odumchi:

It would've been utterly impossible for any Nigerian group to have knowledge of Roman and Greek technology in the 17th century. In fact, in this time period, the Europeans themselves were re-discovering these long-lost ideas.

Europeans were re-discovering the Roman and Greek Technologies in the 17th Century? Do you realize how absurd that is given that Rome has been at the very heart of European civilization even through to the 17th century and beyond? You do know that the Roman Catholic Church essentially ruled much of Europe till even the 17th century?

odumchi:
When analayzing these things, you must consider the situations in which these individual civilizations developed and formed. The factors that drove the Romans to conquer the Mediterranean basin were not the same that drove the Asanti to unite. When talking about things like this, you need to consider geography, history, climate, and etc.

Just to let you know, Africans had irrigation and roads prior to the advent of Westerners.

Sure, Africans had irrigations and roads prior to the advent of westerners. . . where are those roads and how come they choose to retrogress instead of progressing in 'irrigation and roads prior to the advent of Westerners'? And who are these westerners by the way? The Arabs? the Chinese, the portugese who frequented Africa long before those you term "westerners", today, showed up to the scene?

Also are you suggesting that when some parts of Africa is up for discussion, comes to development geography, history, climate should only then be considered as 'inhibiting' factors to development and progress?

odumchi:

The Sahara made it very difficult (and nearly impossible) to travel northward. The last great pre-European flow of ideas into sub-Saharan Africa was brought about by the Arabs who brought Islam (and some of the technological advances of the Islamic world) into the Saharan region. Other than that, sub-Sharan Africa has been relatively isolated from the rest of the world for thousands of years.

Only East and North Africa had any real contact with the outside world.

Soooooo . . . . the same sahara did not make it difficult for those in Europe, Asia, Arabia to cross over to the same areas into and out of Africa? The same Sahara, in which many African tribes were found then, and today, made it near impossuble for those living in those zones to freely explore even the horn of Africa and beyond? They were essentially stuck in Africa because of the Sahara? Is that what you are saying? The same Sahara that even today Africans cross in about the same way as they did 1000s of years ago . . that Sahara? The Sahara is to blame?

Kobojunkie:

Soooooo . . . . the same sahara did not make it difficult for those in Europe, Asia, Arabia to cross over to the same areas into and out of Africa? The same Sahara, in which many African tribes were found then, and today, made it near impossuble for those living in those zones to freely explore even the horn of Africa and beyond? They were essentially stuck in Africa because of the Sahara? Is that what you are saying? The same Sahara that even today Africans cross in about the same way as they did 1000s of years ago . . that Sahara? The Sahara is to blame?

Essentially, Africans, at the time of the 18th century industrial revolution, were still busy picking up the pieces of their disrupted existence, caused by massive southwards migrations from the Nile Valley region, a region which in antiquity, contained by far the largest population of black Africans on the continent, but came to be abandoned following desertification of the Sahara and foreign invasions. Modern day excavations have found evidence of settled communities of millions of people living in the Sahara region thousands of years ago.

In the 7th Century AD, Africans lost their control and dominance of the northern tip of the continent, following the Arab invasion of Egypt, and subsequent migration southwards of Africans fleeing Arab enslavers. Importantly, they also lost their connection with the mediterranean, and the global interchange of ideas leading to modern societies, that was to shortly follow, with the mediterranean forming the highway and crossroads of that information revolution.

By the time the social disruptions caused by the migrations in the continent were subsiding, and giving way to stable societies, the industrial revolution was upon us. Before you knew it, the slave ships were at our shores.

So we need to go back a very long time to determine how it all went pear-shaped.

Kobojunkie: Europeans were re-discovering the Roman and Greek Technologies in the 17th Century? Do you realize how absurd that is given that Rome has been at the very heart of European civilization even through to the 17th century and beyond? You do know that the Roman Catholic Church essentially ruled much of Europe till even the 17th century?

After the fall of Rome in 476 AD, Roman and Greek advancements disappeared from Western Europe and were not seen again until the cultural and scientific revival known as The Renaissance (15th century - 17th century). For nearly a thousand years (5th century - 15th century) Western Europe was plunged in stagnant darkness.

Kobojunkie:
Sure, Africans had irrigations and roads prior to the advent of westerners. . . where are those roads and how come they choose to retrogress instead of progressing in 'irrigation and roads prior to the advent of Westerners'? And who are these westerners by the way? The Arabs? the Chinese, the portugese who frequented Africa long before those you term "westerners", today, showed up to the scene?

The advent of the Europeans was generally very destructive to African societies. The Europeans brought about rapid change which resulted in the deteriation of societies, empires, kingdoms, and states. For example, in its day, Timbuktu was more advanced and wealthier than any city in Europe and boasted a population in excess of one hundred thousand; now what is it today?

The term "Westerner" refers to Western Europeans (Portuguese, Spanish, English, French, Dutch, and Belgian). Prior to the advent of Western Europeans, the Arabs, the Indians, and the Chinese all traded with the East African trading states. In the north, the Arabs interacted with North African peoples but were unable to move further south because of the Sahara. In fact, the Sahara is the reason why Islam is predominant in northern and Sahelic Africa. If not for the Sahara, much of Africa would've probably been Islamized.

Kobojunkie: Also are you suggesting that when some parts of Africa is up for discussion, comes to development geography, history, climate should only then be considered as 'inhibiting' factors to development and progress?

That's exactly what I'm saying.

Kobojunkie:

Soooooo . . . . the same sahara did not make it difficult for those in Europe, Asia, Arabia to cross over to the same areas into and out of Africa? The same Sahara, in which many African tribes were found then, and today, made it near impossuble for those living in those zones to freely explore even the horn of Africa and beyond? They were essentially stuck in Africa because of the Sahara? Is that what you are saying? The same Sahara that even today Africans cross in about the same way as they did 1000s of years ago . . that Sahara? The Sahara is to blame?

You're choosing to ignore the significance of geography in world history. The Europeans and the Asians never crossed the Sahara. The Arabs (to the best of my knowledge) never crossed it either. The only people to cross the Sahara were indigenous merchant caravaners who served as middlemen to the Arabs in the north and the Africans in the south.

The reason why Europeans called Africa "the dark continent" was because they didn't have any knowledge of anything south of the Sahara. It wasn't until European seafarers began sailing down the West Afrifan coast that the West learned about sub-Saharan Africa.

odumchi:

You're choosing to ignore the significance of geography in world history. The Europeans and the Asians never crossed the Sahara. The Arabs (to the best of my knowledge) never crossed it either. The only people to cross the Sahara were indigenous merchant caravaners who served as middlemen to the Arabs in the north and the Africans in the south.

Europeans, and Asians did cross the Sahara. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sahara

odumchi:
The reason why Europeans called Africa "the dark continent" was because they didn't have any knowledge of anything south of the Sahara. It wasn't until European seafarers began sailing down the West Afrifan coast that the West learned about sub-Saharan Africa.

I don't see the relevance of this information here. We all know that that same "dark continent" Was colonized from the horn in the north, down to the south by the very Europeans you speak of.

Now let us get back to the topic which I believe you know has nothing to do with 99% of what you have presented on this issue so far.

Kobojunkie:

Europeans, and Asians did cross the Sahara. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sahara

You just gave me the wiki link to the Sahara desert; I didn't see anything there that said anything about Europeans/Asians crossing the Sahara. By "Asian" who are you referring to (since historically Arabs aren't referred to as Asians)?

Kobojunkie:
I don't see the relevance of this information here. We all know that that same "dark continent" Was colonized from the horn in the north, down to the south by the very Europeans you speak of.

Now let us get back to the topic which I believe you know has nothing to do with 99% of what you have presented on this issue so far.

The relevance is that knowledge of sub-Saharan Africa was only possible with the development of ocean-going vessels; Europeans knew little to nothing about anything below the Sahara.

odumchi:

You just gave me the wiki link to the Sahara desert; I didn't see anything there that said anything about Europeans/Asians crossing the Sahara. By "Asian" who are you referring to (since historically Arabs aren't referred to as Asians)?

um . . . there presence in the Sahara means they crossed into it from someplace, whether from the North or the South or the East . . they were able to migrate into and out of the Sahara. That wiki page tells you some of that.

odumchi:
The relevance is that knowledge of sub-Saharan Africa was only possible with the development of ocean-going vessels; Europeans knew little to nothing about anything below the Sahara.

Again, this thread is not on Europeans . . but on Africans going out to explore and bring back ideas to develop their own land. As far back as 300 BC, there are records of Africans reaching Rome . . . so, it know that Africa was not as isolated as you pretend it was then and is today. Africans did go out and some of them did come back.
The question the @OP now poses why didn't the Africans of those days apply the technologies, knowledge, etc, of their time to developing Africa.

What a funny thread!

@OP, Did you choose your parents or manipulate how you ended up being an African? Don't blame the current woes on people who have lived, departed and gone forever. Let's concentrate our efforts on people on are still here with us yet destroying everything around us in the name of leadership. That's what should be our focus.

We have seen countries that have been transformed in a space of two decades while other like Nigeria continue to wallow in monumental abject poverty. There must be something we are doing wrong. Let's examine it and see how it can be solved.

Kobojunkie:

How was black Africa "cut off" from other cultures and climes? Please explain to us how.

Sahara desert and the sea.

Otoh, Europe and Asia are on the same continent (Eurasia)..

Kobojunkie: um . . . there presence in the Sahara means they crossed into it from someplace, whether from the North or the South or the East . . they were able to migrate into and out of the Sahara. That wiki page tells you some of that.

I don't think you fully comprehend the enormous geographic barrier presented to sub-Saharan Africans as the Sahara desert. The desert was very difficult to cross due to its vast size and sheer inhospitality. I've also never heard of Asians (Indians/Persians/etc) crossing it.

Kobojunkie:
Again, this thread is not on Europeans . . but on Africans going out to explore and bring back ideas to develop their own land. As far back as 300 BC, there are records of Africans reaching Rome . . . so, it know that Africa was not as isolated as you pretend it was then and is today. Africans did go out and some of them did come back.
The question the @OP now poses why didn't the Africans of those days apply the technologies, knowledge, etc, of their time to developing Africa.

If the Europeans didn't have knowledge of anything south of the Sahara then it's implied that the sub-Saharan peoples had little to no knowledge of anything above it. Other than the indigenous nomadic traders that roamed it, very few people crossed it not to talk of entire peoples migrating across. Today, with all our technology, it is still very difficult to cross the Sahara not to talk of thousands of years ago.

Let me say it again: "black" Africa was kept out of the loop of technological advancement that spread across Eurasia due to the Sahara. Our ancestors used what they had to satisfy their needs.

This might sound condescending. But I think some people are just [i]content [/i]being stuck in their ways. Check out indigenous tribes that still exist today. . . same ole, same ole . It kinda insinuates something I really don't want to agree with.

I believe Africa is going through some dark ages synonymous to that of Europe after the fall of the roman empire. Figuratively, our 'Roman empire' is/was colonization. Time would tell if we would achieve some sort of 'renaissance' and self actualization.

[size=18pt]South Korea barley 100 years ago (early 20th century)[/size]

[img]http://hiddenconnections.files./2011/06/2421804321_4b6c8a8c5b.jpg[/img][img]http://koreanhistory.info/offical.jpg[/img]
[img]http://koreanhistory.info/streetcar.jpg[/img]

100 years later:

stillwater: This might sound condescending. But I think some people are just [i]content [/i]being stuck in their ways. Check out indigenous tribes that still exist today. . . same ole, same ole . It kinda insinuates something I really don't want to agree with.

I believe Africa is going through some dark ages synonymous to that of Europe after the fall of the roman empire. Figuratively, our 'Roman empire' is/was colonization. Time would tell if we would achieve some sort of 'renaissance' and self actualization.

We're not aggressive and united enough to pull-off an African/black 'renaissance'... We also need a united belief system to be able to pull it off.... Europe had Christianity, and the Crusaders were at the forefront of the European renaissance... They started off by fighting off Muslims - and subsequently, the trans-Atlantic slavery and the colonisation of Africa and Asia...

ezeagu: [size=18pt]South Korea barley 100 years ago (early 20th century)
100 years later:

That's industralisation - but do we have the brains to pull it off?

shymexx:

We're not aggressive and united enough to pull-off an African/black 'renaissance'... We also need a united belief system to be able to pull it off.... Europe had Christianity, and the Crusaders were at the forefront of the European renaissance... They started off by fighting off Muslims - and subsequently, the trans-Atlantic slavery and the colonisation of Africa and Asia...

So what do you think can unite Africa, apart from music lol? I remember Gadhafi was thinking along the lines of having a United States of Africa. How plausible do you think that is?

stillwater:

So what do you think can unite Africa, apart from music lol? I remember Gadhafi was thinking along the lines of having a United States of Africa. How plausible do you think that is?

Nothing is impossible, we just need re-education and the knowledge of self(knowing who we're)... Tribalism is our biggest problem(I'm guilty of that as well)... But hey, I learned mine on NL... However, I'm bored of it now - and I hope others will get bored of it as well and look at the bigger picture...

We don't need a united African country(something like USA) - to be united... We can be our separate countries(like EU), speak with one voice, and have one vision(which is liberating Africa)... Ghaddafi tried his best possible but he's gone(just like those before him)... However, you and I(and others who believe in Africa) can take over from where he left off... We don't need to be the face of the struggle, but we can help in our own little way by educating others on why Africa/Africans need to stand together and speak with one voice/worl closely in world affairs... There's power in numbers...

I hope I'm making sense.

Horus:
I think you got it all wrong. China and Japan keeep and follow their tradition and culture and this is why they are very powerfull nations. China and Japan are not underdeveloped and have a very strong tradition and culture. Nigeria is underdeveloped because of corruption and mismanagement.

Pagan Traditional Culture to be precise. even South Korea and parts of India.

Its convinent for us to blame our fore fathers but the question is, what are "we" doing to ensure our grand children won't say same of us?

@ifyalways.we are not blaming our forefathers,we are analysing what wentt wrong,sure many of us here are doing our bit to better things.
....And note,I did not say all our forefathers,meaning some did well. presently,many are doing things but maybe not the right things.
If we face core research and developement,we will go places.that's what changed the lot of the very technologically advanced nations on earth today.
MASSIVE FUNDING IN ALL DIRECTIONS WILL CHANGE ALL THAT.
As shymeexx noted,there is power in NUMBERS.
Great contributions,guys.

shymexx:

Nothing is impossible, we just need re-education and the knowledge of self(kniwong who we're)... Tribalism is our biggest problem(I'm guilty of that as well)... But hey, I learned mine on NL... However, I'm bored of it now - and I hope others will get bored of it as well and look at the bigger picture...

We don't need a united African country(something like USA) - to be united... We can be our separate countries(like EU), speak with one voice, and have one vision(which is liberating Africa)... Ghaddafi tried his best possible but he's gone(just like those before him)... However, you and I(and others who believe in Africa) can take over from where he left off... We don't need to be the face of the struggle, but we can help in our own little way by educating others on why Africa/Africans need to stand together and speak with one voice/worl closely in world affairs... There's power in numbers...

I hope I'm making sense.

religion (foreign) is a bigger problem than Tribalism. Also in our drive to eradicate Tribalism , let us not go to the extent of destroying the tribes itself. Tribes are what make Africa. Tribes are Arica .

james1:
Horus,I feel you But don't you think corruption is not the only factor.
Technological know how is our greatest undoing.
If our forefathers had worked without allowing themselves to be used,9ja would have been better.

What have your so called literate generation achieved?..