Mari’s answer to “Many historians have reexamined and abandoned the notion that Africa was always primitive and poor.…” > Likes and Comments

I've already cited my main source: John K. Thornton, who argues quite convincingly that many 18th-century West and Central African states were comparable to contemporary European states, at least in economic and technological terms. He bases this off the number and quality of metalworks, textiles, and other crucial goods produced in those countries, which provides as good an estimate as one can get for economic wealth and technological capability in a time before people studied GDP per capita and other economic statistics. Other historians like Andrea Mosterman and Richard Grey have come to similar conclusions for, respectively, the Kongo Kingdom and the Zambezi civilizations, though neither focuses on Africa as a whole.

You're right that African civilizations couldn't build oceangoing ships, but according to Thornton, that has more to do with the type of oceans they had access to. Unlike the Mediterranean Sea, the oceans off the West/Central African coast were too turbulent, giving African civilizations few chances to experiment with oceangoing vessels. Europeans, however, had the Mediterranean sea to practice on, allowing them to gradually develop better oceangoing vessels until they were able to travel on more turbulent waters. On the other hand, Africa does have lots of navigabile rivers, so West and Central African civilizations developed higher-quality river boats than contemporary Europeans had.

As far as great works of art, there was never a shortage of it in Africa; the fact that you haven't seen it in no way means it doesn't exist.

If it were simply a matter of wanting to be politically correct, I would just parrot Diamond's thesis, which (whatever else one may say about it) is as politically correct a thesis as one could have. It is not, however, a factually correct thesis, because the fact is that many sub-Saharan African civilizations were quite advanced in the preindustrial era.

I would like to bring the question as to why you choose to believe in Thornton's thesis but not in Diamond's. Given that you are basically biased on what the first author and Co. said, and then judging the second with those in mind. And I dare to say, you lack the proper evidence knowledge from which these authors drew their own conclusions.

I am sure north Africa (Egypt and Morocco, for example) was as as good as old Europe before the 18th century, but sub-Saharan Africa was NOT -most of that vast continent, at least. Please, the facts seen from modern life sub-saharan africa are all against this notion of history.
Long story short:
Make a quick comparison of:
art
technology (war tech, farming tech and agricultural tech are the most important)
architecture (of actual pre-18th c. sub-saharan african origin, i.e. not of muslim origin).
societal structure and overall education

Please, enlighten us

Oh, and to clarify. "facts seen from modern life sub-saharan africa" is not how they are today (poor and backwards?), but the REMAINS of what it used to be (when they were not poor and backwards i guess), which, of course, have to be there still somewhere. In some way, as objects of anthropological interest and what not.

You're a joker. The world's largest man-made structure were the walls of the Benin empire, which you people barbarically destroyed. In this time and age, you have no excuse to be ignorant.

Mari, thousands of years ago, there were indeed voyages: China to Europe, for example, as China knew the world was round at least 3,000 years ago. China sailed around Africa to get their! Just think: 90% of the worlds knowledge has been destroyed by comets and volcanoes. Entire civilizations have disappeared!

Hhhhhmmmmmmm. Andrew ... I cannot really say here what I would say to your face, but I can say you are out in the weeds.

I’m gonna go on a wild limb and guess you’ve never heard of the Mali empire, the Ajuran sultanate, the Edo walls built using Mathematics Europe hadn’t even discovered yet or the Ashanti kingdom, at which point I won’t know whether to pity your ignorance or your arrogance in thinking Europe was the only continent capable of developing culture just because it’s the only one mentioned in your flawed, incomplete and misleading story books.

And if you really can’t take 2 seconds to figure out where all the art and literature of the continent went then I really don’t know what to tell you. Then again you call what Europe did “connecting” the world so that pretty much tells me all I need to know.

You’ll also be glad to know that East African-Asian trade relations had been going on long before Europeans figured out a boat could float. In fact, they tried to invade the region too and failed quite miserably. Also, according to some of the literature you say doesn’t exist, at least one expedition was launched to America far before Columbus’ incompetence brought him there. We can’t be sure if they arrived because they didn’t wipe out entire civilisations (funny how it’s possible to visit a place without breaking it), but the technology to do it was there. Maybe they didn’t “think” to travel to Europe because this continent’s inability to cooperate on equal footing with anyone who doesn’t look like them has been proved time and time again throughout history, on all the other continents.

Either way, you need to educate yourself.