"Racial" issue

[Karl Marx's Camel]

Why do you think, from a historic perspective, that White, Japanese, Chinese people etc. have been much more succesfull, historically, than black people, despite black people having a much longer time to develop their society?

[rioters bloc]

clarification, who do you class as black?


haha when i was 4 and i'd just come to australia, this boy in my class called me black. and i showed him a black crayon and held it against my skin and said 'im not black, im brown!' but he just wouldnt get it. and i ended up crying out of sheer frustration.

[Amusing Scrotum]

Why do you think, from a historic perspective, that White, Japanese, Chinese people etc. have been much more succesfull, historically, than black people, despite black people having a much longer time to develop their society?

This is an interesting question, that I'm sure many academics have struggled to deal with. Anyway, I'll still try to adress it.

From a historical perspective I'm not so sure black Africans have been "unsuccesful". There were many African tribes that could be compared to European Empires etc. For example the Zulus could be deemed a "succesfull" from a historical perspective.
These "tribes" were still very strong until around 300 years ago. When slavery took hold. You can't discount the fact that the most able Africans would have been taken as slaves. Why would a slave master take a weak, short, thin man to work in a plantation, when he could just as easily take a strong, tall and bulky man. This in my opinion left African countries with a lack of good, strong workers.
Add to this the fact that most of Africas wealth was stolen, and the fact that African countries have never been compensated for this.
Colonialisation destroyed many countries, many of these are the same countries which make up the "Third World" today.
Also the lack of social spending in Western countries on Black communities, has left many underdeveloped and in some cases similar to areas of the "Third World".

I hope my answer has shed some light on the issue.


haha when i was 4 and i'd just come to australia, this boy in my class called me black. and i showed him a black crayon and held it against my skin and said 'im not black, im brown!' but he just wouldnt get it.

I can relate to that story. People seem to class everyone with dark skin "black".

[Black Dagger]

haha when i was 4 and i'd just come to australia, this boy in my class called me black. and i showed him a black crayon and held it against my skin and said 'im not black, im brown!' but he just wouldnt get it. and i ended up crying out of sheer frustration.

({) awww, you were pretty sharp for a four-yeard old though!



Why do you think, from a historic perspective, that White, Japanese, Chinese people etc. have been much more succesfull, historically, than black people, despite black people having a much longer time to develop their society?

Why do you think they have been more 'successful?

To add to what rioters bloc said,

Define 'white', and 'successful'.

I know Severian will be in the topic soon (sorry to steal your bit!), and he'll suggest this (http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/detail/-/0393317552/103-2988241-3442235?v=glance) book, 'Guns, Germs, and Steel: The Fates of Human Societies' by Jared Diamond. I've yet to read it, but have read good things about it. My guess is that it will help answer your question.

I suggest you read this thread (http://www.revolutionaryleft.com/index.php?showtopic=38458&hl=germs), and wait for Severian to outline what 'Gun, Germs and Steel' is about.

Hmmm, it seems this is not the first time you've raised this issue, or something related to it.

Earlier you made a thread, "Do you know of any African inventions?"- very interested in the 'success' of the African continent here (http://www.revolutionaryleft.com/index.php?showtopic=36867&hl=germs)

From said threa:

I am sorry that I may sound critical, but it seem like very little great has come out from Africa. Quite a few of them today live like humans did 30 000 years ago

Ouch. Africans sure are backward ay NWOG? :(


:angry:

[bolshevik butcher]

Well it's more western people. My familys part ukrianian, and believe me ukriane has bene screwed over reapaditley since the end of the middle ages. I think that since as has already been mentioned the imperialists took ove africa nad bled it dry then it was obviously at a disadvantage. This has continued because of the state they left it in.

As for black people in america, they only fariley recently gained 'equal rights' in theory anyway with white people. And even then they are still on average poorer than white people and the poverty ontinues from generation to generatoin.

[Reds]

From a historical stand point the idea of constant expation is deeply inbeded in many asian and western european cultures weather you mean in a military or business sense while many of the tribal people of the world were more content with there way of life and were run over {mosly by Europe}.

[RedStarOverChina]

The strength and developement of the Nubian Empire in modern day Sudan & Ethopia matched or even excelled that of ancient Egypt.

However, it is true that overall in Africa (with the exception of Egypt and Nubia for a period of time), civilizations are less developed when compared with the Eurasian Continent. That is mainly because of the geographic features of the continent. ALL great civilizations discovered so far were built upon great rivers which gives people the luxery of abundent and STABLE water supply(which is exactly why Egyptians and Nubians were so successful). That means people don't have to spend most of their time transporting or looking for water. Many tribes in Africa have to move constantly in seach of water supplies even today. That prevented many African civilizations from achieving the Neolithic Revolution--in other words, forming an Agrarian(farming based) society.

I guess you can blame it on the climate also.

[Reds]

NWOG and all others interested on this issue might want to read Guns, Germs, and Steel.

[bcbm]

Originally posted by [email protected] 19 2005, 03:43 PM
NWOG and all others interested on this issue might want to read Guns, Germs, and Steel.
Agreed. I think it answers the questions fairly well.

[Colombia]

I don't like the idea of blaming the climate for the lack of industrialization and the amount of poverty facing most of the world especially Africa because how could someone then explain the amount of success nations such as China, or Australia have had with their mostly dessert regions?

I think this issue goes all the way back to the days of the Romans. The Romans were one of the first world superpowers and they did many things to advance technology. They set up a centralized government, made many advances in technology, and so forth. Plus their rule expanded to Europe, the Middle East, and the Northern part of Africa. With their form of rule they gave the people a boost you could say. When the Romans were defeated, they left behind their ideals and the people expanded upon it. Just like to use the example of Great Britain. Now is when I can agree with what redstar said. Seeing that Great Britain was separated from Europe, they were protected from the wars facing the rest of the world, plus seeing the fact that they had such lucious soil, they were able to expand on their ideals of industrilization instead of having to roam around such as places in Africa.

[Non-Sectarian Bastard!]

Originally posted by Black [email protected] 18 2005, 05:27 PM
I know Severian will be in the topic soon (sorry to steal your bit!), and he'll suggest this (http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/detail/-/0393317552/103-2988241-3442235?v=glance) book, 'Guns, Germs, and Steel: The Fates of Human Societies' by Jared Diamond. I've yet to read it, but have read good things about it. My guess is that it will help answer your question.


Crap, you are quik. :P Wanted to suggest the same.

I am getting tired of the traditional leftist stand. "It&#39;s all our fault&#33;". I was at this meeting, where suddenly the question popped up; "why is Africa so poor?". I gave my smartass answer, "due to a combination of the local weather, vegetation and water sources". Guy says my answer is wrong, he says it&#39;s because of European colonialism and slavery. I was like <_<

I could carry it on, but I was there for an entirely different porpuse, so I let it go.

[Non-Sectarian Bastard!]

Originally posted by [email protected] 20 2005, 12:12 PM
I don&#39;t like the idea of blaming the climate for the lack of industrialization and the amount of poverty facing most of the world especially Africa because how could someone then explain the amount of success nations such as China, or Australia have had with their mostly dessert regions?


China&#39;s eastcoast is heavily inhabited and industrialized, the desert area&#39;s in the west are actually very very poor and unindustrialized.

Australia was a colony of the UK (or GB whatever) with a great inflow of European settlers. It received a lot of industrial help and was treated better then other colonies, because of the white population. Even in Australia the deserts have a low population count and industrialization. I don&#39;t know much about the Australian economy though, but wasn&#39;t based a lot on sheep and woll :unsure:

[Severian]

Originally posted by Non&#045;Sectarian Bastard&#33;@Sep 20 2005, 06:54 AM
I am getting tired of the traditional leftist stand. "It&#39;s all our fault&#33;". I was at this meeting, where suddenly the question popped up; "why is Africa so poor?". I gave my smartass answer, "due to a combination of the local weather, vegetation and water sources". Guy says my answer is wrong, he says it&#39;s because of European colonialism and slavery. I was like <_<
Well, the two explanations don&#39;t totally exclude each other.

Eurasia had a head start for reasons Diamond explains (including the ability of ideas, seeds, livestock, etc., to spread widely east and west along the same latitude); then capitalism started in Europe for reasons he mostly doesn&#39;t, though his point about the "chronic political disunity of Europe" has merit as one reason. All this wholly compatible with Marxism IMO; certainly materialist.

But after that point, the ability of other parts of the world to catch up certainly is affected by things like colonialism and slavery. They can&#39;t simply follow the same path as the earliest capitalist states; that&#39;s closed off by the fact others went first, saturate the world market, etc.

Since the opening of the 20th century, some of the formerly colonized countries have achieved a certain degree of industrial development; none have wholly joined the category of advanced capitalist countries. They are eternally "developing" but never developed.

This can&#39;t be explained simply by particular geographical and climate conditions, or the policies of the semicolonial countries, given the large number of countries involved and their varied conditions and policies. IMO it&#39;s a reality of present-day capitalism.

[Black Dagger]

I don&#39;t like the idea of blaming the climate for the lack of industrialization and the amount of poverty facing most of the world especially Africa...

We&#39;re not, climate is just one of many non-human factors that contribute.



because how could someone then explain the amount of success nations such as China, or Australia have had with their mostly dessert regions?

Both China and Australia have incredibly varied climates, neither is &#39;mostly dessert&#39;.



I gave my smartass answer, "due to a combination of the local weather, vegetation and water sources". Guy says my answer is wrong, he says it&#39;s because of European colonialism and slavery.

Hehe, did you mention the atlantic slave trade or colonisation at all? Next-time, start with that stuff and then add, &#39;and also...&#39; Might save you a few verbal lashings :P

[RedStarOverChina]

I have explained my water supply-theory explicitly---and I do stand by that argument.

The Chinese Han civilization did not arise from the deserts, but from the fertile plains around the Yellow River.

Gimme any great civilization and I will name you at least one river that was absolutely ESSENTIAL to its development.

Stable water supply to me, is THE biggest factor in the developement of a civilization. That is not to say that all civilizations residing beside great rivers will become &#39;great&#39;.

[Sa&#39;d al-Bari]

Why do you think, from a historic perspective, that White, Japanese, Chinese people etc. have been much more succesfull, historically, than black people, despite black people having a much longer time to develop their society?.
I’d attribute it to the largely present conditions of scarcity that exist in Africa. If you look at it, much of Africa is mountainous, desert, jungles, savanna and other climates that are not as favorable for human development. In fact, many scientists have reasoned that many humans left Africa when large scale desertification took place. These scarcity conditions means that much more effort needs to be expended on reproduction of human life and lack of means to make this process substantially easier to allow for more advanced social systems to come into existence. Scarcity also means more in fighting between groups of people over areas with adequate resources. In places were there were more favorable conditions, however, more advanced civilization was allowed to develop. Take for instance in Egypt, Kush, and in North Africa as well as else-ware.

Material conditions else-ware, however, allowed for higher modes of production to develop at least before they could come into being in Africa. Since the Europeans began looking towards Africa as a source of trade it has been very repressed and many old civilizations were destroyed. That obviously did not help the situation at all.

[Ownthink]

I would say that because Africans were slaves to the whites, therefor they were held back.

I cannot believe that some people discriminate upon the basis of a fucking skin color. If I woke up Black tomorrow, would I be a different person? No.

I can honestly say that every racist deserves nothing but 2 in the chest and 1 in the head.

[Led Zeppelin]

Gimme any great civilization and I will name you at least one river that was absolutely ESSENTIAL to its development.

Persia.

[Vallegrande]

I found this cuz I still think that all civilizations get their inspiration from black origins. There were black people in Japan, the Americas, and so on. This link appears to accurate in this explanation.

Black Civilizations (http://www.trinicenter.com/FirstChinese.htm)

[Black Dagger]

Persia.

Er... the Tigris and Euphrates?

[foreverfaded]

[QUOTE]I am sorry that I may sound critical, but it seem like very little great has come out from Africa. Quite a few of them today live like humans did 30 000 years ago


They Live like people did 30 000 years ago because the racist bastards went down to Africa, took a bunch of bulky, strong africans and used them for slaves because they were to lazy to do the work themselves

[Led Zeppelin]

Er... the Tigris and Euphrates?

Congratulations, you get one point.

:P

[Karl Marx's Camel]

Many interesting comments. Thanks.


Ouch. Africans sure are backward ay NWOG? sad.gif

From a materialist perspective, Africa is generally more backward than the rest of the planet, don&#39;t you think? Why can you not discuss a topic like an adult?

"Guns, Germs and Steel" sounds interesting.

[Karl Marx's Camel]

clarification, who do you class as black?

Generalization on my part.



haha when i was 4 and i&#39;d just come to australia, this boy in my class called me black. and i showed him a black crayon and held it against my skin and said &#39;im not black, im brown&#33;&#39; but he just wouldnt get it. and i ended up crying out of sheer frustration.

That&#39;s a cute story.

[bcbm]

From a materialist perspective, Africa is generally more backward than the rest of the planet, don&#39;t you think? Why can you not discuss a topic like an adult?

I have a problem with the use of the term "backward." In anycase, Africa has, in the past few centuries, been ravaged by colonialism and imperialism and is today ravaged by the newest manifestations of those systems. Obviously when the resources are stolen from a country, it will be hard to development and strife is inevitable when Europeans pit Africans against each other to further their own agenda.

[Vallegrande]

Well, these are the times when everything is backwards and twisted inside out. Nothing is right or wrong when the people are not of the same mind.

However I see people on the other side of the world who are of the same mind, and know what is right and wrong to them. So they are effective in progressing together. Here in the US no one comes together as strong, so things keep going fucked up.

[Severian]

Originally posted by [email protected] 20 2005, 12:51 PM
Stable water supply to me, is THE biggest factor in the developement of a civilization. That is not to say that all civilizations residing beside great rivers will become &#39;great&#39;.
So the problem with this theory is it doesn&#39;t explain why more civilization developed earlier and more around the Nile than the Mississippi and Amazon. Or, for that matter, why in the Valley of Mexico more than the Mississippi.

(There&#39;s probably truth in it, though: certainly a major river, esp if navigable, is a great asset.)

Diamond does explain it: can&#39;t have agriculture without crops. Can&#39;t have crops without the right wild plants to domesticate. Mesopotamia and the Valley of Mexico were both well-supplied in this respect...but wheat and barley could spread more rapidly east and west than corn could spread north and south. (Need to adapt to different climate across latitude. Took a long time for corn and beans to spread across North America.)

Mesopotamia also had cows, pigs, and sheep. Elsewhere in Eurasia: horses, water buffalo, camels. Donkeys in Egypt, part of the same climate band and zone of trade. All the world&#39;s major domesticable draft animals there. Sub-saharan Africa and especially the Americas were just screwed in that respect.

[Dark Exodus]

Since humanity originated in Africa is it safe to assume that those who stayed and didn&#39;t move out were more content living the way they were whereas the people who moved into Europe, Asia etc. wanted exploration and so forth?
Surely this had some effect on the early (and so, later) developement of these civilisations? History also seemed to continue with this pattern.

[rioters bloc]

Originally posted by [email protected] 22 2005, 02:03 AM
Many interesting comments. Thanks.


Ouch. Africans sure are backward ay NWOG? sad.gif

From a materialist perspective, Africa is generally more backward than the rest of the planet, don&#39;t you think? Why can you not discuss a topic like an adult?

"Guns, Germs and Steel" sounds interesting.
why are we talking about it from a material perspective? are we not meant to be combatting materialism?

using words like &#39;backwards&#39; which holds such negative connotations makes it seems like you think materialism is a good thing, a sign of &#39;progress&#39;.

if civilisation means capitalism, slavery, genocide, then id prefer an uncivilised society any day.

but if you mean knowledge wise, than i suggest you look at africa&#39;s history more closely

[Morpheus]

Originally posted by Dark [email protected] 24 2005, 01:04 PM
Since humanity originated in Africa is it safe to assume that those who stayed and didn&#39;t move out were more content living the way they were whereas the people who moved into Europe, Asia etc. wanted exploration and so forth?
Surely this had some effect on the early (and so, later) developement of these civilisations?
No. The amount of time between leaving Africa and the development of civilization is greater than t he amount of time civilization has been around. So much time that such original reasons would have long been forgotten and dissipated. Plus people moved back and forth between Africa & elsewhere relatively frequently compared to the time scale wer&#39;e talking about. The people originally "leaving Africa" may not have realized they were leaving it or had a concept of "africa." Hunter-gatherers are nomadic, they move from place to place following where the food & resources are the best. This is just as true as those whose path kept them within what we call Africa today and those whose path took it ouside Africa. I don&#39;t see anyreason to assume those nomads who left what we now call africa were any less content than those nomads who stayed within what we now call Africa.

[Shortcake]

Originally posted by [email protected] 18 2005, 04:06 PM


From a historical perspective I&#39;m not so sure black Africans have been "unsuccesful". There were many African tribes that could be compared to European Empires etc. For example the Zulus could be deemed a "succesfull" from a historical perspective.
These "tribes" were still very strong until around 300 years ago. When slavery took hold. You can&#39;t discount the fact that the most able Africans would have been taken as slaves. Why would a slave master take a weak, short, thin man to work in a plantation, when he could just as easily take a strong, tall and bulky man. This in my opinion left African countries with a lack of good, strong workers.
Actually, just the opposite is true. The stronger tribesmen sold their weaker brothers to the Europeans, who transported them to the colonies as slaves. The Europeans did NOT go to Africa and capture natives ... they traded with the existing tribes, and BOUGHT slaves to trade.

[RedStarOverChina]

I didnt say its the only factor in the developmentof a civilization.

So the problem with this theory is it doesn&#39;t explain why more civilization developed earlier and more around the Nile than the Mississippi and Amazon. Or, for that matter, why in the Valley of Mexico more than the Mississippi.

True. Thats cause it&#39;s not what I tried to explain.
Just because rivers are essential to the development of a civ doesnt mean it&#39;s EVERYTHING. Other explanations could be drawn from the fact that many peoples failed to achieve the neolethic revolution and thus failured to qualify as "great" civilizations.

Some possible explanation include:
The failure to develope quality pottery and masonary.
The failure to found a permenent settlement due to various reasons.

[Severian]

Originally posted by Dark [email protected] 24 2005, 07:04 AM
Since humanity originated in Africa is it safe to assume that those who stayed and didn&#39;t move out were more content living the way they were whereas the people who moved into Europe, Asia etc. wanted exploration and so forth?
I&#39;m inclined to say no. Africa has plenty of internal migrations as well, including the huge recent Bantu expansion.

Morpheus&#39; points seem pretty good also.

***

RSOC: OK. I&#39;ll agree it&#39;s one factor.

[Severian]

Originally posted by rioters [email protected] 24 2005, 07:09 AM
why are we talking about it from a material perspective? are we not meant to be combatting materialism?
No, understanding history in terms of material conditions and forces is the only way clearly understand it at all.

What "Materialism" means. (http://www.marxists.org/glossary/terms/m/a.htm#materialism)

[Nothing Human Is Alien]

Originally posted by rioters bloc+Sep 24 2005, 01:09 PM--> (rioters bloc @ Sep 24 2005, 01:09 PM)
[email protected] 22 2005, 02:03 AM
Many interesting comments. Thanks.


Ouch. Africans sure are backward ay NWOG? sad.gif

From a materialist perspective, Africa is generally more backward than the rest of the planet, don&#39;t you think? Why can you not discuss a topic like an adult?

"Guns, Germs and Steel" sounds interesting.
why are we talking about it from a material perspective? are we not meant to be combatting materialism?

using words like &#39;backwards&#39; which holds such negative connotations makes it seems like you think materialism is a good thing, a sign of &#39;progress&#39;.

if civilisation means capitalism, slavery, genocide, then id prefer an uncivilised society any day.

but if you mean knowledge wise, than i suggest you look at africa&#39;s history more closely [/b]
I think you misunderstand the use of materialism comrade.

Not materialism as in valuing &#036;100 nike shoes, materialism as in:

"The theory that physical matter is the only reality and that everything, including thought, feeling, mind, and will, can be explained in terms of matter and physical phenomena."