posted
The "Dark Ages" are generally a reference to the idea that there was a cultural decline as a result of the fall of the Roman Empire. There are in fact many events around the world that are called "Dark Ages"; for example, Greek Dark Age, Dark Ages of Cambodia, and Mayan Dark Age. The opposite of the "Dark Ages" are generally called the Golden Ages.
Dark Ages are generally the result of a civilization that is in decline. Feudal system economies are the result as the central economy of the civilization implodes.
Did Africa have Dark Ages? This implies that Africa had civilizations that went into decline.
Were there African Civilizations that went into decline in such a way to produce Dark Ages? I would say most definitely yes and it occurred prior to the colonial period. And much of it occurred within the same time period.
The Black African Dark Age starts at around the 11th century and ends around the 14th century.
Axum - Declined due to trade route conflicts with Muslims - 1100 AD.
Chrstian Nubia - Decline due to Arab influx and Islam - 1300 AD.
Great Zimbabwee - Decline due to unknown reasons but it is speculated that the Gold trade was in decline. Also around 1300 AD.
Ghana Empire - Decline due to Black Moors and climate change - Islam again as a factor - around 1100AD.
Ife Empire - Decline - unknown reason - around 1200AD.
There are climatic issues that have to be taken into account when looking at the decline of these civilizations. The Sahara was getting larger and trade routes became more competitive. The fact that these great civilizations fall all around the same time is of much interest considering it nicely correlates with the rise of Islam and its Golden Age. However, corelations do not on their own imply cause. For when we look at the fall of Christian Nubia we read a story about famine.
Was there a climatic cause of this Dark Age? Did the Sahara play a part in the fall of these societies?
Posts: 4028 | From: NW USA | Registered: May 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
The Sahara could only be a factor in the places it touched.
All of Africa was not in a dark age because there were so many kingdoms in different parts of Africa. For example the Mutapa empire did not decline until the 17th century.
Posts: 8897 | Registered: May 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by osirion: Did Africa have Dark Ages? This implies that Africa had civilizations that went into decline.
.........................
The Black African Dark Age starts at around the 11th century and ends around the 14th century.
Some empires flourished as a result of Islam and trade with the Arabs; Timbuctu, and Mali...
Is this all your own 'hypothetical' dark ages for Africa, or something borrowed from Eurocentic 'scholars?' who try to justify Imperialism?
Normally after a period of cultural decline, there has to be a period of "enlightenment" to fit into the definition of "Dark Ages"
Myself, as well as many other Black intellectuals would not consider the "rise of colonialism" the period of "enlightenment" for Africans.
It is a period of dominion and exploitation for the Africans. Europeans benefited themselves from over exploiting Africans and their natural resources, simply put. Africans were not "enlightened' in this sense.
It reminds me of some article I read a while back that claimed African Americans should be greatful for slavery, otherwise we would still be starving and fighting disease and turmoil in Africa. I mean seriously? SMH
Posts: 747 | From: Atlanta, GA USA | Registered: May 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by osirion: Did Africa have Dark Ages? This implies that Africa had civilizations that went into decline.
.........................
The Black African Dark Age starts at around the 11th century and ends around the 14th century.
Some empires flourished as a result of Islam and trade with the Arabs; Timbuctu, and Mali...
Is this all your own 'hypothetical' dark ages for Africa, or something borrowed from Eurocentic 'scholars?' who try to justify Imperialism?
Normally after a period of cultural decline, there has to be a period of "enlightenment" to fit into the definition of "Dark Ages"
Myself, as well as many other Black intellectuals would not consider the "rise of colonialism" the period of "enlightenment" for Africans.
It is a period of dominion and exploitation for the Africans. Europeans benefited themselves from over exploiting Africans and their natural resources, simply put. Africans were not "enlightened' in this sense.
It reminds me of some article I read a while back that claimed African Americans should be greatful for slavery, otherwise we would still be starving and fighting disease and turmoil in Africa. I mean seriously? SMH
Exactly, if not for Europeans in the first place the Trade routes esablished by Africans would have remained intact longer. Colonialism devestaed and changed Africans for the worst putting Africans at the bottom of the social ladder and keeping them uneducated and dependant on White Europeans. Both Arabs and Europeans played a role in the decline of original African Empires but the big Irony is that Africa is the Final Frontier. I have been saying this, Africa is the only place that will be left on Earth that will have enough Resources and Land with the coming Population boom about to hit the world. I say African Americans and other Diaspora Africans should look into investing and setting up commnities in Africa before the Euros and Asians get all the pie.
Posts: 8805 | From: The fear of his majesty had entered their hearts, they were powerless | Registered: Nov 2007
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Hammer: actually I have heard blacks say that very thing homylu.
That's because like yourself, they are ignorant. They are probably not aware that just as Kingdoms rose and fell in Europe, they did the same thing in pre-colonial Africa and probably would have eventually re-emerged and thrived in trade and commerce given their valuable natural resources, that is before they were STOLEN by their colonial masters.
Posts: 747 | From: Atlanta, GA USA | Registered: May 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by osirion: Did Africa have Dark Ages? This implies that Africa had civilizations that went into decline.
.........................
The Black African Dark Age starts at around the 11th century and ends around the 14th century.
Some empires flourished as a result of Islam and trade with the Arabs; Timbuctu, and Mali...
Is this all your own 'hypothetical' dark ages for Africa, or something borrowed from Eurocentic 'scholars?' who try to justify Imperialism?
Normally after a period of cultural decline, there has to be a period of "enlightenment" to fit into the definition of "Dark Ages"
Myself, as well as many other Black intellectuals would not consider the "rise of colonialism" the period of "enlightenment" for Africans.
It is a period of dominion and exploitation for the Africans. Europeans benefited themselves from over exploiting Africans and their natural resources, simply put. Africans were not "enlightened' in this sense.
It reminds me of some article I read a while back that claimed African Americans should be greatful for slavery, otherwise we would still be starving and fighting disease and turmoil in Africa. I mean seriously? SMH
I put the end of the Black African dark age at the 14th century precisely due to the rise of the Black Islamic empires such as Mali.
But then, Islam was not the only Golden Age was it? No, another age came after that which we refer to as the Renaissance. And darkness fell on the Africans again as another rival in human affairs raised its serpentitious head.
Africans were barely coming out of the Islamic and climatic Dark Age when the Colonials became interested in the very same trade that brought the Islamic people so much glory.
The myth of the primitive Africans would be reinforced and its glory again stolen.
Posts: 4028 | From: NW USA | Registered: May 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by osirion: I put the end of the Black African dark age at the 14th century precisely due to the rise of the Black Islamic empires such as Mali.
This time period you call a "dark age" is probably more because we don't know much about it because it is ignored. There was a great deal of interdependence between these people which would force them to cooperate some say the Almoravids allied with Takrur and there were shifting of trade routes
Posts: 2642 | Registered: Sep 2007
| IP: Logged |
posted
Originally posted by osirion: I put the end of the Black African dark age at the 14th century precisely due to the rise of the Black Islamic empires such as Mali.
Utter Rubbish^
1,200-700 BCE: Excavations at Dar Tichitt (modern Mauritania) reveal progression from large, un-walled lakeside villages to smaller walled hilltop villages in response to drier climate and increasing pressure from nomads.
After 2,000 BCE: Favorable climatic conditions and developing technology and socio-cultural systems lead to population growth in the Niger valleys. Neolithic farming spreading south and east from the area of modern-day Cameroon. Probably associated with speakers of proto-Bantu languages.
After 500 BCE: Advent of iron-smelting and iron use in West Africa. Height of the civilization known as Nok, which produced art work ancestral to that of later Yoruba and lgbo peoples.
WEST AFRICA: C. 800 BCE TO 1591 AD/CE
By 800 BCE: Neolithic agricultural peoples inhabit the best lands of the savanna and forest margins. Regional trade networks based on the exchange of salt, fish, pottery, and other regional specialties developing. Small, clan-based villages typical of agricultural aras. Nomads dominate in the drier areas.
-800 to -500: Development of Carthage in the north stimulates exchanges of products across the Sahara Desert, managed by desert Berbers using horses, oxen and chariots. Iron use psreads into the region from the north or east, or both. Larger scale settlements appearing in southern Mauritania. the middle Niger River basin, and the Jos plateau region. These areas correspond respectively to the probable ancestral homes of the modern Soninke (northern Mande); Songhai; and Yoruba peoples.
-500 to -200: Iron use spreads rapidly throughout West Africa, stimulating population growth, trade, and urbanization. Iron-age peoples of Nok (modern Nigeria) produce magnificent terra cotta sculptures stylistically ancestral to later Yoruba and Benin art. Indirect trade continues across increasingly well-marked Saharan trails, still traversed by horse or ox-drawn vehicles.
-800 to +200: Era of Nok civilization. Bantu expansion 'takes off' to the south and east. Earliest towns, such as Jenne, growing up along the Niger on its most northerly stretch.
-100 to +100: Camel use reaches the western Sahara via Berbers living in its southern reaches.
c.100 to 400 CE: Camel using Saharan Berber peoples, such as the Taureg and Sanhaja, develop trans-Saharan trade routes, linking the Maghrib and West Africa directly for the first time. Salt, copper, gold, dates, slaves, agricultural produce, manufactured goods and ivory among the goods exchanged. Soninke-led Ghana, Songhai-led Gao grow as middlemen for the expanding commerce. Trade routes also link Nigeria and Lake Chad to North Africa.
400 to 900: Ghana, with its capital at Kumbi Saleh, becomes the first regional "great power." With their control over the southern end of the trans-Saharan trade and the northern end of the gold trade, the Ghana of Wagadu can afford the cavalry necessary to enforce his rule throughout the lands between the Niger and the Senegal Rivers. The trans-Saharan boom stimulates the growth of regional trade in copper, iron and other goods, both agricultural and manufactured.
750 to 1000: Muslim merchants from the North become a major force in trans-Saharan and West African commerce. Islam spreads to Takrur and Ghana. Among the Kanuri of Lake Chad, the Sefawa family founds a dynasty who will rule Kanem for a thousand years. The trans-Saharan trade grows rapidly along with the expansion of the Islamic world. Artists of Igbo Ukwu in southern Nigeria produce fine works in bronze.
ca.1000: Foundation of Ife, the political and spiritual capital of the Yoruba.
1054 to 1070: Almoravid Sanhaja establish control over trans-Saharan routes from the borders of Ghana to Morocco, greatly weakening Ghana.
11th & 12th c.: Several Sudannic kings convert to Islam. Commerce in the Sudan gradually comes to be dominated by Muslims, both of local and north African origin.
13th c.: Rise of Mali under the great Mande hero, Sundiata Keita. Ghana incorporated into the new great power. From its new capital at Niane on the Niger, Mali develops trade with the developing gold fields of the Akan in modern-day Ghana.
14th c.: Empire of Mali dominates the Western half of West Africa, controlling the gold and salt trade; promoting Islam; and providing peace and prosperity to its region. Mansa Musa, the best known ruler of Mali, made the pilgrimage to Mecca.
15th c.: Mali suffers dynastic difficulties and economic challenges as the gold fields move further south and east. Songhai gains strength. Portuguese merchants begin trading directly with the Akan along the coast of modern Ghana.
16th c.: Songhai, with its capital at Gao replaces Mali as the imperial power of West Africa. Islamic learning flourishes with government patronage in the university town of Timbuktu.
Civilizations on the Eastern and Southern parts of Africa roused and felled but no darkages. From Kemet to Kush,Christian Egypt to Christian Nubia and Axum..thru to Punt and Raptaha..the rise of the Swahili states,the links through Mwene Mutapa, the Kongo states,where do you find this supposed African dark-ages?.
Posts: 6546 | From: japan | Registered: Feb 2009
| IP: Logged |
posted
^ I already gave my answer. I don't see the need to repeat myself. You even posted the same evidence I did:
1054 to 1070: Almoravid Sanhaja establish control over trans-Saharan routes from the borders of Ghana to Morocco, greatly weakening Ghana. - more like destroying it and leaving the region in turmoil.
11th & 12th c.: Several Sudannic kings convert to Islam. Commerce in the Sudan gradually comes to be dominated by Muslims, both of local and north African origin. - dominated alright which destroyed Axum and likely led to the fall of Zimbabwee
13th c.: Rise of Mali under the great Mande hero, Sundiata Keita. Ghana incorporated into the new great power. From its new capital at Niane on the Niger, Mali develops trade with the developing gold fields of the Akan in modern-day Ghana.
--- this is just the start. Mali is still not as great at this time as Ghana was. So the dark ages are not over yet.
The rise of the Islamic world came at price and that price was a dark age for Africa.
By the 14th century Mali had become a true power now equaling the power of Ghana that predated it.
The dark age had come to an end. But not for long since the Renasiance in Europe broke the back of the Islamic advance. Now Europeans invaded Africa and brought about the same dark age that Islam had caused.
Posts: 4028 | From: NW USA | Registered: May 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
My definition of a dark age is a decline in culture and stagnation economic and otherwise..the above post showed that all those civilizations were dynamic and on the rise that Ghana was eclipsed and taken over by other rising powers in the area namely the Malistine empire did not signal any dark ages..just a transition like Rome eclipsed Greece.
What is your definition of a dark ages.
And again Muslims had nothing to do with the decline of Zimbabwe for they were their major trading partners for centuries, decline began to set in when the Portuguese showed up they recovered but later more Euros showed up.
There have been many civilisations in Zimbabwe as is shown by the ancient stone structures at Khami, Great Zimbabwe and Dhlo-Dhlo. * The Mwene Mutapa (or Monomatapas) were the first major civilisation to become established. * By the mid 1440's, King Mutota's empire included almost all of the Rhodesian plateau and extensive parts of what is now Mozambique. * the wealth of this empire was based on small-scale industries, for example iron smelting, textiles, gold and copper, along with agriculture. * The regular inhabitants of the empire's trading towns were the Arab and Swahili merchants with whom trade was conducted. *In the early 16th century the Portuguese arrived and destroyed this trade and began a series of wars which left the empire so weakened that it entered the 17th century in serious decline. * Several Shona states came together to form the Rozwi empire which covered more than half of present day Zimbabwe. * By 1690 the Portuguese had been forced off the plateau and much of the land formerly under Mwene Mutapa was controlled by the Rozwi. * Peace and prosperity reigned over the next two centuries and the centres of Dhlo-Dhlo, Khami, and Great Zimbabwe reached their peaks.
* As a result of the mid-19th century turmoil in Transvaal and Natal, the Rozwi Empire came to an end. * A treaty was signed with the British South Africa Company in 1888 allowing them to mine gold in the kingdom, now under Ndebele rule. * The increasing influx of settlers as a result of this treaty led to war with the Ndebele in 1893. The Ndebele were defeated and European immigration began in earnest. http://www.tanzaniaodyssey.com/www.africanet.com/africanet/country/zimbabwe/history.htmPosts: 6546 | From: japan | Registered: Feb 2009
| IP: Logged |
posted
Ok people seem to have a very hard time understanding this but there was the whole dependence on Trans-Saharan trade thing. This needs to be integrated into everyone's view of history. When looking at any aspect of African history this absolutely must be taken into consideration. There will be no true progress in understanding of African history if we don't acknowledge the supreme importance of this trade which was not limited to gold evidently also a large exporter of cotton cloth. Yes this is true more than gold was exported. They were controlling the price of gold in the world on top of other important exports. Do some studying on African industries and you are forced to the conclusion that ancient Ghana and other nations most probably contributed to Moorish Spain. If Osirion was taking the Trans-Saharan trade into full consideration he would likely be talking about the African contribution to Islamic golden age instead of emphasizing dark ages. If the Almoravids came and brought about a dark age they would be hurting themselves because they relied on this trade. They depended on the things produced in the south. I'm sorry I keep saying this over and over but this is of the highest importance
Ok sorry about the rambling but at the core of this is the problem that its assumed that this relationship was one sided and exploitive but it wasn't one sided. The nature of the Trans-Saharan trade was such that the people of the south could have some control over the north but it was also a relationship of interdependence. With such a relationship it cannot be seen as merely one side affecting the other. To put this in another way we always hear about how these empires became great because of the Trans-Saharan gold trade but on top of the magnitude of the gold trade there were other things be traded. It was not just gold that was important but also these thriving industries
See thread "What was sold northward through the Sahara?"
Please explain how the information on this thread reconciles with your view of history when we see these nations exerting influence in the Muslim world:
posted
Destruction? Region in turmoil? Only in the unread popular imagination.
Al~Murabitun never conquered Ghana nor did they disrupt trade nor cause any regional instability.
For those truly interested in learning about this episode in Africa's history I again present links. Yes, this is hours of reading, we're not talking Mother Goose, fairy tales and comic books here. We're talking about verifiable history of Africa which is important and vital to African people, well worth the time to "tell the children the truth" rather than "deceiving the people continually."
This link has the full article. The whole article still makes the relations look like a tense and hostile one and Leo Africanus is shown as being very racist or at least prejudiced. This makes absolutely no sense to me because many of these historians have written positive things about empires like ancient Ghana and Mali and their conquests. The article is far from satisfying and perhaps does more damage than good
posted
You've criticized me because I'm skeptical about allot of translations but I have no idea what I can believe and what I can't because I've seen how translations can differ so much from each other. Compare these two articles, "The Nubian Dam" and "Not quite Venus from the Waves: The Almoravid conquest of Ghana". The two show completely different attitudes the author of the Nubian Dam actually thought that the Muslims were honest in the extreme in admitting their defeat by the "Nubians". The two portrayals of history are so opposed to each other. Is this because of different translations or what? This has been driving me crazy for the longest time
"Not quite Venus from the Waves: The Almoravid conquest of Ghana" full article
The absolutely unambiguous evidence and unanimous agree of the early Muslim sources is that the Arabs abrupt stop was caused solely and exclusively by the superb military resistance of the Christian Nubians. That is what I call the Nubian Dam. The array of those early sources includes the two most important chronicles of early Islam, al-Tabari (d. 926) and al-Yaqubi (d. 905); the two best extant books on the Muslim conquests, al-Baladhuri (d. 892( and Ibn al-A tham al-Kufi (d. 926); the most central encyclopedic work of al-Masudi (d.956); and the two best early sources dedicated specifically to Egypt, Ibn Abd al-Hakim (d. 871) and al-Kindi (961).
On page 19 he quotes Al-Masudi The people of Hijaz and Yemen and the rest of the Arabs learned archery from them (The Nubians)
Bellow on page 20:
This act carries a lot of weight for one cannot see any reason for the Arabs to praise the Nubians so highly, along with their admission of their own failure in the field of battle. At the same time it is a great tribute to the objectivity in the case of the Muslim sources, and it also enhances considerably the chances of the reliability of their accounts, at least about the Muslim expansion in other fronts, and perhaps much more beyond that. .
3. The awe and respect that the Muslims had for their Nubian adversaries are reflected in the fact that even a rather late Umayyad caliph, Umar b Abd al- Aziz (Umar II 717-720), is said to have ratified the Nubian-Muslim treaty out of fear for the safety of the Muslims (he ratified the peace treaty out of consideration for the Muslims and out of [a desire] to spare their lives)
posted
Notice the one article Leo Africanus says that the "blacks" were savages until Islam came and civilized them. In the other one Al-Masudi outright admits that people Yemen and other Arabs learned archery from the "Nubians" (Quite an admission, because certainly archery would be highly significant to these people). Am I to conclude that "North Africans" were prejudiced against "blacks" while Arabs had no problems recalling stories of their humiliating defeats by the hands of the "Nubians"? I mean seriously whats going on here?
Posts: 2642 | Registered: Sep 2007
| IP: Logged |
posted
Oops! Leo Africanus lived in the 16th century so he'd be allot different than the early writers that were mentioned in the Nubian Dam. Still there are some suspicious things
Posts: 2642 | Registered: Sep 2007
| IP: Logged |
quote:In the early 13th century, the governor of Sijilmasa, which was the most important terminus of the trans-Saharan caravan routes in southern Morocco, sent a following letter to the king of Ghana who was by then the most powerful ruler in Western Africa:
We are neighbours in benevolence even if we differ in religion; we agree on right conduct and are one in leniency towards our subjects. It goes without saying that justice is an essential quality of kings in conducting sound policy; tyranny is the preoccupation of ignorant and evil minds. We have heard about the imprisonment of poor traders and their being prevented from going freely about their business. The coming to and fro of merchants to a country is of benefit to its inhabitants and a help to keeping it populous. If we wished we would imprison the people of that region who happen to be in our territory but we do not think it right to do that. We ought not to "forbid immorality while practising it ourselves". Peace be upon you.
Considering the contents of this letter, there is no doubt who had the actual control over the trade in the south.
posted
JSTOR makes page by page images and pdf of full articles for their archive. You need access to JSTOR. Logon using a university library provider.
If you study, not skim read, each of the pieces I recommended the idea surfaces of al~Murabitun and Ghana interdependencies.
This link has the full article. The whole article still makes the relations look like a tense and hostile one and Leo Africanus is shown as being very racist or at least prejudiced. This makes absolutely no sense to me because many of these historians have written positive things about empires like ancient Ghana and Mali and their conquests. The article is far from satisfying and perhaps does more damage than good
posted
Yes thats why I said its funny how they were dependent on "pagan" kings. This would indicate that I do have the idea of "al~Murabitun and Ghana interdependencie"
Edit: Some of the articles I don't have access to I'll take your advice and try to get them tomorrow. Do they talk about translations?
Posts: 2642 | Registered: Sep 2007
| IP: Logged |
posted
Whats suspicious to me is not the pro-Muslim propaganda but that it portrays Leo Africanus as being a bigot but there are other things where he doesn't sound like a bigot. I can understand him talking about Muslim dominating pagans but not as much being a racist
See page 6 here "Not quite Venus from the Waves: The Almoravid conquest of Ghana"
Ahmad Baba cites Ibn Khaldun to support the non-conquest opinion. Its not just a few things that lead me to be suspicious but there are different sources that say different things
Posts: 2642 | Registered: Sep 2007
| IP: Logged |
posted
This is a stupid Thread. You people act as if Africa is a single country. Africans continued to build civilizations up until the rise of colonialism in the 1890's.
You people act as if African nations were under European domination since the Portuguese began the importation of slaves.
You also act as if African muslims had no civilization. Like most ignorant Westerners you assume that since Africans became Muslims, they naturally adopted Arab ways. This is far froom true.
To be a Muslim is to only declare there is one god and pray five times a day. To legislate within the Muslim lands you followed a particular fiqh. In the case of most of Black Africa it was Maliki.
Even up to the jihad of Uthman dan Fodio, African Islam had nothing to do with the Arab way of life. This changed only in the 1980's when Saudi Arabia was able to use oil money to spread the Wahhabi fiqh.
This meant that the muslim civilizations of Africa were of African creation.
The Dark Age of Africa, then, only came after the 1890's when European powers conquered African nations. The shame of Africa, is that although Europeans ruled African nations directly for less than 75 years, they continue to dominate the minds of African rulers who maintain a dark age in Africa up to today.
All of you need to go study African history and stop viewing African history within the context of the European and Arab worldviews.
Shame on you.
.
quote:Originally posted by osirion: ^ I already gave my answer. I don't see the need to repeat myself. You even posted the same evidence I did:
1054 to 1070: Almoravid Sanhaja establish control over trans-Saharan routes from the borders of Ghana to Morocco, greatly weakening Ghana. - more like destroying it and leaving the region in turmoil.
11th & 12th c.: Several Sudannic kings convert to Islam. Commerce in the Sudan gradually comes to be dominated by Muslims, both of local and north African origin. - dominated alright which destroyed Axum and likely led to the fall of Zimbabwee
13th c.: Rise of Mali under the great Mande hero, Sundiata Keita. Ghana incorporated into the new great power. From its new capital at Niane on the Niger, Mali develops trade with the developing gold fields of the Akan in modern-day Ghana.
--- this is just the start. Mali is still not as great at this time as Ghana was. So the dark ages are not over yet.
The rise of the Islamic world came at price and that price was a dark age for Africa.
By the 14th century Mali had become a true power now equaling the power of Ghana that predated it.
The dark age had come to an end. But not for long since the Renasiance in Europe broke the back of the Islamic advance. Now Europeans invaded Africa and brought about the same dark age that Islam had caused.
posted
And I read so many things about Awdaghust and they all make me suspicious. I think there are mistranslations that are severely distorting this history.
Oh and about Ibn Khaldun he supposedly had a theory about nomads and state formation but as that article shows Ibn Khaldun did not say much about Almoravids establishing a government or anything. It cannot be claimed he wrote things to fit this theory because the passage as it's translated does not even conform to this theory.
See page 6 here "Not quite Venus from the Waves: The Almoravid conquest of Ghana". Talking about Ahmad Baba
quote: His emphatic rejection of any form of the "conquest hypothesis" carries parciular weight since he was writing relatively early, more or less on the spot geographically, and - a little curiously, we confess - he cited precisely the Almoravid/Ghana confrontation passage from Ibn Khaldun to prove his own anti-conquest opinion. More than two centuries later, as we shall soon see, this notorious passage would lead European scholars to draw a quite opposite conclusion concerning the same manner
quote:Originally posted by Clyde Winters: This is a stupid Thread. You people act as if Africa is a single country. Africans continued to build civilizations up until the rise of colonialism in the 1890's.
You people act as if African nations were under European domination since the Portuguese began the importation of slaves.
You also act as if African muslims had no civilization. Like most ignorant Westerners you assume that since Africans became Muslims, they naturally adopted Arab ways. This is far froom true.
To be a Muslim is to only declare there is one god and pray five times a day. To legislate within the Muslim lands you followed a particular fiqh. In the case of most of Black Africa it was Maliki.
Even up to the jihad of Uthman dan Fodio, African Islam had nothing to do with the Arab way of life. This changed only in the 1980's when Saudi Arabia was able to use oil money to spread the Wahhabi fiqh.
This meant that the muslim civilizations of Africa were of African creation.
The Dark Age of Africa, then, only came after the 1890's when European powers conquered African nations. The shame of Africa, is that although Europeans ruled African nations directly for less than 75 years, they continue to dominate the minds of African rulers who maintain a dark age in Africa up to today.
All of you need to go study African history and stop viewing African history within the context of the European and Arab worldviews.
Shame on you.
.
quote:Originally posted by osirion: ^ I already gave my answer. I don't see the need to repeat myself. You even posted the same evidence I did:
1054 to 1070: Almoravid Sanhaja establish control over trans-Saharan routes from the borders of Ghana to Morocco, greatly weakening Ghana. - more like destroying it and leaving the region in turmoil.
11th & 12th c.: Several Sudannic kings convert to Islam. Commerce in the Sudan gradually comes to be dominated by Muslims, both of local and north African origin. - dominated alright which destroyed Axum and likely led to the fall of Zimbabwee
13th c.: Rise of Mali under the great Mande hero, Sundiata Keita. Ghana incorporated into the new great power. From its new capital at Niane on the Niger, Mali develops trade with the developing gold fields of the Akan in modern-day Ghana.
--- this is just the start. Mali is still not as great at this time as Ghana was. So the dark ages are not over yet.
The rise of the Islamic world came at price and that price was a dark age for Africa.
By the 14th century Mali had become a true power now equaling the power of Ghana that predated it.
The dark age had come to an end. But not for long since the Renasiance in Europe broke the back of the Islamic advance. Now Europeans invaded Africa and brought about the same dark age that Islam had caused.
Well said. To falsely generalize a highly connected continent seems rather dishonest. That is just diluting African prosperity. Urban cultures cultures appeared thousands year prior, and after the rise of Islam as well.
That includes "East", "West", Lower, Upper, and whatever. It's such a shame that the user who started this thread would succumb to such nonsensical paradigm. I understand that rather closely, since we're not that different. One is pressured to look down at the "West Africans", who supposedly are all demonic, and listen to that "rebel" Hip Hop music. That, and a culture of constantly swearing. You see many East Africans try to move from that white middle-class created trash.
PS: It's the same that we see in say, Turkey. There are Turkish dramas, taking place in New York City, where Blacks are shown to do nothing, but swear. Remain ignorant, and in other dramas, blacks who are about to marry Turkish women are dissed. This is an issue of a superiority complex that should die. Seems like I'm the only one remotely familiar with it. O_o
Posts: 1080 | Registered: Aug 2008
| IP: Logged |
posted
I stand by my position - a Black African Dark Age caused by climatic changes and invasion.
The Dark Age in Europe does not mean there wasn't other thriving civilizations such as the Vikings and so on. Europe wasn't all one nation either.
So again shame on you for another strawman attack against me.
Again:
Nubia, Axum, Ghana, Ife and Zimbabwee all fall in the same 3 centuries between 11th C and 14th C.
Posts: 4028 | From: NW USA | Registered: May 2005
| IP: Logged |
This link has the full article. The whole article still makes the relations look like a tense and hostile one and Leo Africanus is shown as being very racist or at least prejudiced. This makes absolutely no sense to me because many of these historians have written positive things about empires like ancient Ghana and Mali and their conquests. The article is far from satisfying and perhaps does more damage than good
quote:Originally posted by osirion: I stand by my position - a Black African Dark Age caused by climatic changes and invasion.
The Dark Age in Europe does not mean there wasn't other thriving civilizations such as the Vikings and so on. Europe wasn't all one nation either.
So again shame on you for another strawman attack against me.
Again:
Nubia, Axum, Ghana, Ife and Zimbabwee all fall in the same 3 centuries between 11th C and 14th C.
Wow. The European dark ages involves a time when Europeans were living healthier lives under Islamic rule. It wasn't like the population was enslaved. On the other hand, the Romans had a cruel reign over the illiterate, sub-peasant, North Europeans. I doubt Hammer's ancestors of that time would be speaking so passionately about the Romans.
If anything, the dark ages takes place on this forums. There is no consistent policy with Blacks over here. On the other hand, half/white trolls seem to run work in a rather strategic manner. A pathetic sure, but that's the case over here.
Just watch Argyle, Hammer, et al, and remember: we're all biased. Thinking that you're neutral is utterly retarded. King isn't neutral, and I see a admire Egmond a lot more due to taking a "radical" position over here.
Posts: 1080 | Registered: Aug 2008
| IP: Logged |
posted
Osirion you have not even skim read the article. Please back your supposition with supportive quotes directly saying Ghana was destroyed by al~Murabitun which is your outdated premise. And if you're to be taken even halfway serious respect my name, ridicule is the resort of the intellectually defeated.
You too Markellion. Prove the article damages the fact that Ghana was not destroyed by al~Murabitun and none of your dancing from this to that to the other. I want direct quotes and nothing else will do. Tense and hostile relationship does not equate to conquered and destroyed.
This link has the full article. The whole article still makes the relations look like a tense and hostile one and Leo Africanus is shown as being very racist or at least prejudiced. This makes absolutely no sense to me because many of these historians have written positive things about empires like ancient Ghana and Mali and their conquests. The article is far from satisfying and perhaps does more damage than good
posted
I said the article does damage because it portrays the situation as tense and hostile even though the author is saying there wasn't a conquest
Edit: The article portrays "North Africans" as being racist all through history so it portrays the entire history as a tense one not just the time period that the alleged conquest was supposed to happen
Posts: 2642 | Registered: Sep 2007
| IP: Logged |
posted
What Muslim Africa is experiencing today I predicted back in the 1980’s.
Many people assume that since Africans became Muslims, they naturally adopted Arab ways. This is far from true.
To be a Muslim is to only declare there is one god and pray five times a day. To legislate within the Muslim lands you followed a particular fiqh. In the case of most of Black Africa it was Maliki.
Even up to the jihad of Uthman dan Fodio, African Islam had nothing to do with the Arab way of life.Uthman dan Fodio, after he returned from Mecca, preached against Wahhabism and he supported Freedom for women. This changed only in the 1980's when Saudi Arabia was able to use oil money to spread the Wahhabi fiqh.
The Dark Age of Africa, then, only came after the 1890's when European powers conquered African nations, and again in the 1990”s as greedy African Muslims sold their souls to the Saudis for a few silver pieces. The shame of Africa, is that although Europeans ruled African nations directly for less than 75 years, they continue to dominate the minds of African rulers and the African Muslim middle class who maintain a dark age in Africa up to today.
The Muslim elites in Africa abandoned their heritage to suck up to Europeans. This left African traditional Muslims leaderless. In the 1980’s the Wahhabis began to spend millions of dollars to spread their brand of Islam around the world. The failure to integrate common Muslims in the development of Nigeria led to the problems we are having in West Africa today.
The radical jihadism common to Africa will decline after the fall of Arabia as an economic power. After this traditional African Muslim tolerance will overcome Turkish/Indo-Aryan social customs which dominate their “Islamism”. This will hasten as more and more West African Mulims make the hajj and experience the deep racism Africam Muslims experience in Arabia and Egypt.
-------------------- C. A. Winters Posts: 13012 | From: Chicago | Registered: Jan 2006
| IP: Logged |
posted
Eurocentric history never teached that Uthman dan Fodio was for women freedom and anti wahabism.The Saudi are the one financing radical muslim school worldwide and causing the world Islam fundamentalist problem.
The USA are planning to be oil independant by 2022.The USA in the midwest and gulf of Mexico have more oil reserve then Saudi Arabia.Canada have enough oil sand in one state to supply the world for one hundred years.I agree Clyde Saudi Arabia will fall as an economic power.There is no way the Saudi could support their 10,000 members royal family after 2022.There will be no money left to finance muslim extremism.
UBBFriend: Email this page to someone!
Printer-friendly view of this topic