FLVOL_79
GS-16 Classified
- Joined
- Feb 12, 2011
- Messages
- 47,089
- Likes
- 69,422
Lol. Lots of bad history based on bad assumptions and relying on hundreds of years of unwritten but orally transmitted testimony..(1) What race are you?
(2) Even with as much whitewashing as there has been of history, as recently as 1400 AD, the richest nation on Earth was an African country (Mali Empire) which had at the time the most sophisticated institutions of higher learning in the world at Timbuktu.
(3) And if we go back 4,000 years, the only advanced nations on Earth were African (i.e. Egypt and Nubia). While Europeans were living in caves, black Africans were building the pyramids (in Egypt and Nubia).
So there is nothing outlandish about making the argument that if not for the slave trade and colonialism crippling Africa for the last 500 years, that Africa would once again have the most developed and advanced nations on Earth.
What stopped sub Saharan Africa from advancing? They weren't "advanced" when they sold each other into slavery to Europeans. They weren't "advanced" when they were colonized". Colonization brought them out of the stone age..literally. Then colonization ends, all the tools of the most advanced culture the world has ever known are at their disposal...and?....nothing. Richest countries in history pouring money in and.....nothing..
You want to point a finger at the West for somehow stopping this mythical advancement you think sub Saharan Africa was experiencing or was on the cusp of, but its all folly. There are places in the Amazon and areas like Papa New Guinea where the west hasn't had an impact..that is what any place on the earth would look like without European influence. Africa wasn't on a path towards advanced cultures, especially sub Saharan Africa. Hell, that is where ancient humans fled.
So in the time span of about 6000 years you point to a few small pyramids built and a trade route hub in the desert.. I get it though. Sub Saharan Africa did not have any written languages or way to keep history outside of word of mouth. Oral history tends to..well..not be the most accurate form of recording it..