Why didn't Africa develop before the modern era?

[civfanatic]

As usual, Europeans are blamed.
The question is, did African monarchs ask for buying technology in the first place?

Yes, they did.

Go read some actual history before resurrecting threads for no reason (especially if you have nothing useful to contribute).

 

[SDSkinner]

For the same reason the United States was unable to resist it in the first century after its independence. Or Brazil. Or Argentina. Or whatever. When your economy was geared to primary production, and plugged into world trade networks, it is hard to switch specializations into more productive manufacturing.

In the US, it took a massive civil war that killed hundreds of thousands, and massive tariffs against the rest of the world for another half-century in order to switch.. And they were already hugely lucky in terms of geography & resources. The industrialization of Russia went through even worse wrenching pain.

The US was already industrializing before the Civil War. I'm pretty sure it had small scale industry and shipbuilding dating back to colonial times.

The idea that countries "developing" as if this was something natural, that happens easily and painlessly, is ludicrous. It often takes defiance, ruthlessness and buckets of human blood - and that is assuming you know what you're doing.

I think that is because development generally requires certain things to be in place first and if you already have them, it looks really easy.

 

[alliumnsk]

African monarchs did ask for technology; I believe someone posted an excerpt of a king asking for craftsmen in this thread.

I've read all thread and found nothing of it.

As for reverse engineering, Africa mostly imported firearms and luxury goods. While there were places in sub-Saharan Africa that developed gun production, luxury goods tend to be valuable since they can't produced locally.

Ruling elites are more interested in weapons so they can keep their power. Luxury goods are secondary.

Sub-Saharan Africa didn't grow sugar (so no molasses).

Can't sugarcane be grown in Africa? And there are other sugary plants, as well.

As for alternative goods, look at China's premodern trade. The UK had to get them hooked on opium because the only other thing they were really interested in was silver. There weren't a lot of things that people could make that would be affordable in other countries.

It puzzles me why Chinese (or Indians when met Vasco da Gama) didn't want to buy European goods. But Europeans were much more open; there even was a time when Europeans bought opium rather than selling it. China was centralized; even if one European country reclined some quality good, other would be likely to buy it anyway.

 

[alliumnsk]

Russia could have done same even without command economy, although probably at slower pace.
Also backwards and agrarian Russia Empire was still super industrialized compared to average 3rd world African country. It was country that produced warships, cars and airplanes. Soviet era industrialization simply meant that it started producing a lot more of those things.

Over-regulation has made a general negative impact. And often Soviets couldn't effectively use where they had advantages.
When Germany attacked USSR, USSR had lots of new KV and T-34 tanks which Germans had few weapons to fight against and Germans heavily relied on horses for transport. Still, the mismanagement in USSR (and German discipline) allowed Germans to invade deep in Soviet territory; they simply encircled battle-ready Soviet armies and continued to advance on weaker ones. Tanks without ammo and fuel became useless.

 

[alliumnsk]

For the same reason the United States was unable to resist it in the first century after its independence.

Did they need to? US settlers generally had higher living standards than Europe. They weren't abused as UK abused Ireland.

 

[icedt729]

It puzzles me why Chinese (or Indians when met Vasco da Gama) didn't want to buy European goods. But Europeans were much more open; there even was a time when Europeans bought opium rather than selling it. China was centralized; even if one European country reclined some quality good, other would be likely to buy it anyway.

What exactly do you think Europeans were making during this time that Chinese or Indians would like to buy? Consumer goods, weapons and tools could all be produced locally at lower cost. Meanwhile Europe had no way of cultivating sugar, spices or coffee until they acquired colonies for it and no way to produce silk or porcelain until they reverse-engineered the process. This is in an era where transportation was not as fast or cheap as it is today so there needed to be a very high margin on a particular good for it to be traded over long distances.

 

[bruebottom]

The factor most to blame is geography. As necessity is the mother of invention; human beings, civilizations and societies are ultimately shaped by their surroundings and how they interact with them. The African continent compared with Eurasia or the America's is undeniably one of the most harshest landmasses (ecologically speaking) in the world. In Africa, human beings have to face of against the aridity of the Sahel, dryness of the Sahara and the humidity and malaria of the tropical interior (around the equator). Only Antarctica, Northern Eurasia and Australia are considered more inhospitable for human habitation compared to it. As a result, establishing stratified communities on the African continent proved more difficult, but not impossible (Mali Empire, Ethiopia, Somalia etcetera). Another factor why human beings in Africa weren't able to develop to the degree of their Eurasian counterparts is also the difficulty in communication. In Europe, travel was relatively easy compared with other parts of the globe due to relative size and also because of rivers such as the Danube, Rhine, Volga, Dnieper, Tiber and the Seine (to name a few) which acted as thoroughfares.

Rivers provide not only a source for agricultural nourishment but also act as natural "roads" for people to travel along and as landmarks to aid in getting ones bearings. Also the Mediterranean, which has been considered the cradle of many civilizations such as the Phoenicians, Greeks, Romans and so-on; basically gaves "civilization-rich" areas such as Europe and the Middle-East a cross-cultural melting pot in which everyone could travel and transmit information, innovations and ideas back and forth. If you add the temperate climate, lush vegetation and fertile soil of the European Continent; theres pretty much little other reason as to why Europe came to dominate the globe. In Africa however, the only the parts of the continent in which civilization could benefit from any geographic arrangement during the Classical era were lands straddling the Mediterranean (Egypt, Carthage and the Berber Kingdoms), as well as those connected by the Nile river (Kush, Aksum, Meroë) and along its most major estuaries (Abyssinia). The societies along the western part of Africa such as the Ghana, Mali and Songhai empires only flourished due to the domestication of the camel; which allowed the to traverse the Sahara with greater ease and thus establish links with coastal Mediterranean centers such as Carthage & Cyrene.

When establishing the reasons behind the relative primitiveness of African societies further south of the equator, those conditions can be attributed mostly to the lack of a direct communication-link between the northern and southern parts of the continent. In antiquity, peoples along extreme south-western part of the continent (such as Khoikhoi and the San aka. "Bushmen") developed very differently in cultural and linguistic terms compared to their neighbours (the Bantu) not only due to their isolated environs (Kalahari Desert), but also the ability in which they could interact with their northern part of the continent (e.g. trade winds). To summarize; geographical isolation has a tendency to extremely stunt development of human societies due to constraints on cross-social communication; and in some cases can lead to decimation/eradication (e.g. Amerindians). To state one last interesting example, the Australian Aboriginals had lived the same cyclical hunter-gatherer lifestyle for over 40,000 years. They were so isolated from the rest of the world that they didn't even receive the know-how to develop the bow and arrow. It was only when the European settlers arrived that their long established archaic lifestyle was irreparably disrupted, and hence they were sadly brought very close to extinction.

EDIT: Holy hell, I should've just started a new thread.

This is the basic argument put forward by Jarred Diamond: Guns, Germs, and Steel. It was a good read, but he ignores institutional effects. After his conclusion he discusses the economic perspective and that is that institutions have a greater effect on the wealth of nations than geography has (so say economist). He acknowledges that many of the nations in the north have good institutions, and he states that the success of those northern nations with good institution is due to good geography. For Diamond geography must precede good institutions.

In contrast to his argument is Acemoglu and Robinson book Why Nations Fail. They place institutions as the leading factor in why Africa lags behind much of the rest of the world. They give examples of communities (and nations) that share similar geography which have different institutions and different standards of living. Their claim is that nations fail because the ruling establishment employs extractive political and economic institutions over the communities they govern. Wealthy nations are wealthy because they employ inclusive political and economic institutions. The two are not incompatible; IE., a society with extractive political and inclusive economic institutions.

The problem with Diamonds argument is that good geography is needed for good institutions, but he does not demonstrate how good geography leads to good institutions (at least when I read the book sometime ago I did not get that impression). For me, Acemoglu and Robinson argument is much more compelling.

 

[Xeorm]

Ruling elites are more interested in weapons so they can keep their power. Luxury goods are secondary.

Not at all. Ruling elites would often bemoan the interaction, because more guns meant more slaving. More slaving means less subjects. Weapons were an investment, both to export more slaves and to stop one's self from being enslaved. Luxury goods were similar to Europe...lots of them weren't produced locally because they couldn't be.

Can't sugarcane be grown in Africa? And there are other sugary plants, as well.

In some places, sure. Sugarcane requires a lot of conditions to grow well, most notably heat, lots of water, and decent soil. Those conditions exist in some places in Africa, but not others. Other big problem: trading in Africa went in a triangle. Europe -> Africa -> Americas -> Europe. Selling sugar to the Americas is stupid, so it'd have to be sold locally. Not much market, even if you got it to grow.

It puzzles me why Chinese (or Indians when met Vasco da Gama) didn't want to buy European goods. But Europeans were much more open; there even was a time when Europeans bought opium rather than selling it. China was centralized; even if one European country reclined some quality good, other would be likely to buy it anyway.

It's really, really hard to add enough value to goods to make them affordable to sell across continents like that. At that point you either need a whole lot of expertise in making the thing, or it needs to be exclusive to your region for you to sell it that far away. Europe's only good that satisfied that criteria tended to be weapons and ship building, at least until much later. Ship building wasn't a good export, mainly due to having more than enough demand for it in Europe, but western weapons would be routinely sold world-wide. Countries that didn't buy more often than not did it for other reasons that pure price/value of the item. Like not wanting to be dependent on foreign weapons, or mistakenly believing theirs was comparable in performance.

No need for Europe to export finished goods anyway. They sold local resources, same as other nations sold theirs. Eastern Asia had lots of spices, Europe/Americas had lots of precious metals. It looks silly at times for a modern industrial society because we view precious metals as currency, and can easily add value to goods, but for the time it's what happened. It's not like mining silver and trading it for harvests is fundamentally that different.

 

[Cavalry]

I

It puzzles me why Chinese (or Indians when met Vasco da Gama) didn't want to buy European goods. But Europeans were much more open; there even was a time when Europeans bought opium rather than selling it. China was centralized; even if one European country reclined some quality good, other would be likely to buy it anyway.

In China or some other Asia countries, you cannot go inland to market your goods. You can only deal with Government officials, tell them what you want to buy and what you want to sell. It's hard and not a job for them to try to resell your things!

 

[icedt729]

Europe's only good that satisfied that criteria tended to be weapons and ship building, at least until much later. Ship building wasn't a good export, mainly due to having more than enough demand for it in Europe, but western weapons would be routinely sold world-wide. Countries that didn't buy more often than not did it for other reasons that pure price/value of the item. Like not wanting to be dependent on foreign weapons, or mistakenly believing theirs was comparable in performance

I've got a book somewhere that describes how the Spanish actually started to have their galleons built in Orissa after a while. The Indian shipwrights used wooden pegs instead of nails, which was both more durable and cheaper than the methods used in Europe at the time (this was eventually copied). Likewise South India was quick to replicate gun and cannon technology, and they did it well enough that Europeans in Asia often used Indian-made weapons. These Indian guns were the model for ones manufactured in East Asia, and Japan in particular had a very big gun industry prior to disarmament under the Tokugawa.

I think the main reason why African states didn't develop their own arms industries like Asian states did is because their populations weren't as dense, making it harder to support large workshops, because the triangular trade made European imports easy to access and relatively affordable, and because gold, ivory and slavery imposed a resource curse that stunted domestic industry.

 

[stevieji]

Can't sugarcane be grown in Africa? And there are other sugary plants, as well.

I'm sure it can, I'm sure it is now - point is that it's not native.

It puzzles me why Chinese (or Indians when met Vasco da Gama) didn't want to buy European goods. But Europeans were much more open; there even was a time when Europeans bought opium rather than selling it.

The Chinese (and the Indians, to a lesser extent) literally didn't need anything we had to offer - except cash on the nail.
Britain had to buy the opium from producers in India - so yes, they bought it. Thing is they wanted to use it as a trade good in order to address the massive trade deficit with China - which in turn was mainly caused by the British addiction to tea. We eventually solved this problem by smuggling tea plants to India.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Opium_Wars

Over-regulation has made a general negative impact. And often Soviets couldn't effectively use where they had advantages.

This is pure prejudice with no factual basis.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Five-year_plans_for_the_national_economy_of_the_Soviet_Union

Still, the mismanagement in USSR (and German discipline) allowed Germans to invade deep in Soviet territory; they simply encircled battle-ready Soviet armies and continued to advance on weaker ones.

Sure, mismanagement vs. discipline. That was the whole story. And from 1943 it was what, Soviet discipline vs. German mismanagement?

Did they need to? US settlers generally had higher living standards than Europe. They weren't abused as UK abused Ireland.

Of course US settlers were better off - living, as they were, in the land of milk and honey.
"The life of a 19th-century American industrial worker was far from easy. Even in good times wages were low, hours long and working conditions hazardous. Little of the wealth which the growth of the nation had generated went to its workers. The situation was worse for women and children, who made up a high percentage of the work force in some industries and often received but a fraction of the wages a man could earn. Periodic economic crises swept the nation, further eroding industrial wages and producing high levels of unemployment."
From ... http://countrystudies.us/united-states/history-82.htm
Sounds quite similar to conditions in England - how else would American industry compete? Capitalism 1.01

 

[Xeorm]

I've got a book somewhere that describes how the Spanish actually started to have their galleons built in Orissa after a while. The Indian shipwrights used wooden pegs instead of nails, which was both more durable and cheaper than the methods used in Europe at the time (this was eventually copied). Likewise South India was quick to replicate gun and cannon technology, and they did it well enough that Europeans in Asia often used Indian-made weapons. These Indian guns were the model for ones manufactured in East Asia, and Japan in particular had a very big gun industry prior to disarmament under the Tokugawa.

I've heard India's arms production was decent. But I'd have to see in particular, especially if it deals with resource availability and location. Making lots of ships isn't exactly easy on the forests, and if you have a lot of activity in India, might as well build some ships there.

 

[alliumnsk]

I'm sure it can, I'm sure it is now - point is that it's not native.

Neither it is for India or Americas... Indians got it from Austronesians, Africans could get it from Indians. I looked https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sugarcane#Production still there isn't much production of sugarcane in Africa.

I'm sure it can, I'm sure it is now - point is that it's not native.
This is pure prejudice with no factual basis.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Five-year_plans_for_the_national_economy_of_the_Soviet_Union

I live there, lol. The insane idea of Khrushchev to plant maize everywhere is iconic of how command economy might be bad. He even wanted to plant it in Siberia.

I'm sure it can, I'm sure it is now - point is that it's not native.
Sure, mismanagement vs. discipline. That was the whole story. And from 1943 it was what, Soviet discipline vs. German mismanagement?

No, numerical superiority of Soviets with similar effectiveness of management.
I would be delighted to know how Jared Diamond would have explained chronic Russia backwardness.

 

[JodelDiplom]

You make a good point - it does require a determined effort - and that's why I phrased it that way - "The obvious answer is exploitation - but why have the Africans been unable to resist it - and to mount an effective defence of their own interests?".
Not sure how the American civil war relates to this, but tariffs would certainly be an effective weapon.
My feeling is that African leaders are making deals which enrich themselves, but not their people. If the money was used for development of infrastructure and industry Africa's position might change over time.
Russia is an interesting example - it required great determination and a command economy - which won't be popular here, but would certainly help in Africa.

Hey, plenty of African leaders tried industrialization during the cold war with plenty of genuine Soviet support. That it didn't work out for them was more of a result of generally unfavorable conditions than malice or corruption.

 

[alliumnsk]

Hey, plenty of African leaders tried industrialization during the cold war with plenty of genuine Soviet support. That it didn't work out for them was more of a result of generally unfavorable conditions than malice or corruption.

It was more like USSR pressing on Africans rather than Africans buying technology. USSR wanted them to buy only from USSR and its allies. USSR also sponspored guerillas and coup d'etats (well, like other European powers did)

 

[stevieji]

Hey, plenty of African leaders tried industrialization during the cold war with plenty of genuine Soviet support. That it didn't work out for them was more of a result of generally unfavorable conditions than malice or corruption.

As ever, it's wrong to generalise, but I think countries who have had periods of genuine socialist government have managed more development of industry and infrastructure. I don't think we disagree - but those countries have, unfortunately, had their share of corrupt leaders. Mugabe started out as a Chinese-backed revolutionary leader, before morphing into a sort of mega-corrupt dictator. Power corrupts, as they say.

 

[SDSkinner]

I've read all thread and found nothing of it.

'googles'... most post is on the first page of results. I might be misremembering.

Ruling elites are more interested in weapons so they can keep their power. Luxury goods are secondary.

You give luxury goods to your subordinates to pay them off.

Can't sugarcane be grown in Africa? And there are other sugary plants, as well.

I don't know about the former, but Europeans only switched to alternatives when they had to; they probably weren't profitable.

Not at all. Ruling elites would often bemoan the interaction, because more guns meant more slaving. More slaving means less subjects. Weapons were an investment, both to export more slaves and to stop one's self from being enslaved. Luxury goods were similar to Europe...lots of them weren't produced locally because they couldn't be.

More slaving means less subjects only if you lose. Otherwise you enslave your enemies (who are not your subjects) and ell them.

In some places, sure. Sugarcane requires a lot of conditions to grow well, most notably heat, lots of water, and decent soil. Those conditions exist in some places in Africa, but not others. Other big problem: trading in Africa went in a triangle. Europe -> Africa -> Americas -> Europe. Selling sugar to the Americas is stupid, so it'd have to be sold locally. Not much market, even if you got it to grow.

That only existed because they needed the slaves in America to grow sugar; if they could pull that off in Africa, they could just sail straight to Europe.

This is pure prejudice with no factual basis.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Five-year_plans_for_the_national_economy_of_the_Soviet_Union

That doesn't contradict the claim they were inefficient.

Sure, mismanagement vs. discipline. That was the whole story. And from 1943 it was what, Soviet discipline vs. German mismanagement?

Yes? The Red Army by 1943 was almost entirely reformed and the Germans made multiple errors they capitalized on. It is a simplification, but it isn't horribly wrong.

Of course US settlers were better off - living, as they were, in the land of milk and honey.
"The life of a 19th-century American industrial worker was far from easy. Even in good times wages were low, hours long and working conditions hazardous. Little of the wealth which the growth of the nation had generated went to its workers. The situation was worse for women and children, who made up a high percentage of the work force in some industries and often received but a fraction of the wages a man could earn. Periodic economic crises swept the nation, further eroding industrial wages and producing high levels of unemployment."
From ... http://countrystudies.us/united-states/history-82.htm
Sounds quite similar to conditions in England - how else would American industry compete? Capitalism 1.01

[/QUOTE]

That doesn't tell you want there wages were compared to European workers. Given that Europeans tended to immigrate to the US and stay in the cities to do industrial work implies that American wages were higher.

 

[nerd]

Odd how so many people talk about Russia as a major economic power and yet it has a GDP roughly equal to Italy.

 

[icedt729]

Odd how so many people talk about Russia as a major economic power and yet it has a GDP roughly equal to Italy.

And with a third of the GDP per capita, no less! Even with all their oil and natural gas this is the best they've managed.

 

[stevieji]

Yes? The Red Army by 1943 was almost entirely reformed and the Germans made multiple errors they capitalized on. It is a simplification, but it isn't horribly wrong.

Russia started on the back foot and the Germans kept them there until they ran out of momentum. Being unprepared for a sneak attack - the most massive invasion in history, by the way, isn't the same thing as mismanagement. True, command functions left a lot to be desired in 1941, but the response from '42 onwards was immense. How the Soviets halted the Germans at the gates of Moscow and Leningrad is heroic - and would not have been possible without a high level of logistical and tactical organisation.
It's just the wrong story and it's rooted in anti-Soviet prejudice.

That doesn't tell you want there wages were compared to European workers. Given that Europeans tended to immigrate to the US and stay in the cities to do industrial work implies that American wages were higher.

I don't have figures for that, but there were slums in New York, just as there were in Manchester. Many immigrants, having paid for their passage and lacking the funds to move on again, found themselves in a position where they had to accept whatever was offered. Come on, this is well known history - each successive wave of immigrants being exploited, if not abused, by people who were probably only 2nd generation Americans themselves. This is the immigrant's experience the world over - not just in America.

That doesn't contradict the claim they were inefficient.

I was refuting the assertion that "Over-regulation has made a general negative impact" - and the evidence is that the Soviets were able to achieve extremely rapid industrial development through direction of resources and manpower in the 5 year plans. Efficiency, as such, probably wasn't the priority.