasn't since.

[Zoraptor]

The theory that I had heard about revolved largely around diseases and much of Africa being 'linear', having an easily accessible coastal strip but little else. Compare to the Med, where you could take a compass bearing and hit a different civilisation on most bearings in Africa you could go up or down the coast only.
 

There were several major African civilizations not named Egypt and I think the one in Ethiopia that you're thinking of was either Axum/Aksum or Abyssinia

 
Plus Nubia (ruled Egypt at various times, built far more pyramids too), Mali Empire (~1.3 million square km; six times the area of Great Britain), Benin Empire (which had a longer continuous existence than almost all European countries), Zimbabwe and a fair few others. None of them apart from Egypt are particularly well known though.

[Hurlshort]

Wow, Africa not having their own civilizations is like something out of a textbook from the 50's.  It's incredibly false.

[Valsuelm]

Wow, Africa not having their own civilizations is like something out of a textbook from the 50's.  It's incredibly false.

 

Please show me a textbook from the 50s that says Africa never had it's own civilizations. I've got an encyclopedia from the 50s sitting a room away that's got all sorts of information on African civilizations.

[BruceVC]

 

Wow, Africa not having their own civilizations is like something out of a textbook from the 50's.  It's incredibly false.

 

Please show me a textbook from the 50s that says Africa never had it's own civilizations. I've got an encyclopedia from the 50s sitting a room away that's got all sorts of information on African civilizations.

 

  Vals stop nitpicking, he isn't being literal 

[Hurlshort]

 

 

Wow, Africa not having their own civilizations is like something out of a textbook from the 50's.  It's incredibly false.

 

Please show me a textbook from the 50s that says Africa never had it's own civilizations. I've got an encyclopedia from the 50s sitting a room away that's got all sorts of information on African civilizations.

 

  Vals stop nitpicking, he isn't being literal 

 

 

I was being a bit glib, but I am curious what your encyclopedia says about Great Zimbabwe.  I have a few older encyclopedias at work, I'll check them on Monday.

[Malcador]

Can't fault Chad and Niger for pulling back. I wonder if the people dying are not government supporters or something. Based on the way Nigeria doesn't seem to really want to crush this.

[Valsuelm]

I am curious what your encyclopedia says about Great Zimbabwe.  I have a few older encyclopedias at work, I'll check them on Monday.

Not too much. A quick perusal finds that it is mentioned in the first paragraph of the 'History' section of the article on Rhodesia.

 

It begins:

 

"The ruins of the ancient stone cities in southern Rhodesia are a mystery even today. Nobody knows who built them. The largest ruined city is called Zimbabwe, and the remains indicate that the people who once lived there were engaged chiefly in mining and smelting copper and gold."

 

It then goes on to talk about the non-Africans who explored the area first.

 

The encyclopedia is Compton's Pictured Encyclopedia from 1959.

 

I'm unfortunately missing the E and M volumes for the moment (a relative must have grabbed them at some point). There's an article on 'East Africa' in that volume that the article on Rhodesia points to for more info which might mention it again, and without the M I cannot look up and see what is said about Mali. It's somewhat doubtful though that much more on Zimbabwe is said. It's not a series books that goes into depth about the history of peoples. ie: It doesn't have a large article on the Bantu, but it also does not have a large article on the Visigoths. It doesn't however read as if those native to Africa were incapable of greater civilization and it does mention African civilizations and culture.

 

That said, I'm not exactly of the uninformed opinion that one needs to have built stone walls in order to have civilization, nor do I think that building your average stone wall is a great feat (there are some exceptions of course, ie: infamously the Great Pyramid or much of what's in the Andes among many others). The Zulu for example did quite well without building lots of stone walls. They really didn't much need of them though, and I don't hold the fact that they didn't build something they didn't have much use for against them. Though obviously others do.

 

For them:

 

Really, to say those native to Africa somehow had inferior civilizations because they didn't build things they didn't need until the Europeans showed up is the equivalent of saying that Earthlings have inferior civilization because we didn't build X that we could have built that might have helped us out vs Aliens, if and when they show up. 'Necessity is the mother of invention.', and technology doesn't define a civilization, though it certainly can impact it.

 

You can't hold things against a people who realistically had no way of knowing how X that they had very little need for might help them in the future against something alien and unimagined. And as for why much of Africa is still 'backwards' today, I'd say that some of it isn't necessarily 'backwards' (if tribe Y is surviving happily doing what they do, who are you to say their way of life is inferior?), and of the areas that are seeing oodles of seemingly endless turmoil, there's really not one that I've ever learned of that didn't have the heavy hand of foreign influence directly or indirectly making sure that turmoil continues. Because unlike what Bruce says, colonialism really never ended. The European, American, et al influence is very strong on African politics, and a great deal of Africa's resources that are being exploited are being exploited by companies foreign to it.

Edited January 11, 2015 by Valsuelm

[Zoraptor]

Yep. The Chinese make an interesting example, they invented a bunch of absolutely crucial things and had a huge number of inventions overall but they missed out on other stuff because they never really needed it- glass being perhaps the most notable. While you can do a lot with porcelain, enough that glass doesn't seem fundamentally necessary you cannot do things like make lenses or complicated chemical apparatus out of it. In that respect having something that was 'good enough' was a disadvantage in the long term.

[Walsingham]

Yep. The Chinese make an interesting example, they invented a bunch of absolutely crucial things and had a huge number of inventions overall but they missed out on other stuff because they never really needed it- glass being perhaps the most notable. While you can do a lot with porcelain, enough that glass doesn't seem fundamentally necessary you cannot do things like make lenses or complicated chemical apparatus out of it. In that respect having something that was 'good enough' was a disadvantage in the long term.

 

That's an interesting observation. Is it your own, or do you have a reference?

[Wrath of Dagon]

I'm afraid the tide of Islamism will not be turned back unless US is forced to intervene militarily in a big way.

[Orogun01]

I'm afraid the tide of Islamism will not be turned back unless US is forced to intervene militarily in a big way.

Nope, as long as Islam remains without an official ruling body that can interpret the word of the Prophet and it can unify the faith there will be people who use the word or interpret in a way that it leads to conflict. Quite frankly the more longer that they wait the more sinister they look.

 

I would point out the example of early Christians who were known to be violent and prone to riots and infighting over Biblical canon until the council of Nicaea. So its been known to work, and it should be done before Islam becomes unified under bellicose (I really wanted to use that word) interpretations.

[Zoraptor]

 

Yep. The Chinese make an interesting example, they invented a bunch of absolutely crucial things and had a huge number of inventions overall but they missed out on other stuff because they never really needed it- glass being perhaps the most notable. While you can do a lot with porcelain, enough that glass doesn't seem fundamentally necessary you cannot do things like make lenses or complicated chemical apparatus out of it. In that respect having something that was 'good enough' was a disadvantage in the long term.

 

That's an interesting observation. Is it your own, or do you have a reference?

 

 

Not my own, no. It actually comes from the TV programme QI, primarily, though I did try looking it up to confirm it's the sort of thing that google etc are generally poor at finding specific information on beyond supporting the basic premise.

 

(And on rereading I should probably make sure to clarify that the Chinese did have some glass, it was just massively less sophisticated and less used than in the west)

[Rostere]

I'm afraid the tide of Islamism will not be turned back unless US is forced to intervene militarily in a big way.

 

[Malcador]

Well in this case, sure doesn't look like Boko Haram will be put to the sword without Western hands.

[BruceVC]

I'm afraid the tide of Islamism will not be turned back unless US is forced to intervene militarily in a big way.

 

 

I'm afraid the tide of Islamism will not be turned back unless US is forced to intervene militarily in a big way.

 

 

 

Well I'm not sure if he is joking or not but there is  a valid case around how woefully unprepared most African countries are to deal militarily with Boko Haram

 

So it is not unrealistic that we will need some kind of sustained Western military intervention to deal with Boko Haram, it could be the French, the British or the USA ?

 

But its clear that the AU doesn't have the political will or means to deal with groups like Boko Haram

[Gromnir]

 

I'm afraid the tide of Islamism will not be turned back unless US is forced to intervene militarily in a big way.

 

 

I'm afraid the tide of Islamism will not be turned back unless US is forced to intervene militarily in a big way.

 

 

 

Well I'm not sure if he is joking or not but there is  a valid case around how woefully unprepared most African countries are to deal militarily with Boko Haram

 

So it is not unrealistic that we will need some kind of sustained Western military intervention to deal with Boko Haram, it could be the French, the British or the USA ?

 

But its clear that the AU doesn't have the political will or means to deal with groups like Boko Haram

 

curious. what difference do you see between sub-saharan africa and the rest o' the world? am recalling a much different pov from you regarding other areas o' conflict. is a serious query. 

 

HA! Good Fun!

[BruceVC]

 

 

I'm afraid the tide of Islamism will not be turned back unless US is forced to intervene militarily in a big way.

 

 

I'm afraid the tide of Islamism will not be turned back unless US is forced to intervene militarily in a big way.

 

 

 

Well I'm not sure if he is joking or not but there is  a valid case around how woefully unprepared most African countries are to deal militarily with Boko Haram

 

So it is not unrealistic that we will need some kind of sustained Western military intervention to deal with Boko Haram, it could be the French, the British or the USA ?

 

But its clear that the AU doesn't have the political will or means to deal with groups like Boko Haram

 

curious. what difference do you see between sub-saharan africa and the rest o' the world? am recalling a much different pov from you regarding other areas o' conflict. is a serious query. 

 

HA! Good Fun!

 

 

To be honest Al-Shabaab and Boko Haram have been two of the most difficult, dangerous and disruptive military threats to the African region that the continent has probably seen in decades. These groups don't threaten the sub-saharan region so there seems no real interest from SADEC in trying to resolve these issues, despite the fact that this is  indeed an AU problem and this shouldn't be seen in just  a regional context

 

But to answer your question there are countries in the sub-saharan region, who do have the financial means,  like Angola, Namibia, Mozambique and South Africa who could contribute meaningfully towards an AU military mission or help to establish what has been called an African Reactionary Force where all countries in the AU would commit resources. This reactionary force would be used within the continent to address African conflicts, this would mean that the AU is not dependent on the UN funding or Western troops to supplement any AU force  

 

But there is just no real political will. I'm not sure if I answered your question properly?If not can you explain in more detail?

Edited January 12, 2015 by BruceVC

[HoonDing]

Nigeria has lots of oil.

Get the B52s ready.

[Gromnir]

 

 

 

I'm afraid the tide of Islamism will not be turned back unless US is forced to intervene militarily in a big way.

 

 

I'm afraid the tide of Islamism will not be turned back unless US is forced to intervene militarily in a big way.

 

 

 

Well I'm not sure if he is joking or not but there is  a valid case around how woefully unprepared most African countries are to deal militarily with Boko Haram

 

So it is not unrealistic that we will need some kind of sustained Western military intervention to deal with Boko Haram, it could be the French, the British or the USA ?

 

But its clear that the AU doesn't have the political will or means to deal with groups like Boko Haram

 

curious. what difference do you see between sub-saharan africa and the rest o' the world? am recalling a much different pov from you regarding other areas o' conflict. is a serious query. 

 

HA! Good Fun!

 

 

 

 

But there is just no real political will. I'm not sure if I answered your question properly?If not can you explain in more detail?

 

am trying to get You to explain in more detail. why is the conflicts in sub-saharan africa... different. you has, in the past, applauded western restraint in those geographic hotspots that had potential to become more serious conflagrations.  please note that Gromnir is not actual advocating use of military force. that being said, we wishes to know why your pov regarding the possibility o' a western military solution in sub-saharan africa is different than other geographical loci o' conflict.  

 

HA! Good Fun!

[BruceVC]

 

 

 

 

I'm afraid the tide of Islamism will not be turned back unless US is forced to intervene militarily in a big way.

 

 

I'm afraid the tide of Islamism will not be turned back unless US is forced to intervene militarily in a big way.

 

 

 

Well I'm not sure if he is joking or not but there is  a valid case around how woefully unprepared most African countries are to deal militarily with Boko Haram

 

So it is not unrealistic that we will need some kind of sustained Western military intervention to deal with Boko Haram, it could be the French, the British or the USA ?

 

But its clear that the AU doesn't have the political will or means to deal with groups like Boko Haram

 

curious. what difference do you see between sub-saharan africa and the rest o' the world? am recalling a much different pov from you regarding other areas o' conflict. is a serious query. 

 

HA! Good Fun!

 

 

 

 

But there is just no real political will. I'm not sure if I answered your question properly?If not can you explain in more detail?

 

am trying to get You to explain in more detail. why is the conflicts in sub-saharan africa... different. you has, in the past, applauded western restraint in those geographic hotspots that had potential to become more serious conflagrations.  please note that Gromnir is not actual advocating use of military force. that being said, we wishes to know why your pov regarding the possibility o' a western military solution in sub-saharan africa is different than other geographical loci o' conflict.  

 

HA! Good Fun!

 

Okay but I'm still not clear on what conflicts in sub-saharan Africa you are talking about, can you be more specific?

 

I have always supported Western intervention in certain conflicts, like Libya. But what I don't support is the AU doing nothing about real African issues, like Ebola and Boko Haram, and then waiting for the international community ( which translates to the West ) intervening to implement a certain change or prevent a humanitarian catastrophe 

[BruceVC]

Nigeria has lots of oil.

 

Get the B52s ready.

 

The oil fields of Nigeria are no where near the areas that Boko Haram operates in. Also you do realize that the USA is now the worlds biggest producer of oil and natural gas

 

http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2014-07-04/u-s-seen-as-biggest-oil-producer-after-overtaking-saudi.html

 

 

This is a big problem for conspiracy theorists who will now need to find new reasons for justifying Western intervention because the whole point " the USA only intervenes when there is oil " becomes a moot point  

[Barothmuk]

Wait so Yanks invade/bomb/topple country X for economic interest Y falls under the banner of "conspiracy theory"?

[BruceVC]

Wait so Yanks invade/bomb/topple country X for economic interest Y falls under the banner of "conspiracy theory"?

 

 

Well if every single time the West intervenes in any conflict and the reason that people give is  "its because of oil " then you need to question that logic ?

 

I have acknowledged before that certain interventions were based on economic interest, like Iraq, but sometimes the reason for intervention is humanitarian or because there is a real threat or military justification. 

[Barothmuk]

Well if every single time the West intervenes in any conflict and the reason that people give is  "its because of oil " then you need to question that logic ?

In my experience its just a cynical expression. "Oil" usually representing a variable material interest.

 

I have acknowledged before that certain interventions were based on economic interest, like Iraq, but sometimes the reason for intervention is humanitarian or because there is a real threat or military justification.

Hahaha.