Historum - History Forums  

Go Back   Historum - History Forums > Themes in History > Philosophy, Political Science, and Sociology
Register Forums Blogs Social Groups Mark Forums Read

Philosophy, Political Science, and Sociology Philosophy, Political Science, and Sociology Forum - Perennial Ideas and Debates that cross societal/time boundaries


Reply
 
LinkBack Thread Tools Display Modes
Old November 26th, 2016, 10:49 PM   #151
Archivist
 
Joined: Nov 2016
From: West Coast
Posts: 177

Quote:
Originally Posted by dagul View Post
Come on, there were even tribes in Africa at that time who were cannibals like the Aztecs, and they hunt not to get rid of enemies as you claim but to have human dinner.
Whatever the Africans ate, surely you are eating it too, because it is African slaves who helped shaped American cuisine. They taught the slave owners all types of ways regarding preparing and cultivating food.

My sources above show how the African diet was much much healthier than the westernized diet that centers around greed and convenience (laziness).

But back to the hard work of planting and growing one's own food & coming up with creative ways to prepare that food:

Quote:
The influences for many of the Southern foods we enjoy come directly from colonial and antebellum slave quarters. Southern food, often perceived as the quintessential American cuisine, is actually derived from a complex blend of European, Native American, and African origins that found realization in the hands of enslaved people.

While Southern food has evolved from sources and cultures of diverse regions, classes, races, and ethnicities, African and African American slaves have one of the strongest yet least recognized roles (Though some culinary historians, like Michael Twitty, are attempting to change that).

For enslaved people, cooking was about culture and community as much it was about survival. Through the horrors of the Middle Passage and bondage in North America, generations of slaves preserved and created culinary traditions that remain strong today. Southern food reminds Americans of this difficult past but it can also help us understand it and respect it.
The Soul of Food - US History Scene

Quote:
Where does southern food come from?

Who gets the ultimate credit for fried okra, red beans and rice, gumbo, and the New Year’s Eve staple, black-eye peas?

Southern staples such as rice, okra, collard greens, black-eyed peas, peanuts and even watermelon all have their roots in Africa, according to Coastal Carolina University anthropology professor Gillian Richards-Greaves.

SOME OF THE SEEDS WERE BROUGHT WITH THEM, BUT MORE IMPORTANTLY, THE WAYS OF PREPARING THOSE FOODS WERE BROUGHT WITH THEM.
Coastal Carolina University anthropology professor Gillian Richards-Greaves
What did slaves from Africa have to do with southern food favorites | The Sun News

Africans were fully responsible for cooking on the plantations and teaching the slave owners how to cultivate and prepare certain foods

Quote:
“In fact, a lot of what we call southern food is basically foods that slaves sort of created in the new world,” said Richards-Greaves.

Okra, another African import, is a key ingredient to gumbo. And the “one-pot” stewing method is consistent with the way slaves with limited supplies prepared their food.

“When you hear ‘southern cooking,’ you don’t think of the people who created the food,” said Richards-Greaves. “You don’t think of the people who have taught these recipes. You may think of Paula Deen. For a lot of African-Americans, that’s an issue in that the things they’ve created, their not credited for and someone else sort of appropriates it.”
More about these "uncivilized cannibals"


Quote:
African slaves brought many of their native fruits and vegetables to the Americas, including YAMS, watermelon, okra, and several varieties of beans, all of which were soon adopted into the diets of their owners.
So the slave owners adopted the eating ways of the African.

.
Quote:
African American cuisine also grew out of the slaves’ resourcefulness in using the cast-off ingredients of the master’s meals.
Rice..

Quote:
Although African slaves did not introduce rice into the Americas, their experience with rice cultivation in Africa helped make possible large-scale rice production in the Carolinas and the Gulf Coast states.

[/QUOTE]
Quote:
Beans were a major component of the African diet and were brought to the Americas by slaves

Amazing culinary skills and creativity!

Quote:
Although Europeans occasionally ate the leaves of plants, slaves often prepared the leaves of plants, especially collards, by simmering them in oil, peppers, and spices. They also creatively processed and cooked corn, the food most often made available to them by their owners.

From corn, slaves made corn bread, grits (bleached and hulled corn kernels), hoecakes (cornmeal cooked on the blade of a hoe over a flame), and hush puppies (deep-fried cornmeal with onions and spices).
If you like BBQ, check this out:

African American Food, Cuisine



And it's actually your Neanderthal ancestors who were cannibals.
Roses2 is offline  
Remove Ads
Old November 26th, 2016, 11:20 PM   #152

Ighayere's Avatar
Historian
 
Joined: Jul 2012
Posts: 1,348

Quote:
Originally Posted by Roses2 View Post
Whatever the Africans ate, surely you are eating it too, because it is African slaves who helped shaped American cuisine.
There are posters from many different backgrounds on this site. The poster you are responding to is from the Philippines, not an American. I don't know whether American colonization had any effects on the cuisine of the Philippines, but even if it did, he might not have eaten American inspired food regardless of that.

Last edited by Ighayere; November 26th, 2016 at 11:23 PM.
Ighayere is offline  
Old November 26th, 2016, 11:48 PM   #153
Historian
 
Joined: Jan 2011
Posts: 9,868

Quote:
Originally Posted by Ighayere View Post
I know that they imported wood, but the reasoning that "they had problems reaching a high level of development because of their shortage of wood" doesn't make sense. They did reach a very high level of development. In fact, before their downfall and decline they reached a much higher level of development than most places that had abundant wood.




I would say that their lack of charcoal or wood resulted in the Egyptians falling behind western Asia and the rest of the world in their uses of metal for military purposes, and that this may have contributed to their inability to withstand the armies of the Persians and Greeks (though there are other factors which are probably more important). I can't see how this means that they failed to reach a high level of development.
They cannot be said to have reached a high state of development if their military was substandard..... Egypt was simply protected for centuries from invasions since it is a "natural fortress" (deserts to the east and west, sea to the north and further east)..... Potential invaders had to master sea borne invasions and long distance logistics... once they did that Egypt was gone
tomar is offline  
Old November 26th, 2016, 11:55 PM   #154
Historian
 
Joined: Jan 2011
Posts: 9,868

Quote:
Originally Posted by Ighayere View Post
I do think that you misunderstood what I was saying. I asked, if they were actually trying to educate their countries to the level where they were as educated as the French themselves, why was the evidence of this pitifully absent?

Educating only a few elites over the course of several decades means they didn't make much of an attempt at all, which supports what I was saying in the first place. And nearly half the places that France colonized already had some elites that were educated in some system of schooling besides western education anyway, so in those places it was an even bigger failure.

In the early 20th century, 40% of France's population was rural (unlike Britain which had a significantly higher urban population), so in the early to late 19th century (when French colonization efforts really took off), this percentage was even higher. If they could educate their own people, despite their high rural population, why couldn't they do that for the places they were occupying?

Is it because they just weren't that interested in doing so? I've said it before, but I can say it again: the results of French colonization don't bear out the idea that they were trying to create a "second France" in any part of their empire.
It took a long time to educate the french population... how do you educate 10s of millions outside of France, especially in remote areas ?...France is about 600 000 square km, its empire was over 20 times larger... This is no trivial task... and where do you find enoug teachers to cover all that, how do you build enough schools and where do you find enough money to do so ?

Never the less in 1960 France had 16 000 functioning primary schools in Africa and 350 secondary schools... In south east asia 25% of children attended school.. In Algeria up to 33%

This is not the "education of a few elites" this is a major effort to educate large numbers
tomar is offline  
Old November 27th, 2016, 12:02 AM   #155
Historian
 
Joined: Jan 2011
Posts: 9,868

Quote:
Originally Posted by Ighayere View Post
You are mistaken. The case you are making here could and actually has been made for Germany and especially for Britain, which had so many other places outside of Europe it exported to (multiple settler colonies like Australia, Canada, etc.) in addition to its robust trade with the rest of Europe, that its exports to its colonies in Africa were not a large percentage of its exports. Perhaps India might be a different case, but I haven't looked into the data for that.

In the case of France however:

Click the image to open in full size.

Click the image to open in full size.

Click the image to open in full size.



From pp.9-10 of Colonialism in Africa 1870-1960 by L.H. Gann and Peter Duignan.



And its true that the percentage of French exports to Africa has dropped to less than 5% in recent years, yet they still are trying to keep an economic stake in Africa:

https://www.stratfor.com/analysis/fr...al-ties-africa


In any case, whether we're talking about Britain, France, or any other colonizing power, you haven't provided some source showing their colonial ventures were a net loss, although even if you did, I don't see how that would prove that they were putting some great effort into developing their colonies. At most it might suggest financial mismanagement.
Even at 25% , while certainly material, it is not the case that colonies were crucial

As for the last point, it was not financial mismanagement nor necessarily great investment... it just that many of these places simply do not have the resources to be a profitable colonial venture..... when you have a country like the CAR today whose entire GDP is barely $1.5 bio (less than $400 per capita) there is no way its going to be profitable as a colony....

If any country had CAR (or there are plenty of others to chose from) as a colony even today, they would be happy to let it go, just like many business get rid of their non profitable assets
tomar is offline  
Old November 27th, 2016, 12:04 AM   #156

dagul's Avatar
Rabbit of Wormhole
 
Joined: Mar 2012
From: In the bag of ecstatic squirt
Posts: 17,070

Quote:
Originally Posted by Ighayere View Post
I have avoided responding to some of your comments so far simply because you are getting somewhat off topic. This thread really isn't about "were the Europeans of the 16th-19th centuries a people with great regard for human life and civility". Taking the discussion in that direction will inevitably just lead people to attempt to analyze too much of European history during that period - probably without much context - to give examples in favor or against one side of the argument. The thread will become about this or that genocide or about the moral aspect of Europeans' treatment of people both within and outside of Europe, when that simply is not the topic of this thread. If, as a Filipino, you are some great admirer of everything European, that is perfectly fine, but you could try to actually stay on topic rather than just coming into this thread to derail it by repeating much of the same rhetoric that you repeat in numerous other threads.

However, without responding to each and every post you will make (which will inevitably be very similar), let me point out a few things.

First, it simply isn't true that most African slaves were obtained by "hunting fellow humans for the purpose of selling as slaves." Most of those people were captives obtained after devastating wars which were waged for territorial expansion to acquire access to land and resources. Sure there were actual slave raids, but these were far from the majority of the source of slaves. I would not deny that the choices those leaders who sold rival groups into slavery made were poor when looking at things from a moral standpoint or even just from the point of view of demography. But some sort of widespread "slave hunting" simply to sell slaves to non-Africans is misleading. Within Africa, slaves were sometimes integrated peacefully into the common population (as ordinary commoners) over time - this definitely happened in Asante, as just one example - hence in several African cultures integrating war captives into the society also occurred after slaves were obtained from wars. The notion that slaves were obtained in raids specifically to sell to people from outside of Africa is only true in a minority of cases.

Second, even if we could generalize and speak of all Africans as "hunting" for slaves because some Africans - some coastal west and west-central Africans - were engaged in selling war captives from their numerous wars, this would be a mis-characterization precisely because apart from ignoring those large parts of Africa that weren't doing the same thing it completely ignores those groups in West and West-central Africa that were mostly or entirely on the losing side and were sold as slaves but were never slave sellers, and it ignores those groups that were not involved in any of this.

Third, your reasoning here is contradictory. If one can say that the Europeans were "selective" in their application of civility or their valuing the worth of human life, one can say the same thing about those Africans that were involved in slave selling. They were selective in the same way, except that they were being ethnically (or politically) clannish, but not "racially" clannish. They could value people from their own ethnicity or polity, but did not particularly care enough about race to value the life of everyone from their race. From a certain perspective, this is indeed a serious fault, but the circumstances for some sort of "racial consciousness" to emerge absolutely did not exist within those areas of Africa where slave trading became very significant.
I am not making things off topic but I am arguing on the reasons among other the colonized territories like Africa is still not developed being the subject matter of the thread. Among the reasons being considered in the series of posts around being the reason of the failure of development of nations in Africa is the European colonization stating that the colonial period by the West destroyed the supposed development and sense of nationalism of these people which I retort that such is not correct because prior to colonization, these people had no civil life since among these tribesmen were engaging in hunting their fellow being with all disregard to human life that was in itself the exhibition of backwardness. Ergo, the backwardness of these Africans as former colony of the Westerners cannot be blamed on the latter because they was nothing to be considered advance among group of people wherein certain segment of them hunts fellow being and enslave them. Assuming that their captives were integrated in their community, but still they were there as slaves and not as freemen belonging to such particular clan. So, nothing is being off topic here, because the argument of Africans hunting fellow Africans was an evidence of backwardness which in 1500's and 1600's was already considered as crime in Western territories among Europeans. No English would hunt an Irish to be sold as slave to Welsh. Can you not see that point? That was a clear evidence that the Africans from within their own kind had no regard to value of human life at least among themselves. For them hunting people for slavery was correct. Certainly not all of them were into that hunting. Those who don't hunt were the ones being hunted. It was the same as the Aztecs, not all of those tribes in the territory known today as Mexico were hunting fellow humans, but, there is just that group of people who do it and those who don't were the prey. It was like existence of lions among the herds of impala.

In 1500's the Europeans had already valued human life to be important the Vatican having stated that slavery was wrong. The Africans don't have that, like it was alright that certain people can be slaves. That was the situation in the Philippines too before the Spaniards came. I am not stating things exclusively on the basis of admiration of Western Civilization but they are facts of history. Can you argue against the fact that the Africans were conquered because they had no guns of the Westerners? That was a clear evidence that the Africans had no modernity to speak of in the first place and there was nothing that the Westerners hampered to grow since it was in the backwater as they colonized it. To demonize the west for the failure of any economic backlash or even political unrest of former colonies are nothing but socialist propaganda. They are untruthful and lies.
dagul is offline  
Old November 27th, 2016, 12:07 AM   #157

dagul's Avatar
Rabbit of Wormhole
 
Joined: Mar 2012
From: In the bag of ecstatic squirt
Posts: 17,070

Quote:
Originally Posted by Roses2 View Post
And it's actually your Neanderthal ancestors who were cannibals.
I don't discuss anything about those African cousins that contributed to American dishes. I am arguing of historical fact that there were African cannibals and hunters who sold their prey to Westerners. On that regard, why should the West be blamed for their failure in the modern world since historically, they were so backward on the moment of colonial period. There is nothing to be hampered when growth is not even evident.
dagul is offline  
Old November 27th, 2016, 12:09 AM   #158
Historian
 
Joined: Jan 2011
Posts: 9,868

Quote:
Originally Posted by Ighayere View Post
So no definite proof or evidence of any kind?



This is misleading. France's former colonies trade much more with the rest of the world than they do with France (if you want a source: http://www.etsg.org/ETSG2012/Programme/Papers/192.pdf) and this has been economically beneficial to them, whereas if they had stayed French, who knows how much more pitiful their economies would be. Probably just a continuation of the situation during colonial times.
Again look at the case of Mayotte and Comoros

Mayotte is much better off being part of France and Comorians are voting with their feet and moving to Mayotte...

The thing is when you are part of a richer countries you get subsidies

The GDP per capita in Mayotte thanks in great part to such subsidies is around 8000 euros per heard.. In nearby Comoros it is less than a 1000 euros per head

So yes, the local population of many colonies would have been better off had they stayed with France....
tomar is offline  
Old November 27th, 2016, 12:09 AM   #159

dagul's Avatar
Rabbit of Wormhole
 
Joined: Mar 2012
From: In the bag of ecstatic squirt
Posts: 17,070

Quote:
Originally Posted by Ighayere View Post
So it seems that what I said about the posts getting somewhat off topic is already starting, courtesy of dagul. . .
To argue that during the Western colonization these African tribes were hunting fellow being to be sold as slaves and there were cannibals among themselves showing the evidence that they were backward at that time, is in keeping with the thread topic that their undeveloped stage in modern history was not because of Western colonization but because of their own culture.
dagul is offline  
Old November 27th, 2016, 12:16 AM   #160
Historian
 
Joined: Jan 2011
Posts: 9,868

Quote:
Originally Posted by The Cell View Post
Good observation, but there is actually a valued reason why there is "not a single south korea in Africa".

The issue here is the concept of National Identity. You need to take into account that the boarders of the majority of African nations where drawn by Europeans with absolutely no concern whatsoever about the local demographics, and we know that this very issue was one of the causes of major civil wars such as the Hutu and Tutsi conflict.

This would pretty much be the equivalent of someone drawing a line on a map and suddenly declaring that Germany and France are now one country call Gerfra!

National identity is something which is formed over a very long period of time and it is directly responsible for how a country develops in future.

Thus the reason why South Korea is doing so well, is because they have an existing national identity. This means that they have a common identity and ideology to build towards. Thus they enjoy greater cooperation between the citizens. Africa does not have this.
While you are right that national identity is important, let's not overvalue it either

Remember that , for example, Germany and Italy only formed as states towards the end of the 19th century (thus later than many colonies were defined as a specific territories)...
Let's not forget that thanks to France, Algeria acquired some 1.5 million+ square km of territory (mostly desert but with valuable resources such as oil/gas which make up most of Algeria GDP today) and Algeria does not have a "national identity" problem.... Neither do most of the north african countries...
Egypt is even a clearer case, as it claims a history of some 5 000 years as a polity, probably longer than any other entity on earth...
tomar is offline  
Reply

  Historum > Themes in History > Philosophy, Political Science, and Sociology

Tags
colonies, undeveloped, western



Thread Tools
Display Modes


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Spain tries to keep colonies Joe Freeman Speculative History 9 August 30th, 2015 06:49 AM
Travel between colonies SallyFairfax American History 11 June 25th, 2013 03:24 PM
What colonies could have been kept? WeisSaul Speculative History 16 May 16th, 2012 02:00 AM
Just for former colonies :) sylla1 General History 24 April 12th, 2011 03:08 PM
American Colonies huskerguy77 History Book Reviews 5 June 7th, 2009 08:57 PM

Copyright © 2006-2013 Historum. All rights reserved.