[W:508]Why is Africa the most backward continent in the world? Is African culture to blame?

[MaryP]

The Spanish did not “wipe out” the indigenous peoples. This is largely black legend stuff. They intermarried with the local population and created a new people. Also the Indians were not “enslaved”. In fact holding Indians as property was a crime under a law promulgated by the Spanish crown very early in the colonization. Which is why blacks were brought to the Carribean.

Rape exists as a crime in every society ever, and was a crime under Spanish law, in fact it carried the death penalty if I remember correctly

There is just too much bullshit in that post to bother with. Live in your dream world.

 

[EMNofSeattle]

There is just too much bullshit in that post to bother with. Live in your dream world.

Lolz.

In other words, you can’t bother because you don’t know anything about the Spanish colonization other then a bizarre pseudo irredentist narrative pushed by American elites,

 

[MaryP]

Hmm... that is, when the indigenous peoples of Central America slaughtered, enslaved, raped and sacrificed each other... was that normal? And it only got bad when the Spaniards started doing it?

Or maybe everything is simpler and that was the period of human history associated with such expansion?

It is so unscientific to try to draw the morality of today to the events of a long history

My point was, the indigenous people WERE exploited by the Spanish.

 

[EMNofSeattle]

I don't think it's a matter of a singular culture, in that all are the same or anything, but there is definitely more of a sectarian and tribal mindset that causes most of the problems. It's likely due to more of the current environment coming out of centuries of different environments and history. This could be for many reason, many of them as simple as the natural environment.

There was an interesting mini series called Guns, Germs, and Steel that has a theory on why some areas developed while others did not. A lot of it came down to location, location, location. You can find the series on YouTube.

I’ve not seen the series, but I think that is largely true, of course there’s also the fact that much of Africa and the Americas had an easy but unstable ecology. Meaning it’s not terribly cold, the food is growing on the trees, starvation is uncommon etc but because of that the environment is dangerous, there’s wild animals and dangerous weather events, tropical diseases etc. and in such an environment the level of cooperation between people is low, populations don’t cooperate beyond the level of tribes or clans.

Papua New Geniue is the prime example of this

 

[Fabiusbile]

My point was, the indigenous people WERE exploited by the Spanish.

It must be assumed that all these beautiful ancient pyramids in Central America were built not with the involvement of contractors, not by the Chinese, but with the use of slave labor... here, no matter how you look, the picture is still ugly.

 

[EMNofSeattle]

My point was, the indigenous people WERE exploited by the Spanish.

They were exploited by their own rulers as well. However they were brought into Hispinidad by the Spanish

 

[EMNofSeattle]

It must be assumed that all these beautiful ancient pyramids in Central America were built not with the involvement of contractors, not by the Chinese, but with the use of slave labor... here, no matter how you look, the picture is still ugly.

Not only that, they were often temples for human sacrifice

 

[Jredbaron96]

Lol!

"Corruption, nepotism and inefficiency is rampant throughout Africa."

Have you actually read what has been said upthread?

Yeah, but you have said explicitly that African culture is to blame for these things. So what specific traits of "African culture" lead to what you have described?

 

[Jredbaron96]

Hmm... that is, when the indigenous peoples of Central America slaughtered, enslaved, raped and sacrificed each other... was that normal?

The scale of devastation and death brought about by the Spanish conquests greatly eclipse that of the Native Americans.

 

[Jredbaron96]

None of the countries in South America are indigenous nations inhabited by indigenous cultures.

Yeah, because the Spanish destroyed all the native nations and states that had existed in Central and Southern America prior.

 

[EMNofSeattle]

The scale of devastation and death brought about by the Spanish conquests greatly eclipse that of the Native Americans.

No, it doesn’t.

It’s not devastation to be absorbed into a more accomplished culture

 

[Jredbaron96]

No, it doesn’t.

Yes it did.

It’s not devastation to be absorbed into a more accomplished culture

So the Muslims were completely justified in conquering Spain. Got it.

 

[EMNofSeattle]

Yeah, because the Spanish destroyed all the native nations and states that had existed in Central and Southern America prior.

There were no states prior. The concept of a state barely existed in Europe and didn’t exist at all in the Americas.

Yes the Spanish destroyed the existing political structures of the Indians, then replaced them with better ones. The Aztecs themselves had destroyed previous peoples in the valley of Mexico, and their culture was primitive. It was technologically inferior to Ancient Sumeria. After the conquest there was a mixed race of people who built newer and better cities.

 

[Jredbaron96]

There were no states prior.

What do you call a group of united populaces living under a structured and organized government?

Yes the Spanish destroyed the existing political structures of the Indians, then replaced them with better ones.

Except for all the people they killed, of course.

It was technologically inferior to Ancient Sumeria.

That's hardly the Aztecs fault, lol.

 

[EMNofSeattle]

Yes it did.



So the Muslims were completely justified in conquering Spain. Got it.

No, because Islam is a false religion, specifically a Christian heresy. In any event though, the Iberian kingdoms eventually drove them out. And you can see the difference by visiting Spain versus Morocco now.

There’s also really a giant myth that Muslims were an advanced civilization in an of themselves in the Middle Ages, actually the various Muslim peoples were primitive and barbaric, very skilled warriors and militarily apt, but the apogee of their civilization was reached by allowing Greek Christians of conquered Christian territory to govern and administer their territory. Nearly all the claimed mathematical accomplishments of the Muslims were really made by Greek mathematicians living in conquered territory. Even their claimed “Arabic numeral system” wasn’t made by Arabs, but by peoples in India

 

[Jredbaron96]

No, because Islam is a false religion, specifically a Christian heresy.

Since this has no bearing on any kind of logical argument or debate, it's a pointless tangent and irrelevant to this discussion.

There’s also really a giant myth that Muslims were an advanced civilization in an of themselves in the Middle Ages

No it's not. This is revisionist history by tradcaths attempting to make the feudal state of Europe seem more appealing, like perpetuating the idea that Medieval peasants lived better lives than modern people.

There wasn't any European urban areas to rival the major population centers of Dar-al Islam in terms of standard of living for much of post-Roman rule (geography notwithstanding of course). It wasn't until the Mongols came around that that changed.

 

[EMNofSeattle]

What do you call a group of united populaces living under a structured and organized government?

In the Aztecs case it was an empire and not a state, they had an imperial government ruling over multitudes of peoples who owed fealty to an emperor. That is not a state. It’s also not strictly a nation in classical sense. A nation is a people. The Greeks are a nation, in the sense they are a people who speak Greek and are ancestrally Greek, there happens to be a country called Greece, but Greek people live in many places and not just Greece.

Greece is a state under modern conception, thus Greece is a nation state.

The Aztecs were an empire, various tribes wnd nations were subjugated by the empire.

Except for all the people they killed, of course.

Not as many as has been claimed. Of course many died in wars, and many died of disease in an era before germ theory was accepted by doctors. There was of course deaths by mistreatment or cruelty, but that’s a tiny percentage.

That's hardly the Aztecs fault, lol.

Maybe not, but also there’s the wierd idea that leftists kind of flirt with but never directly say that it was wrong to colonize the Americas and thaf these pre-Sumerian peoples should’ve been allowed to occupy the continent never making any advances forever.

The reason the Americas are better then Africa is because unlike the African colonization the American colonization south to assimilate and incorporate natives into the new bodypolitic. Even in North America where views of race mixing were far more negative then in Latin America most white Americans have some Indian ancestry.

 

[EMNofSeattle]

Since this has no bearing on any kind of logical argument or debate, it's a pointless tangent and irrelevant to this discussion.



No it's not. This is revisionist history by tradcaths attempting to make the feudal state of Europe seem more appealing, like perpetuating the idea that Medieval peasants lived better lives than modern people.

They lived more fulfilling lives Im sure.

There wasn't any European urban areas to rival the major population centers of Dar-al Islam in terms of standard of living for much of post-Roman rule (geography notwithstanding of course). It wasn't until the Mongols came around that that changed.

And most of those population centers were administered by Dhimmis and not by Muslims.

 

[Jredbaron96]

In the Aztecs case it was an empire and not a state, they had an imperial government ruling over multitudes of peoples who owed fealty to an emperor. That is not a state.

Yes it is.

The Aztecs were an empire, various tribes wnd nations were subjugated by the empire.

Yes, they had an organized government that held dominion of a specific territory and people, and they promulgated laws governing their territory through a political body.

Not as many as has been claimed. Of course many died in wars, and many died of disease in an era before germ theory was accepted by doctors. There was of course deaths by mistreatment or cruelty, but that’s a tiny percentage.

This is not historically accurate, but an attempt to whitewash the crimes of the Spanish because you don't like Catholic empires being criticized for doing terrible things.

Maybe not, but also there’s the wierd idea that leftists kind of flirt with but never directly say that it was wrong to colonize the Americas and thaf these pre-Sumerian peoples should’ve been allowed to occupy the continent never making any advances forever.

People rightfully criticize the genocide of people and the destruction of their native culture for no other reason than material gain on behalf of the conquerors.

 

[Jredbaron96]

They lived more fulfilling lives Im sure.

[Citation needed].

And most of those population centers were administered by Dhimmis and not by Muslims.

[Citation needed].

 

[EMNofSeattle]

Yes it is.



Yes, they had an organized government that held dominion of a specific territory and people, and they promulgated laws governing their territory through a political body.



This is not historically accurate, but an attempt to whitewash the crimes of the Spanish because you don't like Catholic empires being criticized for doing terrible things.



People rightfully criticize the genocide of people and the destruction of their native culture for no other reason than material gain on behalf of the conquerors.

There was no genocide in the Spanish conquest. I mean unless you consider race mixing genocide, but then that would open doors you probably don’t want to open

 

[Jredbaron96]

There was no genocide in the Spanish conquest.

Yes there was. The Spanish depopulated entire regions through regular mass killings.

 

[EMNofSeattle]

Yes there was. The Spanish depopulated entire regions through regular

Meaning what?

Like what occurred in every war of the time period? This is a broad and unquantified claim. It’s also not genocide even if true. Genocide has a specific meaning.

 

[Jredbaron96]

Meaning what?

Meaning the Spanish regularly killed off large segments of the population for the crime of existing.

Sorry, you don't get to invade another continent, destabilize the region through the destruction of the ruling local governments, then engage in deliberate killings of large segments of the populace and then avoid the label of genocide because some tradcath on the internet thinks its unfair.

 

[EMNofSeattle]

Meaning the Spanish regularly killed off large segments of the population for the crime of existing.

I don’t believe that that is accurate. And you’re not providing any case for it being so.

Sorry, you don't get to invade another continent, destabilize the region through the destruction of the ruling local governments, then engage in deliberate killings of large segments of the populace and then avoid the label of genocide because some tradcath on the internet thinks its unfair.

The destruction of the local ruling governments in the Americas was a good thing. There is literally zero people who want to live in a Mexico that would be ruled by the descendants of the Aztecs with no European influence.