January 02, 2004

• Can someone explain to me why, why the fuck things like this happen in the world? Civil wars based on ethnicity really piss me off like nothing else. And human history is filled with them. Sorry about my attitude but that's how I feel about it. Book recommendations will be appreciated the most!
• Read Guns, Germs, and Steel by Jared Diamond. Of course it will most likely just confirm that ethnic wars are extraordinarily silly. Still, it's a good read, and if you disagree then we'll see how you feel about wars based on differences in ideas! A crusade is coming your way buddy!
• Sorry about my attitude but that's how I feel about it. I don't really think that that's the kind of attitude you have to apologise about.
• Look, I don't mean to sound racist with this comment, though I can understand how it would be interpreted as such, but my observations over the last couple of eons lead me to believe that the jumps from tribal to nationalistic to internationist orientations are huge ones. And, I'm not sure that anyone can get from one to the next without huge amounts of time/progress/equal contact with the rest of the world. In that order. Look at history, folks, tribes dominated it for a very long time. Even the sucessfully nationalistic Romans had a hard time getting tribal ducks in line, and were soundly defeated by some tribes. I think what we're seeing in the the Middle East now is a struggle between trible and national interests. And, poor southern Africa! I also think that they were kept from nationalistic development while they were colonies, so most of them are still stuck in tribal mode. Maybe we just have to be patient while they get past that. As much as I hate the thought, I don't think "modern" priorities mean much to them.
• I have to disagree with you path. Africa is where humanity has lived most of her existence and it hasn't developed any advanced civilization in most parts of the continent. Not because of colonialism or anything like that but because of the particular ecosystems that make it difficult to establish good comunication and commerce routes between tribes. Besides, their sorroundings has given them most of the resources they need so they have no much need for barter and exploration. If they fought wars it was for territory most of the time. What western civilization has given them is medicine, technology and weapons to induce population explosion, severe resources explotation, and fights between the tribes that happen more often and are bloodier than ever. Most north african and european tribes that where similar to those of subsaharan Africa dissapeared because of roman and arabic extermination-assimilation. European colonization of Africa didn't penetrate far enough neither it lasted long enough to produce a similar effect in subsaharan tribes. That's why most of them persist with their old and agressive attitudes. It's is unlikely they will become more civilized without positive western and eastern cultural influence. Anyway, with current globalization trends it's impossible now to just let them be.
• path - What are "modern" priorities? How about equality between the sexes? Crime free communities? A healthy diet that completely avoids heart disease, high choloesterol, and may help avoid cancer? Or maybe a strong community where everyone gets a say in important decisions? How about respect for the elderly? If all these sound like the fantastic utopian ideals of an ultra-modern society where you would love to be, than pack your bags! You're going to the Kalahari to live with bushmen!
• Zemat - You're wrong and you're right, mostly wrong. Even assuming we're only talking about sub-saharan africa, you're leaving out such nations as Kush/Nubia, Axum, and Ethiopia in east africa. Ghana, Mali, and the Songhai (ever heard of Timbuktu?) in west africa, The Swahili trading states on the SE coast of Africa, and in SW africa the most purely african civ of them all Mwenemutapa (also called Great Zimbabwe). Most of these civs, particularly in the north were built upon trade. Europe tried for centuries to find a way around africa to india and the far east. Africans weeren't twiddling thier thumbs during this time. Most of these were still around when europe came in with bigger guns and more organized armies (Italy excepted).
• As for the north saharan peoples being similar to sub-saharn peoples, never happened. The Berbers were (and are) Berbers, pretty much the only thing Rome and Islam gave them were some fancy builidings and a new language and religion, respectively. The hugeness of the Sahara curtailed any massive population exchanges between Sub- and Above-Saharan africa which would have intergrated the populations. Now your good points. The abundance of resources in Africa did delay the rise of larger, agrarian based civs like greece or mesopotamia, but by 600BC, about the time Ireland was getting the wheel, there were urban areas and iron-smelting. it wasn't the abundance of resources but the isolation of Africa, which is a penninsula with the largest desert in the world at the top, which was its beggiest obstacle in advancing its tech, that and Africa is really really really big. Your best point, when Europe scurried out of Africa in the 50s and 60s it left behind much larger pops, modern tech, and, more importantly, aribtrary borders grouping historic rivals together, little infrastructure, and no trained engineers or other high tech jobs, like doctors.
• Much of the power was left in the hands of either the revolutionaries that threw out the Euros (Mugabe in Zimbabwe) or with the cronies of the Euros left behind (south africa, angola). Some of whom are still, or only recently out of, power. By the time Africa was starting to really get its stuff together, build a large educated and professional class and tone down some of the ethinic and civil strife it gets to meet HIV in a big way. Of course those worst effected by AIDS arent the mom and pop farmers out in the country but the educated and professional class in the cities.
• Actualy I knew about these civilizations but I didn't mention them because I left it implicit when I said that Africa hasn't developed an advanced civilization in most parts of it. Those cultures you mention didn't comprise more than 10% of African population at the time of colonization and weren't advanced relatively speaking to europeans or muslims. They developed quite slowly. Most of these civs, particularly in the north were built upon trade. You confirm my point. Anyway, a hadn't heard of Mwenemutapa. Nice civ. Thanks.
• Thanks for the added stuff Spooky. I didn't read it on preview.
• Well, one more thing. As for Berbers and all other tribal cultures that still exist in our world. No matter how much access to technology they have, they are the focus of most modern bloodier conflicts. By which, I'm not saying that all tribal cultures are agressive, nor that they give rise to all wars. Tribal attitudes are to blame for most conflicts, even in advanced cultures (mostly, young sport teams fanatics). Religious and ideological wars have a tribal background for the most part.
• I've been contemplating a more substantial comment for several days, which I admit has put the trek on hold. I would say that the tribalism displayed can indeed be replicated in religious and ideological dogma--and I don't have a good tome to recommend regarding that. However, I would second reading Guns, Germs, and Steel precisely because it rips world history free from some unspoken racial and ethnic assumptions from which it often suffers. Yes, being a work of a westerner, it's not 100% objective--what can be?--but it has a forthright honesty that I think you'll find helpful. After reading it, you certainly won't find ethnic conflict any less inane, but it may help look at some of the underlying issues the sides of said conflicts probably ignore.