Thanks. I really hoped I would have gotten more posts. I would have loved to have started a discussion.

Hertsnite: The people who built stone henge in England 5,000 years ago in the bronze age were more advanced than most of Sub-sahran Africa before 1882.

In the early centuries of the common era, Europe was still mostly tribal, whereas the Nok culture was on the decline after having experience over a millennium of high civilization. At this time, Tekrur was on the verge of incline.

So what are you talking about?

Hertsnite: I very much doubt you would have advanced technologically or socially very far.

West Africa was just as advanced, if not more advanced than most of Europe throughout most of the medieval era. So was Nubia and Ethiopia.

Hertsnite: Africans are hypocrites for moaning about how the white man brought all Africa's ills and woes through colonialism, yet why is it every country in Africa aspires to ape modern Western European society today.

It's the only model some of them think they have, although many of them are turning to China now. In either case, they would be better off following their own African model instead of a Western one, or an Asian one.

Hertsnite: Look at the Australian Aboriginals, they were disconnected from the rest of human civilization for 40,000 years and they were still in the stone age 200 years ago when the white man came along.

If Europeans were never influenced by Middle Easterners and Africans, they would be too.

Hertsnite: The parts of Africa untouched by Arab or European civilization were not dissimilar to the very late stone age in Europe.

Explain how the Kongo/Luango Kingdoms, Yoruba Kingdoms, and the Shona Kingdoms were "not dissimilar to the very late stone age in Europe."

Hertsnite: Without colonialism Africa would still be in the stone age/iron age hunting with spears and living in mud huts.

During the Middle Ages West Africa was wealthier than Europe. Central and southern Africa developed highly sophisticated political systems in the societies of Kongo, Luango, Luba, Lunda, Mutapa, and Zimbabwe.

Without colonialism, Africans would have thrived.

I frequently encounter people who are, as I like to call them, historical illiterates. I don't fault people for not knowing certain things about history, but when people, especially racist slime molds, try to pontificate about African people and African history in a way that makes Black people inherently incapable of normal functionality, these people always end up distorting our history so greatly that it becomes unrecognizable in comparison with reality.

In reality, these people are taking a present state of affairs concerning Africa and Africans and interpreting it as a result of a long history of failure. They use phrases like “you people are STILL in the stone ages”. The use the word “still” as if Africans have never seen metal before, let alone smelted it and made tools, crafts, weapons and arts out of it.

Some will say that Africans have never built any civilization before and that any “so called” civilization they did manage to create could not measure up to an actual "authentic" civilization with the likes of that of other nations found in Europe and Asia. Not only are they wrong, in the sense that Nubia, Ethiopia, West Africa and the East Coast of Africa were are highly advanced truly Black civilizations, but even the interior, non influenced peoples of the Kongo, Yoruba, Luba, and Mutapa achieved highly evolved societies.

They will say that Africans were illiterate and never formed their own writing. When you inform them that West African and East African Muslims were indeed literate and wrote many manuscripts, poems, scribes, they will say that these people were “influenced” by the Arabs, as though this somehow discounts their achievements.

Throughout history most people were influenced by some outside source. Greece was not literate until it received influence from the Middle east. Arabs themselves garnered much influence, not only in writing, but in the Islamic culture they manifested, from places such as Persia, the Mediterranean, India and even China. For these people, being influenced by outsiders is normal and commonplace, yet when Africans are influenced, it is because they are somehow inferior and couldn't do it by themselves. Yet at the time of Greece and Rome, most of the rest of Europe was also illiterate and didn't become literate until after the the AD period.

I recently came across a forum thread with yet another racist spouting his usual illiterate nonsense. He, like many racists, actually believes that Africans are better off being dominated by non-Blacks than themselves, and that that is the only way or the best way Africa will ever prosper.

Here my response to some of his comments. His statements are marked in bold. Enjoy:

“Over 40 million people in China live in caves. FACT. However that is for a different reason, not poverty. The reasons that they have not advanced is that If the average IQ of a country is 74.... they arent going to be advanced.. regardless of race.”

If I were to concede this to be true, it still wouldn't matter because there is no evidence that African IQ is inherently low. An African who lives in desperate poverty is obviously going to have a lower IQ than one who was raised in a middle-class or upper-class environment.

Furthermore, there is no evidence that Africans today have an overall lower IQ than that of Africans who lived 500-1000 years ago. Saying that Africa is in a poor state because of low IQ completely ignores the fact that these very same supposedly “low IQ” people are responsible for creating stable and prosperous societies all the way up to when colonialism started or before they were destroyed by either Europeans or Berbers.

“To blame whites for the failures of africa is so unfair since BLACKS and ARABS invented black slavery (not whites).....”

This is a non-sequitur. People blame White people for Africa's troubles because they colonized Africa, destroyed many of their kingdoms, exploited them for their resources, subjugated the locals, incited ethnic warring, among many other things. White people didn't invent Black slavery, but they did practice an alien brand of slavery known as chattel slavery. Africans never did this to each other traditionally.

They definitely did not treat slaves as inferior beings or less than human. They did not rape the mothers of their slaves. They did not chop off their hands, or hang them or whip them senselessly, or any of the other myriad of inhumane acts that Europeans enacted on Africans.

There is simply no logical way you can ever equate the level of barbarism Europeans inflicted on Africans with any so called “African” form of traditional slavery.

“and whites BUILT africa. We are the ones who put industry there to begin with. If we hadnt gone into africa EVER.. it would be WORSE off not better off.”

Nobody “built” Africa. Africa is a continent that was here before Euros existed and will be here until this Earth collapses.

The first industries in Africa were spawned by Africans themselves, way before colonialism, Islam, or even the ancient Greece civilization reached it's maturity. Nubia and Egypt were the earliest wealthy economies in Africa.

Over in West Africa—and this was still before Ancient Greece had become established—you still had industries comprised of local crafts such as tools, weapons, iron, food stuffs, cloth, and other personal ornaments and adornments that were traded across long distances by both agriculturalists and pastoralists.

So in other words, nobody “introduced” industry into Africa as it was an indigenous development, just as with agriculture, iron-working, state development, and democratic polities.

“If japanese or european men were in control of africa as leaders and presidents... it would be more successful. There would be fewer people starving.”

Well if competent, erudite, and altruistic Black men were in control of Africa as leaders and presidents, would they not also manifest the same presumed effect you are describing?

Why is race being posited as some sort of missing link as to the reason problems why are occurring in Africa? Again, if Africa's current scene is a result of an intrinsic defect in Africans based off them being Black, then how is it Africans throughout history have been able to build stable and prosperous societies?

This is an issue of knowledge and application. Things that were done to heal other countries that were in poor conditions can be done to help Africa. End of.

“The biggest mistake africans EVER made.. was kicking the colonialists out. Africa would be way more successful if the colonialists were still in power.... but I can understand why they'd want to run their own countries... but they never do right.”

The Mossi did it right. They were highly democratic, family oriented, and had no sense of the kind of “individualism” that can commonly be seen today in western societies. They ran their governments as competently as any successful government. They of course, are not nearly the only ones to do this, but I just wanted to make known that, yes, Africans can and have run their own societies in ways of such adeptness and fairness that could rival any contemporary European society prior to colonial intervention.

Saying that Africans don't have the inherent ability to rule over their own selves is completely ignorant and shows the type of feeble logic that permeates the minds of people who think like you.

For example, if you are suggesting that, because (according to you) Africa was more successful in a past era, colonialism, that it is today, and therefore, logically it would make sense to revert back to the economic and political set up that occurred during that time, with White people lording over Blacks like cattle, then could one not use that very same logic to go back even further in history before colonialism even existed in Africa?

Back to a time when Africans not only ruled themselves, without the help of any European or anyone else, but to a time when Africans displayed inspiring levels of sophistication and efficiency in the way they ran and governed their societies and manifested wealth for their nations?

If we are to use history as an example as to what Africans should now aspire for, then wouldn't it make sense to revert back to a time when African societies were self sufficient as opposed to being reliant on the White man? But of course, because you don't read, you don't even realize that such a time period ever existed in African history, which is why you spew such ignorant rhetoric.

“Black men have yet to even give black women equal rights in many africancountries. The most basic thing. African leaders have been ruthless dictators like idi amin. They kill their rivals. They dont allow freedom of speech. BLack men ran africa into a hole by being ruthless dictators. Nobody else did it for them. They fought for "freedom" from the colonialists.. and then became RUTHLESS DICTATORS (sometimes genocidal madmen) who killed anybody who wanted freedom from their dicatorships. They became WORSE than the colonialists.”

This is partly true. I have never denied the senseless atrocities committed by Africans themselves onto other Africans. However, these are all recent events in comparison to the multi-millennia track record of Africans have been making civilizations. You make it seem like Africa never had a history beyond colonialism. The same way uneducated Europeans seem to think that African Americans never had a history beyond slavery.

Even while slavery was still taking place, African Diasporans achieved much greatness. A lot of people don't know that there were many Blacks, during the slavery era, that bought their freeedom or were born free, or took their freedom by rebellion or escape, and become enterprising citizens, engaging in trade and business just as any White man. In Brazil, you had the notable example of the Palmares who created their very own African state.

As an aside, another occurrence a lot of people don't know about is that during this time, you also had African slaves who were literate and could write. Some slaves were even more literate than their masters. Most of these literate slaves were Muslim and because their religion requires them having knowledge of Koranic principles, and thus knowing how to read them, there were a substantial amount of literate Black Muslims who were slaves but still ended up playing a substantial role in Black achievement during these oppressive times.

I always find it amusing when you have racists claim that Blacks are stupid,“monkies” and all this childish nonsense, but they don't even read and aren't even educated on the topic they seem to be the most obsessed with; Black people.

So yes, a corrupt, dictatorial African is way worse than an non corrupt and non dictatorial European. But then again, an altruistic, democratic, and competent African leader would be better than a corrupt, dictatorial, and non-democratic European leader.

The character traits one exhibits are what ultimately make that person a good or bad leader. The color of skin one has has nothing to do with whether they are or will be a good leader or not.

“Every society that is beneath the equator... stayed primitive too long. Australia ... south america.... and africa. They all stayed primitive for too long because they were isolated from the progress of whites and asians. At best.. africans could emulate arab advancement but arabs were never really thatadvanced. If black africans lived next to europe instead of arabs and berbers ... maybe they would have been more successful because they could have been emulating european success all those centuries.”

The kingdoms of Central Africa and the West African forest region were relatively uninfluenced by either Europe or Asia, yet they still created phenomenally stable and prosperous kingdoms.

In Nigeria, you had the Ibgo-Ukwu, or the Nri people. They are highly adept bronze-makers who with their crafts, demonstrated geometric exactitude and perfection of form. These people were obviously not “primitive”. They were also not poor, as they “acquired a well-founded reputation for enterprise in trade”(Davidson 1998).

The Igbo were not known to have centralized government, and they lacked an army, yet they were “fiercely democratic” and their system of democracy was “very much in line with the democratic habits of the modern world”(Davidson 1998).

Yoruba formed powerful states in the forest region as well. The manifested walled complexes, palaces, courtyards, shrines. They, like the Ibgo, were metallurgist artists who crafted art that no European Renaissance artist ever surpassed. The Yoruba system of government was extremely complex and “was established on what can be called a participatory democracy.”(Salami 2006) I don't necessarily have time to go over it right now in depth, but more information about their governmental structuring can be found here:

http://www.jpanafrican.com/docs/vol1no6/DemocraticStructureOfYorubaPoliticalCulturalSociety_vol1no6.pdf

Further south along the coasts of modern day Angola you had the Kongo Kingdom. The Kongolese had their own effective system of government complete with their own courts, both royal and provincial, officals, pages, titleholders, etc. They had their own monetary system, streets, satellite states...

The Kongo people “had a highly organized social system, an impressive artistic tradition and a secular form of government that expressed the will of the people through a democratic political system” that was “ruled by a protocol as rigid and complicated as that of Versailles under Louis XIV.”(Clarke) The Kongolese had no writing and were illiterate, yet still their “political organisation was nevertheless efficient enough to control a population of perhaps two million”.

History Kingdom of Kongo

There are other kingdoms that thrived in Central Africa too, but the point is, without influence from Euros or Asiatics, Africans still exhibited high levels of political and economic sophistication.

"So the reason (if its not IQ) most likely has something to do with their location in the world.... the southern hemisphere.
That ENTIRE hemisphere stayed primitive. I dont know why."

Mapungabwe, Mwene Mutapa, Zimbabwe, Kilwa, Zulu were all kingdoms south of the Equator.

The Shona people established numerous gold mines numbering in the thousands and were responsible for removing millions of tons of ore. Like many African societies, the Shona created highly advanced ceramic and artistic creations.

“The work displayed in executing these bowls, the careful rounding of the edges, the exact execution of the circle, the fine pointed tool-marks, and the subjects they chose to depict, point to the race having been far advanced in artistic skill...Seven of these bowls were of exactly the same size, and were 19.2 inches in diameter.”(Bent 1896)

Bent was talking about the soapstone ceramic bowls found in the Mashonaland of Zimbabwe. He made the point that the one find was “worthy of a good period of classic Greek ware”(Bent 1896).

Primitive? Do your research before you decide to open your mouth and end up sounding silly.

"But whites are NOT the reason why. We are the ones who put the first pair of pants on a non muslim african, south american tribesman... AND aborigine. Whites did NOT invent tribalism, dung huts and war face paint."

Nor did they invent democracy, monetary system, judicial system, state-building, metal-working or creation of the arts. They certainly didn't introduce it to Africans. With or without pants, Black Africans didn't need Europeans to create self sufficient societies. Not for Nubia, not for Ghana, not for Benin, not for Luba, not for Kongo, not for Mutapa, not for any of them.

PhysicsQED: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Economy_of_Botswana

Don't know much about Botswana. Sorry.

Maybe you should pose this question on a South African forum or - even better - a Botswana forum and follow the discussion that ensues.

Oh yeah and I came across that site a while back. The creator of that site (unamusementpark) and most of those who comment there are just dumbasses.

What article did you come across on that site?

I couldn't find a Botswana forum, but you're right, I didn't even think about a South African one. I'll try to see what I can find. Thanks for the tip.

Does anyone have any input?

I don't usually like to ask these types of questions, but this is something that has been on my mind a lot. In my mind, Botswana is a prime example how an African state should be run, but when I brought the subject up with my Uncle, he said the Botswana is "owned" by De Beers. I didn't pay attention to it at first, but then I came across this blog and some poster said the same thing.

So we should expect to see any black democracy fail, for the obvious reasons. This leaves open the possibility of black non-democracies succeeding. The oft noted exception in black Africa, Botswana, is democratic in form but dominated by De Beers, i.e. you can view it as a corporate state.

This guy was posting on a racist blog site, so I take his opinions about Blacks with no regard, but he still mentions that De Beers "dominates" Botswana. I have the feeling it's just a bunch of uneducated nonsense and that it's not true, but I would like to hear from Africans what the real situation is like.

Here is the the page: http://unamusementpark.com/2011/12/detroit-and-a-short-history-of-black-civilization/

Thethy, do you own this site or are you a member? If so, could I have your member name or contact information?

I wasn't able to send you a text or email. Do you have alternative means of contact, like a facebook or something?

^^^ This guy (promoter) is obviously another victim of blatant ignorance, just like a lot of other Africans.

I don't see why there is so hate hatred between African-Americans and Africans. Neither one of us is superior to the other.

I see my self as Black, but only as a term of distinction between me and other races, not me and other Africans, whom I also consider Black People.

I say that Continental Africans and Diasporic Africans need to start admonishing the ignoramuses that try to pry us apart with their divisiveness without throwing the baby out with the bath water.

There is an infinite amount of good that can and will come from us uniting with each other.