Historum - History Forums  

Go Back   Historum - History Forums > World History Forum > European History
Register Forums Blogs Social Groups Mark Forums Read

European History European History Forum - Western and Eastern Europe including the British Isles, Scandinavia, Russia


Reply
 
LinkBack Thread Tools Display Modes
Old March 20th, 2012, 05:39 AM   #661
Suspended indefinitely
 
Joined: Nov 2011
From: Bolton, UK
Posts: 1,749

Quote:
Originally Posted by Bismarck Click the image to open in full size.
It is not enough that the Third Reich is drawn into the debate about the British Empire, now it must answer for the sins of other colonial empires as well.
A major difference between the Nazi Empire and the British Empire is that Nazi Germany deliberately set out to form an empire, whereas the British Empire was created unintentionally.
Brunel is offline  
Remove Ads
Old March 24th, 2012, 08:42 AM   #662
Lecturer
 
Joined: Mar 2012
Posts: 256

Quote:
Originally Posted by oh dear! View Post
Hahaha. What you mean is, I know African history, but I don't accept the Afrocentric distortion of it.
Oh Please, Afrocentrism has nothing to do with this argument, and I challenge you to find one argument I make that is not backed up by the mainstream Eurocentric history you are comfortable with. If I wanted to go an Afrocentric route, and I could, I would have already.

Quote:
You have just listed most of the Arabized and semi-Arabized cultures of sub-Saharan Africa, plus a couple that aren't sub-Saharan. So, what point were you making again?
Well I asked you what is meant by "Arabized" and what qualifies something as such, you have still yet to respond, further showcasing your sloppy approach to historical study.

Quote:
Why are you asking me? If you knew anything of African history you would know the word already.
Really, Name me a credible historian that uses "Arabized" as a way to somehow deny African created and African run empires. When you do please be ready for my refutations of any 19th century or 20th Century garbage that you will have to dig up. I seriously doubt you are even familar with the basics outside an average google search.

Quote:
Since you don't, the word is easy enough to look up in a dictionary. In Google, you can type "define Arabize", and you will get a definition.
You don't seem to be able to understand why Im asking you for the meaning of Arabized, so I will help you out..It has nothing to do with me, I want you to explain why and what "Arabized" has to do with anything discussed so far and how that disqualifies anything Africans have created. You're simply trying to duck and dodge because you can't back your arguments up.

Quote:
The absorption of Arabic cultural influences from the north gave these places literacy, a legal system, organizational methods, and some practical technologies.
Really, so you should be able to provide historical references this. Other than the adoption of Arabic and Islamic law I don't see any evidence of some nothern Absorbtion as advanced culture existed thousands of years before Muhammed was even born. Further damaging to your slanted and pathetic argument is that Islamic Science and Learning was influenced by people from all over the world, from Persians, Greeks, Indians etc.

Quote:
Hahaha. The Indian trade route was dominated by Indians and Arabs -- who had the boats and the navigation skills.
Africans on the East Coast, called Zanj and prior the Axumites dominated the Trade Routes in the Indian Sea as well.

Click the image to open in full size.


Swahili Trading Ship from a Persian Manuscript(Al-Maqamat)

Quote:
By walking across the desert to Morocco. This kind of trade route has existed since Paleolithic times.
Actually it were the Mehgrebis walking their behind to trade in Ghana(Walata, Adwaghat etc) once again because Ghana Dominated the Western Sudan and Megreb.

Quote:
They dominated a large but largely empty tract of desert.
Proof, evidence.
Quote:
And the Ghana "Empire" certainly didn't dominate the Sudan.
You are so ill informed you have no idea what Sudan means and what is applied to..lol

Quote:
It covered roughly the western half of modern-day Mauritania.
Yet Ghana still managed to Dominate both the Megreb and Sudan in terms of Trade and influence.

Quote:
Pure delusion on your part. "At the time" means from the 9th century to 16th -- In Europe, that's from the age of Charlemagne to the age of Elizabeth. It includes the Renaissance and the birth of modern science. In Western Asia it includes the heyday of the Arab Empire and the birth of the Ottoman Empire. In Eastern Asia, it includes the Song, Yuan and Ming Dynasties. It was an age of great achievements in engineering, literature, architecture and all the arts.
Your point? Not every culture or nation in Europe and Asia was advanced, I should have worded my statement better. Quite simply Some African Empires and States were advanced than other European and Asians states or entities.

Quote:
Evidence of anything comparably advanced in sub-Saharan Africa is totally lacking. If it existed, you would be trumpeting it here, and showing us how impressive the buildings, metallurgy, civil engineering, literature and art were. In fact, the only physical traces of the Ghana Empire are vague rumours, and remnants of a few small towns.
1) Why should I provide anything to someone who claims to be an expert. Id expect you to be familiar with this.

2)Your point, The Ghana empire was sacked and abandoned. Archeological evidence backs up these so called "Rumours"..so what are you saying exactly.??



Quote:
You want evidence that you're talking nonsense? Okay, how about this. A Ming Dynasty section of the Great Wall of China:

How cute, resorting to picture spams..lol

Some info on the "Great Wall"

Millions of common people were called up to build the wall. Northern Qi's wall, starting from Xiakou to Hengzhou, used 1,800,000 laborers. A section of Sui's (581 - 618) wall in Inner Mongolia required more than 1,000,000 men to build. Besides the first 300,000 soldiers, Qin's wall required another 500,000 common people to complete the work.

The Great Wall while impressive is not something I would tout as proof of Asian creativity. You have plenty other examples to use(Zhung Ho, and much more).

Quote:
Africa's equivalent (the city wall of Benin):
Still does'nt negate..

Quote:
The defensive fortification of Benin City, the capital, consisted of ramparts and moats, call iya, enclosing a 4000 square kilometer (2485.5 miles) of community lands. In total, the Benin wall system encompasses over 10,000 kilometres (6213.7 miles) of earth boundaries. Patrick Darling, an archaeologist, estimates that the complex was built between 800 and 1000 up to the late fifteenth century (Keys 1994: 16). Advantageously situated, the moats were duged in such a manner that earthen banks provided outer walls that complemented deep ditches. According to Graham Connah, the ditch formed an integral part of the intended barrier but was also a quarry for the material to construct the wall or bank (Keys 1994: 594). The ramparts range in size from shallow traces to the immense 20-meter-high rampart (66 feet) around Benin City (Wesler 1998: 144). The Guinness Book of World Records describes the walls of Benin City as the world's second largest man-made structure after China's Great Wall), in terms of length, and the series of earthen ramparts as the most extensive earthwork in the world.

Quote:
A medieval European cathedral:


A medieval European palace:

A medieval European castle:

Medieval African Cathedral

Click the image to open in full size.

Click the image to open in full size.

Medieval African Palace from a Place with similar trading ties as Venice.

Click the image to open in full size.


Click the image to open in full size.



Quote:
Watala: a town that was important in the Ghana Empire:

Click the image to open in full size.
More of Oulata


Click the image to open in full size.

Click the image to open in full size.

Click the image to open in full size.

The thing is the type of Architecture in Africa is different than anything in Asia or Europe. You can see Architecture like Walata all over the continent from the Nile Valley to the Megreb. Snobbishly posting one image only undermines African approach to Architecture..some more images..

Not only that but Walata is one of the oldest stone settlements on the Continent

Quote:
With its hundreds of settlements, the Tichitt Tradition is the earliest known urban-based core zone in the Western Sudan world-system. In the words of one archaeologist, its abandoned sites represent “a great wealth of rather spectacular prehistoric ruins” and “perhaps the most remarkable group of Neolithic settlements in the world”
The Settlement of Oulata dates to 4000yBP. Notice that this is the same time that folks from Nabta Playa were settling in the Nile Valley..


Some New Pics of Walata

Notice the Similarities between these and those found in the Nile Vally like Nubian and Egyptian Houses...

Click the image to open in full size.

Click the image to open in full size.

Click the image to open in full size.

Some of the Designs..(Notice the Similarities between these and Designs from the Nile Valley like Egypt and Nubia..)

Click the image to open in full size.

Click the image to open in full size.

Click the image to open in full size.





Quote:
No. I'm very clear in what I am saying: a few parts of Africa, under influence from outside (mainly Western Asia),
Oh please. People influence and get influenced, including Europeans and Asians. I don't see you screaming about everything that "Influenced" Europeans or Asians etc. You just group the mass of people into an entity "Eurasians" Im not going to even bother with this anymore, its obvious you are biased.
Quote:
acquired a Middle Age level of development prior to colonial times. The rest of Africa was stuck in various stages of technological primitivity from Neolithic (stone tools, simple pottery, no machines) to Iron Age.
So first Africans did'nt have anything of Mideval standards now some do, keep moving the goal post.

Quote:
It's highly unlikely you would have heard of the Ghana Empire if French explorers in the early 19th century hadn't collected oral histories and and then gone looking for evidence to verify the evidence of such a thing. Europeans studied the folklore, history, languages, customs, crafts and architecture of Africa in depth, as well as the flora and fauna.
There is a difference between the Colonizers who set up in Africa to make a profit and exploit the resources there and the scientists who went to the Colonies to try to retain any information of the cultures there. I have no problem admiting Europeans are responsible for the Modern Approach to History and Archeology, but lets be honest here.

Quote:
They were much more interested in all this stuff than the various tribes of Africa were interested in their neighbours. Without the researches conducted by Europeans, you would have no way of knowing most of what you do know about Africa.
No argument.

Quote:
If Africa were not so primitive, it could have (like Japan) acquired the technology of the industrial revolution without being spoon-fed, and having been supplied with the basics, it could have progressed from there, like various East and Southeast Asian countries have done.
Some African countries are such as Equitorial Guneia, Nigeria etc. Most are not, corruption is the main problem IMO.

Quote:
Less selfish ambitions? The Arabs only used Africa as a source of slaves.
The Arabs used everyone as a Source of Slaves, and Id rather use "Muslim" as Arab and Muslim are not the same thing. Muslim exporers and traders traded with Africans on their terms which ended up giving Africans a better position on the World Scene and trade.

Quote:
Given that it was nothing but a mud rampart, I would. What advanced technology was used? None. It's just a big pile of laterite mud.
Your opinion.

Quote:
Yeah, right. The entire Ashanti kingdom mustered its armies to fight against a single shipload of British troops, supported by troops and carriers from the neighbouring Fante tribe, and this proves that the Ashanti were highly organized and "complicated". In all the many battles the Ashanti had with the British, they only won one battle outright, in 1823. Could the Ashanti have sent a ship to Britain, and marched into Windsor Castle and arrested Queen Victoria? Obviously, no. The idea is laughable.
Laughable considering the Ashanti had no interest in colonizing Europe at all, Colonization and exploiting other peoples resources seems to be a European habit.

Quote:
To have large scale industrialization in Africa, you'd first need roads and communications,
Already had them.
Quote:
then you would need to have large scale power generation and distribution, then you'd need the primary industries developed to a level where they could supply feedstocks, then you'd need ready access to markets and then you could start to build factories. How many years would all that take? How many engineers and managers? And this when a lot of Europe was still just beginning to develop its industries.
My point exactly, so why is it you keep hanging lack of industrialzation over the heads of Africans when its relatively very new.

Quote:
Europe did a lot for Africa,
Africa did a lot for Europe. At one point and time they were Mutal trading partners.

Quote:
but you're demanding the world and the moon. How much charity is too much?
You're the one making a big deal about "Iron Age" this and that, I can care less. I simply gave you a reason why. Europeans had no interest in Africa outside exploitation, oh and just for you the average sympathetic scientist/Archeologist.

Quote:
Are you presenting the Portuguese as a model? Their empire was the worst. They nothing to develop their colonies -- just extracted primary resources as cheaply as they possibly could. The Portuguese sold guns to the people of Benin. Wonderful. That showed they cared, eh? The British brought schools, hospitals, sanitation, roads, railways...
The British were certainly the cream of the crop when it came to exploiting Africa and its reources, they did try to justify their presence. In all seriousness I'll admit that I admire the British effort to combat slavery.



Quote:
No, Europe did not need them. The Africans were there, so they employed them, but completely empty land would have just as valuable, if not more so,even though the tropical zone wasn't attractive to Europeans to live in because of the heat. Even if they didn't want to colonize the land, they could easily import labour from other parts of the world (and they did).
There is no way Europeans could have exterminated Africans lol. Genocide is costly and time consuming and never really works anyway. Also as you admite(Ive been saying it all along) there was no mass migration of Europeans to their African Colonies. So now you think that the Brits could have simple imported millions of Asians to fill the void after attempts to Genocide Africans..lol How Delusional. It would have never happened.
Jari is offline  
Old March 24th, 2012, 08:53 AM   #663
Suspended indefinitely
 
Joined: Dec 2009
Posts: 19,934

Quote:
Originally Posted by Brunel View Post
A major difference between the Nazi Empire and the British Empire is that Nazi Germany deliberately set out to form an empire, whereas the British Empire was created unintentionally.
Wow, the old excuse of randomly conquering the world in self-defense???

The III Reich and the British Empire objectively had myriad differences, but the use of lame excuses to justify imperialistic expansionism was not one of them.
sylla1 is offline  
Old March 24th, 2012, 09:00 AM   #664

OUNUPA's Avatar
Scholar
 
Joined: Jan 2012
From: the Crimea, Ukraine
Posts: 638

Rule Britania !
OUNUPA is offline  
Old March 24th, 2012, 11:41 AM   #665

PM96's Avatar
Gorilla Guerilla
 
Joined: Feb 2012
From: California
Posts: 4,681
Blog Entries: 1

Quote:
Originally Posted by Brunel View Post
A major difference between the Nazi Empire and the British Empire is that Nazi Germany deliberately set out to form an empire, whereas the British Empire was created unintentionally.
This doesn't make sense. The British Empire and Nazi Germany were both very intentional attempts at empire-building. The difference is that the British Empire gradually expanded over the centuries. It was not built overnight, nor did it fall overnight. And then with Germany...
  • The German Empire (ruled by the Kaiser) was established in the late 19th century and quickly acquired some colonies - but lost those colonies because of WWI. A fairly short-lived colonial empire it was, lasting 1871-1918 (47 years)
  • Nazi Germany won and lost territories over the course of WWII. Even more short lived, it lasted 1933-1945 (12 years)
The British Empire was centuries older and lasted longer. The German empires both took less than a century to rise and fall. But make no mistake, the British and Germans were both creating intentional empires.

Do you think that when Britain conquered parts of the Americas, India, Africa, etc. they said to the natives, "Oh, we don't want to conquer you. Please ignore the settlers and soldiers coming your way, because we didn't mean to rule you in the name of the British Crown." Sounds ridiculous, right? Anyone who's creating an empire knows what they're doing and why they want to do that.
PM96 is offline  
Old March 24th, 2012, 02:01 PM   #666

Bismarck's Avatar
Historian
 
Joined: Dec 2009
From: rangiora
Posts: 2,847

Quote:
Originally Posted by sylla1 View Post
Wow, the old excuse of randomly conquering the world in self-defense???...
Because it is 'old' and an 'excuse' it therefore can't possibly be true???
Bismarck is offline  
Old March 24th, 2012, 02:09 PM   #667
Suspended indefinitely
 
Joined: Dec 2009
Posts: 19,934

Quote:
Originally Posted by Bismarck View Post
Because it is 'old' and an 'excuse' it therefore can't possibly be true???
Not even you can be serious...

Click the image to open in full size.

Click the image to open in full size.
sylla1 is offline  
Old March 24th, 2012, 02:35 PM   #668

Ancientgeezer's Avatar
Revisionist
 
Joined: Nov 2011
From: The Dustbin, formerly, Garden of England
Posts: 5,320

Quote:
Originally Posted by PM96 View Post
This doesn't make sense. The British Empire and Nazi Germany were both very intentional attempts at empire-building. The difference is that the British Empire gradually expanded over the centuries. It was not built overnight, nor did it fall overnight. And then with Germany...
  • The German Empire (ruled by the Kaiser) was established in the late 19th century and quickly acquired some colonies - but lost those colonies because of WWI. A fairly short-lived colonial empire it was, lasting 1871-1918 (47 years)
  • Nazi Germany won and lost territories over the course of WWII. Even more short lived, it lasted 1933-1945 (12 years)
The British Empire was centuries older and lasted longer. The German empires both took less than a century to rise and fall. But make no mistake, the British and Germans were both creating intentional empires.

Do you think that when Britain conquered parts of the Americas, India, Africa, etc. they said to the natives, "Oh, we don't want to conquer you. Please ignore the settlers and soldiers coming your way, because we didn't mean to rule you in the name of the British Crown." Sounds ridiculous, right? Anyone who's creating an empire knows what they're doing and why they want to do that.
It has been touched on in another thead that the British Empire ( like the Dutch) was not a National Enterprise to begin with. It was an accumulation of private business initiatives, from the Virgina Company onwards just about every territory that came under "British" control was as a result of corporate activity. The State became involved slowly with the Fleet protecting trade vessels, especially against the Spanish and the French and then against pirates, initially muslim North African predators, but later the pirates around the Mallacca Straits and the Horn of Africa (how things change!).
No one in England sat up straight one day on his privy and thought "Gadzooks! We must build an empire!". It was acquired largely by accident. The State in the form of the Monarch had a vested interest in early ventures but thereafter it was all private finance and the State became involved because of its duty to "protect" its subjects and the tax revenue that they provided. The State also intervened when private companies behaved badly either to natives or to other competing powers.
The Germans after 1870 however DID make a National decision to create colonies. That decision was made at the highest executive level from day one and is perhaps a good example of State control Vs Private Initiative.
Ancientgeezer is offline  
Old March 24th, 2012, 02:57 PM   #669
Suspended indefinitely
 
Joined: Dec 2009
Posts: 19,934

Quote:
Originally Posted by Ancientgeezer View Post
It has been touched on in another thead that the British Empire ( like the Dutch) was not a National Enterprise to begin with. It was an accumulation of private business initiatives, from the Virgina Company onwards just about every territory that came under "British" control was as a result of corporate activity. The State became involved slowly with the Fleet protecting trade vessels, especially against the Spanish and the French and then against pirates, initially muslim North African predators, but later the pirates around the Mallacca Straits and the Horn of Africa (how things change!).
No one in England sat up straight one day on his privy and thought "Gadzooks! We must build an empire!". It was acquired largely by accident. The State in the form of the Monarch had a vested interest in early ventures but thereafter it was all private finance and the State became involved because of its duty to "protect" its subjects and the tax revenue that they provided. The State also intervened when private companies behaved badly either to natives or to other competing powers.
The Germans after 1870 however DID make a National decision to create colonies. That decision was made at the highest executive level from day one and is perhaps a good example of State control Vs Private Initiative.
This simply couldn't be any more deliberately misleading and fallacious; the use of any number of private groups for the dirtiest jobs couldn't have affected an inch the evident national nature of the British expansionism.

Frankly, I find the kind of nationalism of our Harlech Man much more honest.
If anyone may be proud of making the largest imperial omelette ever, he/she should be equally proud of having broken more victim eggs than anyone else.
No need of any lame excuses of the "sorry, it was not intentional" kind.
sylla1 is offline  
Old March 24th, 2012, 04:35 PM   #670

Ancientgeezer's Avatar
Revisionist
 
Joined: Nov 2011
From: The Dustbin, formerly, Garden of England
Posts: 5,320

Quote:
Originally Posted by sylla1 View Post
This simply couldn't be any more deliberately misleading and fallacious; the use of any number of private groups for the dirtiest jobs couldn't have affected an inch the evident national nature of the British expansionism.

Frankly, I find the kind of nationalism of our Harlech Man much more honest.
If anyone may be proud of making the largest imperial omelette ever, he/she should be equally proud of having broken more victim eggs than anyone else.
No need of any lame excuses of the "sorry, it was not intentional" kind.
You foreign Johnnies just don't get it do you?
You spend time searching for fallacies and fallatio and brought up with a history of oppressive, centralised and dictatorial government, cannot see the truth. The Empire ( and we need not add any descriptive as there was only one that counts) grew out of PRIVATE ENTERPRISE. The success of private companies of providing revenue to the state convinced the state to come to the aid of private enterprise when it was attacked by or interfered with by Johnny Foreigner. Only when activities became too complex to be left in the hands of companies, such as governance, taxation and international relations did the state take over.
Here's an incompete list of just SOME of the companies that brought the enlightenment of the British character to various benighted corners of the globe.

The Santa Domingo Company
The British North Borneo Company
The British East Africa Company
The African Great Lakes Company
The Falkland Islands Company
The Baltic Company
Ancientgeezer is offline  
Reply

  Historum > World History Forum > European History

Tags
bad, british, empire


Thread Tools
Display Modes


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
American deeds: the good, the bad, and the ugly cpvr American History 14 March 3rd, 2014 08:01 AM
The good things that Stalin did do JerseyPerson14 European History 74 December 5th, 2009 10:01 PM
Shipwreck thwarts Napoleon's advance on British Empire Comet European History 0 March 9th, 2007 02:13 AM

Copyright © 2006-2013 Historum. All rights reserved.