96
[R*dittor] Why did Africa never develop? I'm not racist, just measuring skulls for science
(lemmygrad.ml)
this post was submitted on 22 Jul 2024
96 points (100.0% liked)
the_dunk_tank
15996 readers
2 users here now
It's the dunk tank.
This is where you come to post big-brained hot takes by chuds, libs, or even fellow leftists, and tear them to itty-bitty pieces with precision dunkstrikes.
Rule 1: All posts must include links to the subject matter, and no identifying information should be redacted.
Rule 2: If your source is a reactionary website, please use archive.is instead of linking directly.
Rule 3: No sectarianism.
Rule 4: TERF/SWERFs Not Welcome
Rule 5: No ableism of any kind (that includes stuff like libt*rd)
Rule 6: Do not post fellow hexbears.
Rule 7: Do not individually target other instances' admins or moderators.
Rule 8: The subject of a post cannot be low hanging fruit, that is comments/posts made by a private person that have low amount of upvotes/likes/views. Comments/Posts made on other instances that are accessible from hexbear are an exception to this. Posts that do not meet this requirement can be posted to !shitreactionariessay@lemmygrad.ml
Rule 9: if you post ironic rage bait im going to make a personal visit to your house to make sure you never make this mistake again
founded 5 years ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
Africa is not a monolith. Neither is development. North Africa was pretty advanced if I recall correctly with people like Mansa Musa and there were very significant cultural and scientific developments in the Muslim world at the time. I think that Europeans had better armaments, armor, naval technology and possibly construction ability. However that is a result of Europe having more easily attainable iron and coal deposits, constant war and England being an island. African animals are also more or less impossible to domesticate (except camels and maybe zebras, but not really) and this gave Europeans a leg up in agriculture and prioritized urban development which in turn leads to ideas spreading faster and more technological development. I think a lot of the gap was due to Europe having more cities, which also allowed for biological warfare. Parts of Africa were incredibly wealthy and developed and parts more or less operated off sustenance farming.
Great Britain is an Island, England is part of that island. Sorry but i gotta point this out when i see fit, cause all of the countries that make up Great Britain played a part in its history, and it's not fair to leave them out.
I apologize to the tea addicts
No need to apologise. Im making the world a better place one american at a time.
I would hazard a guess that the relative smallness of Europe played a factor as well. Less distance between all the major city-centers meant easier dissemination of ideas and trade.
This line of argument makes it seem like there is a set amount of city centers when the amount of city centers is a result of dense populations and urbanisation. The thing you need to look at is why there was no urbanisation to the same extent. Europe was in no way unique in this regard, India, China, Mexico and the Andean societies were at a similar level in the early modern era.
Looking at urbanisation as the ultimate point of a society and development is also kind of a pitfall of traditional eurocentric history writing.
Yeah, although what's odd is that Europeans traveled less because they didn't make pilgrimages to Mecca