Why isnt Africa more advanced than white countries?

Europe.

 

You are getting timelines mixed up. Christians came before Muslims.

- - - Updated - - -

Europe is backwards for sure. But compared to Africa? What do you really think?

Botswana by the way is the path forward for Africa. Some freedom in their markets and a culture that fights corruption.

 

For the sake of trying to keep internet pollution down, please don't notify us when you ignore some one.

I seriously doubt it. You're saying that christianity is what made the west civilized, but I want you to look at the pagan greeks. Those people were on the brink of an industrial revolution, and they made huge progress in many fields like math, medicine, etc, so if any religion is superior in terms of advancing civilization it ought to be theirs.

We know, why do you point that out?

They are free to live as they wish, its just that why they are and were on a more primitive level compared to europeans is a very interesting question.

Delusional statement. Why do people feel the need to deny reality? I just don't get it.

Which pagan europeans are you referring to?

 

Because when the US and Europe imperialized the continents, they also took political and economic control, mainly protecting the plantations and big business that grew, got raw materials, and then shipped them overseas. As a result, save for South America, there was a lack of capital in the hands of locals as it was the wealthier Europeans who got the money. When they left, they took the capital and next to no experience in self governing in the hands of Africans. In short, no capital and no experience for running a nation. In South America, the cold war happened, and the US supported banana republics fell apart.

 

then the question becomes, why did europe imperialise them and not vice versa?

 

A very long and complicated reason that mostly boils down to, they got greedy. I think the OP mentioned that there were fewer resources in comparsion. And that's true, but they also had a more centralized population, and they knew how to use what they had. With certain inventions like steam engines built, it allowed them to go where they couldn't go before. Medicine insured that there were fewer illnesses and guns made sure the natives wouldn't be able to fight back.

 

Are you saying that europeans are inherently more greedy than other peoples?

Centralised populations? I think india, china, nigeria, egypt, iraq, indonesia, and maybe mexico city area would count as having centralised populations. Yet, they all got imperialised upon by europeans. Why?

Indeed, the industrial revolution was a real turning point. But at that time europe was already much far ahead of africa on average. The questions are why did the industrial revolution start in europe? and why didn't other places in the world reach the same stage as pre-industrial europe?

deeper.

 

No. They got greedy about different things, that's all. Europeans wanted spices, so they traveled around the world for it. Along the way, they realized they had to stop somewhere. And when they stopped, they met people, beginning the process.

Compare the sizes of say Great Britain to China. The population is more centralized, in other words, they're closer together.

The reason, pretty much we can trace back to the 30's year war. Religion just didn't seem as important anymore and something new had to replace it. Combine the experiences they got from meeting new people and new places, a natural curiosity took over. Eventually this manifested in trying to understand more of the natural world.

yeah.

 

Europeans aren't unique in wanting exotic things. That's something all humans share. Trade exists and has existed everywhere, and people have always exchanged local goods for more valuable foreign ones. There's been other people involved in trade than europeans, yet non of the other imperialised to the same extent. just as an example, why didn't indians who fancied goods from africa colonise africa?

Great britain has had a much lower population historically. And it doesn't make sense to compare all of china with all of great britain. Compare the populous areas in GB to the ones in china. China has much more people, and much more concentrated. Especially true historically. and yet, they didn't imperialise africa.

 

Because colonization is expensive, and there has to be a sense of need. Empires at this time, were focused on land, and trying to get something overseas was pretty expensive. Controlling a distant African kingdom, was pointless when you had Rajjs you had to fight at home. When the technolgoly didn't allow for that, there can't be a way. As for the need, Indians didn't want to, after all wars can disrupte trade, and no one wants to lose a ship over that. The Mughal empire also had formed, and there wasn't a need to fight against fellow Muslims. Also, there was something Africans wanted, spices silk etc. You could just trade and that was it.

Compare where they are. When you're starting the industrialization process, you need labor. The enclosure acts gave them that labor needed, and allowed people to move to the cities. China, there wasn't that sense of need, as they needed more farmers to provide for a growing population. So even though Great Britain had a smaller population, it was closer together, and thus ideas spread faster.

 

Interesting, as one of the thesises people often put forward is that europe advanced because it was divided into smaller warring kingdoms that wanted every edge they could over their rivals, which spurred innovation and looking at every means of gaining more power. Anyways, all the things you cited for india applies to europe as well: they had rivals and they could also trade with africa. ANd colonisation is expensive indeed, which is why one would think that india with its riches could have colonised some.

You mean that the advances in agricultural technology meant that it required much less people to work in that sector, creating a big work force to be used elsewhere, like in the new factories? Indeed. So why then did these advances which enabled that happen just in britain?

 

Then don't think of it as colonization. Think of it as aquiring land. You couldn't do that in Europe, so outside Europe was a better option. India, you had the land to expand. There wasn't a need to go overseas. And the idea of trying to get away from the coastline, is something rather remarkable to do. It took Europe hundreds of years to do it, and even then many still didn't want to do it.

There are other traits to industrialization as well. Stable government, Great Britain hasn't had a revolution since 1689. There hasn't been a war on British soil since I would say the English Civil War. Capital, the Commercial revolution gave them that. The resources, England had plenty of coal and river ways for communication and power. And as I said labor population.

 

Also the invention of the corporation. That was one of the greatest inventions in the last 500 years but most people don't consider it one.

 

You couldn't aquire land in europe but you could in India? I don't understand what you mean by that. Surely there were wars fought to gain terrotiry in both places, and there were established political entities in both places.

What was the need to go overseas?

The mughal empire in India lasted for a very long time so I think they had sufficient stability. And the ming and qing dynasties in china very also long lived and stable. China has the population, coal, and rivers you mention.

- - - Updated - - -

especially not lefties I would guess.

 

(My bold)

Well, Islam did conquer most of Spain, & Sicily, & bits of Italy. In Spain, Islam stayed for 800 years, & the early centuries were a blossoming of Christian/Jewish/Islamic culture. Then a much more rigid Islamic rule began, the result of internecine religious jockeying. Paradise was lost, the Reconquest started in earnest, the Jewish & converted Christians were no longer tolerated.

 

So european imperialism was enabled by the reconquista?

 

I say that's more so part of the commercial revolution. But another thing I would add is insurance. No one wants to make an investment knowing that if it goes wrong, you can lose everything.

 

(My bold)

I wouldn't say enabled, no. Perhaps the Islamic military & cultural pressure helped motivate Europe to arm & train more widely based militaries. The Crusades also kick off in there, partially in response to pirate & bandit raids on penitents en route to Jerusalem & Christian points of interest, partially @ outrage that Christian access to holy places is being treated as a kind of commerce by the various governments in charge there.

 

When marching an army on its stomach, what costs less, being able to live off the land, or trying to feed an army on a ship, that can't get any food. Now add in th costs of sailors, making sure there is a fleet ready, and the logistics behind it. It was a hard thing to do, and still is. You can build roads on land, but you're only as fast as a ship can carry you on sea.

When the Roman Empire fell, there wasn't a lot of centralized power. Sure there was the Ottonians and the Holy Roman Empire, but those were short lived. There simply wasn't enough power to build up large sections of territory. When imperialism took hold, mainly in the late 1800's, there were 2 powerful forces in Europe. Nationalism and the balance of powers. Nationalism was important because it made conquered subjects all the harder to hold on to. Rome was an empire, because everyone wanted to be Roman. Austria-Hungary fell apart because the different ethnic groups wanted a greater say. The balance of powers, no one European nation could become stronger then the next. That means the 5 great powers couldn't go about conquering land, without fear of having to give something up.

But not the technology.

 

Africa did not develop economically and socially like Europe because the African tribes were nomadic and they did not live centralized in cities like the Europeans did. Also, the people in Africa never developed alphabets for their different languages like the people did in Europe. This made learning and the exchange of critical information among the various tribes to be very difficult.

 

Also another good invention.

UK common law was in general a pretty good thing to encourage innovation. This is about the time they came out with patents too right? Even at first if they were kind of BS.

 

Africa did not develop economically and socially like Europe because the African tribes were nomadic and they did not live centralized in cities like the Europeans did. Also, the people in Africa never developed alphabets for their different languages like the people did in Europe. This made learning and the exchange of critical information among the various tribes to be very difficult.

 

I'm not too sure. I think it was further on, but then again I could be wrong.

 

Because of slavery.

 

What on earth does slavery have to do with natural resources? Also, slavery by the white man existed in America and Europe. It did not exist in Africa. There weren't enough white people who lived in Africa to own and care for slaves.