African Culture compared to European

The real thing we need to understand is why africa sits at the bottom of the league table for any form of social, political, cultural, and economic development.

You have various parts of the world making huge strides in development, Brasil, China, and india.

The Japanese are in the G8 and they aren't european, they don't make excuses about cultural gaps or that they just need time to develop their own way.

Fact is Afirca sits at the bottom of the class holding all the other student back, any attempt to criticise and immediately the race card is played. Colonalism should have given the africans a head start and not as is claimed to be the root of all their problems.

I already stated that Africa's poor performance has NOTHING to do with colonialism. In fact it is an argumentation usually used by black racists, politicians and development aid organizations in order to lean back and let the cash flow from Europe and the White US.
I see it more on a cultural basis, by which you are right, it mustn't necessarily be the European way in order to win economic success, scientific progress and military dominance. Japan is very progressed, too. China will surely overtake or at least be on one level with the US soon. They haven't read Rousseau or Voltaire though. It is ridiculous to see how Europe tries to impose values of, for example Rawls, on other cultures, whereas it should start with Machiavelli first. Or perhaps Descartes "Africa thinks, therefor it is!"
 
This would suggest that there has not been any communication between the newly arrived african slaves, between them and their children. Not only have they been deprived of their culture, but also in a mass amnesia forgotten their songs and believes, been left in a spritual and cultural vacuum, until due to their genes they discovered rythm and vodoo again. Of course I can't prove that there is no gene involved in how you enjoy to move, which can never be changed even in generations, but neither can you with this argumentation.
[standing up straight in front of my pc like a blitz, marching into se kitchen to se siemens fridge, taking a big fork of sauerkraut and marching back to my pc.:giggle:]

Well, there was a little bit more time involved in it than two generation. I'm not sure but slaves were coming to States between 300 and 150 years ago. For last 150 years fresh contact with African culture was interrupted.
Voodoo stuff is mostly popular in Haiti, and was popularized in US with new emigrants from there. I think the French didn't care about christening and sterilizing their slaves culturally compared to Americans.

What, there is no wheel gene???!!! :grin:
 
The real thing we need to understand is why africa sits at the bottom of the league table for any form of social, political, cultural, and economic development.

You have various parts of the world making huge strides in development, Brasil, China, and india.

The Japanese are in the G8 and they aren't european, they don't make excuses about cultural gaps or that they just need time to develop their own way.

Fact is Afirca sits at the bottom of the class holding all the other student back, any attempt to criticise and immediately the race card is played. Colonalism should have given the africans a head start and not as is claimed to be the root of all their problems.

Africa should be left alone to figure out their own ways to live in current world. I'm not convinced that any of the western models of running countries and economy will work there. They need to find their own models. Something that will work for them.
Colonialism disadvantage was that it left Africa with countries ethnically and linguistically mixed. This never helps.
 
@barbarian
Yeah, rivers which water the fields in seasonal course are one main factor for the emergence of first civilizations. Until recently I also believed that seasonal change in general is a must for the emergence and development of civilizations. Not necessarily a strong winter, but at least some kind of winter or perhaps even a long and hot dry season. However, Amerindian civilizations evolved completly without seasons, Maya and Inka had neither winter nor dry seasons nor flooding rivers, and yet civilizations developed. It is also very interesting to see how different Amerindian civilizations were from the Old World. For instance they had high mathematical and astronomical skills, but didn't use the wheel in every day life. Probably Amerindians lack a certain "wheel gene". (sorry LeBrok :grin: :ashamed2: )
Sadly I don't have any information right now how agriculture got to Sub-Saharan Africa. Fact is, many tribes used their distinct way of farming in the continent's interior long before colonialists arrived. But I have no clue right now if it emerged on it's own or if it was brought there through the Sahara. As through different climate different plants grow in the African tropics, people there couldn't copy farming from the Near East or India just one to one.

overflovong rivers caused an advantage of 2000 years to the owners. can you imagine egypt without nile? however, hittites also didnt have overfloving rivers, but they invent rain agriculture and became the main power against egypt. mayas also was an agriculture culture. their main food was corn.

what i believe, africans didnt need agriculture, which prevent their cooperation, unity, and therefore civilization. just like central asians who didnt need agriculture, since they had livestocks.

reference: "a world history" by william mcneill,
i strongly advise this book, if you didnt read before.
 
When indoeuropeans/Aryans spread south, the middle of Asia was greener than now. The drought afterwords ruined their cities and villages, and mid Asia became underpopulated. Who knows, maybe that's why they were pressing south, with clime change.
The same goes for Inka and Aztec empire, and few other South and North American civilizations. The growth and continuity of their civilizations was always interrupted by extensive droughts. In the name of rain god they sacrificed the POW and many of their own. I think you heard the stories.
Europe always been in climatic stability (since ice age) and once agriculture took roots there, there was no interruption. One might say that Europe is in a privileged place.
Interesting example is Canadian prairies. The white people landed on East coast about 500 years ago. Toronto and Montreal are 400 years old. It took them another 300 years to settle and populate prairies. Why? Because till 20 century prairies were dry and cold, wheat didn't grow here. Now it's warmer and moist and prairies produce 7 times more wheat than Canada can eat every year.
That's the example of harsh climatic reality for any past civilization in Americas. Natives here never experienced civilisation continuity connected to agriculturalism.
In Africa the only place that farmers could have successful agriculture is Zimbabwe. But this is only based on last 100 years of history. The rest of continent's weather is too capricious. On top of it there are so many pests that only wait to eat your crops. How can you protect crops against locust without pesticides? Herd of 100 000 antelopes can walk through you field too, leaving nothing.
I'm pretty sure that if Africa had more moderate or stable clime the locals would be agriculturalists for thousands of years now....and behaving more European. :) ...if that's an advancement ;) lol
 
Well, there was a little bit more time involved in it than two generation. I'm not sure but slaves were coming to States between 300 and 150 years ago. For last 150 years fresh contact with African culture was interrupted.
Voodoo stuff is mostly popular in Haiti, and was popularized in US with new emigrants from there. I think the French didn't care about christening and sterilizing their slaves culturally compared to Americans.

Habits, traditions, customs, believes and so on are always transferred from one generation to the next. They can get lost within one generation or they can be kept for thousand years. They can also be kept for thousand years and then lost within one generation. There is no limit to imigination. And there is no indicator to set that you can say 'from now on it must be genetic'.
Anyways, I think you already got my point of view and I got yours. You say that a lot of habits are the result of genes, while I say they are based on traditions an socialization. Both views can hardly be proved or validated, unless you start cruel experiments with locking European, African and Asian babies (whose mothers all ate the same food during pregnancy) away from the outside world until they are grown up. So we can stop with speculation now.

Africa should be left alone to figure out their own ways to live in current world. I'm not convinced that any of the western models of running countries and economy will work there. They need to find their own models. Something that will work for them.
Colonialism disadvantage was that it left Africa with countries ethnically and linguistically mixed. This never helps.

Ethnic tensions are not present in all African countries (in Tanzania for example not). But yes, this might be a post-colonial disadvantage, although not all countries with ethnic tensions in the world have a bad economy (Spain, even Belgium). With your other points, I fully agree. And I think the Western World should withdraw it's physical, economic and cultural presence in non-Western countries, most important in Africa. And if there is an absolutly necessary economic issue to deal with, the West should stop to bound it to Western values. Like China does!
 
Habits, traditions, customs, believes and so on are always transferred from one generation to the next. They can get lost within one generation or they can be kept for thousand years. They can also be kept for thousand years and then lost within one generation. There is no limit to imigination. And there is no indicator to set that you can say 'from now on it must be genetic'.
Anyways, I think you already got my point of view and I got yours. You say that a lot of habits are the result of genes, while I say they are based on traditions an socialization. Both views can hardly be proved or validated, unless you start cruel experiments with locking European, African and Asian babies (whose mothers all ate the same food during pregnancy) away from the outside world until they are grown up. So we can stop with speculation now.



Ethnic tensions are not present in all African countries (in Tanzania for example not). But yes, this might be a post-colonial disadvantage, although not all countries with ethnic tensions in the world have a bad economy (Spain, even Belgium). With your other points, I fully agree. And I think the Western World should withdraw it's physical, economic and cultural presence in non-Western countries, most important in Africa. And if there is an absolutly necessary economic issue to deal with, the West should stop to bound it to Western values. Like China does!


You reify 'the West', referring to it as if it is a monolithic entity or a person. It is neither. 'The West' is an unfortunate, inaccurate term often wielded by Occidentalists who dislike 'western values'. Perhaps it is a mistake to try to foist European/US norms and values on to Africans. However, your call for 'the Western World' to 'withdraw its physical, economic and cultural presence in non-Western countries' could be interpreted as reverse-racism. By your logic, should all non-Westerners withdraw their 'physical, economic and cultural presence' from Europe and the USA?
 
Last edited:
You reify 'the West', referring to it as if it is a monolithic entity or a person. It is neither. 'The West' is an unfortunate, inaccurate term often wielded by Occidentalists who dislike 'western values'. Perhaps it is a mistake to try to foist European/US norms and values on to Africans. However, your call for 'the Western World' to 'withdraw its physical, economic and cultural presence in non-Western countries' could be interpreted as reverse-racism. By your logic, should all non-Westerners withdraw their 'physical, economic and cultural presence' from Europe and the USA?

First of all, I apologize for my statement that it wasn't accuratly what meant. There is a very long explanation now I could give from my own experience why I absolutly reject the instruction of Western values on non-Western countries. In the same way in which I reject the insruction of other values on Western countries. These intructions occur in a big variety of forms, mostly development aid, but also other forms of business and very often politics. What i more precisely meant was the 'physical, economic and cultural presence' based on imposing these Western values. And I have my reasons for it.

Secondly, with what other term would you describe the "Western World"? I didn't know it was only used by Occidentalists who dislike Western values. Samuel Huntington was surely non.

Third, of course there is no single person, hidden leader, head or other masterbrain standing behind the US/EU/Canada/Australia etc..., as well as there is no conspiracy of all people living in these countries trying to impose these values on other cultures. And of course if it happens occasionally it doesn't happen with bad intention and without good will! People just behave and act in the way they were taught too, and believe. This doesn't mean that this behaviour can't end up in a total mess.

Referring to a different thread right now "Ban the Burka":
If you want to know what I mean with the withdrawal of the 'physical, economic and cultural presence' of non-Westeners in US/Europe, voilá!
Same effect has some European presence in non-Western countries, just vice versa.
 
First of all, I apologize for my statement that it wasn't accuratly what meant. There is a very long explanation now I could give from my own experience why I absolutly reject the instruction of Western values on non-Western countries. In the same way in which I reject the insruction of other values on Western countries. These intructions occur in a big variety of forms, mostly development aid, but also other forms of business and very often politics. What i more precisely meant was the 'physical, economic and cultural presence' based on imposing these Western values. And I have my reasons for it.

Secondly, with what other term would you describe the "Western World"? I didn't know it was only used by Occidentalists who dislike Western values. Samuel Huntington was surely non.

Third, of course there is no single person, hidden leader, head or other masterbrain standing behind the US/EU/Canada/Australia etc..., as well as there is no conspiracy of all people living in these countries trying to impose these values on other cultures. And of course if it happens occasionally it doesn't happen with bad intention and without good will! People just behave and act in the way they were taught too, and believe. This doesn't mean that this behaviour can't end up in a total mess.

Referring to a different thread right now "Ban the Burka":
If you want to know what I mean with the withdrawal of the 'physical, economic and cultural presence' of non-Westeners in US/Europe, voilá!
Same effect has some European presence in non-Western countries, just vice versa.

Never mind, 'voila!' You have not scored any points here. There is no parallel between the situations discussed on the two threads. Aside from South African neo-Nazis, I can't think of a Western minority living in a non-Western land who harbour an extreme fringe that presents a danger to the majority and the state. Within the British Asian Muslim community it is undeniable that there exists a militant, terroristic faction. That is why the UK has been on a high terror alert for several years.

I don't see Westerners threatening non-Western host populations like this. Unless, of course, you see the 'true terrorists' as the developed nations as Noam Chomsky appears to. I dissent from his position.
 
Never mind, 'voila!' You have not scored any points here. There is no parallel between the situations discussed on the two threads. Aside from South African neo-Nazis, I can't think of a Western minority living in a non-Western land who harbour an extreme fringe that presents a danger to the majority and the state. Within the British Asian Muslim community it is undeniable that there exists a militant, terroristic faction. That is why the UK has been on a high terror alert for several years.

I don't see Westerners threatening non-Western host populations like this. Unless, of course, you see the 'true terrorists' as the developed nations as Noam Chomsky appears to. I dissent from his position.

Well the basic parallel is the social unrest after the confrontation of two cultures. I wouldn't have gone so far now to talk about terrorists or any other form of intended violence. If we continue with a minor thing like the burka, I have seen European women (on holyday but also a lot of expats) walking around with shoulderless and leg-free skirts in Muslim areas, although everywhere they were advised not to do so. Anyways they didn't care, and the local population felt offended. It happened daily, and also after some while the locals didn't react anymore. But that didn't change the resentment towards Westeners got better. So far burka here or bikini there, it has something to do with respect.
If we could call it the main difference in this case, is that no Western politician or terrorist or what so ever has threatened Muslim countries yet to blow up their cities and kill many innocent people if they still continue prohibiting women from walking around only with bikini-tops, while on contrast (some rare) Muslim terrorists have done so in the burka case. But that doesn't justify the other side to continue with it's behaviour for some kind of revenge.

Life is about survival of the fittest. Of course if some society in this world, like some African, isn't adaptable enough to modern life (economy or technology) and therefor gets into big existence trouble, it is not my fault and I'm not the one to blame. So I just couldn't care if I wanted to. Unfortunatly I have met too many aquaintances and people I love from a society which got really badly affected by such kind of sometimes threatening impact. That's why in my heart I sometimes have the feeling I've got to protect them. That doesn't mean that I hate my own society in Europe where I am coming from and my people I love here. And I feel like protecting them, too. Just to give you a rough idea where I'm at.
 
This would suggest that there has not been any communication between the newly arrived african slaves, between them and their children. Not only have they been deprived of their culture, but also in a mass amnesia forgotten their songs and believes, been left in a spritual and cultural vacuum, until due to their genes they discovered rythm and vodoo again. Of course I can't prove that there is no gene involved in how you enjoy to move, which can never be changed even in generations, but neither can you with this argumentation.
[standing up straight in front of my pc like a blitz, marching into se kitchen to se siemens fridge, taking a big fork of sauerkraut and marching back to my pc.:giggle:]

That is not true! The slaves do communicate, that's why there are French creoles, English creoles, Dutch creoles, Spanish creoles and Portuguese creoles!
 
That is not true! The slaves do communicate, that's why there are French creoles, English creoles, Dutch creoles, Spanish creoles and Portuguese creoles!

Yes, that is what I was trying to explain! My post was actually meant ironically to sum up LeBrok's logic. A lot of features of Afro-American culture (Carribean as well as US) have West-African roots. Wether it is language, social behaviour, music etc... Of course it swept to America through communication.
 
This them really deserves a reading for people that look for a more comprehension of things, based on experience.

Thank you Mzungu.
 
Interesting stuff. I really can't take a stance since I've never lived in Africa. Though while living the US, I've noticed that African-Americans have high rates of committing crimes, while African immigrants tend to be very educated, hard-working, and intelligent. Though this might just represent the elite class and not be representative of all of African society.
 
Causes of underdevelopment in some peoples:
-May be poverty and starvation
-Lack of material resources

As for the development of civilizations

Muslims were World leaders

READ history
 
Asians adopted a lot of good things from European culture during the 19th - 20th centuries (see Japan, China, other "Asian Tigers", etc. - which became modernized after contact with the European civilization in the 1800s and the 1900s). But Africans somehow reject adopting European solutions.

Good example is what has happened in Zimbabwe since 1979, under Robert Mugabe:


Today the average Zimbabwean has a standard of living half of what it was at independence in 1980.

The average life expectancy in Zimbabwe is now down to 34 (from 57 at independence in 1980).
 
Asians adopted a lot of good things from European culture during the 19th - 20th centuries (see Japan, China, other "Asian Tigers", etc. - which became modernized after contact with the European civilization in the 1800s and the 1900s). But Africans somehow reject adopting European solutions.

Good example is what has happened in Zimbabwe since 1979, under Robert Mugabe:


Today the average Zimbabwean has a standard of living half of what it was at independence in 1980.

The average life expectancy in Zimbabwe is now down to 34 (from 57 at independence in 1980).

LOL, a video that makes one think. European civilisation has indeed contributed much to humanity, of course there was a price, but there's always a price, and in turn we have computers, T.V, air conditioning etc, and one can have these regardless if he's from European descent or not.
 
The Caucasoid Cultures of North Africa would have been similar to Europe before their conquest and Arabization/Islamization.
 
Barely out of curiousity, how is a huge populace a proportion of achievement?
 

This thread has been viewed 155252 times.

Back
Top