What if history were reversed and blacks had guns and ocean-going ships before whites did? Would blacks have wiped out the natives of North America and made whites into slaves to work the land? Would we now be talking about black racism and black privilege?
It is certainly possible, but improbable.
It is possible: If you are the first to have guns and ocean-going ships, you can take advantage of people who look very different from you. Race then becomes a cheap, after-the-fact excuse for doing so. That leads to racism – dividing mankind into races and seeing some races, like your own, as better than others. We know that is possible because that is the last 500 years in a nutshell.
But improbable: China could have done what Europe did but did not. In fact, Europe did not clearly pass China technologically till the late 1700s. The European Expansion was based on Chinese inventions: gunpowder, the compass, paper and printing. Even Jared Diamond in “Guns, Germs and Steel” (1997) had a hard time accounting for why Europe took over the world, not China.
Technology advances and spreads unevenly. It is common for one region to have a technological edge over another – yet it is rare for it to lead to genocide, even when the edge is military.
- The Romans, as violent, destructive, powerful and unprincipled as they were, could have easily practised genocide on a mass scale but did not.
- The Ancient Egyptians, living in a stone age world, could have easily done the same but did not.
- The same with the Greeks under Alexander the Great.
- And the whites in South Africa and New Zealand.
- And so on.
Genocide does not require a technological edge over one’s neighbours: In Rwanda, for example, it was carried out with machetes.
There is no technological determinism to genocide. Because it is not based on that – it is based on dehumanizing others. Further, genocide is rare, especially on a continental scale.
So while blacks might have wiped out the natives of North America it is unlikely. And without that they would not have had so much land that they would need millions of slaves to work it. They probably would have had some white slaves, just as the Ancient Egyptians did, but not on a mass scale.
This is not complete guesswork on my part: When Columbus arrived in the Caribbean the people there already knew about blacks: they had traded with them. Africa is much closer to the Americas than Europe. And, armed with iron weapons, blacks could have made short work of the people there if they wanted to.
White Americans are at an extreme end of human history. Defeating your enemy and maybe taking over their country is common. Wiping them out wholesale and taking their land is not. For White Americans that does not come from their guns and their bombs but from how they think.
See also:
- the eight stages of genocide
- guns, germs and steel
- I have used this scenario to talk about white people and human nature:
- John Trudell: When Columbus got off the boat
- Columbus
Hard to say, what are you talking about? A set of warring states needing overseas derrived riches, to finance the war for their own survival? One black empire? A set of balancing, more or less peaceful regional superpowers?
Nations suffering from overpopulation caused in part by great advances in medicine?
Nice Post abagond.
However, I do feel the white racists have got to you at least in this specific post…
The romans/greeks were as bad as the current day american system. They wiped out anyone who did not agree to join there territory and adopt roman/greek culture and the roman system of worldview… Yeah sure there’s wasn’t based on race, there’s was based on whether you were roman/greek or not.
That system just evolved to its modern day version of whether you are white or not.
Whites in South Africa couldn’t eliminate the blacks because the blacks were many and much tougher… This is why africa still has many black people, they just couldn’t kill us. Yeah sure, they can kill us with guns and whatever but that isn’t enough to wipe out the whole population.
In New Zealand and Australia the aboriginals and natives got truly wiped out that only a few thousand, in some cases less than 100 remained. That was genocide, they weren’t as tough as the africans and it has to be said the environment of africa helped us survive.
The natives in south/central/north america got wiped by sheer conquest but that wasn’t enough to decimate the population, what finally did the job was the diseases white people brought, like SMALL POX. In africa it appears our genes helped us survive. Small Pox in the Americas wiped out millions upon millions of native, doing the job guns couldn’t do.
http://www.earlyamerica.com/review/2007_summer_fall/native-americans-smallpox.html
This Native American depopulation occurred during the contact period, causing the Native American population size to decline from 1-18 million before European contact (c. AD 1500) to an estimated 530,000 by 1900.
In south America and the surrounding Caribbean islands,
http://suite101.com/article/the-history-of-smallpox-in-latin-america-a152524
Columbus had founded the first European settlement here on Hispaniola, and it would not be long before the first major Old World diseases broke loose amongst the native population, decimating the islanders.
[...]
The Aztec Emperor Cuitláhuac died from smallpox, further throwing the Aztecs into disarray. The Aztec Empire collapsed and Cortés took control of Mexico. The population of Mexico, estimated at 15 to 30 million at the time, shrank to just 3 million by 1568 and approximately 1.6 million by 1620, according to Ian and Jenifer Glynn. Smallpox, they state, “was the principal culprit”.
You get the picture…
I can understand you trying not to be extreme in your views as this will label you as some form of “extremist” but the above acts were VERY extreme and no other people’s(non-white) even get close to that level of sheer destruction – historically speaking.
That’s true, if you excuse the somewhat racist shorthand, in black vs white, the human diseases operated on the black side, in white vs. red they were with white, in black vs. red the diseases would still have been playing on the black team.
I always thought that they not right in their head.
Abagond:
This is easy. They are guided by a sinister hand.
The best judge of how one group would treat another is to look at how they’ve treated themselves. And I can’t think of anything that one group has done to another that every group hasn’t done to itself already.
@ duckduckgoofs :
I guess that europeans deep down really hate themselves huh.
Too answer abagonds question, it would be no different and there would be white racism and white privilege.
as been stated many times before the white people had power, and that made all whites coherently evil. Absolute power corrupts the absolute.
however if it was reversed I could at least go to college.
@main post
Maybe I’m being egocentric, but I feel this this post is at least partially a reply to my “alternative reality” comment. Anyway, thank you. This post does make your stance much clearer and at this point it’s something I can cosign.
..”There is no technological determinism to genocide. Because it is not based on that – it is based on dehumanizing others. Further, genocide is rare, especially on a continental scale….”(Abagond).
So then ultimately, the, (or a) dominant element of the European psycho-social state of mind, lies in their obsession with dehumanizing their ‘enemy’/'others’, to conquer then completely annihilate and destroy them. hmmm…
Pretty much when it comes to the native americans, it would be the same, 90 odd percent were killed by disease before any kind of genocidal attempts.
Working that factor in, black people would have killed off 9/10ths of the population of the natives as well. Just by being there.
Using the assumption that disease equals genocide, than yes black people in this scenario would have committed genocide on a continental scale as well.
So they would definately have had the same amounts of land and the need for slaves and since they had white slaves in the real world its safe to assume that in this alternative reality they would have had white slaves then as well.
Only at a much greater level than they did here.
Considering that slavery still exists in Africa, in all honesty is there any reason to assume in this alternate reality it wouldn’t still legally exist in “America”?
What if history were reversed and blacks had guns and ocean-going ships before whites did, i think Abagond is asking weather blacks would of treated the natives of the countries they came into contact with the same way that whites did ( stolen lands, murder rape etc….) using their superior technology,
not if the natives would of died of some African disease.
Slavery does not exist throughout Africa ,i can’t see these African needing any slaves since they live on a continent that is rich with natural resources not mineral poor and could easily sail to the east via east Africa and the cape for trade.
Abagond:
It’s hard to say if blacks would have done the same. Europeans wanted to get the hell out of europe more than anything, because, the continent is not rich in natural resources as is africa, southeast asia, south pacific, and the americas. Our ancestors would not have any incentive to enslave whites, except for power.
Tyrone
V-4 and Jared, the early slavery and colonial history had more to do with sugarcane and many spices being tropical plants. If Captain “Rainborn” had discovered interesting plants on his trip in far away lands, he could have taken them home and grown them there, for the growing of sugar and spice Africa would not have needed colonies on other continents.
eh idk i have a degree in Latin as well as English, Creative Writing, BA’s both, so I have done a bit of study with regards to the Roman Empire. Honestly, the modality of the US Calvary in the western US in the 19th c. compared to the provincial praetorship model of Roman conquest is fairly similar, please be advise the ‘founding fathers’ called the potomac the ‘little tiber’, excepting for the blankets with small pox on it and so forth, so idk what to say right now.
-tc
This helps strengthen by faith in alternate dimensions.
@brothawolf
wow would that it were as they say
See Abagond, I’d actually disagree with you here, there is a well known reason that China did not take over the world when it would seem it should have been poised to: it was too united, and one man’s vendetta sunk much of the country’s progress and started off its period of insularity, as well as the fact that it didn’t have nearby states as advanced as itself to compete with and drive it to become more powerful than it was. Also, China didn’t have much of a way to separate people it conquered by phenotype, as most of them all looked more or less racially the same. Also, China had no need for cheap labour, as it’s large, agrarian population provided that just fine. As for slaves in the Americas, I don’t think whites would have been all that useful, for the same reason natives weren’t; they aren’t hot weather adapted like Africans, and would have dropped like flies from heat exhaustion and malaria, they couldn’t have been imported from Europe fast enough to replace the ones that died. Not to say I agree that African conquerors of the Americas wouldn’t have had slaves, it’s just more likely they would’ve been south or southeast Asians, or other Africans enslaved on non-racial lines. Power corrupts, and however I might feel about white people, I just don’t feel honest saying that another race wouldn’t have done the same things if given that same power.
You’ve said before yourself, how White people are now comes from their power, and is not innate, and while you didn’t outright say this, it seems like you reversed your position. Also, if it was not their military and other advantages that have created their demons, than what was it, biology? I would hope you wouldn’t believe that nonsense.
Smallpox blankets
Despite his fame, Jeffrey Amherst’s name became tarnished by stories of smallpox-infected blankets used as germ warfare against American Indians. These stories are reported, for example, in Carl Waldman’s Atlas of the North American Indian [NY: Facts on File, 1985]. Waldman writes, in reference to a siege of Fort Pitt (Pittsburgh) by Chief Pontiac’s forces during the summer of 1763:
… Captain Simeon Ecuyer had bought time by sending smallpox-infected blankets and handkerchiefs to the Indians surrounding the fort — an early example of biological warfare — which started an epidemic among them. Amherst himself had encouraged this tactic in a letter to Ecuyer. [p. 108]
What if it were reversed and blacks had guns and ocean-going ships before whites did? Hmmm.. how do we know they did not?
What if history were reversed and blacks had guns and ocean-going ships before whites did? Would blacks have wiped out the natives of North America and made whites into slaves to work the land? Would we now be talking about black racism and black privilege? they still do kill eachother all over Africa for land and wipe out entire tribes. the aztecs did it to the mulmecs and they to the ultecs.
It is possible: If you are the first to have guns and ocean-going ships, you can take advantage of people who look very different from you. Race then becomes a cheap, after-the-fact excuse for doing so. That leads to racism – dividing mankind into races and seeing some races, like your own, as better than others. We know that is possible because that is the last 500 years in a nutshell.
this statment makes it seem like black africans were the only slaves or the longest running victims of slavery.
But improbable: China could have done what Europe did but did not. In fact, Europe did not clearly pass China technologically till the late 1700s. The European Expansion was based on Chinese inventions: gunpowder, the compass, paper and printing. Even Jared Diamond in “Guns, Germs and Steel” (1997) had a hard time accounting for why Europe took over the world, not China.
china and japan were constantly conquering eachother and many other nations.
Technology advances and spreads unevenly. It is common for one region to have a technological edge over another – yet it is rare for it to lead to genocide, even when the edge is military.
The Romans, as violent, destructive, powerful and unprincipled as they were, could have easily practised genocide on a mass scale but did not.
The Ancient Egyptians, living in a stone age world, could have easily done the same but did not.
yes they did they enslaved the jews.
The same with the Greeks under Alexander the Great.
And the whites in South Africa and New Zealand.
And so on.
Genocide does not require a technological edge over one’s neighbours: In Rwanda, for example, it was carried out with machetes.
There is no technological determinism to genocide. Because it is not based on that – it is based on dehumanizing others. Further, genocide is rare, especially on a continental scale.
So while blacks might have wiped out the natives of North America it is unlikely. And without that they would not have had so much land that they would need millions of slaves to work it. They probably would have had some white slaves, just as the Ancient Egyptians did, but not on a mass scale.
no proof behind this.
This is not complete guesswork on my part: When Columbus arrived in the Caribbean the people there already knew about blacks: they had traded with them. Africa is much closer to the Americas than Europe. And, armed with iron weapons, blacks could have made short work of the people there if they wanted to.
White Americans are at an extreme end of human history. Defeating your enemy and maybe taking over their country is common. Wiping them out wholesale and taking their land is not. For White Americans that does not come from their guns and their bombs but from how they think.
yes wiping them out is not the precedent of the white man. almost all indigiounous peoples stole the land from the ones before this, it has been the precedent of all tribal life.
@Jared
Well; they probably would have conquered, stolen lands etc….especially since most of the lands were now unoccupied post vast swaths of disease killing amounts of the population that make the black plague look tame.
Would they have engaged in the racism etc…..don’t know, can’t say as a whole that africa is really known for that but I can honestly say my knowledge of african cultures on almost any level is pretty minimal.
I “suspect” they probably would have been more intolerant and accepting of the natives post-conquest but that might just be wishful thinking on my part.
So I guess depending on how you look at it; thats either better or worse, racism + segregation means some semblence of the native people’s and cultures exist.
Acceptance means assimiliation and sublimination….so they would have been wiped out on a complete level.
I have given this much thought and I have only one explanation: for some reason the european concept of war was/is different from any other.
Egyptians did rule over various nations and people and they did not wipe out them but demanded that those conquered recognise the pharao as their supreme ruler and pay tribute for them. Example are the so called philisteans and other people such as them. Even the habiru, the jews, were not wiped out, even when historical Dwd, David for us, lead his mercenary guerillas on his campaign in the uplands of the philistean area, despite the fact that the philistean rulers wrote to the pharaos and asked them to do so.
The Greeks saw themselves as greeks as one people only after the persian attacks and even then only as an alliance of independent city states and nations. For an athenean, a spartan was a foreigner, so trading with the people north of the Black Sea was the same as trading with the spartans etc.
The persians did not seek to destroy other nations and people, they wanted to subjacate them and make them recognise the overlordship of their own ruler. Ad pay up of course.
Alexander the Great adpoted different cultures and people into his realm and was even annoited as pharao. So he had no problems with multiculturality at all nor did his generals, many of whom became the rules of various lands of Alexanders realm once he died.
The Romans, the nazis of their day, had rules: first they conquered, then they crushed the first rebellion or two, and only after that they tried to wipe out those who rebelled more. Good examples are the jews and the dacians. BUT even the romans allowed people of other races and cultures to become citizens of Rome with full citizenship and practised foreign religions, adopted foreign cultures and arts etc.
The Huns, despite their reputation, did not wipe out everything. The Huns were actually a ruling monirity in a vast alliance of nations and peoples when Attila led them against Rome. There goths and others in the mix. So they actually embarced other nations and people and took them in.
Even mongols did not wipe out everyone IF those to be conquered accepted their rules as over lords and payed trubute and taxes and obeyed them.
The chinese and China is different for the simple reason that China has always been multicultural as it is even today. The people we see only as chinese are a hodge podge of various tribes and people from a vast area and always were. The chinese could have taken over the seas, they had all the means, skills and technical know how BUT one, 1, emperor canned the whole expedition idea and forbade the long ocean voyages.
Africa is a huge continent and unfortunately much of its history is not known widely particulary from times before european conquest. We do not know if there were genocides and/or cultural wipe outs but we do know that many african nations, or people, were more nomadic than others. There would have been conflicts and wars but one interesting thing about the african culture of war: I forgot the name of the west african tribe/nation which had an devastating throwing sword. It has several blades and could be used as a handheld weapon as well as throwing weapon. It could penetrate the shileds, curve over them etc. It was such a devastating weapon that this nation became widely feared for it. What happened? Their very own king banned it and with that the tribe lost its position.
European idea of war, among themselves or against outsiders, seems to have been from very early on that there are no rules. At all. No rules what so ever. The only thing is to win by any means. Of wining takes killing off everyone, then so be it. If it means destroying whole cultures, so be it. Wipe out languages, religions, even clothing fashions, it is ok if it leads to victory. The only thing that counts is the victory. Not an honorable peace, not co existence, but total victory over the enemy.
The germans tried to achieve this in WW2 ans even called it total war. It included the idea of the holocaust, and not only for jewish people but to all of those who were deemed to go. In 1945 germans wanted to make peace but the allies did not. They wanted to destroy Germany once and for all. And they did. Germany was bombed to the pieces and occupied, and still is, and for over 40 years it was also divided. And the logical end of this thinking were of course the Nagasaki and Hiroshima bombs. By then Japan had lost the war. They had no chances at all. They were done. Allies could have told them to drop their weapons and quit, make some kind of a peace with them, but that was not the agenda. The aim was to give them a lesson they won’t forget, to make the emperor kneel and do some serious ass kissing.
The rationale given to the atom bombings was to save american lives (estimates for the casualities from the invasion of Japan were around few hunderd thousand up to a million) but the japanese could have been blocked and squeezed to submission by that time. They had no raw materials, no food, no gasline, nothing to continue the war. They were done with all practicality. BUT somebody wanted to give them a real lesson how this will end if they do not surrender without any conditions, if they do not throw themselves at the mercy of the enemy and pray for the best.
I think somewhere there is the answer for this question. If the blacks would have taken over the oceans ad with guns, would they have done the same? I have no answer for that but I doubt. They would have had no reason. Whites did in their mind.
As for the diseases, they were not always an accidental occurence as so many want to claim. Europeans had used diseases as biological weapons from the times of the greeks and romans at least. They knew that if they could not take a city or castle, all they needed was one dead who carried the plague and throw that body over the walls and thats it. The chinese, huns and mongols used this tactic too.
Well… A huge part of what depopulated the Americas was unintentional. In all honesty, nobody PLANNED for smallpox, measles, and influenza to hit the Americas – and syphilis and tuberculosis were pretty big surprises to people in Europe and Asia as well. The only way Cortes took down the Triple Alliance was due to an influenza outbreak that laid Tenochtitlan low, to the point where it was less of an invasion and more of a slow march through piles of dead people. Similarly, Pizarro would have never taken down the inka if it hadn’t been for a smallpox outbreak twenty years prior leading to civil war (As detailed in Diamond’s book)
This also struck New Zealand and South Africa; the Khoi-San speakers of South Africa were very nearly wiped out by plagues, followed by invasion from both whites and Bantu-speaking peoples.
If Africans – say, the Songhai empire – had reached the Americas first, would the devastation have been similar? I think just from the disease angle, yes. Malaria, yellow fever, and smallpox were all present in the Sahel at that time, and would have hit the Americans just ash hard regardless of racial origins of the newcomers. HOWEVER… I do not think the Songhai would have invaded in the way the Europeans did.
The main driving forces behind the European invasion was massive state debt and extreme overpopulation; the governments of Europe were all up to their gills in debt to themselves, the Venitians, and even the ottomans, owing to all the wars they had been fighting. So they needed the treasure of the Americas to pay that off. All those wars of course led to all kinds of miseries in Europe, and a combination of famine and overpopulation especially in the British Isles, drove people overseas. Africa… didn’t have these problems. While it certainly wasn’t a utopia, the Songhai response to a new world would have likely been “cool, let’s trade” instead of “HOLY CRAP THEY HAVE GOLD AND LAND!!!!!”
There is a book and documentary on this subject called “Guns, Germs and Steel”. I see that you have it listed in your ‘see also’. Everyone ought to read the book or see the documentary. Especially those that believe White Supremacy is about some sort of inherent difference between ethnic groups. Nope, Whites had success because of the luck of their geographic location.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Guns,_Germs,_and_Steel
haha scrolled through the comments (read everyone-except circus-) then scrolled back to the top-THAT was when I noticed the flag!
But that is part of the question, if African civiliation(s) would have canon and/or musketeers on oceangoing ships, i.e. a (proto)navy, they would have had a reason to have them, and the most logical reason for that is war with their neighbours.
War ≠ Genocide
@commentarybyvalentina
The documentary is terrible. Just flat-out terrible. it skips all the meat of the book, and seems to mostly just serve to provide space for advertising. Plus when every five minutes the narrator intones “GUNS! GERMS! And STEEL!” it makes it even more unwatchable.
I guess what I’m saying is that the book really is better than the movie
History is not my strong suit. But didn’t they find African looking artifacts in mexico that dates 4000 years old. Maybe there was African ships that made it to the new world before Europeans.
@ dave,
they found african looking statues… Well n__roid in appearance… This is part of the suppressed history. Officially no african ever made it to the americas before Colombus.
http://www.crystalinks.com/olmec.html
Scroll down and you’ll see some that have african like features, i.e. Puffed up lips and flat noses.
Is there any known instance of African disease contaminating Native Americans after european colonists started importing African slaves to the New World by millions?
If not, the claim that Natives would have died of imported diseases anyway can be considered a gratuitous affirmation.
(By the way, the actual population of pre-colombian America is still debated, so statements such as “90% of Native American were killed by disease” must be taken with a grain of salt.)
True. But before that, they sailed the seas for centuries. The same can be said of other South Asian and mid-eastern nations. Yet, unlike what happened with Europeans, it did not end up in worldwide carnage.
Take Admiral Zheng He for instance:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zheng_He
He was at the head of one the most formidable armada in human history (200 to 317 ships and up to 28 000 men according to Wikipedia). Yet, violent altercations with foreign civilizations he met were the exception.
On the other hand, each and every encounter of Europeans with foreign civilizations ended up in extermination or colonization (or attempt at it): North, Central & South America, Caribbean, Asia, Africa, Australia, you name it…
Anyone who refuses to see a consistent pattern here is in denial, if you ask me.
How so, when the black plaque had almost wiped out human life in Europe? This shouldn’t be surprising, but well documented truths.
“Is there any known instance of African disease contaminating Native Americans after european colonists started importing African slaves to the New World by millions?”
The old world included African, Aisa and the area known as Europe. Sall pox is an old world contagion shared amongst all three groups of people as well as a number of other deadly airborn diseases. Africans coming to America would have had a lot of the same diseases and thus did the same damage, disease wise.
Natives have been in contact with Africans for centuries after the latter have been forcedly brought to the New World. It’s a fact, right? Are you aware of an instance (in North, Central & South America and the Caribbean Isles) where natives have been decimated by diseases contracted from Africans?
I think that we should discuss the role Christianity played in shaping European thoughts around that time.
Like non christians/non whites are the sons and daughters of Ham,therefore cursed and not deserving of respect.
The lands of the new world they saw as the land of milk and honey,God’s promise fulfilled to his children, and just like the Canaanites and Ammonites of the Bible the natives had to make way for the Children of God.
Good question , is their any proof of that ?
@ Jared
If not, we’re confronting AGDoren’s rhetorical “could have been” scenario with the fact that Africans and Native Americans have been in contact for centuries without the former contaminating the latter with their germs (as opposed to what consistently occurred with Europeans from the initial contact to late in the 19th century).
If any extrapolation is to be made, basic common sense would tend to the conclusion that Africans did not import lethal diseases to the Americas.
Dahoman X
Small pox originated in Africa. I’m just saying.
I have to see this Germs, Guns, and Steel documentary!!! Sounds very interesting and historically correct.
It wouldn’t have anything to do with the fact that the white phenotype is genetically subordinate would it?
Also while definitely not all a large percentage of albinic/white people are astechically inferior as indicated by thier own behavior i.e. suntaning etc.
Precisely: you’re just saying.
How about an actual argument establishing that the cases of small pox witnessed in the New World can be linked to the African population instead? Just a study stating that only areas with an attested African population experienced small pox will do. Or even a report attesting that such epidemic afflicting Natives was started by an African slave.
I’m sure even you can admit that just because a disease is assumed to originate from one specific place does not mean that only inhabitants from this place can transmit it, right?
And last time I checked, smallpox was prevalent in Europe at the time of the conquest of the Americas.
People seem to be missing the point that biological warfare is just as effective as guns and Europeans begin to figure this out after the black plaque almost wiped out the entire population. This was unique, and according to some theorist, Europeans began to take precautions in medicine, diet and most importantly midwifery.
After the black plaque, there was a boom in studying natural medicines (i.e. herbs), apprentices for midwives. This meant, that if Europe could develop these practices, keeping those healthy who were already healthy, healing those who were unhealthy and making sure mothers carried their children to full term and that childbirth itself was not a death sentence (remember during the Middle Ages once a woman became pregnant she had to designate a priest in the event she died during the process as it was so common.) so that the population could recover–hence it did as even today midwifery is the preferred method of prenatal care in almost every European country.
And guess what? It-midwifery-was such a success in booming the population post the black death era, that Europeans became stronger, more aggressive and numerous which resulted in them being successful at colonizing the rest of the world.
By then, they understood that their immunity was much much more stronger to populations that had not been exposed to harsh illnesses such as they had.
And lo and behold–biological weaponry.
Natives could hardly contract small pox from africa as they only interacted minimally. The natives mostly interacted with the white conquerors… Unless some commentators are saying white people got small pox from black people and then transmitted it to the natives?
Deep in south and central america where the spanish conquistadors went, they hardly took any african slaves with them.. They didn’t exactly make a pit stop in africa to collect slaves en route to fortune and fame in the south/central american jungles – like the cities of gold.
@ Phoebe,
Biological warfare is more effective than guns.
Black plague didn’t only attack Europe.
http://wiki.answers.com/Q/What_continent_was_affected_by_the_Black_Death
ASIA and EUROPE.
It may have attacked Africa as well, how would we know if it did or didn’t?
@chulanowa
Agreed but the doc is a good place to jump in. After that hopefully people will be motivated to read the book.
“Natives have been in contact with Africans for centuries after the latter have been forcibly brought to the New World. It’s a fact, right? Are you aware of an instance (in North, Central & South America and the Caribbean Isles) where natives have been decimated by diseases contracted from Africans?”
Under these circumstances the contact would have been with both Europeans,African and Natives at the same time it would be difficult to say who actually gave the disease to whom. Both are claimed to spread it depending on who is writing the paper.
Regarding the question of smallpox amongst the African population:
fact- Africans made valuable slaves to Europeans because they had immunity to diseases like smallpox this is documented
fact- in order for a population to develop an immunity to a disease there must be previous exposure
fact- it is unknown where in the old world smallpox originated but there is evidence of it being present throughout the old world by the time the Americas were being populated.If Africans had not had immunity to these diseases we wouldn’t be having this conversation right now because there would have been no African slaves to provide free labor in America
Therefore it is within the realm of possibility for our hypothetical African explorers to transmit smallpox to a Native American population.
There is evidence that many old world diseases originated in Europe due to the necessity of sharing living quarters with domesticated animals during harsh winters. If Europeans are completely removed from the equation than they could not have spread disease originating there to African populations.
dahoman X
My point was that you want to scapegoat whites for introducing small pox to America while ignoring that Africans introduced it to the rest of the world. Of course, there’s no more evidence that whites were the ones who introduced small pox to America than Africans. In spite of Wilson’s claims, there were even African sailors with Columbus and Cortes.
Bear in mind, however, that I’m not trying to scapegoat anyone. You are. What’s next — are you going to blame your cold on some kid who coughed at the supermarket?
“wilson
Deep in south and central america where the spanish conquistadors went, they hardly took any african slaves with them.. They didn’t exactly make a pit stop in africa to collect slaves en route to fortune and fame in the south/central american jungles – like the cities of gold”
Linda says,
Actually, the Spanish ‘invaders’ did have African soldiers and African conquistadors who explored under the Spanish flag.
Countries like Spain and Portugal had been trading with West Africa since before 1200′s, the traders even married into the ruling families to strenghten the relationships.
Juan Garrido sailed with Ponce De Leon (famous for claiming Florida for Spain). Some historians believed ‘Garrido’s father was a king who traded with the Portuguese. This theoretical African king may have set young Juan up as a commercial liaison, sending him for a Christian and Portuguese education’
http://www.augustine.com/history/black_history/juan_garrido/
‘Juan Garrido was not alone. Other black Africans found their way into Spanish society rather than slavery. Many joined the Conquest as soldiers, some in exchange for freedom, others for financial compensation. Sometimes they enjoyed rewards like the Spaniards got, including land, official jobs, and pensions. Often they had to plead their own case in written petitions. The Crown usually acknowledged their petitions, but didn’t always grant them. Regardless of Spain’s reward to them, they all received their share of the loot taken from the Native Americans’
Would the African conquistadors have been as Ruthless as the Europeans if the roles were reversed and they had been the majority, fighting under a west African flag…very hard question to answer.
Right now, the Tuaregs who fought in the Libyan army have now invaded Mali. I believe they are occupying Timbuktu. They claim they are retaking their ancestral lands.
http://www.theglobaldispatches.com/articles/malis-tuareg-rebellion
It would be interesting to know how different African tribes/nations treated each other in the past when a larger or more powerful nation invaded and expanded into another country.
The history of Africa would have to be examined and discussed.
How did they treat the people who they conquered?
Did they enslave the occupied population? Were they viewed as less then human by the conquering nation?
Did they wipe them out wholesale or systematically eliminated them?
(like how the Spanish in Argentina purposely sent their black men to fight in the wars against British and Indigineous Natives; and encouraged Spanish men to marry/have children with black women to help breed out the African population.)
At last, we’re getting somewhere: you know of some paper incriminating Africans in the spread of the diseases.
Would you mind sharing?
I don’t agree with your primary assertion. I think that had African people had phenomenal war capabilities back in the days of no accountability and powerful king/church death armies they would behave as badly as just about anyone else. People are wicked, wicked, wicked.
“Dahoman X
duckduckgoofs
Small pox originated in Africa. I’m just saying.
Precisely: you’re just saying.
How about an actual argument establishing that the cases of small pox witnessed in the New World can be linked to the African population instead? Just a study stating that only areas with an attested African population experienced small pox will do”
Linda says,
Dahoman X and Duck, try to stay on course and don’t lose sight of the rationale of the biological ‘warfare’ aspect of the European invasion in the Americas.
It really doesn’t matter where small pox originated, Historians also believed small pox originated in Egypt or India but it was the Europeans (not Africans or Asians) who had a major problem with Small pox disease.
http://news.harvard.edu/gazette/1999/05.20/waterhouse.html
Small pox was a major problem in Europe and the Europeans were the primary carriers of the disease once they set foot in the Americas. the Europeans were the majority group that interacted with the Natives in the Americas.
the Europeans knew the Natives had no immunity to small pox and this gave them a HUGE advantage in their war with the Natives.
http://suite101.com/article/the-history-of-smallpox-in-latin-america-a152524
@ Linda
True. That was actually the essence of my reply to duck.
I agree with the point you make about biological warfare.
@ duckduckgoofs
Do I?
Uhm, you want to re-read my initial comment, duck. Read also AGDoren’s comment which I was responding to, his arguments then mine. If you still don’t understand, come back at me and I’ll try to explain you.
If I actually believe that brat contaminated me, you bet I will.
Wouldn’t you?
@Dahoman
You asked if there was any instance of “African” diseases decimating Native Americans. There are in fact; malaria and yellow fever. Neither was as damaging as smallpox, influenza, or measles (Malaria being of moderate lethality, and Yellow Fever being far less lethal in childhood than in adulthood for some reason) but these diseases were transported in the bodies of slaves to the caribbean and East Coast of South America, and definitely took their toll. In fact the native and white population’s vulnerability to malaria in the American south is part of what led to the industrial scale of the African slave trade.
The fact that whites had just as hard a time with malaria and yellow fever as the Natives actually worked in favor for the natives in the southern hemisphere and central America; European invaders were unable to take advantage of the disease-stricken territory. In North America and much of mexico, the big killers were diseases that Europeans could “handle” thanks to their resistances, and so they were able to capitalize on the deaths of the natives. In the southern portions of the hemisphere, though, whites were largely unable to cope with hte diseases themselves; this gave those natives who had some resistance, or who had taken husbands and wives among the resistant Africans, to recover somewhat and hold their ground and eventually keep a fairly significant population (significant considering the apocalyptic diseases that had just stricken them, followed by intermittent attempts at snuffing them out by malarial colonists…)
The pair of books by Charles G. Mann, “1491″ and “1493″ are extremely informative; especially the latter, as it’s a 600-page tome detailing the Colombian exchange between Europe, Africa, the Americas, and Asia.
I never said it was only Europe. It spread enroute from the silk road.
However, Europe did get the worst case of it–hence i stated that it almost wiped out the European population. This didn’t seem to be the case in Asia. Factor in at that time, there was no proper sewage system in Europe and people could not bathe as often due to longer and colder winters. You do the math.
Whether it reached Africa or not is important because? Africans–even if they did contract the black plaque still did not use this agaisnst the populations that they later came into contact with. Where are records that show this?
If we look at the genocide of native americans, that is an historical fact. All european nations who conquered land in the “new” continent did it one way or the other. They used biological warfare, which has been documented pretty well, and other means. There is no way around it. it took place in Caribbean, in north and south America etc. It happened and it was no accident.
What we very often forget that one thig what set europeans apart from all the other cultures was their almost anarchistic, if not nihilistic view of the world. In around 1500 Europe was a mighty mess of competing kings, dukes, churches, royals, noble men, bandits, rebels, commercial companies, independent cities etc. Europeans were almost in constant state of war and had been for a long time.
Mighty king might have estates hundreds of miles apart, emperor had land holdings from the Baltic to Mediterannean, from Balkans to present day France, and church was mingling with power politics at every chance on local and international level. Catholic church was fighting its own wars againts christian kings and such etc.
The rise of the english fleet was not an concentrated national effort by the crown as such but very clever trick: English made the private pirates and mercenaries as contract admirals and fleet commanders. The crown gave out contracts which made these freebooters semi official officers and soldiers. They were acting like pirates but under the permission of the Englihs crown and thus not as pirates but soldiers of the crown. The most famous pirate captain Morgan was actually the governor of Jamaica at one time etc.
Rich city states hired their own mercenaries, powerful merchants did the same, sometimes the rules did so too and so did the noble men. War was business as well. So much so that by the 30 years war guys like Pappenheim and Wallenstein were basically big time mercenaries at the service of the emperor and catholic side of the conflict for tidy sums of money and for the loot. Destroying town and cities became a normal feat because this way the contract generals did not have to pay so much as the rank and file took what they wanted from those towns and cities. It was called Ratio Bello, idea being that war supports itself.
Any chivalric notions (if there evere were such in reality) were pretty much gone by the 1500′s. Spanish inquisition was rising and the church was very happy burning heretics and witches by the thousands. It was the age of Kepler and incredible superstition. While Galileo was looking at the stars, pope was forcing the edict that the earth was at the center of the universe and tried to kill his competitors. Macchiavelli was not an exception but a guy who wrote down the ideas and views around him. And at the same time we had Michelangelo and Leonardo Da Vinci.
It is often assumed and sometimes claimed that church or some great powers were the unifying force in Europe. That is rubbish. Church was a collection of cometing bishops and cardinals, papal contenders who tried to kill each other etc. There were two popes, three popes, popes who had multiple lovers and used to rape and go in nghtly robbing raids on a horse back. There were different religious ideas from Jan Hus to Martin Luther etc.
The holy roman emperor was an emperor by name. He was having wars against kings and counts, dukes and magraves and turks pushing towards the north from the Balkans. That war lasted from 1400′s up to 1700′s. At the same time there was Thirty years war, the greatest man made disaster in Europe, even more destructive than WW1 or 2, and various other wars.
There was no unity, nobody controlled everybody. It was all about getting the loot and europeans believed that biggest loot was somewhere over the ocean, in the Eldorado, in New Jerusalem. When the first europeans arrived to the east coast of north America they could not believe how much fish there were in the rivers and lakes. In little more than two centuries those fishes were almost gone from those rivers. From the get go, from the first arrivals, the idea was to exploit everything, get the gold, get the fish, the buffalo hides, wood etc. and turn that into money. The mighty forests of north America were cut down and sold over seas to Europe were constant wars and fires made the rebuilding of cities and palaces a booming business.
It was the relentless business mind, the ferocious appetite for money and riches that drove europeans everywhere. They truly believed that they could and they should turn everything into money, people included. Cross Atlantic slavery began out of need. Natives died out and there were too few european slaves to dig the gold, to tend the plantations etc. They needed africans. Once that bottle was opened, the europeans turned slave trade into huge money making scheme too. “If we are selling thousands of slaves, why not sell tens of thousands ?”.
Racism as we know it was also born out of this mess. There had to be fig leaf for all this robbing and stealing. There had to be made up answer for all this greed and destruction. It was not ok anymore to say: “I wanted that piece of land so I killed those who used to live there. I made those guys as my slaves because I could.”
The excuse was racism. “I made those guys as my slaves because they are not humanbeings like we are. I killed those savages because they are not humans like we.” Sounded much better in common speak. And when racism was added to the mix, then it was really on. They had now a good reason for all of this robbing and stealing and destruction. Ad the church was backing them up too.
To Dahoman X:
How about an actual argument establishing that the cases of small pox witnessed in the New World can be linked to the African population instead? Just a study stating that only areas with an attested African population experienced small pox will do. Or even a report attesting that such epidemic afflicting Natives was started by an African slave.
Germ theory wasn’t understood, at least in Europe, until the 19th century. I have read modern claims that supposed that Natives caught diseases from both Whites and Africans but epidemiology basically did not exist until hundreds of years after the native peoples of the Americas were devastated.
To Sam:
They used biological warfare, which has been documented pretty well, and other means.
The vast majority of disease in the Americas was not spread through biological warfare since germ theory was not understood by Europeans until the 19th century.
The mighty forests of north America were cut down and sold over seas to Europe were constant wars and fires made the rebuilding of cities and palaces a booming business.
The vast majority of trees cut down in the North America remained in North America. Large scale exports of timber were not common until the latter 19th century and were basically dwarfed by other higher value exports.
By then Japan had lost the war. They had no chances at all. They were done. Allies could have told them to drop their weapons and quit, make some kind of a peace with them, but that was not the agenda.
No.. the Japanese Imperial Army had absolutely no interest in surrender and were basically preparing to defend the homeland to the last soldier. Even after the two atomic bombs had been dropped the vote in the Imperial council to surrender was 3 to2. As horrific as the atomic weapons were they killed fewer people than the firebombings on one city alone, Tokyo.
to make the emperor kneel
Emperor Hirohito?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Three_Alls_Policy
“In a study published in 1996, historian Mitsuyoshi Himeta claims that the Three Alls Policy, sanctioned by Emperor Hirohito himself, was both directly and indirectly responsible for the deaths of “more than 2.7 million” Chinese civilians. His works and those of Akira Fujiwara about the details of the operation were commented by Herbert P. Bix in his Pulitzer Prize–winning book, Hirohito and the Making of Modern Japan, who claims that the Sankō Sakusen far surpassed the Rape of Nanking not only in terms of numbers, but in brutality as well. The effects of the Japanese strategy were further exacerbated by Chinese military tactics, which included the masking of military forces as civilians, or the use of civilians as deterrents against Japanese attacks. In some places, the Japanese use of chemical warfare against civilian populations in contravention of international agreements was also alleged.”
If “If” was a 5th we’d all be drunk. I see we are here posting more of this examination of Whiteman’s evil. Let’s get over it Europeans committed evils against Black societies but much of that came from betrayal from within Africa as well.
But here’s why Africans could never have done what Europeans did in the same way because? Africans were in existence first and when Africans were circumventing the globe the civilizations they encountered were inferior to theirs. What qualities do savages have that would have interested the greed of Africans? Lol. Now the savages were all envious eyes looking at Indus Kush, Eygpt and China because these civilizations were flourishing with sophistication.
Linda:
the Europeans knew the Natives had no immunity to small pox and this gave them a HUGE advantage in their war with the Natives.
http://suite101.com/article/the-history-of-smallpox-in-latin-america-a152524
Agree with much of your other commentary but disagree with the above…. Your average European in the 15th, 16th, and 17th centuries had very little understanding of disease transmission. The Spaniards and English were not genius, just lucky (for them…) The link you provided above states:
“However, Cortés had another ally, a biological weapon that even he was unaware of. It has been argued that without the smallpox epidemic in Mexico, Cortés may not have succeeded against the Aztecs. Historians Ian and Jenifer Glynn, in The Life and Death of Smallpox, claim that “Without the help of smallpox, even horses and guns could not have enabled Cortéz, with his army of fewer than 900 men, to defeat the Aztecs and conquer Mexico”.
For the most part Europeans.. even doctors were ignorant of how disease was spread until the 19th century.
“Germ theory wasn’t understood, at least in Europe, until the 19th century”
So?
Didn’t the British Army, for instance, use smallpox when they gave contaminated blankets to the Delaware Indians during the Pontiac Rebellion (from 1762 or 1763, I believe)? That Army may not have ‘understood’ the science of their actions, but what difference does that make if they knew what they doing?
The Europeans, pre late 19th century, may not have understood germ theory until then (?), but that’s not the same thing, nor was that any kind of preventative, to its usage.
I think I’ve also read accounts – written in the medieval era – that show Turks and Mongols, for instance, using infected animal carcasses to contaminate enemy water supplies. Or,, instead, they hurled disease-infected corpses into cities they were attacking/besieging. They knew what they were doing to, and what effect it would have, even if they didn’t ‘understand’ it.
Another example I recall was of the Russians using plague corpses against the Swedes in the early 1700s.
The vast majority of trees cut down in the North America remained in North America. Large scale exports of timber were not common until the latter 19th century and were basically dwarfed by other higher value exports.
I take a professional interest in wood production (particularly Tilia, and the Populus soft hardwood family), so your links detailing this historical fact would be of great interest.
@Linda –
I don’t claim to be an expert in this area, but Europeans have been using germ warfare for centuries against their enemies without “understanding” it.
Didn’t the 15th century Spanish offered wine spiked with the blood of lepers to their French enemies near Naples?
I recall once reading that Leonardo da Vinci proposed the use of an arsenic-based anti-ship weapon – back in in 1400s.
And once in Poland, I heard that spheres filled with the saliva of rabid dogs were fired at enemies (during the 17th century, I think).
oops in an earlier post i menat childbirth itself was a death sentence.
To Bulanik:
Didn’t the British Army, for instance, use smallpox when they gave contaminated blankets to the Delaware Indians during the Pontiac Rebellion (from 1762 or 1763, I believe)? That Army may not have ‘understood’ the science of their actions, but what difference does that make if they knew what they doing?
The Europeans, pre late 19th century, may not have understood germ theory until then (?), but that’s not the same thing, nor was that any kind of preventative, to its usage.
I think I’ve also read accounts – written in the medieval era – that show Turks and Mongols, for instance, using infected animal carcasses to contaminate enemy water supplies. Or,, instead, they hurled disease-infected corpses into cities they were attacking/besieging. They knew what they were doing to, and what effect it would have, even if they didn’t ‘understand’ it.
Another example I recall was of the Russians using plague corpses against the Swedes in the early 1700s.
Note I also stated: “Your average European in the 15th, 16th, and 17th centuries had very little understanding of disease transmission…” They started gaining a better understanding by 18th century.
There were episodes of people being executed for spreading “disease and pestilence” by “using sorcery” well into the 17th century in Europe.
But by the 18th century:
” 1718, Smallpox Variolation in England. In 1714, an article appeared in the (English) Royal Society’s Philosophical Transactions that laid the foundation for a different view of the possibilities of biological warfare. The article contained a description of a technique used by a physician in Smyrna (now Izmir, present-day Turkey), Giacomo Pylarini, to confer some degree of protection from smallpox. The technique, variolation, involved taking some of the liquid from a person with a mild case of smallpox and rubbing it into a small scratch made on the person to be protected. The variolated individual would usually suffer a mild case of the disease and would then, be immune to further infection on recovery. The risk of death from variolation (estimated at 2 to 3%) was seen as acceptable when compared to mortality rates of the disease among unprotected populations.
Variolation became popular in England because of the actions of Lady Mary Wortley Montague , who, in her youth, survived a case of smallpox that killed her brother. Lady Mary was the wife of Lord Edward Wortley Montague, the British ambassador to the Ottoman Empire in Istanbul. There, Lady Montague observed the practice of variolation as the Turks practiced it since 1670.
Determined not to allow her family suffer as she had, Lady Montague directed the Embassy’s surgeon, Dr. Charles Maitland, to learn the technique. In March 1718, Dr. Maitland variolated the Montague’s four-year-old daughter in the presence of several respected British physicians, including the king’s. With royal interest being aroused, Dr. Maitland was given permission to perform what came to be called the Royal Experiment . Six condemned prisoners were variolated and promised full pardons if they survived. When the prisoners did, indeed, survive (and received their pardons), further experiments were done on charity children. The safety of the procedure thus being deemed adequately established, two of the king’s grandchildren were treated on April 17, 1722. After this, the practice of variolation spread rapidly, reaching even rural areas of England by the 1740s.”
But yes there were attempts at biological warfare against fellow Europeans and at least discussion of it in Pontiac’s rebellion in the mid 18th century.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pontiac%27s_Rebellion#Siege_of_Fort_Pitt
How effective these attempts were is debatable. Although there seems to be
reasonable evidence that the outbreak of Bubonic plague in Europe was indirectly related to a Mongol siege of a Russian city wherein the Mongols hurled the dead bodies of plague victims into the besieged city. After the siege, it it believed traders spread the illness to Vienna.
@uncle milton:
The great plague known as Black Death was brought to Europe by the italian merchants from their trading post in the eastern coast of the Black Sea in 1300′s and according many researchers, that was the region where that plague began. Not trough Vienna but directly by boats by italian tradesmen. Ship rats carrying ticks who were contaminated spread the disease into the main land.
BUT there had been out breaks of plague before, most famously in 530′s when the plague almost devastated Constantinopol and the Byzanthine empire and lead into a change in history across the Europe. That same plague arrived into Britain in 530′s too and together with yet debated climate change caused the collapse of the british (southern celtic) kingdoms and launched the renewed drive of the anglosaxons towards the western part of Britain in 550′s. One reason for this was that the british states traded with the Mediterannean world and anglosaxons did not in the same scale. So plague was nithing new in Europe by 1300′s nor certainly by 1700′s.
As for the vaccinations against the small box, in India they knew about vaccinations againts the small box some 2000 years before europeans had any idea what was going on or how to treat it. Granted, they did not use it in a large scale but neither did the europeans use any vaccines untill 1900′s.
The use of disease or plague contaminated corpses or body parts in warfare was common during the Hudred years war between England and France running simultaniously with the Black Death. Perhaps they did not know about the germs but they certainly knew that slinging few plague ridden corpses over the castle or town ramparts would have pretty dramatic results. They also used plague corpses to poison wells etc. So they knew what they were doing by the conquest of Americas.
Plague and its use as a weapon was alaos familiar to the greeks. Athens was almost decimated by an epidemic of plague in ancient times and the whole hellenic world knew the basics of great epidemics: from city to city, island to island with men carrying the disease etc.
@uncle milton:
“No.. the Japanese Imperial Army had absolutely no interest in surrender and were basically preparing to defend the homeland to the last soldier. Even after the two atomic bombs had been dropped the vote in the Imperial council to surrender was 3 to2. As horrific as the atomic weapons were they killed fewer people than the firebombings on one city alone, Tokyo.”
Yes, that is true. But it doesn’t matter. In 1945 Hitler was doing the same, he was still conducting the war from his bunker moving ghost divisions on his maps, talking about air force attacks etc. and everybody knew what was going on outside the HQ. Even during the Battle of Berlin the germans were still destroying soviet tanks on ratio almost 10 to 1 but that did not matter. War was already lost by then. German tanks were pretty much useless since they had no fuel left.
How much the japanese had fuel in 1945? How much metals? Yes, the imperial army leadership planned the heroic resistance of Japan, but what was the reality? They had no airforce left, they had no navy, they had no raw materials to carry on. Yes, they planned to attack americans with bamboo sticks and swords and such, but was that realistic? Would the japanese done it and for how long? I doubt it. They did not have enough food, not to mention some heroic ideas of grand standing on the trenches.
The atomic bombs were just two bombs. Every one knew, specially after those horrendous bombings of Tokyo and other cities, that if the americans would drop those bombs by the thousands, like they had dropped every kind of other bombs, that would be a total wipe out. The japanese did not have a clue how many A bombs the ebemy had but they knew that americans werre ready to use them after Nagasaki and Hiroshima.
But what ever reason it was to drop those bombs, the nuclear warfare is the logical end to the european idea of warfare: victory by any means possible.
“Uncle Milton
For the most part Europeans.. even doctors were ignorant of how disease was spread until the 19th century.”
Linda says,
True. I don’t believe they purposely meant to infect the Natives but the Spaniards were aware that the Natives could not fight off the diseases that the Europeans were used to dealing with.
as Bulanik pointed out, they may not have understood the mechanism behind diseases but the Spanish (Europeans in general) understood the devastation that these diseases caused and that diseases went from person to person.. that’s why ships would run like h’ll from a city if they suspected any kind of outbreak.
The Spanish invaders kept great records back then (those priests loved to write) and recorded the depopulation of villages across the Caribbean and down the Central and South American coast.
The Spanish even noted how much better the Native Indian doctors were than European doctors, so yes, they were surprised that the Natives fell like hotrocks.
Wait; maybe I’m wrong here but didn’t the various diseases picked up from white people reduce the Indians from around 100 million to just a few million in a few years?
If so that would a pretty reasonable estimate to say disease killed off 90+ percent of the native population.
[...] background-position: 50% 0px ; background-color:#222222; background-repeat : no-repeat; } abagond.wordpress.com – Today, 1:41 [...]
@Linda
I haven’t read the whole thread as yet to know if this has already been discussed, but even though the Spaniards may not have knowingly infected the Native peoples of the Americas that they encountered, I am not sure if the same can be said of the British during the 18th century in North America.
There’s a book called “The Conspiracy of Pontiac and the Indian War after the Conquest of Canada” by F. Parkman which refers to a postscript to letters exchanged by the British Army’s high command wondering whether smallpox could not be spread among the Indians. In volume 2, there is a bit which says:
“Could it not be contrived to send the Small Pox among those disaffected tribes of Indians? We must on this occasion use every stratagem in our power to reduce them.” (Page 39)
Apparently, this thought was not an anomaly:
“…that Vermine … have forfeited all claim to the rights of humanity.”
“I would rather chuse the liberty to kill any Savage….”
(BTW, here are these words written in his own hand an excerpt from the original: http://www.umass.edu/legal/derrico/amherst/34_40_289_p2.jpeg )
“…Measures to be taken as would Bring about the Total Extirpation of those Indian Nations” (a letter from Lord Amherst, Commander in Chief, t to Sir William Johnson, Superintendent of the Northern Indian Department, 9 July)
“…their Total Extirpation is scarce sufficient Attonement….” (Amherst to George Croghan, Deputy Agent for Indian Affairs, 7 August)
“…put a most Effectual Stop to their very Being.”
(You are right when you say this: “The Spanish invaders kept great records back then (those priests loved to write”, the British were not so different as the letters documenting all the above are preserved to this day.)
In contrast, reference to fellow European enemies was of markedly different tone – no genocidal intent. And what effect did the introduction of fomite-infected blankets have on the Native population targeted for extermination?
Parkman has this to say:
“…in the following spring, Gershom Hicks, who had been among the Indians, reported at Fort Pitt that the small-pox had been raging for some time among them…”
The Conspiracy of Pontiac and the Indian War After the Conquest of Canada: To the Massacre at Michilimackinac v. 1 (Conspiracy of Pontiac & the Indian War After the Conquest of)
Further, we have the journal of William Trent, commander of the local militia of the townspeople of Pittsburgh during Pontiac’s seige of the fort. This Journal has been described as “… the most detailed contemporary account of the anxious days and nights in the beleaguered stronghold.”
Trent’s entry for May 24, 1763, includes the following statement:
“… we gave them two Blankets and an Handkerchief out of the Small Pox Hospital. I hope it will have the desired effect…”
I was wondering how the virus works, and it seems that a mild form of smallpox virus, Variola minor (also called “alastrim”), is transmitted by inhalation and is communicable for 3-7 days. The more serious smallpox virus, Variola major , is transmitted both by inhalation and by contamination; it is communicable by inhalation for 9-14 days and by contamination for several years in a dried state.
http://jama.jamanetwork.com/article.aspx?volume=281&issue=22&page=2127
And, a little about fomites, the dried germs themselves: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fomite
But this virus has a particular standing, because it survives where others cannot: the Variola major virus can survive for a number of years outside human hosts in a dried state (researched by Downie 1967, and Upham 1986).
According to A.B. Bergman in a book titled “A Political History of the Indian Health Service”:
Federal health services for Indians began under War Department auspices in the early 1800′s. At that time the Federal Indian policy was primarily one of military containment. As early as 1802 Army physicians took emergency measures to curb contagious diseases among Indian tribes in the vicinity of military posts. The first large scale smallpox vaccination of Indians was authorized by Congress in 1832, probably launched more to protect US soldiers than to benefit Indians.
@Linda
The medical impact of the disease is clear enough, but what were its effects on the social and political landscape? The ways of destruction that result from bodily inability to fight back?
According to Esther Wagner Stearn, in her 1945 book “The effect of smallpox on the destiny of the Amerindian”
Smallpox, which was introduced into the mainland of the Americas in the early part of the sixteenth century {sic}, not only decimated the native population for four centuries, but so demoralized the tribes through the terror it spread among them that it has been considered by many authorities to have been an important factor in their comparatively easy subjugation by the whites. Before the advent of the white man tribal warfare and, at times, famine made the chief inroads on the native population, but during the period of exploration and settlement the diseases of the white man, new to the native, caused terrific havoc. It is claimed that Haiti (Espanola) alone lost two-thirds of its population in the three years of Columbus’s conquest, during the years 1492-1495. The two to three hundred inhabitants had quickly fallen prey not only to ruthless conquest but to a variety of infectious diseases. (page 13)
In the section written by Harold Napoleon, regarding the Yuuyaraq, in the book “The Way of the Human Being”, he outlines that epidemics of the smallpox kind caused a form of post-traumatic stress disorder and social collapse:
Page 11:
Out of the suffering, confusion, desperation, heartbreak, and trauma was born a new generation of Yup’ik people. They were born into shock. They woke to a world in shambles, many of their people and their beliefs strewn around them, dead. In their minds they had been overcome by evil. Their medicines and their medicine men and women had proven useless. Everything they had believed in had failed. Their ancient world had collapsed.
From their innocence and from their inability to understand and dispel the disease, guilt was born into them. They had witnessed mass death—evil—in unimaginable and unacceptable terms. These were the men and women orphaned by the sudden and traumatic death of the culture that had given them birth. They would become the first generation of modern-day Yup’ik
It continues on page 13 and 14:
The survivors taught almost nothing about the old culture to their children. It was as if they were ashamed of it, and this shame they passed on to their children by their silence and by allowing cultural atrocities to be committed against their children. The survivors also gave up all governing power of the villages to the missionaries and school teachers, whoever was most aggressive. There was no one to contest them. In some villages the priest had displaced the angalkuq. In some villages there was theocracy under the benevolent dictatorship of a missionary. The old guardians of Yuuyaraq on the other hand, the angalkuq, if they were still alive, had fallen into disgrace. They had become a source of shame to the village, not only because their medicine and Yuuyaraq had failed, but also because the missionaries now openly accused them of being agents of the devil himself and of having led their people into disaster.
@Linda
V-4 says:
“Wait; maybe I’m wrong here but didn’t the various diseases picked up from white people reduce the Indians from around 100 million to just a few million in a few years?
If so that would a pretty reasonable estimate to say disease killed off 90+ percent of the native population.”
Seems so.
From a pre-Columbian population that may have been as high as 25 million, the population of central Mexico plummeted to only 2 million by 1600, according to some researchers, like Elizabeth Fenn. It seems that farther north, a similar pattern emerged, delayed by three-quarters of a century.
Actually, looking at it, it seems that among other things, missionization, the fur trade, and the acquisition of horses and guns, all enabled Variola to be transmitted, and effectively shaped human life all together on the American continent.
In this respect, in the New World environment, where acquired immunity was rare, Variola was the virus of empire.
“At last, we’re getting somewhere: you know of some paper incriminating Africans in the spread of the diseases.
Would you mind sharing?”
I’m too busy to research this thoroughly and I don’t trust any of the sources that try to claim one group or the other spread it when it would have been present in both populations.
That said there is documentation of innoculation being used by Africans to protect themselves from smallpox. Now innoculation can also give you the disease but it provides greater protection then doing nothing at all.
http://www.thenakedscientists.com/forum/index.php?topic=31296.0
The link above sites actual historic documents in which African and Asian peoples are using innoculation against smallpox.
So our hypothetical African explorers could have still carried the virus but also helped to treat Native population they encountered. The inverse of this though is that their knowledge of germs and disease would have been better and if their minds were bent on conquest and extermination they might have done a better job then their European counterparts.
@ Sam
That African weapon you were referring to is called a “K’pinga”; and although it was created by the Azande, many other Central African tribes have adopted (and modified) it.
I dont get that it was major colonising tactics to use diseased blankets or corpses to destroy the Indians . I think there were some sick individuals who did this in the process of the destruction of the Indian civilisations.
For sure the early conquistadores didnt come in using that tactic.As a matter of fact, the Spanish never would have conquered the Aztecs if they didnt have the help of the various disgruntled tribes the Aztecs had defeated, captured and executed by the thousands , to do the heavy fighting.
What the colonisers did was bad enough , I just think disease doesnt translate into purposeful anialation against the Indians except in isolated cases. For me, it would be like blaming the Chinese for when bird flu hits us all.
It seems that Europe was devastated by these diseases also.
Any one ignorant of germs using things diseased as a weapon , is only submitting themselves to the disease also, they sure wouldnt know what immunity is
@franklin:
That might be it, thanks.
@BR:
Yes, they very often got the diseases themselves too and sometimes used that even as a weapon. I forgot the name of the town which was under a siege during the Hundred years war, but the army outside caught some horrible disease (all lethal and serious diseases were descibed as plagues) and used its own corpses as missiles againts the town by throwing naked corpses over the walls. The town surrendered almost at once but once it was taken, the disease made the occupation impossible. Both sides caught the disease and men died by hundreds.
As for the biological warfare against the native americans, it was done. It has been documented and recorded and written by those who did it and those who witnessed it. Above Bulanik shows one example of it against the natives of the North America. It was just a part of the problem solving. One has to remember that using smallbox or any other disease against the enemy was considered effective and that was all they were thinking.
Poisoning the wells by any means, using human and animal remains, feces, with anything, was part and parcel of the old warfare. same thing was done, if it was know that the enemy down river was using the river as drinking water. Throw all your filth into that river and pretty soon the enemy is hampered by an outbreak of diarreah and worse. Sometimes the armies who did this realised too late that they had to use the same water sources and got into trouble.
It was not science or accurate, there was nothing surgical or fancy in the old warfare. There were no guided missiles, no video feed from cruise missiles, no laser sights or such. It was pretty rude and rugged going. If one had to sacrifice few hundred own men, then so be it.
@ Linda,
Thanks for letting me know about black conquistadors, that was NEWS to me.
@ Phoebe,
I saw your reply.
@ Bulanik,
Excellent Posts, very interesting to read them.
@ Everyone,
So far, we can establish that, disease decimated at least 90%+ of the native populations of the Americas and surrounding islands. This made conquest much easier.
So, if africans had taken the place of whites, one will have to ask the following question…
- Would they have taken the opportunity to conquer the remaining natives?
Even before that,
- Would black people sail to the americas with the sole aim of conquest? Rather than establishing trading relationships, building a cultural understanding between the 2 etc…
We assume that if you have Power, you’ll only use it to subjugate and conquer on a MASS SCALE like whites did.
Sam , I have no doubt about what you are saying that some colonisers did this , espcialy in “warfare” , conquests at any costs etc
Its just that the example Bulanik gave is number two Ive heard about small pox as an actualy act of using it as a weapon. Im sure there are others, but, this is a far cry from being a general policy…
This isnt any kind of trying to make colonisers any less horrible for the genocide commited, Im just saying, the real disease was brought over unconciously from the solders and sailors coming over on the first ships. They werent keeping dead corpses on ice or diseased material ready to use it on the enemy. A lot of them died from malaria.
So , my position is, even though some extremly evil people used these ghastly methods, it wasnt coloniser policy to use disease to defeat the Indians…simple massacre and breaking of treaties was probably their prefered method of conquering and distroying
Disease has its own agenda
So back to the subject matter….lol. The questioin..”What if it were reversed and blacks had guns and ocean-going ships before whites did?” …is quite ignorant and irrational question in my opinion. That kind of questioning is only to make a racist feel better about their history. If it was really a logical thought and had some truth behind it…then it would have already happened. The last time I checked…they have boats and guns. .it is an argument to derail and hide from the truth of what really happened. Too many times in my life I have heard the white men comment “take em out before they have a chance to take you out” now where do you think that thought process originated from?
Um Aba, Africans may not have had guns first but they surely did have ships/boats FIRST before whites. Fact.
They already knew the world was round BEFORE whites did. FACT!
Wilson,
You’re welcome.
Bulanik, great info. You wrote,
“The survivors taught almost nothing about the old culture to their children. It was as if they were ashamed of it, and this shame they passed on to their children by their silence and by allowing cultural atrocities to be committed against their children.”
This thought pattern has been passed on even today, which I think is a crime. Look how the Natives in Central America are treated like dirt…people are stil ashamed, when they should be proud.
I had posed a question earlier.
What do you know concerning how the different African tribes/nations treated each other in the past when a larger or more powerful nation invaded and expanded into another country?
How did they treat the people who they conquered?
Did they enslave the occupied population? Were they viewed as less then human by the conquering nation?
To get back on topic, do you think the African conquistadors would have behaved similar to the Europeans if the had military and technology to support them?
Denise, I don’t think that is a provable claim. Greeks knew the Earth was a sphere 8000 years ago, and probably people knew it even earlier than that. I have no idea when Sub Saharan Africans found out this fact-maybe earlier, maybe later, but that is your claim to provide proof for..
Correction, almost 3000 years ago-NOT 8,000
If the situation was reversed and they apply the “one drop rule”, African-Americans will be called Euro-Americans, and Luther King, Farrakhan, Cassius Clay, Obama, etç… will be considered Whites.
The American Blacks will look like Kenneth Kaunda, Jonas Savimbi or the father of Obama…
You know, the main difference between Whites and Blacks in America, is that the former are only part white…
While there may have been isolated incidences of purposeful smallpox transmission to Indians, the fact is that the disease was to damn scary and to likely to blow back in your face to make the claim that this was a policy. To this date that is the biggest single factor that has prevented biological warfare from occurring in any real way – you are just as likely to destroy your own troops/population as the enemy. Biological weapons have the potential to make nuclear weapons look like pikers when it comes to WMDs.
I also see quite a few dubious claims here. It was no mystery that the earth was round in Europe among the educated for many thousands of years. The argument was over the size of the earth. Columbus was using a grossly undersized claim for the circumference of the earth, part of the reason he had so much trouble getting funded by those who knew better. Had the Americas not been where they were, his crew would have long since died before ever getting close to what his real goal was, the East Indies. In other words, he got lucky. The natives he encountered were not lucky.
The claim that Africans had boats before Europeans is one that would be impossible to ever settle and is silly to even make. People everywhere on the planet have used boats living next to large bodies of water from the first time they saw a log floating. One claim that can be made and I will is that Europeans used boats extensively because most Europeans lived relatively close to an ocean. Africans didn’t. Chinese didn’t. North American and South American natives didn’t. There were of course island cultures around each of these that did.
The whole question at the start of this article is somewhat silly. Africans had no need to do what the Europeans did, so it didn’t happen that Africa developed a sea-faring culture. The Chinese had one but their primary target, Japan, resisted being taken over in a number of well documented historical incidents. What other use they would have had for a large sea-faring economy is not clear to me when they too dealt with repeated Mongol invasions just as Europe did. Unlike in Europe China had the population to absorb and civilize the people from their north.
There is more than enough evidence to show that Africans are no different than any other peoples when it comes to warfare and the rules if any under which it occurred. Other conclusions are mostly wishful thinking.
In most case the conquered nation had to pay annual tribute to the conquering one, as well as provide troops in times of war but retained some autonomy and its culture. Empires such as Ghana, Mali, Songhai, Kanem-Bornu and Kongo were built on this model. The use of the vehicular language of the imperial power did not mean the suppression of the local languages. There are cases of Christian and Muslim nations imposing their religion to vassal states but it was not systematic. Rulers following traditional African religions had a tendency to appropriate the divinities of the defeated nations (in addition to their own) instead.
Another common occurrence was a small foreigner group imposing its leadership on local communities. In this situation the newcomer’s culture either became the culture of the ruling class while the bulk of the population retained its culture, or the invader adopted the culture of the majority.
That’s what occurred in my country (Benin): the 3 main kingdoms of the southern part (Allada, Danhome & Porto-Novo) were founded by princes from Tado (in current day Togo); in the northern part of the country, the founders of the Bariba kingdoms are said to be immigrants from current day Nigeria.
@Joshua
Whites got lucky, everything fell into place for them. They acquired gunpowder from the chinese, which allowed them to have superior weaponry, sea-worthy ships that could sail across rough seas, tribal conflict among blacks, native-american exposure to disease, which prevented them from forming an effective counteroffensive, etc. If native-americans had been able to withstand “the whiteman’s diseases” at the time, history would have turned out differently.
Tyrone
MindScape
Yes, Tyrone, whites got lucky, in part because they were forced to do things like develop technology that people in more liveable areas weren’t.
^ Yeah like gunpowder? LOL
I agree with Tyrone on this one. I feel that luck played a great deal in their ability to slaughter, take over, and rule. I feel the natives could have had an upper hand because they knew the land and could use traps and ambush better the gun carriers. But they were decimated by the cowards… that were claiming peace and friendship and then performed sneak attacks on the unsuspecting natives…all while the natives were dying off from the diseases that they brought with them as well.
Oh my. Another genius who did learn the theory of evolution in Marvel Comics books.
Dude, you guys need to quit with this nonsense. You should know by now that the HBD myth of tropical areas as Gardens of Eden is, well, a myth. Tropical areas are the most challenging areas for human life. They are either too dry or too wet. Africa for instance is 60% desert and most of the rest is covered with dense rainforests unfit to agriculture. In comparison, Europe and its mostly temperate climate is much easier to human settlement.
Here, some reading for you:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Climate_of_Europe
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Climate_of_Africa
@ Dahoman X
You worded that so much more eloquently that I could. His comment stunk of that “Snow makes you smarter” nonsense.
The nomadic lifestyle of much of Africa, Asia, and the Americas wasn’t suited to Europe, so Europe had to develop alternatives. Europe had no large plains covered with game, was very heavily forested in large part, and there were significant water and mountain barriers to trade.
It has nothing to do with better, easier, smarter, or snow. It has only to do with different problems requiring different solutions.
Climate doesn’t make one “smarter”. Civilization does. Genetic studies show that evolution has accelerated over the last 10,000 years. This evolution has occurred primarily in the brain. And it’s seen most strongly in areas that have had civilization the longest. That’s why populations that have had civilization for a long time are usually smarter than populations that haven’t.
Abagond, I would be extremely grateful if you could find the time to comment on the following; in the past I have mentioned this idea to an extremely racist relative, the idea that the current world order may be the reuslt of a simple coincidence- the fact that whites simply happened to gain access to guns and ships before black people did. However, in her mind this just seemed to cement the fact that white people are naturally superior to black people in every way, except for some bad apples. Surely, if blacks were intelligent and competent, they would have gained access to guns and ships first? (Her words, not mine.) Abagond I would be extremely interested in hearing your thoughts on her perspective, because at that point in the conversation, I gave up on her.
Everything moves in Cycles , different groups has had their time to shine, then made way for others, now it’s their time (whites), who knows who will come to the fore in the future.
@pentagon:
“Greeks knew the Earth was a sphere 8000 years ago”.
Eeh, no, they did not. 8000 years ago there was no Greece, greek city states, greeks etc.
@duckduckgoofs:
“Climate doesn’t make one “smarter”. Civilization does. Genetic studies show that evolution has accelerated over the last 10,000 years. This evolution has occurred primarily in the brain. And it’s seen most strongly in areas that have had civilization the longest. That’s why populations that have had civilization for a long time are usually smarter than populations that haven’t.”
Really? So according to you the egyptians are the smartest and most intelligent folks aorund, since their civilisation started 6000 years ago? Greeks are intelligent giants too, right? And irakis must be the smartest and most intelligent since their forefathers sumerians were the first civilization, right? 
And following your logic, northern europeans must be the dummest, since we did not have civilization such as those at all? Right?
@Linda
“…. do you think the African conquistadors would have behaved similar to the Europeans if the had military and technology to support them?”
I think conquistadors were a breed apart.
Apart from the tremendous effect of disease, their superior technology, determination, political circumstances, and in some cases, a lack of scruples enabled them to subdue and eliminate their opponents in the Americas. What kind of people were they?
I am under the impression that some – perhaps many – came from aristocratic families, or hidalgos some coming from wealth, many from hard times, therefore some were seeking to make, or add to, their fortunes.
Don’t forget as well, that Hernan Cortes and Francisco Pizzaro were actually blood cousins from lower nobility hidalgo.
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/1/16/Hidalgo.JPG/300px-Hidalgo.JPG
If I recall correctly, conquest was typically done by private enterprises through contractual agreements – capitulaciones , established with the monarch or theirr representative which allowed them to establish conquest in a time frame. In this respect, I think we should look at conquest as a ‘project’ and conquistadors as ‘professional’ warriors, using European tactics (some Moorish in origin), firearms, combat dogs (often broad-mouthed “Molossers” trained to attack and disembowel the lightly clothed enemy), as well as cavalry against unprepared groups.
(An example of the dogs used, the Alano: http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/0/0f/Alano-espanol-0003.jpg/220px-Alano-espanol-0003.jpg )
As a ‘conquering expedition’, I would imagine the conquistador would also commission the use of African slaves and Native American men or women who often had more training than the troops, to serve as interpreters, spies, informants, servants, teachers, physicians, scribes, etc. I can imagine that these were men of huge confidence, who not just dreamed, but planned in detail, and could back this up with organizational, martial know-how.
I also believe this martial mindset was made possible simply because they were men from the Iberian peninsula. They were children of the Reconquista, and this was a society grounded in constant conflict and warfare strongly interlinked and part of daily life. The times meant that many provinces kept light equipped armies maintained at all times. The state of war continued intermittently for centuries and created a very war like culture in Iberia.
There are other examples, but I am wondering now how would this kind of approach compare to Zulu expansion, for instance? I must say now that I have read little about this subject, so my assumptions may be all wrong.
However, although knowledge about this subject is relatively scarce, what I am clear about is that primary evidence of this great expansion, one of the largest in the history of humans, has been linguistic – and that the languages spoken in Africa below the Equator have many similarities.
What does “expansion” really mean? And what are “expansionists”?
There are similarities with conquest and conquistador, but significant differences.
Did the Bantu, with their knowledge of agriculture, iron-making and ceramics enable themselves to exploit different regional ecology, push out or absorb the hunter-forager, like the Khoi/ San, who formerly inhabited these areas, without actually conquering them?
@Linda
How did the Zulus of southern Africa manage their expansion?
“In 1816 Shaka acceded to the Zulu throne. Within a year he had conquered the neighboring clans, and had made the Zulu into the most important ally of the large Mtetwa clan, which was in competition with the Ndwandwe clan for domination of the northern part of modern day KwaZulu-Natal.
Shaka also initiated many military, social, cultural and political reforms, creating a well-organized centralized Zulu state. The most important of these were the transformation of the army, thanks to innovative tactics and weapons he conceived, and a showdown with the spiritual leadership. He clipped the wings of the witchdoctors, effectively ensuring the subservience of the “Zulu church” to the state. Another important reform was to integrate defeated clans into the Zulu, on a basis of full equality, with promotions in the army and civil service being a matter of merit rather than circumstance of birth….”
It seems those who clans or groups conquered by bloodshed and survived chose either to assimilate or flee. But were the Bantu imperalist in their actions?
I don’t think so, at least not in the Western and modern sense.
IMO, the primary undertaking of imperialism employs “expansionist” AND mercantilist policies. By that I mean creating unequal economic and territorial relationships, based on domination and subordination – which may not been consistent with communalism, for example. The moral thinking underpinning African societies in this region may have been at odds with Western philosophical thought.
http://rozenbergquarterly.com/2011/07/04/ubuntu-and-communalism-in-african-philosophy-and-art/ ALSO:
http://www.africa.ufl.edu/asq/v10/v10i1a10.htm
Are all empires built in the same way?
Some empires are won through force, others are grown through other methods.
Geographic enlargement of the United States has been classed as expansionism. But if we look at Europe for a moment, geographic enlargement of the European Union has not been perceived as expansionist, perhaps because the EU is viewed as an organization rather than a nation, despite the centralization of some governmental functions in the organs of the EU.
@Linda – I forgot to mention this earlier, but I really don’t feel okay with the word “Bantu” in the way I used it above because of its associations with apartheid. Frankly, I don’t think it the right word to describe the population in question because it has become tainted with racism.
Nevertheless, as far as I know, the word means “the people” or “humans” in the original tongue
Sam
Psychometrics does, in fact, show that Egyptians, Greeks and Iraqis are more intelligent than populations who’ve never had civilization. And 5,000 years ago I have no doubt they would have been among the brightest. However, none have been at the top for at least 2,000 years. So there is selective pressure until a balance is reached between the population and their environment, civilization, etc. At which point the selective pressure merely maintains equilibrium. They plateaued at a lower level because their environment, civilization, etc peaked at a lower level. In other words, they stagnated.
Also, you were dishonest to quote pentagon as having said 8000. He had already said it was a typo and stated the correct figure at 3000.
Thanks Dahoman X and Bulanik, great information to know.
“In most case the conquered nation had to pay annual tribute to the conquering one, as well as provide troops in times of war but retained some autonomy and its culture”
From what you wrote, this practice seems similar to what the Spanish did with the Natives, who had to give tributes in gold to Spain or face retribution.
@Linda
This sounds more similar to the Ottoman Empire to me.
@Linda
I guess annual tribute paid to the conquering nation was the practice in SOME or many instances throughout empires in the African continent.
But as I said in my previous comments – which are longish and thus tend not to be noticed accordingly — patterns vary. And definitions vary.
It’s not clear to me yet that African conquest patterns were ‘generally’ similar to Spanish ones in the Americas.
* For starters, there are a variety of empires, kingdoms and eras in the continent:
http://www.africanholocaust.net/images/africankingdoms_clip_image001.jpg
* Are we to believe that the war and conquest tradition between African nations follow more or less the same practices?
* Then, there is also the theory that African muslims arrived in the Americas 5 centuries before the Spaniards. Even Columbus remarked on visibility of black people when he arrived there.
There also seems to be a legacy of that black presence and there are hints at the way the ‘conquering’ Africans conducted themselves in the Americas, too.
* Finally, how can we explain the apparent lack of “racial revenge” in Africans even when the means and motives exist for it?
@duckduckgoofs:
“you were dishonest to quote pentagon as having said 8000. He had already said it was a typo and stated the correct figure at 3000.”
3000 years is still wrong.
“Psychometrics does, in fact, show that Egyptians, Greeks and Iraqis are more intelligent than populations who’ve never had civilization. And 5,000 years ago I have no doubt they would have been among the brightest. However, none have been at the top for at least 2,000 years. So there is selective pressure until a balance is reached between the population and their environment, civilization, etc. At which point the selective pressure merely maintains equilibrium. They plateaued at a lower level because their environment, civilization, etc peaked at a lower level. In other words, they stagnated.”
Poop. Check your history books and see what was in those areas 2000 ago. Pretty much more civilization than in any where in western or northern Europe. So your poop is just poop.
Sam, maybe you missed the correction of the date, as it sits there directly below the original typo, and must be hard to find, but yes, the Greeks are about 3500 years old as a distinct culture.
@pentagon: Ok, but you claimed that they knew by then, 3000 and now 3500 years ago, that the earth was round etc. That is poop.
@sam
Linda’s question are intriguing:
What do you know concerning how the different African tribes/nations treated each other in the past when a larger or more powerful nation invaded and expanded into another country?
How did they treat the people who they conquered?
Did they enslave the occupied population? Were they viewed as less then human by the conquering nation?
It’s impossible to get a definitive answer to a “what if” question like this.
Even if the available information was pieced together, it’d only be half an answer at best.
Africa is so vast, there are 100s of ethnic groups/languages/cultures. What we think of as “an ethnic group” of south-of-the-Sahara originated with the Sahelian kingdoms of the medieval period. http://maps.bpl.org/id/m0612014
Ethnicity is fluid, with members of ethnic groups defining and redefining their respective ethnic groups in response to personal, economic and cultural changes. After all, even a marriage can change ethnic definition.
And that’s probably what happened – in the past – BEFORE the Europeans drew up un-natural borders, that did not and never will reflect the real divisions inside Africa among Africans.
That said, one thing is clear, Africa’s population is extremely diverse.
That tells us that even though in the past Africans enslaved other Africans, made war with their neighbouring enemies, killed each in vast numbers, etc., etc – this was not on the scale to wipe each other out and sufficient to eliminate the survival of different peoples.
In fact, for a continent that houses less than 1/6th of the world’s population, the level of human variation is staggering. If Africa were to establish it’s national borders based on ethnic or linguistic identification as Europe has, the number of resultant countries would dwarf that of the number of countries of the present world combined.
That is not the same as saying they treated each other well.
Is it possible to make a generalization about African ethics during war and conquest in the past? Perhaps. From my limited reading, one tradition seems to come up repeatedly: The Community.
The Community is what offers psychological and ultimate security, because it gives its members both physical and ideological identity.
The community as an entity remains, while individuals, as persons, come
and go. It seems it is community life and communalism as a living principle that matters, what gives community-identity. The individual is then community-culture-bearer. Culture is a community property and must therefore be community-protected.
Thus a stronger nation or ethnic group may invade and suppress, but community identity is not broken. Could this have been what happened during conquest and conflict in Africa’s medieval past?
Could the idea of “living together” and the sense of “community of brothers and sisters” have beenn the basis and expression of the extended family system in Africa?
Something that Steve Biko said about the economics in an African community:
“Poverty was a foreign concept. This could only be really brought about to the entire community by an adverse climate during a particular season. It never was considered repugnant to ask one’s neighbours for help if one was struggling. In almost all instances there was help between individuals, tribe, chief and chief, etc. even in spite of war.”
Even in spite of war.
@sam
What about treating conquered peoples as less than human? There are plenty of conflicts now and as in the past on the Continent. Africans of the past may certainly not have treated different ethnic groups they conquered well, but it’s unlikely that they share the very same values or practices as the European conquistadors in the Americas.
Chieka lfemesia, in discussing Igbo philosophy of humane living among Africans, is clear that Africans had enduring principles, defined as:
“…a way of life emphatically centred upon human interests and values; a mode of living evidently characterized by empathy, and by consideration and compassion for human beings.”
This reminds me of the saying of the Gokana people of the Rivers State of Nigeria: “Anyone who seeks public opinion does not enter into trouble.”
Similar to the Igbo proverb: “He who tells people what he does never suffers mishap.”
This leads me to the emphasis on inter-personal communication, which according to historian Festus. Okafor, is grounded in a long-held tradition of accommodation: “In traditional African culture, the weak and the aged; the
incurable, the helpless, the sick were taken care….”
That’s the values of an extended family.
That means, if you kill a kinsman, that is an abomination, but what if you kill an enemy? That has less importance.
What about the general attitude to war? War was only taken to as a last
resort, it seems, that is when all formal and normal courses of action to search for peace had failed. Murder within the clan was punishable by death. But if he killed a kinsman inadvertently, he was exiled for some long period.
According to Nigerian ethics, if someone kills during war-time or in self defence, the murderer is not expected to eat until he has ritually washed the blood of the slain man off his hands.
This ritual helps to free the murderer from the anger of the gods/God. This is why “….in many African ethnic groups, the killing of a kinsman, was not only a crime but also an abomination. After the murderer had been executed, his family would have to perform sacrifices and rites to remove the stain of evil and ward off the anger of the gods” (according to E. Amadi, who writes on this subject).
I wonder how this worked practically in the past?
Take the example of the Buganda (Uganda):
In the 14th century the Buganda kingdom was unified by Kato Kintu, the first Kabaka (king) of the Kingdom of Buganda.
King Kintu created the kingdom of Buganda by forcefully taking over 5 clans that lived in the region. To signify his victory over a clan, he would sleep in the conquered leader’s home.
This tradition says that Buganda was the name of the first house that he slept in after his victory over Bbemba and his tribe. Buganda was later used to refer to the entire area he subdued. It is probably the symbolism of this act that made it powerful and defining.
How did the new rulers of the Buganda consolidate their hegemony? It seems by psychological enforcement of patriarchy, authoritarian control and formalizing the extended family:
“A male’s social status is determined by those with whom he establishes patron/client relationships, and one of the best means of securing this relationship is through one’s children. Baganda children, some as young as three years old, are sent to live in the homes of their social superiors, both to cement ties of loyalty among parents and to provide avenues for social mobility for their children.
Baganda recognize at a very young age that their superiors, too, live in a world of rules. Social rules require a man to share his wealth by offering hospitality, and this rule applies more stringently to those of higher status. Superiors are also expected to behave with impassivity, dignity, self-discipline, and self-confidence, and adopting these mannerisms sometimes enhances a man’s opportunities for success.”
(J.J. Kyazze, in a book about the clans of Buganda).
Perhaps this is why the Buganda culture is to said to tolerate social diversity more easily than some other African societies. In fact, even before the arrival of Europeans, many Buganda villages included residents from outside Buganda, even those that had arrived in the region as slaves.
As of 2009, there are at least 52 recognized clans within the kingdom, There are at least another 4 making a claim to clan status. Within this group of clans are 4 distinct sub-groups which reflect historical waves of immigration to Buganda.
.
@ duckduckgoofs
Wait! There exist populations which have no civilization?? Do you have any example?
And how you define “civilization”?
@ Linda & Bulanik
Neither is it to me.
But more importantly, the main difference is that conquest/aggression was not the only mode of interaction whenever Africans (and Asians, as far as I know) encountered foreign civilizations.
On the other hand, every time European cultures were confronted to different cultures it systematically ended up in violence. Even when said cultures welcomed the Europeans as civilized peoples are supposed to do.
@bulanik: Yes, Africa is certainly a vast huge continent. My take on this is this: anything humane can and could have happened in Africa. Wars, certainly. Conquests, certainly. Massacres, most likely. Genocides, yes, we know at least one. BUT the big difference is perhaps the more ritualistic aspect of conflict.
It seems that many african cultures and/or people have an cultural system which stops wars short of total wipe out. While a war may be brutal, savage and terrible, it many cases there are limits and tabus which you are not supposed to cross over. Even in the horrifying civil wars in Liberia and Sierra Leone, the seemingly insanity of the conflicts had some kind of mechanism which stopped them being absolute genocides, though they were horrible enough.
In european warfare there are none as long as the conflict is on. We like to think otherwise but comparing other cultures the european way of fighting wars is no rules-let the last man stand- type of culture. As long as there is a war, there are no limits. Also I believe that the material aspect of conflicts are more important to europeans than anything else. Even the insane ideology of the nazis was based on Lebensraum, Living space for the master race. So lesser races and non humans had to be wiped out so that germanic races would have the world as their own for economic gain
So I beliebe that the european culture of cinflict is more geared to winning at all costs than anything else and that separates it from say african ones. This does not mean that other cultures do not value winning as much. It is just that in european culture it is everything there is.
@dahoman x:
The europeans who confronted the foreign cultures have always been after a gain of some sorts. Even the so called ethnoresearchers and antropologists did not just want to get to know other cultures: very often they used both african and american native people and cultures just as means to advance their own academic careers.
Many europeans who went over the seas were after money. Someway, somehow they would get rich. Period. Many many of them were criminals, many of them outright robbers, murderers etc. These men, and to smaller extent women, set the tone from the beginning. It was a land grab, gold rush, diamond rush, ivory trade, what ever. Even the great cross Atlantic slavery got its wings because it was good business. Big business. Possibility to make money. Slaves meant money in the plantations, mines, cotton fields etc. and they meant money for slave traders for a long time.
@sam
“So I beliebe that the european culture of cinflict is more geared to winning at all costs than anything else and that separates it from say african ones. This does not mean that other cultures do not value winning as much. It is just that in european culture it is everything there is.”
Are you saying the conquering European nations just wanted it more?
It seems heavy greed played the motivating factor.
They wanted to win and win big, he who dares wins…this is the spirit of the pirate/entrepreneur/soldier, not people animated by deeply moral training grounded – ultimately – in respect for life.
Did the Africans have an appetite for gold? What was its value in the past?
This makes me wonder about African concepts of “profit”, as the essence of communalism seems to value selflessness and moral discipline over sheer gain.
@ Sam & Bulanik
A long quotation of a paper I found on the net. It’s titled “Indigenous social mechanisms of conflicts resolution in Kenya”, but the author implies it applies to most African cultures:
http://payson.tulane.edu/conflict/Cs%20St/MKACON2.html
sam, European conquest has a different concept of ruthlessness at its core?
So what is the nature of ambition? Is it an evolutionary product? Is it a combination of energy, determination and dreams?
So, what is the critical engine that drives ambition?
Contemporary brain research suggests that high persistence in an individual had the greatest activity in the limbic region, the area of the brain related to emotions and habits. Frankly, I don’t believe it’s possible to say whether innate differences in the brain drive the ambitious behaviour or whether learned behaviour was causing the limbic to light up. I believe people become are ambitious about different things.
Are there individuals or whole groups for whom the amplitude of ambition is simply lower than it is for others?
I think 2 of the biggest influences on the level of ambition are the family that produced you and the culture that produced your family. It is already clear to me that the extended family structure and communalistic values in many African cultures mentioned before do not value “every man for himself/win at all cost” way of thinking at all.
It’s said that in Western cultures, generally, it’s the upper middle class that produces the greatest proportion of ambitious people – mostly because it also produces the greatest proportion of anxious people. People with status anxiety. A society that gears itself towards competition and winning by any means, even if it’s by cheating – will help ruthless ambition.
Could it be that an African nation with guns and ocean-going ships of a few centuries ago did NOT seek to be conquistadors – because they saw “achieving” at the expense of others as a form of vanity? In contrast, the conquistador had the technology but they could not live without power.
In today’s world it wouldn’t be true to say that once a collectivist is always a collectivist. A middle-class or comparatively elite family from Africa, may hail from a culture which isn’t run on competition, but once they arrive in the US, for instance, they can change fast, outperforming their US-born peers and upping their status in a generation.
[...] always said the quickest way to repeal Stand Your Ground laws is for the the situation to reverse, and Al Sharpton and Company tell black folks to arm themselves and start Standing Their [...]
According to Arab historians, Bakari II, the 9th Mansa of Mali, launched 2 expeditions towards the Americas in 1310 and 1311. Whether they were successful or not is debated, but it seems that the emperor’s motivation was intellectual curiosity and not will of conquest.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abu_Bakr_II
Such motivation would be coherent with the Kurugan Fuga Charter, the oral constitution of the Mali, which is built upon the same principles listed in my previous post.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kouroukan_Fouga
@Dahoman X
Thank you very much for the long quote. It’s really interesting.
My reading on the subject seems to show up similar principles again and again across various African peoples throughout the continent.
Fascinating to note that the motivation behind Mansa Musa’s exploration of the America’s was curiosity over conquest.
@bulanik:
When whites found gold in native lands in the american west, the local peiple could not figure out what made that yellow metal so important. For them it was pretty but useless, so they could not understand the basic theme of a gold rush. I have no idea how africans understud wealth but it seems that gold was tied to more ritualistic value than actual value as wealth.
It is estimated that during the european conquests there were some 200 independent cities competing against each others and against the nobles. Add to that the competing merchant unions and guilds, privateers and individual adventurers you get the picture. It was only after the rulers of european countries and estates gained upper hand and consolidated their power at home, these conquests became national endevours. But for the first 100 years or so, they were more or less private enterprises. And they were driven by greed. Greed for money, wealth and power.
As for the social cohesion, Europe was not nor it is even today, despite the EU propaganda, a single unit with single mind and culture. It is a patch work of various cultures and ethnic groups, intrest groups and powerful men and even at local level the history of competition is visible today. Just look at football. In Glasgow you support either Celtics or Rangers and never both. In LIverpool it is Everton or Liverpool. In Manchester it is either City or United etc.etc.
In southern Italy this competitiveness is apparent when we look at the society as a whole. So called mafias, organized crime or what ever you wish to call them, are more or less unions of men who try to gain upper hand in the economic competition trough any means. Trough violence and power come the economic benefits.
If we look at the cut troath world of Wall street, it is apparent. Bernie Madoff stole 50 000 000 000 dollars. Stole And all the experts say he was not the only one. Financial crisis of 2008 was a huge pyramid scheme according to the Noble prize winner of economics. So the whole sub prime mess was just a swindle in which someone had to loose.
The same thing is going on right now in EU with the euro. Private banking sector extorts the tax payers of Europe with hunderds of billions of dollars using a national debt as a leverage, after they pushed billions in cheap loans to those governments who were stupid enough to take them, or clever enough. Some estimate that the greek government, the actual polticians and officials, stole billions there too.
If we think of this whole culture of stealing, robbing, swindling, we get the to the bottom of the cultural differences between whites and others. In Europe as well as in USA it has always been Everybodys war against everybody. It is every man for himself. Common good is only good when it benefits myself. I don’t have to care what happens to my neighbour as long as I am ok. I don’t have to give a fk about other people as long as it doesn’t affect me.
It may be called Individualism or by any other name but that is what it is. Inside the family mother competes with father, kids with their parents and against each other. In the larger context a single family competes against other single families, whole families compete against others, clans against each other etc. Churches compete with each other. Who gets the most worshippers?
Even in chinese culture, even the most powerful are part of the whole. One man is nothing, but the whole is everything. There is a sense of history, continuum. You are just a one fish in a lake full of fishes. You may be the richest and the most powerful, but you still just part of the whole. If and when present day chinese businesman forgets this, the society takes him out or puts him in order. Many see this as part of communism but it is not. Chinese communism today has nothing to do with communism or socialism. In China the ecominical system is so rough that american businesses can only dream about those freedoms and conditions where workers have no rights and the goverment backs you up. But if you think you are alone, forget about it.
In the european and american culture, you are alone and on your own. You better get what you can. By any means possible.
“@pentagon: Ok, but you claimed that they knew by then, 3000 and now 3500 years ago, that the earth was round etc. That is poop.
Sam, prove your claim, please.
@pentagon: You made the claim, you provide the evidence.
@ lil tejo
Blacks can be in the sun, Whites cannot be in the sun. This was a major factor that we forget as “Sun People.” Black folk would have no problem being in the sun, so, whites would not be needed…Simple Logic!
Tyrone
Black Eagles
That, and black people could grow sugarcane and the like in their own backyard!
Then what do you think has caused white Europeans & white Americans to think in such a deluded, falsely superior way? Something in the history & cultures of Europe, but what was so different? There was the whole lust for creating an empire with control over the whole world, but where did that come from? I have seen Gun, Germs & Steel and studied similar ideas, but the more possible answers I find, the more questions I have.
Perhaps the pursuit of power & dominance comes from individualism: I should do what’s best for me, not what’s best for everyone. There is also a difference in religions. Historically, Christianity has focused on converting as many people in as many places as possible. But religions like Buddhism & Taoism are more based on one finding his or her own truth, even when guided by others. In that case, it wouldn’t make much sense to travel to the opposite side of the Earth to tell a bunch of strangers what to do & how to think.
@Evelectriclove
But religions like Buddhism & Taoism are more based on one finding his or her own truth, even when guided by others. In that case, it wouldn’t make much sense to travel to the opposite side of the Earth to tell a bunch of strangers what to do & how to think.
I don’t think Buddhism or Taoism appeared in Africa.
Have you looked at the posts above that outlined traditional African ethics?
If you really think agree with the premise of this article; I personally think you are hallucinating. My brief reading of history is the story of man’s inhumanity is the norm not the exception.
But go ahead
[...] Abagond asks in a blog entry if blacks had guns an ocean-going ships before whites, would they have raided, pillaged and [...]
@Teddy
I’ve thought about this for some time, but, i don’t see us being evil like that. God gave black people the best of everything…warm climate, curly hair, melanin, sexual and athletic prowess, ageless beauty, artistic ability, and so forth. The incentive would have never been strong enuf to jump to the other side. Yes, whites brought us to the Americas for labor, but, that wasn’t the only factor in the equation. Whites wanted what they didn’t have…Blackness! This is the underlying truth that most whites shy away from. Whites have never been 100% happy being the lighter shade. If they were truly happy, i wouldn’t be a member of this blog right now, because i would have nothing to bitch about. Talking about this issue is uncomfortable for whites, specifically whitemen. Whiteness is a fragile thing, it can be here today and gone the next. This internal conflict creates the racial anxiety that we witness in white culture. The worship of all things african, yet, the desire to control and exploit remains intact. In a nutshell, whites aim to run away from who they are. In doing so, others get caught up in the crash at the same time. Honest whites will admit the truth, but most won’t. The “Why” of someone or something is what i aim to know about. There are reasons why humans do and think as they do.
Tyrone
Black Eagles
@ Tyrone
“Vanity, definitely my favorite sin. Self-love, so basic…”
Thanks for the laugh!
“The main driving forces behind the European invasion was massive state debt and extreme overpopulation;”
As I said, overpopulation causes wars.
Also overlooked is that the booty of plundering the earth by Europeans is now used to buy oil. So now the Muslim world benefits from European colonialism.
As I Said, Overpopulation Causes Wars.
I thought it was hemorrhoids and gas pains amongst other things! You learn something new everyday, my bad!
So Now The Muslim World Benefits From European Colonialism.
Well someone has to!
@Columnist
“….the booty of plundering the earth by Europeans is now used to buy oil. So now the Muslim world benefits from European colonialism.”
Really?
For a start, there are at least 50 million Muslims in Europe alone.
I am also not sure if you mean Muslims benefiting is a bad thing – “So now the Muslim world benefits…” Is that true and is it a good thing?
It’s true that a lot of countries in the Islamic world are endowed with oil reserves. This would include Muslim Africa as well.
Even so, I am not sure if that means that the Middle East, and most Arab and/or Muslim nations are, in fact, self-sufficient in even food, as many import large amounts of staple and basic foodstuff.
I would think a nation is “benefiting” if it has enough food.
- Isn’t poverty (something unhear- of in some rich Arab countries a decade ago) rising, with the proportions of people living on less than $2 a day growing?
- What about underemployment? Apparently high despite high educational achievement in some countries. Actual unemployment is also growing.
- In the so called ‘rich’ Arab countries infrastructure built in the wake of the oil price boom in the 1970s and 80s is in disrepair at a time when demand for public services such as health and education have never been as great.
- Nationalist and territorial disputes threaten water supplies in the Middle East – one of the most arid regions of the world.
- None of the countries can be considered among industrial nations.
http://www.international-issues.org/wp/?p=290
Muslims benefiting from the sale of oil sounds pretty contradictory to me.
Look at Saudia Arabia for a moment: lots of land, oil-rich, full of educated people. Apart from oil, does it actually manufacture anything?
And note, too, the Wahhabi branch of Islam practiced in Saudi Arabia is also considered a heretical aberration by mainstream Islam.
By being filthy rich, and building a lot of mosques, the Wahhabis have succeeded in becoming the mainstream Islam.
Show me and prove it.
I don’t mean show and prove that Saudi Wahhabi has ‘undermined’ the mainstream – I’d like to know which countries and how (and not just mosque building).
All over the world. It still stands that the loot of the West was and is used to buy Saudi oil, and Saudi-Arabia uses that money to build mosques all over the world, but Europe in particular.
“All over the world.”
Not good enough. This is not info. You are not even answering the question.
And no, Columnist, it doesn’t “still stand” because you say so without more and better information.
I am answering your question. Mosques are central to Islam. They don’t spring from the ground. If most Muslims are poor, it must be the oil sheiks who build them.
If the oil wealth is used to build mosques instead of caring for the material well-being of the people, the fault is with the oil sheiks who misuse Islam as a kind of opiate. I am aware of the economic theories of Hizb-ut-Tahrir. They criticize capitalism better than the regular Left nowadays. My own system closely resembles their ideas more than it resembles the regular Left.
Columnist, I asked for more and better information which proved your points. You not answered my question because you have only repeated what you said already by using different words and from information I presented to you.
Mosques are preferred places of prayer for Muslims for many, but are mosques are articles of faith? Do they constitute pillars of practice?
If Saudi oil money is being poured into mosque-building “all of the world”, what are the international figures?
You have your own system – what is it?
I’m in no doubt you are familiar with this Party you mention.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hizb_ut-Tahrir
However, do you also consider any theories which show that political Islam has proved ill-equipped for the complexities of modern government and is, in fact, a spent force?
typos.. “You have not answered my question…”
I do not think that political Islam is ill-equipped for the complexities of modern government, and I do not think it is a spent force. In fact, I think it is the next best system after mine. My system can be found at my website.
A non-answer again!
I’m done, Columnist.
So much simple-minded ‘material determinism’ on this thread.
Eg – this group held this technology, therefore xxxxx….
It isn’t the tool – it is what one does with it…
—
Fundamentally:
Is group xxxxx organised, or not?
Is group xxxxx disciplined, or not?
What is group xxxxx interested in doing each day?
How aggressive is group xxxxx?
—
Those factors are why things play out as they do.
@Jones
Do you honestly expect these one-sided argument spouters to understand this?
@Mistwalker
Do you really think everyone who has comment cannot understand because they have looked at things from different angles instead of Jones’ stale and predictable one?
This thread is so dumb. When Columbus arrived in central america he documented that the natives mentioned the presence of black people.Africans and the natives of the americas co-existed before the advent of the white man and there were no acts of genocide or upheaval in the native americans lives and resources . Actually the africans in the americas enhanced the natives lives. the relationship of Native Americans and Africans
goes back thousands of years! Africans were actively in business with
Native Americans long before Columbus wandered lost into the Caribbean
and thinking he found India, erroneously called the Natives “Indians,” a
name which has stuck. At one time the African and American continents
were joined, as proven by their similarity of tropical plants, animals
and geographic traits, plus their appearance of fitting together.Aztec murals clearly depict blacks with natives, I mean… Get real..Once again we are being asked to overlook that which is before our very eyes in a sad acquiescance to white supremacy..”shaking head”..
@abagond
I like where you are going with this thread, especially in the light of your more recent threads about the future that was, and the future that never was.
These “what if” scenarios come from a long tradition, and I see them today in Afrofuturism – it’s cool your blog occasionally explores alternate history.
A “what if” question like this thread stimulates a reader to re-consider history’s pivotal turning points. Why shouldn’t we look at different versions and weigh in history and science and facts we already know about Africa and the Americas and base our conclusions on conjecture? Isn’t that develops thought and pushes us to re-examine what we take for granted and think we know already?
The skill of this “what if” here, is that pieces of Earth (in this case from Africa’s history) traded places with their analogues from different time lines!
There’s definitely a place for the many-worlds interpretation of quantum mechanics – like there is a need for speculative black fiction – it’s not as if black people don’t read sci-fi, or fantasy, or comics or the Greeks, etc! LOL.
I remember, as a teenager reading through Ralph Ellison’s “Invisible Man” and asking myself:
is this science fiction or just facts in a fictional setting?
Well, in the same way should ALL your blog posts be predicated by realism only? I think not. Not at all. Satire, speculation, fantasy or whatever, are all good, side by side with the reality.
On other threads the subject of projected media images comes up repeatedly. This makes me think, like the commenter SomeGuy said recently, that the only place in Hollywood where black folks are allowed to be fully human is in science fiction. The “what if” of threads like this one, makes me ponder on a time and place that is pre-Hollywood or ex-Hollywood. It makes me ponder on other possible black cultural production where black people and black history are not erased from what is imaginary.
That is why speculative and conjectural threads like these, the “what if” and “the future”, are valuable, and I can only encourage you to keep asking these questions….
The technology of guns and ships is one thing.
Intention is another, whether or not the intention is to gun down and kill off the occupants of the land you want to own when you arrive in your ships.
What is less obvious is how technology and intention were combined to maximize profit and eventually came to lay the foundation of what we now call the global economic system.
After all, what’s the point having all that empty land if you have no one to work it? The slave trade was a lucrative business for those with money to invest.
The slave ship itself was specially crafted to maximize their profits.
At the bottom of this is violence and cruelty on an industrial scale.
Britain’s maritime history is remarkable because of its basis and wealth grounded in the enslavement of Africans. In the early 17th century, most British ships were built in London or Bristol, the dominant slaving ports. I’ve heard that because the wood used for ship-building became scarce toward the latter end of the 17th century, more and more ships were built in the American colonies.
Constructed by slaves, these plantation-made, American vessels were put together primarily in the New England states of Massachusetts and Rhode Island and the southern states of Virginia, Maryland and South Carolina. The timber used for the ships were harvested by enslaved Africans. The ships brought more slaves and the slaves made more ships, in a macabre cycle. The ships were customized to use every inch of space for cargo, maximizing usablity of space, and profits.
http://preparing.org/images/slaveship01.jpg
To the best of my knowledge, the estimate of these voyages to transport harvested slaves was something in the region of 50,000. This was no less than industrial proportions. And that industry was a massive enterprise, requiring a massive infrastructure, one based on violence-conflated-with-technology with one purpose: to take about 10 or 12 (or more millions) of human bodies out of one continent and put them into another. Then, to work those bodies, often to death, although not exclusively if they could be bred, when possible, by force.
The usual notion — the violence of dehumanization in this — is that the African slaves, as bodies, as economic units, were raw labour, and unskilled.
Yet farming is skill is something that comes out of knowledge that takes generations to acquire. For example, Europeans did not have intimate knowledge of working tropical or sub-tropical produce. Africans did. Their expertise was also a reason for the enslavement — who is to say that different Africans were not kidnapped for the economic skills they possessed?
When I look at this way, centuries later, the wealth gap this produced between the continents, and also between descendants of slaves and non-slaves is the violence of economic oppression.
how did i miss this post last year hmmm…interesting cuz that is an argument that you heard a lot is that “getting to the gun first,” is the reason for slavery and genocide etc….this definitely give you something to think about…makes you wonder
and i’ve always wondered about the ancient romans, why their racial classification system wasn’t like it was today…why didn’t they say all of one race is inferior and should be slaves compared to others…is it because there were other races like nubians who had defeated them in battle before, so they knew they were just as capable or did that just not occur as a natural idea to categorize people that way???