Law8 mins ago
Europe vs Africa
What are the theories about why Europe progressed as it did on so many fronts whereas Africa did not.
This isn't a homework question but one which came up for discussion among us 70 year olds following the inauguration of Obama.
.
This isn't a homework question but one which came up for discussion among us 70 year olds following the inauguration of Obama.
.
Answers
1 to 13 of 13
Best Answer
No best answer has yet been selected by Segilla. Once a best answer has been selected, it will be shown here.
For more on marking an answer as the "Best Answer", please visit our FAQ.
more natural resources and a more temperate climate? Africans have to spend much of their time scratching for the essentials, including safe water.
Another question might be how America got so far ahead of Europe. I don't see any likelihood of a black man being elected in Europe any time soon. This is partly because black people are a smaller and more recent minority in European countries; but considering that slavery persisted in America until 150 years ago, and gross racial prejudice until 50 years ago, US society has come a long way in a short time. Just a personal opinion, but I don't think European countries have done the same, at least in the field of race. (They have however gone further in abandoning homophobia.)
Another question might be how America got so far ahead of Europe. I don't see any likelihood of a black man being elected in Europe any time soon. This is partly because black people are a smaller and more recent minority in European countries; but considering that slavery persisted in America until 150 years ago, and gross racial prejudice until 50 years ago, US society has come a long way in a short time. Just a personal opinion, but I don't think European countries have done the same, at least in the field of race. (They have however gone further in abandoning homophobia.)
The USA did not elect a black man, they elected a man who is half black and half white.
This is an important difference, I dont think they would have elected a totally black man (I may be wrong).
I think a black, or half caste, man (or woman) could be elected in Europe if they had the same "look" and presence as Barack does.
Image is very important, and if Barrack had very pronounced negroid features I doubt he would have got in.
I am trying not to be "racist" here, but Barracks looks and image have helped him get elected.
This is an important difference, I dont think they would have elected a totally black man (I may be wrong).
I think a black, or half caste, man (or woman) could be elected in Europe if they had the same "look" and presence as Barack does.
Image is very important, and if Barrack had very pronounced negroid features I doubt he would have got in.
I am trying not to be "racist" here, but Barracks looks and image have helped him get elected.
To try to answer Segilla's original question.
Remember that at different times in history different areas of the world have been ahead of others, irrespective of where they are in the world.
We in Europe have been WAY behind other parts of the world in the past.
Egypt was building palaces and pyramids while we were still living in mud huts in the UK (having thousands of slaves helps).
Other countries like China, India and Iraq developed many of the things we take for granted nowadays (like alphabet, mathematics etc) while we were still living in mud huts.
The Romans came here 2,000 years ago when we were still living in mud huts, and they built roads, cities, fine houses with central heating, and had great organizational skills.
When they left the roads they built fell in to disrepair, and we did not have roads that good for over 1800 years.
What really helps is being able to grow enough food so that everyone does not have to spend all their time farming.
Once some people get "spare time" they invent things, become artists and poets, and civilization can develop.
I am sure if Mozart had had to milk 300 cows a day he would not have been able to write some many great pieces of music.
Remember that at different times in history different areas of the world have been ahead of others, irrespective of where they are in the world.
We in Europe have been WAY behind other parts of the world in the past.
Egypt was building palaces and pyramids while we were still living in mud huts in the UK (having thousands of slaves helps).
Other countries like China, India and Iraq developed many of the things we take for granted nowadays (like alphabet, mathematics etc) while we were still living in mud huts.
The Romans came here 2,000 years ago when we were still living in mud huts, and they built roads, cities, fine houses with central heating, and had great organizational skills.
When they left the roads they built fell in to disrepair, and we did not have roads that good for over 1800 years.
What really helps is being able to grow enough food so that everyone does not have to spend all their time farming.
Once some people get "spare time" they invent things, become artists and poets, and civilization can develop.
I am sure if Mozart had had to milk 300 cows a day he would not have been able to write some many great pieces of music.
Yes, VHG is right: much of the basis of modern European civilisation was the Greek and Roman eras - but knowledge of them mostly died out for centuries. It was actually Arabic scholars who preserved them for us; Europeans only discovered them again at the time of the renaissance.
And yet the once brilliant and outward-looking Arabic civilisations have since become introspective; and Chinese civilisation, which is almost as old as the ancient Egyptians, also turned inwards.
The thing is surplus. If people produce more than they need, as VHG says, it leaves them time to think and invent and explore - even if the Chinese didn't really take the opportunity. I think Africa's climate and harsh geography have always made this difficult.
And yet the once brilliant and outward-looking Arabic civilisations have since become introspective; and Chinese civilisation, which is almost as old as the ancient Egyptians, also turned inwards.
The thing is surplus. If people produce more than they need, as VHG says, it leaves them time to think and invent and explore - even if the Chinese didn't really take the opportunity. I think Africa's climate and harsh geography have always made this difficult.
-- answer removed --
Just a wild card in this debate, but I wonder if the exportation of thousands of people as slaves in the transatlantic trade had an impact on Africa's development? Both from the viewpoint of decimating several generations, and their potential talent, but also by focusing economic activity into feeding this trade instead of developing others.
If anone was watching the TV programme on science and Islam, they'll be aware of the point made that a country's richness is the major factor in the development of science.
Islamic trade and expansion allowed rich rulers to scour the known world for knowledge and investigate nature.
This was also the reason for Chinese discoveries and inventions.
Later, in Europe, the discovery of the New World and its riches, and the enormous profits from trade with the Far East produced the same effect, and resulted in the Renaissance.
In Africa, this pattern never developed.
Islamic trade and expansion allowed rich rulers to scour the known world for knowledge and investigate nature.
This was also the reason for Chinese discoveries and inventions.
Later, in Europe, the discovery of the New World and its riches, and the enormous profits from trade with the Far East produced the same effect, and resulted in the Renaissance.
In Africa, this pattern never developed.
>It may have something to do with 5 European powers >who Scrambled for Africa,
Yes but that just "proves" that we were already well ahead of Africa in terms of development, even BEFORE we colonised the place.
The fact that we had built the boats, and gone exploring, while the people in Africa were still living in mud huts.
While we may have stopped some development once we had got there, we certainly could not have affected it BEFORE we got there.
And it could be argued that South Africa for example is far more developed and advanced than it would have been if we had NOT gone there.
Yes but that just "proves" that we were already well ahead of Africa in terms of development, even BEFORE we colonised the place.
The fact that we had built the boats, and gone exploring, while the people in Africa were still living in mud huts.
While we may have stopped some development once we had got there, we certainly could not have affected it BEFORE we got there.
And it could be argued that South Africa for example is far more developed and advanced than it would have been if we had NOT gone there.
Of course you could ask the same question about a number of other civilisations.
Australian Aboriginees for example or to a lesser extent American Indians.
Or you could ask why we progressed when we did.
Humans have been in our current form for 100,000 years
And yet we only have any real civilisations of note in the last 6-8 thousand years.
As has been pointed out Northern Europe was a slow starter, Chinese, Indian and Islamic Science made us look like savages really up to the start of the 17th Century.
I think it was movable type printing that really lit the fuse - all of a sudden ideas were flying about that couldn't be contained and we were off.
But dont forget there were great African civilisations that died - we don't hear much about them but you should check out:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Monomotapa
and especially
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_Ethiop ia
Australian Aboriginees for example or to a lesser extent American Indians.
Or you could ask why we progressed when we did.
Humans have been in our current form for 100,000 years
And yet we only have any real civilisations of note in the last 6-8 thousand years.
As has been pointed out Northern Europe was a slow starter, Chinese, Indian and Islamic Science made us look like savages really up to the start of the 17th Century.
I think it was movable type printing that really lit the fuse - all of a sudden ideas were flying about that couldn't be contained and we were off.
But dont forget there were great African civilisations that died - we don't hear much about them but you should check out:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Monomotapa
and especially
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_Ethiop ia
-- answer removed --
1 to 13 of 13
Latest Posts
ChatterBank12 mins ago
ChatterBank14 mins ago
Arts & Literature16 mins ago
ChatterBank19 mins ago
 |
|
|
 |
|
|
|
|