African political history

molloyjh

I'm not sure if this belongs on the politics board, so if not Mods feel free to put it where it needs to go.

I was having a chat with my dad last night about Zim and the crazy situation out there at the moment. We started dicussing the history and causes of it etc. Part of it being the fact that the imperial European powers carved up Africa in such a way as to ensure that tribes were constantly fighting each other rather than the imperial invaders etc. Which led to a very interesting question.

That is that in pretty much every other part of the world (South America, Asia, Europe etc) tribes eventually grew into societies where nations were created and governing bodies established. Be they the Emporer system in China or the government ideas of the Greeks. However there are certain parts of the world, most notably Africa, where this did not happen.

Given that the Africans had as much time, if not more, than many of the rest of us does anyone know why this is? It seems to be very true for the sub-Saharan tribes, as Egypt did have the whole Pharoh (sp?) system. It seems strange to me that this form of social grouping and political development never really happened to the same extend there. Tribes themselves had a form of politics, however this never spread to the idea of nations and borders etc. Anyone have any thoughts?

seamus

I'm not sure.

The only guess I could make out of complete ignorance, could be related to environmental and geographical factors.

Environmentally, the African continent suffered less during ice ages than Eurasia. This meant that there was less need to move around and integrate with other nomads. Much of Africa is also relatively stable (in terms of weather), so there would be less need to move around when the seasons changed. I don't know what kind of impact animal migration has in Africa - do many african mammals migrate at all?

Geographically, I would hazard a guess that much of the continent doesn't favour the bold. That is, I imagine Eurasia has a much less harsh terrain for attempting to move yourself and your tribe across. Rainforests and Deserts put gigantic barriers in your way, whereas Europe was mostly forest and grassland - plenty of food and shelter, and barring some of the major mountain ranges, few places were difficult to migrate to.

And if people can't/don't move around, then they're unlikely to develop the kind of large co-operative cultures which require the concept of governance and nations.

Of course, this only applies really up to the middle of the last millenium. Once the europeans came along, took their land, treated them as slaves, and didn't educate them, then their chances of forming a cohesive independent society were screwed.

turgon

Well its a complex issue. The European climate suited the outbreak of civilization. At the conclusion of the last ice age, the numbers of fish and fauna were very great, so that people could start to settle down and create communities. Nomads would never have had time to advance their civilization due to the all time consuming hunting. And Africa, I assume, would not take well to the domestication of animals.

You point our Egypt, whcih is a lot different to the rest. For a start it is further north. Additionally, the Nile river in flood is very productive for cultivating crops, which the Egyptians did. Thus they could spend their free time advancing the art of building and religion.

The start of trade is also key. It allowed civilizations to communicate with each other, and I believe across Europe you will find many artifacts made of influenced by places in the middle-east. Especially with the advent of the Bronze age, trade was necessary to get copper and tin to make that alloy. In Africa, these were not as present I would imagine.

Thus, when David Livingstone began exploring Africa in the mid-1800's he was still communicating with people, who had very little technological advancement, although they were organized into specific tribes. You must remember when Europe carved up Africa, the resultant countries were not really descriptive of nationalities. For example France is composed of French people; Scotland of Scots. The same is not true for Africa. As the recent traumas in Sudan have showed us there are huge divides between the peoples in each country. The Belgian created Tutsi-Hutu divide, whcih sparked the Rwandan Genocide, is another example of this.

Kama

My limited understanding is there were significant state-like systems in Africa, prior to the Columbian imperialist growth in the world system.

In addition, nations on the current lines are a very recent development. I don't think there was an individual development of the state organically and seperately, but that the state system evolved through the earlier stages of globalization.

Trading caravans used carry gold from timbuktu, reputedly a city made of gold, in what is now Mali by caravan trail. Once American gold and silver started to flow through the Triangular trade, this distorted the previously existing political-economic systems of the African continent, and the principal economic export of Africa became (unfree) labour.

Jared Diamond has written several very good books on the geographical advantages of civilizations, such as Guns, Germs and Steel, which deals in great detail with the 'why Europe?' question without necessitating any kind of assumptions of superiority or inferiority to the people in any region.

A principal point he makes is whether people can move easily along its axis.

Eurasia has a east-west axis. People could move, with relative ease, from Spain to China by land without coming to any unpassable block. This helped technologies, from horseriding to the wheel, to permeate easily along.

The Americas have a north-south axis, with a range of climactic difficulties, deserts, narow peninsulas, mountains and jungles making difusion on these lines far more difficult.

Africa also has significant barriers to movement, whether desert or jungle.

Much more to it than that, but its a helpful start. He deals mostly with the materially available conditions in each area, whether there were domesticable livestock, and so forth. Its a great read, highly recommend.

Victor

turgon wrote: »

The European climate suited the outbreak of civilization.

Interesting then that civilisations tarted in the Middle East and east Asia.

DadaKopf

It's impossible to talk about 'Africa'. You can talk about the histories of particular countries, regions or peoples, so discussions of this kind should keep this in mind.

That is that in pretty much every other part of the world (South America, Asia, Europe etc) tribes eventually grew into societies where nations were created and governing bodies established. Be they the Emporer system in China or the government ideas of the Greeks. However there are certain parts of the world, most notably Africa, where this did not happen.

Significant state-like structures did develop in parts of Africa. For example, Ethiopia was never colonised because of this. In many other cases, we simply cannot know what political systems existed prior to the slave trade because so much has been destroyed. There are African historians attempting to piece this together.

People should be careful about judging other societies by our standards, though; each culture has its own reasons to develop as they did.

Specifically the assumption that cultures logically develop into nation-states (whether ruled by emperors or democratic government). The nation-state system is a predominantly European phenomenon which emerged out of the confluence of capitalism and industrialisation, whose causes were cultural as much as technological. East-Asian cultures did develop significant structures similar to nation-states, but their political and economic underpinnings were different so this system didn't expand. It's the expansion of Western power that explains the rise of the global system we have today, and this includes Africa through its being colonised.

Kama

Viewing 'Africa' as a unitary historical entity isn't helpful historically.
North Africa, for example was quite integrated in the Mediterranean world-system (Braudel).

Nice map of known pre-Columbian African states on wiki.

molloyjh

Kama wrote: »

Viewing 'Africa' as a unitary historical entity isn't helpful historically.
North Africa, for example was quite integrated in the Mediterranean world-system (Braudel).

Nice map of known pre-Columbian African states on wiki.

Sorry I should have been clearer. I'm talking about Sub-Saharan Africa. I'm also not really talking specifically about the nation state idea. For example if you look at South America there were numerous tribes that had a form of Government per se and central population hubs in the form of cities etc. If you look at Africa (and North Americans and Australia too I think) you will see tribes with a social structure but they never built the big cities or formulated a society in the same way. Again the Asian people did the same thing as the Europeans and South Americans. It wasn't strictly a European phenomenon.

And just to be clear, there is no judgement going on either. I'm just curious why certain parts of the world progressed one way and others didn't.

I posed the notion today in a conversation that perhaps it has to do with population densities? For example Europe would not have the vast spaces that North America or Sub-Saharan Africa would have. Also South America has a lot of areas that are not particularly well suited to human settlement and so the tribes had a smaller "livable" area. Was it a case that the tribes in Europe for example were in a constant state of conflict due to the limited space and therefore developed in a different way to the likes of Africa where, while the tribes were at war, there was almost a natural buffer that allowed each to grow without coming into as much contact with another???? Just a wild uneducated theory to throw into the mix.....

Cannibal Ox

If you look at Africa (and North Americans and Australia too I think) you will see tribes with a social structure but they never built the big cities or formulated a society in the same way.

But they did....Timbuktu, Aksum, Royal Palaces of Abomey, Great Zimbabwe, Fasil Ghebbi and alot more if you want to check the rest of the UNESCO list

I think its difficult to make any generalizations about Africa, its a fairly large continent with diverse groups. I do think though that in *most* of the world, maybe with the exception of S.America, political systems were allowed to develop independently of serious external forces, like European superpowers, and grew out of specific social/cultural conditions until they developed into the systems that we have now. This didn't happen in Africa, or rather it did happen, and specific African political systems certaintly did exist, but those systems that did exist were destroyed/severed/removed (I'm not sure what the right word is...) by European and Arab expansions over the centuries. The nation-state, nationalism and democracy was imposed on Africa without any genuine tradition of those concepts in societies there, and I think that has had a very negative impact on African society ever since.

brianthebard

There was a good National Geographic article on this issue a few years back, it suggested that most of the large mammals in Africa were not suitable to taming and rearing for food, hence the nomadic lifestyle continued for much longer than in other regions. Another consideration should be population (which is generally "index linked" to agriculture). as the population rises a society needs to find a place to put these people-this is usually what leads to cities. From there nation states can be created.

CPT. SURF

Please correct me if I am wrong but I believe the current state lines in Africa were drawn at the Berlin Conference? I forget the date, but I also believe that there was not a single African at said conference and that the lines were drawn strictly with European interests in mind.

turgon

Victor wrote: »

Interesting then that civilisations tarted in the Middle East and east Asia.

Well location has alot more to do than just temperatures. The Mediterranean was full of fish, and allowed the beginning of a naval tradition.

Kama

Geographical determinism is a tricky issue when analyzing historical development. Its easy to say 'we had X so we did Y', but its harder to say why someone else didn't. Otoh, the absence of necessary factors, whether those are domesticable animals, avenues for diffusion of tech and ideas etc is a definite disadvantage.

Diamond's approach, which I can't praise highly enough, has a very strong geographical-resource emphasis, without making it overdetermining. History has enough lessons in contingence and plain dumb luck to make a mockery of 'Grand Theory' prediction in history and development. Bear in mind much of the conquest of America was less due to technological or cultural superiority as it was to Europeans as vectors for diseases which Amerindians lacked immunities to. North American colonization proceeded coeval with a native epidemic, which was viewed as 'God's aid' to the colonizers against the savages, who would then settle in the now-deserted former village sites.

One of Diamonds examples is if Rhino's were domesticable (they aren't) African military empires could well have been more of a feature than they historically were, with durable imperial structures likely emerging as a consequence of the resource appropriation that would have occurred.

The Mediterranean as a geographic region was a significant advantage though, from Graeco-Roman times and on, as a confluence point between different cultures. If you accept that hybridity and exchange between cultures is a helpful booster for Civs, being on the Mediterranean had benefits beyond just its resources, and its infrastructural role.

DadaKopf

Kama wrote: »

Geographical determinism is a tricky issue when analyzing historical development. Its easy to say 'we had X so we did Y', but its harder to say why someone else didn't. Otoh, the absence of necessary factors, whether those are domesticable animals, avenues for diffusion of tech and ideas etc is a definite disadvantage.

Diamond's approach, which I can't praise highly enough, has a very strong geographical-resource emphasis, without making it overdetermining. History has enough lessons in contingence and plain dumb luck to make a mockery of 'Grand Theory' prediction in history and development. Bear in mind much of the conquest of America was less due to technological or cultural superiority as it was to Europeans as vectors for diseases which Amerindians lacked immunities to. North American colonization proceeded coeval with a native epidemic, which was viewed as 'God's aid' to the colonizers against the savages, who would then settle in the now-deserted former village sites.

One of Diamonds examples is if Rhino's were domesticable (they aren't) African military empires could well have been more of a feature than they historically were, with durable imperial structures likely emerging as a consequence of the resource appropriation that would have occurred.

The Mediterranean as a geographic region was a significant advantage though, from Graeco-Roman times and on, as a confluence point between different cultures. If you accept that hybridity and exchange between cultures is a helpful booster for Civs, being on the Mediterranean had benefits beyond just its resources, and its infrastructural role.

I think contingency is the key. There are perfectly good reasons why certain cultures developed the way they did, and a bazillion reasons why. Some down to chance, some down to the decisions people make. The point is that it's the combination of both that generates the results. Environment matters, but doesn't determine. And who's to say the West is gonna stay at the top for ever? We're doing a good job bringing the planet down around our feet!

Kama

The OP was in respect to Zimbabwe, which rather than any pan-African Grand Theory has a lot more imo to do with local historical development and (de)colonization specifically with Rhodesia and the Bush War, and prior the British South Africa Company and Cecil Rhodes. The Scramble for Africa abounds with decisions by leaders and bureaucrats which continue to have ramifications to this day.

Without contingency we'd have a predictive science of history, most attempts at which fail dismally, tending to just reflect the fanciful biases of their authors. Think of factors like the role of the Black Death in the development of Europe, or that favourite of history buffs of counterfactual developments, like the French landing at Bantry Bay, or if the execution of the Rising in Ireland hadn't occurred. History, like humanity, is an unpredictable animal.

Retrospective ascription of causality provides plenty of reasons for why X occurred, but these are necessary conditions rather than sufficient conditions for any given development.

The part of geographical determinsim that seems 'harder' in a predictive sense is that of carrying capacity, and the recurrent tendency of Civs to overshoot their resource base, one which has worrying implications for us all.