• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Where would black Americans be if their ancestors had never been enslaved?

Where would black Americans be if their ancestors had never been enslaved?

  • Total voters
    51
Lursa said:
What, you think the Irish built the ships they came over on (the ships that managed to make it this far, that is.)
Click to expand...

Ummm... Predominantly Irish labor forces actually did build quite a few of them, in point of fact.

They just didn't own them, per se. :lol:
 
Last edited:
Other.

Too many variables to determine.

Why did they leave home?
Why did they choose to immigrate to the US?
Was there a Civil War in the US? (And related question - how would the US have developed without slavery existing?)
Soooooo many variables.
 
Gathomas88 said:
Either way regardless, however, the fact that these cultures were, in fact, "primitive" in comparison to the rest of the world is undeniable. There was also really no way they could have corrected that state of affairs purely on their own initiative using the tools and resources they had available - at least not within any kind of reasonable time frame.
Click to expand...

That has less to do with their abilities and more to do with being 'conquered' by colonialists.

Look at the damage done in India, all of the native people in North and South America....where are many of those native cultures now? Advanced? No, but curtailed by outside influences.

Living in less habitable areas such as colder climates, is one thing that influenced populations that migrated to and lived in harsher environments. In order to survive, they had to be more innovative. They just often...not always...developed innovations at a faster rate in order to survive.

It's an oversimplification and is only one angle in the topic but a valid one nonetheless.
 
Gathomas88 said:
Which might very well play into why we have done so well everywhere else.

Human beings are an "invasive species" on basically every continent but Africa. Living in environments where everything wasn't specifically adapted to kill them very likely gave non-Africans more breathing room to expand their populations and reap the socio-economic and technological developments that went along with that state of affairs.

Most Africans didn't really have that opportunity.
Click to expand...

Africa had relatively large amounts of food and a fairly pleasant climate (actually slightly cooler than it is now) with early man. One theory I have heard is that a natural selection occurred as man moved out of Africa, where more cooperation and insight was needed to survive in more hostile climates.
 
Lursa said:
Much of 'the mess' in Africa is due to European, Asian (Arab and Indian primarily), and American colonialism. There is no reason to assume Africa would not have developed an advanced culture on it's own. It had several localized ones in the past. Would you say the same about South America?They never would have 'developed an advanced culture?' The Inca's had an advanced civilization, even tho they never had the wheel.
Click to expand...

In the big picture, European and Asian influence is only seen in the last thousand years or so, and in many areas, its much much less.
Africa has always been primitive, relative to other places.
 
Lursa said:
That has less to do with their abilities and more to do with being 'conquered' by colonialists.

Look at the damage done in India, all of the native people in North and South America....where are many of those native cultures now? Advanced? No, but curtailed by outside influences.

Living in less habitable areas such as colder climates, is one reason that influenced populations that migrated to and lived in harsher environments. In order to survive, they had to be more innovative. They just often...not always...developed innovations at a faster rate in order to survive.

It's an oversimplification and is only one angle in the topic but a valid one nonetheless.
Click to expand...

I'm sorry, but there is absolutely no reason to think that Africa, India, or the Aztec Empire would be sporting skyscrapers and smartphones right now if European Colonialism had never occurred. To the contrary, they would most likely be still be sitting more or less exactly where they were before we found them, with only minor incremental developments to show for the centuries that have passed in between.

Basically, the only way Africans or South Americans were going to get access advanced technology this millennia was for someone else to give it to them. The only way India, the Arab world, or the Far East were going to rise above the cultural stasis they'd set themselves into in any kind of timely fashion was for someone else to force them out of it.

For better or worse, European Colonialism, like all "imperial" influence throughout history, served that purpose. It spread the technology and mindset of the conquering power, while removing the existing status quos which had previously served to prevent progress.
 
Lursa said:
Much of 'the mess' in Africa is due to European, Asian (Arab and Indian primarily), and American colonialism. There is no reason to assume Africa would not have developed an advanced culture on it's own. It had several localized ones in the past. Would you say the same about South America?They never would have 'developed an advanced culture?' The Inca's had an advanced civilization, even tho they never had the wheel.
Click to expand...
Really what colonies did the United States have in Africa?
 
Gathomas88 said:
I'm sorry, but there is absolutely no reason to think that Africa, India, or the Aztec Empire would be sporting skyscrapers and smartphones right now if European Colonialism had never occurred. To the contrary, they would most likely be still be sitting more or less exactly where they were before we found them, with only minor incremental developments to show for the centuries that have passed in between.

Basically the only way Africans or South Americans were going to get access advanced technology this millennia was for someone else to give it to them. The only way India, the Arab world, or the Far East were going to rise above the cultural stasis they'd set themselves into in any kind of timely fashion was for someone to force them out of it.

For better or worse, European Colonialism, like all "imperial" influence throughout history, served that purpose. It spread the technology and mindset of the conquering power, while removing the existing status quos which had previously served to prevent progress.
Click to expand...

What?? That is pure speculation. Plenty of research has been done to support what I wrote and you've admitted to reading some of it in the past. Did you not understand it or just dismiss the parts you didnt like? Do you realize that you just wrote that with Anglo-saxon influence, the world would be culturally and technologically primitive today?? That is some hubris and arrogance.
 
US Conservative said:
In the big picture, European and Asian influence is only seen in the last thousand years or so, and in many areas, its much much less.
Africa has always been primitive, relative to other places.
Click to expand...

Africa was more primitive than Europe and much of Asia a thousand yrs ago? Good luck with that.

China was ahead of just about everyone however, that long ago. And Egypt wasnt doing too badly either, nor the Incas, altho I'd have to check dates for the Incas a little more closely.
 
Gathomas88 said:
I'm sorry, but there is absolutely no reason to think that Africa, India, or the Aztec Empire would be sporting skyscrapers and smartphones right now if European Colonialism had never occurred. To the contrary --
Click to expand...

You're missing out the interconnectedness of scientific developments that link advances in Africa (writing and numbers) to the Middle East (mathematics and medicine) right up to the expulsion of scholars from Constantinople into Italy that fostered the Renaissance. European Colonialism (and science) was simply the latest stage in scientific development and progress.

US Conservative said:
This isn't really debatable, Africa is a primitive continent. What advances there are came from the outside. American blacks who's ancestors were slaves benefitted from coming here.
Click to expand...

That's because you're not doing a good job of it.
 
EMNofSeattle said:
Really what colonies did the United States have in Africa?
Click to expand...

"Colonialism" does not necessarily mean the creation of colonies. Seriously? It means the imposition of foreign will on local populations and their resources, governing, culture,etc.
 
US Conservative said:
Africa had relatively large amounts of food and a fairly pleasant climate (actually slightly cooler than it is now) with early man. One theory I have heard is that a natural selection occurred as man moved out of Africa, where more cooperation and insight was needed to survive in more hostile climates.
Click to expand...

At the same time, however, Africa also has large predators who explicitly view humans as prey animals (Africa is the only continent to still have most of its Ice Age megafauna, in point of fact - every other continent saw them go extinct almost immediately after human beings arrived), and a crapload of parasites and tropical diseases which are adapted to attack human physiology.

Make no mistake, Africa's retty damn harsh, especially in comparison to many more "temperate" climates.
 
Last edited:
Lursa said:
Africa was more primitive than Europe and much of Asia a thousand yrs ago? Good luck with that.

China was ahead of just about everyone however, that long ago. And Egypt wasnt doing too badly either, nor the Incas, altho I'd have to check dates for the Incas a little more closely.
Click to expand...

I think you need to spend some time reading. And yes, Africa was more primitive a thousand years ago, it still is.
 
Gathomas88 said:
At the same time, however, Africa also has large predators who explicitly view humans as prey animals (Africa is the only continent to still have most of its Ice Age megafauna, in point of fact - every other continent saw them go extinct almost immediately after human beings arrived), and a crapload of parasites and tropical diseases which are adapted to attack human physiology.

Make no mistake, Africa's retty damn harsh, especially in comparison to many more "temperate" climates.
Click to expand...

Its true, in most places man was able to hunt them out of existence-but I dont think thats why african cultures didn't flourish. There were always tigers in India, and many similar large animals but they comparatively flourished.
 
Lursa said:
"Colonialism" does not necessarily mean the creation of colonies. Seriously? It means the imposition of foreign will on local populations and their resources, governing, culture,etc.
Click to expand...

You see everything through a leftist anti-colonialist lens. Blaming the state of Africa on the US is simply ignorant.
 
US Conservative said:
I think you need to spend some time reading. And yes, Africa was more primitive a thousand years ago, it still is.
Click to expand...

I have done alot of reading on it. You appear not to.
 
US Conservative said:
You see everything through a leftist anti-colonialist lens. Blaming the state of Africa on the US is simply ignorant.
Click to expand...

I didnt do that...your extreme rightism forces you to see everything thing with your red-colored bias. :mrgreen:
 
Lursa said:
"Colonialism" does not necessarily mean the creation of colonies. Seriously? It means the imposition of foreign will on local populations and their resources, governing, culture,etc.
Click to expand...

Ok what did the government of the United States do to impose our will on their society?
 
Lursa said:
What?? That is pure speculation. Plenty of research has been done to support what I wrote and you've admitted to reading some of it in the past. Did you not understand it or just dismiss the parts you didnt like? Do you realize that you just wrote that with Anglo-saxon influence, the world would be culturally and technologically primitive today?? That is some hubris and arrogance.
Click to expand...

First off, it's not "Anglo-Saxon" influence, but Early Modern European influence in general.

Secondly, again, I'm sorry, but it's true. :shrug:

The Aztecs didn't have either the wheel, or metal working that was even on the level the Ancient Egyptians could boast 4000 years ago. How on Earth were they supposed to have an "Industrial Revolution," or harness electricity with those handicaps?

Were they just going to warp through millennia worth of technological and socioeconomic development overnight? The very idea is ridiculous.

SubSaharan Africa couldn't even hold a respectable empire together for more than a few decades. That problem also wasn't going to correct itself any time soon.

I'm sorry, but you're preaching fantasy here.
 
Last edited:
Lursa said:
There were no 'colonies' in Africa. :doh
Click to expand...

You made a specific allegation that there were American colonies in Africa, which colonies belong to the United States of America and Africa?

Don't lump us and with the Europeans, the Europeans had many colonies in Africa the United States never sponsored one, except maybe Liberia but that was private business interests,
 
EMNofSeattle said:
Ok what did the government of the United States do to impose our will on their society?
Click to expand...

You need to pick up a history book. At least everyone else here recognizes that it occurred. Try looking up Sierra Leone and Liberia for starters.

But more than the US, it was Europe and Asia.
 
EMNofSeattle said:
You made a specific allegation that there were American colonies in Africa, which colonies belong to the United States of America and Africa?

Don't lump us and with the Europeans, the Europeans had many colonies in Africa the United States never sponsored one, except maybe Liberia but that was private business interests,
Click to expand...

I never said colonies, I said colonialism. Those different words each have different meanings.

Check Sierra Leone and btw, much colonialism was sponsored by private business interests. Check out "Dutch East India Company"
 
Lursa said:
I have done alot of reading on it. You appear not to.
Click to expand...

History of Africa - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Military history of Africa - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Economic history of Africa - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Then you know it was been near constant violence and struggle. Its easier to study where there were western or eastern interaction, because of written language. Much of the rest of the continent is studied via archeology and to an extent oral tradition.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom