quote:Originally posted by markellion: Europeans must have had a very hard time translating Arabic because they remained ignorant about the geography of Africa
Anyway this is interesting read pages 25-35 "Ethiopia's alleged control of the Nile" by Richard Pankhurst
Edit: To the point there is unknown lands and all the Prester John stuff.
quote:The myth that the Nile had, or could, be redirected by the misnamed Prester John....
What Europeans remained ignorant? The Periplus of the Erythrean Sea was written by Europeans. And the later travels of European colonists were primarily guided by the tales and stories of fabulous wealth and trade to be found in Africa. Hence, I don't see the ignorance.
They may LIE about what they know but that is different from ignorance.
Posts: 8896 | Registered: May 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:"From Muli (says Ibn Batutah) the river descends to Yufi (Nufi), one of the greatest kingdoms of Negroland, but to which white men cannot penetrate; and thence it flows to Nubia." It would appear, from this, that the superiority now enjoyed by the people of Nufi in arts and industry, was already acknowledged in the fourteenth century. It is manifest also that the system of the native geographers which converts the Chad da into a continuation of the Kowara, by which the waters of this great river are carried across Bornii to the Nile of Egypt, is of some antiquity. Ibn Batutah believed that the great river below Muli flowed some distance to the south or south-east before it turned eastwards to Nubia. In speaking of Kulwa (Kilwa, or Quiloa), on the eastern coast of Africa, he uses these words:—" A merchant there told me, that the town of Sofalah is half a month's journey from Kulwa, and one month from Yufi in the country of the Limiyin, and that gold is brought from Yufi to Sofalah."" The boldness here evinced in bringing together and joining in commerce countries far asunder, is constantly exhibited in the geographical speculations of an early or ill-informed age. Distances are then enlarged as expediency requires; hypothesis leaps over the vacant spaces, and forcibly stretches the known portions in the opposite sides of a continent till they meet in the centre. Illustrations of this truth may be found in all ages. During the sixteenth and seventeenth centuries, Abyssinia, Congo, and Monomotapa were all supposed to meet together. One of the Jesuits resident in Abyssinia asserts, that salt was carried from that country to Tomboktu.1" The reasoning which led to this statement was, in its nature, exactly the same as that from which the Arabs inferred an intercourse between Sofalah and Yufi. It is not surprising, therefore, that Ibn Batutah, who had far less accurate means of ascertaining the true positions of the places visited by him than the Catholic missionaries, should believe that the remote interior, whence gold was brought to Sofalah, was occupied by the same nation who filled the interior viewed in the opposite direction from Mali. Erroneous as this kind of inference may be, it yet rests on ideas of direction so manifest and unambiguous as to be of material service in explaining an author's meaning. It is plain, then, that Ibn Batutah thought Yufi to lie between Mali and Sofalah, and that the Great River from Muli to Yufi flowed towards Sofalah, but beyond Yufi turned eastwards to Nubia.
On page 94 we see this footnote
quote:152 In like manner the supposed Christian King named Ogane', of whom the early Portuguese navigators received intelligence at Benin, was at once assumed to be the King of Abyssinia. The fable of an intercourse between Abyssinia and Western Africa has been gravely repeated by a recent writer (M'Queen's Survey of Africa, p. 5). Fernandez de Enciso (Suma de Geografia, 1518) says, that in the Bight of Benin are the Blacks who trade with Libya and Meroe. Lalande (Memoires de Paris, 1795, p. 15) has collected with equal industry and credulity the stories of an overland commerce between the eastern and western coasts of Africa.
…The possibility that these spices reached Southern Arabia for transshipment north via India and/or neighboring regions of the subcontinent, seems intuitive but is in fact cast in doubt by its near total absence in contemporaneous literature, ships-logs, travel descriptions, navigation guides, ect. Miller marshals considerable evidence that cinnamon was instead transported directly across the Indian Ocean to Madagascar and the South Eastern African coastline, eventually reaching the fabled entrepot Rhapta, before being further transshipped to the “Cinnamon Coast” just below where the Red Sea meets the Indian Ocean. The trade was carried on in sewn, double outrigger boats known as mtepe, which were found throughout the coast in ancient times can still be seen in a modern variant, the wooden single or double outrigger maingalawa (ingalawa is the singular of this Swahili word). Miller (1969), and Allen (1993) even further, discuss the nature of secrecy and obfuscation used in trade during these times, in order to protect the sources of commodities, and to keep others at bay in their quests for circumvention. This helps to explain, as Allen (1993) put it, the “massive conspiracy by which all the Mediterranean consumers of cinnamon and cassia were for centuries deceived as to the real source of these products”…
quote:Originally posted by markellion: Coming back to this for a moment, everyone knows I'm talking about competing in the world economy and everything right? I mean you completely make me look absurd
quote:Originally posted by alTakruri: Why don't we try dealing in facts instead of theories.
Show me in the histories of Europe or Asia where craftsmen and "people with the knowledge" "have an edge" over the people of the government and their militants thus forcing them into reliance.
See thread "What was sold northward through the Sahara?"
1) Identified the scope of the "world" economy you are referring to 2) What was traded 3) Where it originated 4) Who controlled it and how 5) What the entry points and exit points were from Africa
Basically you are rambling and simply continuing to digress from the topic of the thread no?
Posts: 8896 | Registered: May 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Doug M: Because you have not:
1) Identified the scope of the "world" economy you are referring to 2) What was traded 3) Where it originated 4) Who controlled it and how 5) What the entry points and exit points were from Africa
Basically you are rambling and simply continuing to digress from the topic of the thread no?
1. The Muslim world but relations between the nations of the "Sudan" and the "veiled people" in particular. The Tuaregs often acted as henchmen who were dependent on the "Sudan" and played a big part in carrying on the Trans-Saharan trade
2. Cotton cloth, gold, ect. but a specific interest in iron production
3. The Trans-Saharan trade
4. The nations of the "Sudan" who were able to exert a great amount of influence in the Muslim world
5. Cities on the Sahara like Walata and other places that I've talked about
It would be through this manner than the nations of the "Sudan" could exert influence over Moorish Spain. This is why this is important
Posts: 2642 | Registered: Sep 2007
| IP: Logged |
posted
You are focusing exclusively on certain west african trade hubs as representing "Sudan". First off black Africans across ALL OF AFRICA controlled the trade in Africa and with outsiders for most of their history. It wasn't limited to West Africa but was also in the Sahara, North Africa East Africa and Southern Africa. African gold and other commodities were very important commodities in all of these locations and it wasn't just in West Africa and the agents were primarily blacks and not just "veiled" people.
Posts: 8896 | Registered: May 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
^ This from the so-called 'college professor' who has never been able to fully cite a scholarly source in the decade that he's spent in this forum. Posts: 26267 | From: Atlanta, Georgia, USA | Registered: Feb 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
It is common knowledge that Europeans remained ignorant of the geography of Africa until like the times of king Leopold what were all the explorers and opening up the heart of darkness about? You ask questions about things I've already addressed after claiming that my posts are not coherent. I had already pointed the ignorance about the geography and about keeping people out of the interior
quote:Originally posted by Doug M: Markellion you post things that don't make a coherent point and are just a mish mash of various quotes that really don't support what you are saying.
For example
quote:Originally posted by markellion: Yes that was the point I was emphasizing the ignorance of outsiders about the geography of Africa plus that of the long distance trade. Those Swahili were just Bantus like other Bantus. They were part of the "Sudan"
That whole post was about nothing but language and nothing about Africans stopping non muslims from accessing the interior. While it may be true, nothing YOU posted actually suggests or states that directly. That is what I mean by you posting one little tidbit of something and then running off like you said a whole lot....
No offense, but there are plenty of sources that are available to actually support a lot of what you are saying. The problem is that maybe you don't know how to find them?
posted
They were not ignorant in the sense of not knowing about Africa and the interior as much as you think. There were maps and stories from the Islamic world and elsewhere detailing the people of Africa with maps and legends of great wealth. THAT is why Europeans wanted to explore the world, which is to take the great wealth. So no, they were not ignorant in that sense at all. The Periplus of the Erythrean sea was 1500 years old when Europeans set out on their voyages of "discovery". Much of the idea of Europeans "discovering" everything and being ignorant is simply a lie told to cover up the fact that Europeans were simply on a quest to steal as much as they could everywhere they went based on the knowledge of the wealth that existed in various legends, writings and other sources they had available to them. Of course they knew about the gold of Africa, that was no secret in Europe and was common knowledge.
Anyway, as for the Almoravids, the fact that they were from areas to the South makes it obvious they were black. However, there were blacks in Morocco who were indigenous to that region as well.
1) Identified the scope of the "world" economy you are referring to 2) What was traded 3) Where it originated 4) Who controlled it and how 5) What the entry points and exit points were from Africa
Its like everything I have said is for nothing. This is an extremely important topic and needs to be taken seriously. Why did you ask what was traded when all of this time I was talking about African industries
Posts: 2642 | Registered: Sep 2007
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by alTakruri: Why don't we try dealing in facts instead of theories.
Show me in the histories of Europe or Asia where craftsmen and "people with the knowledge" "have an edge" over the people of the government and their militants thus forcing them into reliance.
quote:Originally posted by Doug M:
Likewise, imperialism is primarily defined by force of arms not by force of craftsmen. Name one empire that was not built on and maintained by military conquest and political domination.
There are none.
You completely twist what I say when I said imperialism involves economic, political, and military forces. Saying that economic domination is important doesn't automatically means I'm saying that other aspects of imperialism weren't essential. You treat the things I'm saying as not being connected together but all the information is meant to be seen as part of the whole picture.
Of many reasons why Great Brittan was able to continue the trade with the United States one big reason was British industries. This was not the only reason given but such industries do seem to give a nation an advantage over other nations. This is so much the case that after the Revolution the former colonies remained dependent on the mother country
“History of domestic and foreign commerce of the United States, Volumes 1-2”
quote:Again, Great Britain was developing in industry more rapidly than was the continent of Europe, and hence was not only a better market for exported foods but was also able better to supply America with the manufactures which the people of the United States required. When the British monopoly of American trade was terminated by the Revolution and the staple articles of export from America were no longer "enumerated," but were free to go to any market in the world, there proved to be little demand for the articles outside of Great Britain, where they had previously been sold…..
…..One other reason that may be noted as in part accounting for the control of American trade by Great Britain after the Revolution was that many, if not most, of the staple articles of manufactures desired by American buyers were made better in Great Britain and sold more cheaply there than in continental Europe. As an illustration of this, Lord Sheffield cites the fact that "when France granted a sum of money to Congress for clothing the American troops, Mr. Laurens, Jr., was employed to provide it; but instead of laying out the money in France he went to Holland and bought English cloths and sent them to America."
posted
And then, the way seem people take the things I say, someone will say the two things are not connected together. What does craftsmen have to do with such uneven trade relationships that I showed in this quote?
And yet I have actually posted information about African industries and then someone says that my posts are incoherent. And then say that I haven't addressed things that I have already addressed
Like the information I showed about outsiders being ignorant about the geography of Africa which was ignored. That is significant because it has to do with trade routes
Posts: 2642 | Registered: Sep 2007
| IP: Logged |
-------------------- Without data you are just another person with an opinion - Deming Posts: 12143 | From: When you have eliminated the impossible, whatever remains, however improbable | Registered: Jun 2007
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by markellion: Its been assumed that scholars like Ibn Khaludn were prejudiced but I think its more of a case of colonialists putting their own biases into their writings. However these writers had no problem with ancient Ghana and Mali dominating northward. It is so easy to ignore the power and influence of these empires but I really hope people look into this. I've been interested for a long time on the influence of empires like ancient Ghana and Mali in the world
Its interesting they were absorbed in without being changed
quote:It is stated in the foregoing extract that Ghanah merged in the empire of the Morabites, an event which may be assigned, with much probability, to the year of the Hijra 469,.... But the Morabites, bred up in a wild life, and under a loose patriarchal authority, cannot be supposed to have thought much of social or political organization. It is likely that they extended their dominions without propagating a form of government, and that the kingdom of Ghanah remained little changed by the loss of its independence.
I have a good friend from Benin City, who told me the Oni of Ile Ife controlled as far north as to the shore of Algeria. I have said it many times on these forms. I think these Europeans have played a TERRIBLE game with history, to the detriment of Africans and African history.
Posts: 1296 | From: the planet | Registered: May 2011
| IP: Logged |
posted
Yeah how relevant is this study today? Because it seemed the Almoravids had very southern origins.
Posts: 1891 | From: NY | Registered: Sep 2014
| IP: Logged |
Topic Closed
![[Embarrassed]](redface.gif)
Printer-friendly view of this topic