African Presence in Pre-Columbian Times

[longly]

The word civilization is not a pejorative, but merely a label. I am sure you know that it denotes a society that has reached a certain level of cultural, technical and societal development. How is that insulting to anyone anywhere?

If there are ancients ruins in sub-Saharan Africa they would be easily visible; building stones produced by skilled stone masons are not easily over looked. Nature does not produce large rocks of uniform size with smooth sides and square corners.

Look up Great Zimbabwe and be educated....

African Empires , like European and Asian ones have risen and fallen - Mali, Songhay, Ghana. By Great Zimbabwe I believe you are referring to the Kingdom of Mutapa which I think fell under early European colonialism.

Not all Africans were running around the jungle chucking spears and beating bongo drums - they had some admirable civilizations - some which probably sent expeditions as far as the Americas.

That is partially true the Negroid peoples of Africa south the Sahara did have their share of kingdoms and empires, but I have seen no evidence of civilization. It is not necessary to have a civilization in order to have an empire. The Comanche Indians of the US southern plains had an extensive empire but no elements of civilization.

I would like to digress a little say some against civilization. Some people give a positive connotation to the word Civilization so consider this: A sadistic slave master during the early Roman empire could openly purchase slaves for the sole purpose of raping and torturing to death. And if the slaves rebelled against such treatment the entire household of slaves ,regardless of guilt, would be crucified under Roman law. To me that is not positive, but horrible, despicable and disgusting. That it is only one of the negative attributes of the ancient Roman civilization.

 

[westwall]

Look up Great Zimbabwe and be educated....

African Empires , like European and Asian ones have risen and fallen - Mali, Songhay, Ghana. By Great Zimbabwe I believe you are referring to the Kingdom of Mutapa which I think fell under early European colonialism.

Not all Africans were running around the jungle chucking spears and beating bongo drums - they had some admirable civilizations - some which probably sent expeditions as far as the Americas.

That is partially true the Negroid peoples of Africa south the Sahara did have their share of kingdoms and empires, but I have seen no evidence of civilization. It is not necessary to have a civilization in order to have an empire. The Comanche Indians of the US southern plains had an extensive empire but no elements of civilization.

I would like to digress a little say some against civilization. Some people give a positive connotation to the word Civilization so consider this: A sadistic slave master during the early Roman empire could openly purchase slaves for the sole purpose of raping and torturing to death. And if the slaves rebelled against such treatment the entire household of slaves ,regardless of guilt, would be crucified under Roman law. To me that is not positive, but horrible, despicable and disgusting. That it is only one of the negative attributes of the ancient Roman civilization.

And you would be wrong. Civilization is implied in an empire. No group can maintain an empire for any period of time without laws and a codified hierarchy. It can be stated that no agriculture of any substance can be accomplished without agriculture.

The oldest known beer production (which implies both civilization AND education) dates from 19,000 years ago in Africa.

 

[Meathead]

Look up Great Zimbabwe and be educated....

African Empires , like European and Asian ones have risen and fallen - Mali, Songhay, Ghana. By Great Zimbabwe I believe you are referring to the Kingdom of Mutapa which I think fell under early European colonialism.

Not all Africans were running around the jungle chucking spears and beating bongo drums - they had some admirable civilizations - some which probably sent expeditions as far as the Americas.

That is partially true the Negroid peoples of Africa south the Sahara did have their share of kingdoms and empires, but I have seen no evidence of civilization. It is not necessary to have a civilization in order to have an empire. The Comanche Indians of the US southern plains had an extensive empire but no elements of civilization.

I would like to digress a little say some against civilization. Some people give a positive connotation to the word Civilization so consider this: A sadistic slave master during the early Roman empire could openly purchase slaves for the sole purpose of raping and torturing to death. And if the slaves rebelled against such treatment the entire household of slaves ,regardless of guilt, would be crucified under Roman law. To me that is not positive, but horrible, despicable and disgusting. That it is only one of the negative attributes of the ancient Roman civilization.

Agreed, but "civilization" departs from the "uncivilized" in that there are the manifestation of rules and law which are not uniformly dictated only by the strongman of the moment. The Romans, Greeks, Egyptians, and the slave-owners in other more civilized counties gave rise to a higher degree of civilization which ultimately led to abolition.

The same cannot be said of those less "civilized", parts of Africa and even Asia today which are unfortunately still an example

Yours is not a "digression", but a simple statement of fact.

 

[longly]

African Empires , like European and Asian ones have risen and fallen - Mali, Songhay, Ghana. By Great Zimbabwe I believe you are referring to the Kingdom of Mutapa which I think fell under early European colonialism.

Not all Africans were running around the jungle chucking spears and beating bongo drums - they had some admirable civilizations - some which probably sent expeditions as far as the Americas.

That is partially true the Negroid peoples of Africa south the Sahara did have their share of kingdoms and empires, but I have seen no evidence of civilization. It is not necessary to have a civilization in order to have an empire. The Comanche Indians of the US southern plains had an extensive empire but no elements of civilization.

I would like to digress a little say some against civilization. Some people give a positive connotation to the word Civilization so consider this: A sadistic slave master during the early Roman empire could openly purchase slaves for the sole purpose of raping and torturing to death. And if the slaves rebelled against such treatment the entire household of slaves ,regardless of guilt, would be crucified under Roman law. To me that is not positive, but horrible, despicable and disgusting. That it is only one of the negative attributes of the ancient Roman civilization.

Agreed, but "civilization" departs from the "uncivilized" in that there are the manifestation of rules and law which are not uniformly dictated only by the strongman of the moment. The Romans, Greeks, Egyptians, and the slave-owners in other more civilized counties gave rise to a higher degree of civilization which ultimately led to abolition.

The same cannot be said of those less "civilized", parts of Africa and even Asia today which are unfortunately still an example

Yours is not a "digression", but a simple statement of fact.

Well, I agree with you even though I can’t have confidence in our assertion that a civilization as opposed to a primitive society tends to have conditions that usually result in improved, humane, treatment of the individual. In a primitive society without law individuals are usually only regulated by force and familial relationship. If one has enough force to impose his will on another he can do it and that is limited, for the most part, only by his affection for his family. However there have been times when one killed his own brother, but was not common. However there was nothing to prevent the tribe from attacking their neighbors across the river.