Spare me, the most widely subscribed theory of history is that Europeans made Africa poor and prevented them from developing by extracting their natural resource wealth through colonialism. It is entirely false and heavily supported by enormous efforts of academic bias, rhetorical warfare, and straight up making shit up.
As for Africa, yes, but that's the point, OP wants to talk about Sub-Saharan Africa, which is what my quote specifically refers to; not Egypt.
There are zero domesticatable species in Africa. Even Zebra and African Elephants have some utility because they are similar to mostly domesticatable animals like horses, donkeys, and Asian Elephants, but even modern technology finds it utterly impossible. Zebras may look like horses, but they aren't the same kind of horse that even a Mustang is.
Egypt, Mesopatamia, and the Indus valley were explicitly hospitable at the time of their development, and had extremely regular river flows which made civilization possible. Difficult climates do the exact opposite. If the worst climates developed civilization, we would see ancient mega structures in Northern Scotland, Scandanavia, Mongolia, and the Sahara itself would have long and thriving civilizations before the ancient Sumerians or Yamato.
And it is important that a civilization requires complex social structures organizing together, that is explicitly impossible in Sub-Saharan Africa. We can see how impossible it is because Nigera, for example, has dozens of completely unique languages (over 500 actively spoken languages in the country) and over 60 different ethnic groups. Why? Because each tribe was geographically isolated from one another by geography, disease, and competition for tens of thousands of years.
Rome wouldn't exist, with or without sewage and drainage, with Malaria being as prevalent and perpetual as it is in Africa. Malaria is one of the reasons modern Europeans couldn't sufficiently explore into the continent because there was no malaria treatment until well over a thousand years since the collapse of the Roman Empire.
Spare me, the most widely subscribed theory of history is that Europeans made Africa poor and prevented them from developing by extracting their natural resource wealth through colonialism. It is entirely false and heavily supported by enormous efforts of academic bias, rhetorical warfare, and straight up making shit up.
As I referenced earlier, check out Wittfogel and the hydraulic empires. It's a great read.
European colonialism in Africa is largely a 19th century phenomenon and lasted for less than a hundred years. Extractive colonialism was, no doubt, damaging. That does nothing to explain the thousands of years of pre-European contact history.
There are zero domesticatable species in Africa.
Strong disagree.
Egypt, Mesopatamia, and the Indus valley were explicitly hospitable at the time of their development, and had extremely regular river flows which made civilization possible.
You think the river flows of the Nile, Tigris, Euphrates, Indus, etc., were reliable and regular? You just have to check out the pantheon of ancient Egyptian and Sumerian gods to get an idea of just how regular the waters were. Or, you know, the Noah myth... (Gilgamesh)
Your argument is just not grounded in reality.
Rome wouldn't exist, with or without sewage and drainage, with Malaria being as prevalent and perpetual as it is in Africa.
Another argument with no grounding in reality. Malaria is or was endemic in the Mediterranean basin, in South America, in India, in Southeast Asia, in parts of China, etc. Malaria was a major issue in ancient Rome, for instance. Why is it uniquely only sub-Saharan African peoples who were so impacted by malaria?
Plus, your arguments make the false assumption that all of sub-Saharan Africa is of a similar clime. This is false. South Africa (and much of southern Africa more generally, for instance), is totally different.
Spare me, the most widely subscribed theory of history is that Europeans made Africa poor and prevented them from developing by extracting their natural resource wealth through colonialism. It is entirely false and heavily supported by enormous efforts of academic bias, rhetorical warfare, and straight up making shit up.
As for Africa, yes, but that's the point, OP wants to talk about Sub-Saharan Africa, which is what my quote specifically refers to; not Egypt.
There are zero domesticatable species in Africa. Even Zebra and African Elephants have some utility because they are similar to mostly domesticatable animals like horses, donkeys, and Asian Elephants, but even modern technology finds it utterly impossible. Zebras may look like horses, but they aren't the same kind of horse that even a Mustang is.
Egypt, Mesopatamia, and the Indus valley were explicitly hospitable at the time of their development, and had extremely regular river flows which made civilization possible. Difficult climates do the exact opposite. If the worst climates developed civilization, we would see ancient mega structures in Northern Scotland, Scandanavia, Mongolia, and the Sahara itself would have long and thriving civilizations before the ancient Sumerians or Yamato.
And it is important that a civilization requires complex social structures organizing together, that is explicitly impossible in Sub-Saharan Africa. We can see how impossible it is because Nigera, for example, has dozens of completely unique languages (over 500 actively spoken languages in the country) and over 60 different ethnic groups. Why? Because each tribe was geographically isolated from one another by geography, disease, and competition for tens of thousands of years.
Rome wouldn't exist, with or without sewage and drainage, with Malaria being as prevalent and perpetual as it is in Africa. Malaria is one of the reasons modern Europeans couldn't sufficiently explore into the continent because there was no malaria treatment until well over a thousand years since the collapse of the Roman Empire.
As I referenced earlier, check out Wittfogel and the hydraulic empires. It's a great read.
European colonialism in Africa is largely a 19th century phenomenon and lasted for less than a hundred years. Extractive colonialism was, no doubt, damaging. That does nothing to explain the thousands of years of pre-European contact history.
Strong disagree.
You think the river flows of the Nile, Tigris, Euphrates, Indus, etc., were reliable and regular? You just have to check out the pantheon of ancient Egyptian and Sumerian gods to get an idea of just how regular the waters were. Or, you know, the Noah myth... (Gilgamesh)
Your argument is just not grounded in reality.
Another argument with no grounding in reality. Malaria is or was endemic in the Mediterranean basin, in South America, in India, in Southeast Asia, in parts of China, etc. Malaria was a major issue in ancient Rome, for instance. Why is it uniquely only sub-Saharan African peoples who were so impacted by malaria?
Plus, your arguments make the false assumption that all of sub-Saharan Africa is of a similar clime. This is false. South Africa (and much of southern Africa more generally, for instance), is totally different.