Anonymous amethyst_headphone51 23h

surpassed as opposed to caught up why?

-1

Anonymous #2 23h

they lack arable land

-4

Anonymous OP 23h

Lmfao. PLEASE read up before debating.

10

Anonymous OP 23h

Because you have the account for both the enormous increase in Africa’s wealth in that scenario AND the comparable decrease of Western wealth

2

Anonymous OP 23h

They do now, flashback to pre-colonial Africa and its a completely different environment.

11

Anonymous #2 23h

you read up i’m not lying

-3

Anonymous OP 23h

did you just suggest an entire continent doesn’t have arable land…

14

Anonymous amethyst_headphone51 23h

As a big history nerd, nah not likely. West Africa and east Africa have had many successful empires, but the geography is very limiting in many ways. The Industrial Revolution only happened because of the global connections resulting from European colonialism. It was primarily started by English attempts to mass produce textiles to outcompete Indian production.

2

Anonymous OP 23h

Lack of decent land is due to massive deforestation and mining

11

Anonymous #4 23h

it doesn’t have enough

-2

Anonymous OP 23h

Nobody said you’re lying dude you’re just misinformed

13

Anonymous OP 23h

They have ~60% of the world’s arable land. THE WORLD. This is a dipshit argument and you know it is.

19

Anonymous #5 23h

Like the simple reality is that without the global connectedness from the colonial era, the Industrial Revolution probably would not have happened when and where it did. East Africa had a large maritime trade network, and west Africa had the trans-Saharan trade. But that does not induce industrial development

2

Anonymous #3 23h

so they don’t have it

-4

Anonymous #2 23h

according to who

-3

Anonymous #2 23h

Forreal I’m just waiting for OP to reveal their “black man bad” truth cuz why tf else would they care

11

Anonymous OP 23h

To anyone who isn’t a rage baiting fuck nugget.

14

Anonymous OP 23h

“So they don’t have it” brother conditions created by colonial influence are not a part of this hypothetical scenario get a clue🤦🏻‍♀️

16

Anonymous #5 23h

I think that without European colonialism, (namely the beginning of Portuguese trade networks along the African coast) the Industrial Revolution would have occurred decades or centuries later, perhaps in the Islamic world or China. Africa would develop at a more equal pace. West Africa would probably grow slowly, and east Africa would develop, likely under heavy Arab-Swahili influence.

0

Anonymous #5 23h

I suspect the Indian Ocean trade network would be the new center for industrial development. East Africa could perhaps be exploited under this regime or develop as a more equal trade partner. But you don’t get spontaneous industrialization. The Industrial Revolution happened at a very specific time and place due to the economics of colonial trade.

6

Anonymous #5 23h

Seems like European wealth happened because of extraction. The Industrial Revolution happened BECAUSE of extraction, not European ingenuity. You also say africas networks weren’t enough…but weren’t those interrupted due to centuries of violence and theft? The trans Saharan trade network thrived before Europeans destroyed them. To me, these are just excuses for colonialism.

4

Anonymous #2 23h

Oh I strongly believe that the Industrial Revolution did not happen due to any sort of European exceptionalism. Europe was just lucky (which made others suffer). It had a lot of right things happen to it at the right time. Sure, Europe had individually smart dudes which drove innovation, but I strongly believe that they didn’t have more than any other culture at any other period in earth’s history.

5

Anonymous #5 23h

Most importantly, Europe had easy access to trade with the east. This allowed for access to Chinese, Indian, and Arab knowledge, which could be adopted and built upon. Without gunpowder, the printing press, alchemy, or had Ancient Greek and Roman knowledge been lost (no renaissance), Europe would not have had the technological advantage that allowed it to get the upper hand, or the ability to navigate so far.

1

Anonymous #5 23h

And of course without the east, Europe wouldn’t have had the same drive to colonize in the first place. The first colonial adventures, what got all this started, was Portugal trying to access Asian spices without Islamic middlemen.

1

Anonymous #5 23h

Then so many things all happened right for Europe all at once. The renaissance occurs. Navigation improves. Mediterranean Arab crafts become Portuguese fishing vessels which become caravel ships which can travel long distances. Portugal sets off the age of exploration. Suddenly more than just trading for spices, Europe gains access to Mexican and Peruvian gold and silver, North American furs, Caribbean sugarcane.

1

Anonymous #5 23h

They get the profits from plundering the smallpox-weakened Americas which eventually allows them to overtake their former trading partners in Asia, combined with a slight navigational and weapons advantage. I strongly believe this wasn’t due to European excellency or whatever. It was just right place, right time.

1

Anonymous #5 23h

So in a nutshell, Europe built its power on other people’s knowledge, then used that power to enslave, colonize and steal from the very people who taught them everything. Seems like an argument for Africa’s prosperity without colonialism.

1

Anonymous #5 22h

Now with regards to Africa, they did have trade networks. Some were weakened by early european colonial influence, some just continued, and entirely new ones were made. But the trans Saharan trade is different from the type of long-distance oceanic trade that enabled the Industrial Revolution. You can’t transport as much overland. And west Africa didn’t have access to the type of boats that allowed the Portuguese to travel so far.

8

Anonymous #5 22h

Now east Africa was a different story. They had a thriving trade network connecting them to India and China, and many powerful rulers who initially negotiated with the Portuguese on equal footing. A lot of this trade was Arab-Swahili dominated and still exploitative though. A primary commodity was slaves to the Arab world, raided from the African interior.

6

Anonymous #5 22h

Of course west Africa didnt have the boats…Europe came in, cut off access and monopolized these trade routes. Can’t really block someone’s access then use their lack of access as proof they were inferior.

1

Anonymous #5 22h

So I think east Africa would be more likely to develop faster due to the maritime trade connections. But a lot of that was still politically dominated by Arabs. But in other areas the jungles, or the inaccessible coast, or the lack of good road systems and widespread horse adoption would slow development significantly.

4

Anonymous #2 22h

Yeah that part about Europe isn’t wrong. But my entire point is that without colonialism I think Africa would have continued developing at a slow rate. I’m sure development would happen, but it wouldn’t be as rapid. And the more heavily developed polities in India, Asia, and the Arab world would still probably have an advantage over Africa, and use that exploitatively. There’s no industrial spark for Africa to exploit its mineral resources for its own benefit.

1

Anonymous #2 22h

From an Africana studies class I took, the west African coast is very rough and that limited how big boats could be. They had canoes, but didn’t have the ability to work up to larger vessels that enabled longer exploration. The Portuguese only had their ships because the Mediterranean is calm and that allows for naval experimentation. West Africa doesn’t have a large calm sea.

1

Anonymous #5 22h

Like it’s a situation where west Africa didn’t have that naval technology due to its location. It probably wouldn’t suddenly develop that technology in isolation if it didn’t develop it for the thousands of years prior. I guess that’s what I’m getting at here. We went millennia without an Industrial Revolution. It probably just would keep having not happened, at least until there was some driver for it in an area connected by heavy trade.

1

Anonymous #5 22h

Europe had the alps, giant swamps, crazy winters and disease ridden environments. Geography didn’t stop them bc they had time to develop solutions. Africa never got that time because colonialism came and ruined it all. And to say that they would be dominated by Arabs is not true. Africans were equal with the Arabs and even the Portuguese centuries before colonialism took over. The SECOND Europe came with guns, that dynamic changed immediately.

5

Anonymous #5 22h

Seems like you’re confusing ‘didn’t have it yet’ with ‘never could have.’ Every civilization developed technology when they needed it and had the time. Africa never got that time.

1

Anonymous #2 22h

I’m not trying to imply inferiority. At points african states certainly competed with and dominated Arab ones. Yemen was at one point ruled by Aksum. And that’s also not to say that the Arab influence didn’t include native Africans. The Swahili coast and all the states along it were a product of indigenous Africans merging with Arabs. But this was still coastal powerful states extracting gold and slaves from poorer interior peoples.

1

Anonymous #2 22h

Sure they could. But what’s the reason to? Their trade networks were primarily overland, they didn’t have customers along the sea. If you aren’t using boats for large scale trade, and you don’t have a place to develop larger boats for trade, why would you make big boats?

1

Anonymous #5 22h

Now I could see scenarios where Moroccan trade expansion could occur down the African coast should they be cut off from camel routes for whatever reason, and that could perhaps lead to a proliferation of west African coastal urbanization, that’d be a cool alt history.

1

Anonymous #5 22h

I mean, you’re proving the point. Aksum dominated Yemen. Swahili coast was a product of Africans merging with the Arabs and building powerful states. African kingdoms were extracting and trading gold across continents. Seems like a developing civilization that got violently interrupted. Yeah, i agree that coastal states extracted from interior ones but thats pretty much every civilization in history, including Europe. That how you form states. Difference is Europe got to continue developing…

1

Anonymous #2 22h

You do still see though how a Swahili coast exploitation of the interior is still different from the anti-colonial afrofuturist images the initial posts invoked though right? I guess the main thing I’ve been trying to get across was that the rapid wealth accumulation, industrialization, and global colonial dominance of Europe is very unusual.

1

Anonymous #5 22h

Fair, but afrofuturism isnt claiming Africa was exploitation free…it’s mostly asking what happens without the external reset button (i.e. Europe.)

6

Anonymous #2 22h

Tbh this has made me really fascinated to ponder what would happen globally had, for some reason or another, Europe not pulled ahead. Got a lot of alt history ideas bouncing around now, particularly ones where circumstances work out well for African polities.

4

Anonymous #5 21h

This has honestly been the best historical discussion I’ve ever had…via fkn yik yak lmfao. But yes, I’ve always wanted to know the same thing.

7

Anonymous #2 21h

I’m very glad I was able to sufficiently clarify that I wasn’t like some European colonialism defender

6