Can any Afro/his/ explain to me where it all went wrong?
Africa had wealthy, organized, and technologically decent empires. I would even argue that Europe only surpassed it around the 1500s or so. So why could the Europeans just march in and do what they wanted?
>Parts of Africa had wealthy, organized, and technologically decent empires. I would even argue that Europe only surpassed them around the 1500s or so
Fixed that for you.
A great deal of Africa simply isn't conducive to the natural spread of civilization.
Grecco-Roman and Islamic influence. Literal "niggers from nigger Africa" have only occasionally gotten out of the stone age on their own momentum and even then usually briefly.
>inb4 someone brings up Jared Diamond
Being colonized was the best thing to ever happen to most of Africa; many places went from literal prehistory to a standard of living approaching the first world in the span of less than two centuries.
>colonization fucked up everything
>infrastructure, laws, medicine and education are fucking everything up now
North Africa was the only place that developed significantly, sub Saharan Africa, due to the environment and people has never developed anywhere close to then the level of North Africa. Cry harder though.
On Ethiopia, it probably goes back further.
Axum (Aksum, etc.) was among the 4 greatest empires in the ancient world due to their favorable trade position. Even further, some argue that centralized religion, like the introduction of Christianity supported a strong Ethiopian nation-state.
What changed everything was Islam. After beating back their attempt at conquest in 640 (At the cost of what is today Yemen and Oman), Aksum was then isolated from the rest of the Christian world, namely Europe. They were also cut off from the east as the Arabs took control of the Red Sea. From there on out, Aksum was this island of Christianity in the ever expanding sea of Islam. Being cut off from Europe for centuries inevitably denied them the trade (Which included technology, and other valuables) that led so many lesser European states to success. This was compounded by the same climate change that laid waste to Sudan and hurt Egypt.
Brief contact was re-established with Christian Europe throughout the 13th-18th century, but Ethiopia, already Orthodox, heavily resisted the catholic influence of Rome.
>This is all hearsay so feel free to correct me
I do wonder though, if Ethiopia had maintained consistent contact with Europe, would they have, in turn, flourished? Would Ethiopia have expanded deeper into Africa, or would classical central African diseases have kept them out, like it did the Europeans?
>Would Ethiopia have expanded deeper into Africa, or would classical central African diseases have kept them out, like it did the Europeans?
Most likely diseases would have kept them out. I see little economic initiative to expand into plague-ridden lands. Although, Christianity might have become the dominant religion there instead of Islam due to Ethiopian missionaries and a stronger economic presence. I can, however, see a more powerful Ethiopia expanding along the East African coast and Sudan and maybe even into Arabia.
why did you label 'autonomous settlement' as north african? Timbuktu was founded by Tuareg who are a mixed Sahelian and North African people.
>Timbulku maniscript were made by north african or /and when Timbuktu was under north african rule.
also the manuscripts were being pumped out throughout Timbuktu's history. It's dishonest to claim "they were made when it was under NA rule", a more accurate statement would be "the earliest ones were made during Tuareg rule.
With the exception of North Africa and Ethiopia, Africa's huge deserts and rainforests meant warfare and trade across several kingdoms and empires was almost impossible and warfare and trade was what made Europe and to some extent, the Middle East, more advanced and superior. Also, the majority of Africa had no interaction with Ancient Indian and Persian civilizations and had no interaction with the Roman empire
>European underdevelopment of the continent has left it in the hole that is is in today.
This the dumbest talking point, the resources pourded into Africa after WW2 is immense. All of the scandinavian countries had 1-2% budged spending on charity. Every year since 1990 Norway has donated more than 100 million NOK to Tanzania, the last t decaded is has useually been around 400 million. This is just from the statebudget, there are also priavte charities that donate sveral million every year in equipment, volunteers, food etc. Then there are the donations from all the other european countries, nort america and the developed asian counties.
That didn't do much to counteract the damage already done, much of the money donated was for slums that were only created due to colonialism. For example, Kibera is one of the biggest slums in the world and it was started by Sudanese soldiers who were literally just left there by the British. Also, most countries were "uncolonised" quite carelessly and recklessly with left a lot of political instability, leading to dictatorships, civil wars, endless coups, warlords, etc. This also lead to horrible situations such as the Partition of India in which millions of Hindus and Sikhswhere expelled from and killed by Muslims in Pakistan.
Once Europeans shifted away from slaves as a luxury good and toward slaves as essential equipment for the plantation schema they turned on former allies like Angola and started supporting less civilized/stable African tribes in attacks/slave raids against the kingdoms. The cultural core of Africa got eviscerated then replaced by European tyranny which meant that after decolonization there was no real cultural basis to build on.