posted
According to inflation-adjusted survey of 25 richest people of all time:
quote:You've probably never heard of him, but Mansa Musa is the richest person ever.
The 14th century emperor from West Africa was worth a staggering $400 billion, after adjusting for inflation, as calculated by Celebrity Net Worth. To put that number into perspective -- if that's even possible -- Net Worth's calculations mean Musa's fortune far outstrips that of the current world's richest man Carlos Slim Helu and family.
posted
Im very proud the Malian Emperor Mansa Musa was the richest person ever with a fortune of $400 billion. Mansa Musa was a very generous person also he gave a lot of his money to poor people in Egypt and West Asia on his way to pilgrimage to Mecca.
The Rothschild, the Rockefeller and the Carnegie families are worth $300 billion each. Compare to Mansa Musa those people are very cheap they didn't give their money to poor people. Their fake charity is mostly tax scam.
The Tsar Nicholas of Russia was worth $300 billion. The International bankers and their communist agents massacre the Tsar family and stole the Tsar fortune.
Bill Gates build a fortune of $130 billion because he have an operating system software monopoly. He states he gave half of his fortune to charity.
Henry Ford and Cornelius Vanderbilt Fortune was $200 billions. They were successful industrialists.
I don't think William the conqueror and the British Earl were billionaires. The King of Hyderabad was a billionaires but I don't think he was worth $200 billion.
The Libyan President Muammar Khaddafi didn't have a $200 billion fortune. I heard the lie that Egyptian President Hosni Mubarak have a 90 billion fortune and Russian President Vladimir Putin have a $40 billion fortune. They were billionaires but not that rich.
Today the greatest wealth of Mali are the 700,000 manuscripts own by Malian families dating from the middle age.
quote:Im very proud the Malian Emperor Mansa Musa was the richest person ever with a fortune of $400 billion. Mansa Musa was a very generous person also he gave a lot of his money to poor people in Egypt and West Asia on his way to pilgrimage to Mecca.
Meena, we don't know if the claim about King Musa is true. Why do I say this? Because he would have built up Tombouctou like Memphis, Thebes, Luxor, Rome, Athens, Paris, Agra(with the Taj Mahal),etc. What is there to see in Tombouctou today?
Posts: 5492 | Registered: Nov 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by lamin: Meena, we don't know if the claim about King Musa is true. Why do I say this? Because he would have built up Tombouctou like Memphis, Thebes, Luxor, Rome, Athens, Paris, Agra(with the Taj Mahal),etc. What is there to see in Tombouctou today?
I wonder if my abuse for irrational thinking can be credited for this bit of common sense logic.
But of course it only goes so far, if Mansa did indeed give away that much money, then he was clearly unstable or stupid, making it impossible to predict what he would do.
Posts: 22721 | Registered: Oct 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote: Meena, we don't know if the claim about King Musa is true. Why do I say this? Because he would have built up Tombouctou like Memphis, Thebes, Luxor, Rome, Athens, Paris, Agra(with the Taj Mahal),etc. What is there to see in Tombouctou today?
Do we not need to take into considerations issues around building materials, and the logistics around transportation? Also, wasn't Timbuktu's golden era relatively short-lived compared to the others?
Posts: 838 | From: London | Registered: Oct 2011
| IP: Logged |
quote:Im very proud the Malian Emperor Mansa Musa was the richest person ever with a fortune of $400 billion. Mansa Musa was a very generous person also he gave a lot of his money to poor people in Egypt and West Asia on his way to pilgrimage to Mecca.
Meena, we don't know if the claim about King Musa is true. Why do I say this? Because he would have built up Tombouctou like Memphis, Thebes, Luxor, Rome, Athens, Paris, Agra(with the Taj Mahal),etc. What is there to see in Tombouctou today?
In addition to what Clause mentioned, why would you want to compare Timbuktu to other people's standards? Musa had his own vision. Besides, according to Mahmud Ka'ti:
quote:Among the kingdoms of the rulers of the world, only Syria is more beautiful.
Posts: 4021 | From: Bay Area, CA | Registered: Mar 2007
| IP: Logged |
posted
Tombouctou was large city and it was build.Keep in mind invasions etc..later on.
Modern Timbuktu look decent enough has well considering that mali tends to keep the old ways of building has much has possible.
It's called keeping the older ways alive has much has you can,and you have to admire them for that.
Early Timbuktu LOOKS NICE TO ME.
The cities of north africa and east africa do look better on average then cities of early mali and songhay,that's true and they were more developed and more elaborated and elaborated looking,anyone could see that, but i think the songhay and mali empires did enough of a good job considering were they are located at for that time period.
By the way we should not judge african cities and cultures/civilizations by western standards.
We have consider environment,climate,building materials near by etc...
posted
Construction in Mali Musa embarked on a large building program, raising mosques and madrasas in Timbuktu and Gao. Most famously the ancient center of learning Sankore Madrasah or University of Sankore was constructed during his reign. In Niani, he built the Hall of Audience, a building communicated by an interior door to the royal palace. It was "an admirable Monument" surmounted by a dome, adorned with arabesques of striking colours. The windows of an upper floor were plated with wood and framed in silver foil, those of a lower floor were plated with wood, framed in gold. Like the Great Mosque, a contemporaneous and grandiose structure in Timbuktu, the Hall was built of cut stone.
During this period, there was an advanced level of urban living in the major centers of the Mali. Sergio Domian, an Italian art and architecture scholar, wrote the following about this period: "Thus was laid the foundation of an urban civilization. At the height of its power, Mali had at least 400 cities, and the interior of the Niger Delta was very densely populated."
Influence in Timbuktu It is recorded that Mansa Musa traveled through the cities of Timbuktu and Gao on his way to Mecca, and made them a part of his empire when he returned around 1325. He brought architects from Andalusia, a region in Spain, and Cairo to build his grand palace in Timbuktu and the great Djinguereber Mosque that still stands today.
Timbuktu soon became a center of trade, culture, and Islam; markets brought in merchants from Hausaland, Egypt, and other African kingdoms, a university was founded in the city (as well as in the Malian cities of Djenné and Ségou), and Islam was spread through the markets and university, making Timbuktu a new area for Islamic scholarship. News of the Malian empire’s city of wealth even traveled across the Mediterranean to southern Europe, where traders from Venice, Granada, and Genoa soon added Timbuktu to their maps to trade manufactured goods for gold.
The University of Sankore in Timbuktu was restaffed under Musa's reign, with jurists, astronomers, and mathematicians. The university became a center of learning and culture, drawing Muslim scholars from around Africa and the Middle East to Timbuktu.
In 1330, the kingdom of Mossi invaded and conquered the city of Timbuktu. Gao had already been captured by Musa's general, and Musa quickly regained Timbuktu and built a rampart and stone fort, and placed a standing army, to protect the city from future invaders.
While Musa’s palace has since vanished, the university and mosque still stand in Timbuktu today.
Legacy His building program caused an intellectual and economic expansion that would continue into the later Middle Ages. It also established Mali as an economic "global power" and one of the intellectual capitals of the world. Mali became well known attracting students as far as Europe and Asia. Mansa Musa is also credited with assisting the birth of Sudano-Sahelian architecture and the spread of Islamic religion in western Africa. His military campaigns allowed Mali to become the most powerful military on the continent rivaled only by Morocco and Egypt. His greatest legacy, however, was the hajj which not only caused an economic inflation in Mediterranean but indirectly supplied financial support for the Italian renaissance.
Posts: 2560 | From: Somewhere | Registered: May 2012
| IP: Logged |
posted
Musa I While on the hajj, he met the Andalusian poet and architect Es-Saheli. Mansa Musa brought the architect back to Mali to beautify some of the cities. Mosques were built in Gao and Timbuktu along with impressive palaces also built in Timbuktu. By the time of his death in 1337, Mali had control over Taghazza, a salt producing area in the north, which further strengthened its treasury.
Posts: 2560 | From: Somewhere | Registered: May 2012
| IP: Logged |
posted
The claim is that Musa was the world's wealthiest man ever--in relative terms. So what did he do for Tombouctou given all that money?
The AEs were the first people in the world to build in stone. So they bequeathed to Africa the pyramids, the Sphinx, and the immovable monuments of Thebes, Memphis, Luxor, Abu Simbel, etc. With all that money he could have built up Tombouctou to give us something more lasting like in Zimbabwe and Ethiopia.
Posts: 5492 | Registered: Nov 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
^What ancient Egyptians and Ethiopians built with is irrelevant to the question of Musa's wealth, first of all. Secondly, what does stone have to do with anything, especially given the fact that no such building material existed in the region? This was already brought to your attention yet in rebuttal I've already given a contemporaneous quote attesting to Mali's beauty despite it. That it didn't stand the test of time in a hyper-arid environment at the crossroads of a desert that expands with every passing year isn't surprising.
Third, Zimbabwe was an illiterate culture that left nothing but ruins. Also, you'd be hard pressed to name one library or university in ancient Egypt or Ethiopia, besides of course Alexandria that was installed by foreigners and that was still relatively short-lived. Musa established a safe-haven for scholarship and left a legacy and tradition of learning that debunks one of the most enduring African stereotypes and instills pride in any student who studies the history with any depth. What Musa left was way more valuable. You romanticize monumental architecture simply because you're influenced by western idealism but at the root your objections make absolutely no sense. You should be more inclined to be skeptical about their methodology (namely data collection).
Posts: 4021 | From: Bay Area, CA | Registered: Mar 2007
| IP: Logged |
quote: The claim is that Musa was the world's wealthiest man ever--in relative terms. So what did he do for Tombouctou given all that money?
The AEs were the first people in the world to build in stone. So they bequeathed to Africa the pyramids, the Sphinx, and the immovable monuments of Thebes, Memphis, Luxor, Abu Simbel, etc. With all that money he could have built up Tombouctou to give us something more lasting like in Zimbabwe and Ethiopia.
Yes, as Sundjata has mentioned, you seem to have ignored what was pointed out regarding the environmental context/ available building materials.
Can I ask why?
Posts: 838 | From: London | Registered: Oct 2011
| IP: Logged |
posted
Musa use stone too but depending on the buildings,and some other buildings were mixed with stone. This mention in the post above,and other threads.
There are a few threads and pictures posted of some building that still stand,but alot were destroyed later because of invasions wars etc....
Even if he build using no stones,that should not really matter,because advancing education and building up the standing of living,creating new forms of architecture and having a strong military to protect his people was his main focus,but he build buildings of stone and buildings mixed with stone when he had too.
You could see stone buildings in the pictures above.
Posts: 2560 | From: Somewhere | Registered: May 2012
| IP: Logged |
posted
As passionate as I am about emphasizing and defending the ancient Egyptians' African heritage, I do think other civilizations on the continent could use more exposure. Egypt should be recognized as only one of many African kingdoms rather than the defining pinnacle as lamin apparently would have it.
If I recall correctly, the ramparts of Eredo in Nigeria have significantly more mass of earth in them than even the Great Pyramid of Giza anyway.
posted
Yeah I already heard of this. I like this because it debunks the stereotype of Africans always being poor and being dependent on foreigners when that wasn't even the case. Mali was one of the richest civilizations. Mali is interesting because it wasn't advanced due to conquering lots of land or focusing on warfare. But it was advanced through education, learning, trading,etc...
@Truthcentric
Agreed! I am actually more interested in other African civilizations besides the Nile Valley ones. We already know so much about them that they are no longer a 'mystery'.
I still don't know much about the Kanem empire, I can't find much about it. My favorite African civilizations are the Islamic ones. I don't know its something about them that I like.
Anyways does anyone got any interesting in depth on the Kanem empire? I would appreciate it.
quote:Originally posted by Son of Ra: @Truthcentric
Agreed! I am actually more interested in other African civilizations besides the Nile Valley ones. We already know so much about them that they are no longer a 'mystery'.
I agree that the enigmatic quality ancient Egypt once enjoyed in the public eye has mostly evaporated due to all the data we have collected on it. I still think early Nubia and the southern Nile region in general could use more study though.
Posts: 7069 | From: Fallbrook, CA | Registered: Mar 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
Malian Emperor Mansa Musa was the richest person that ever live. After Mansa Musa the richest person that ever live may not have been the Rothschild or Rockefeller families but the Old Kingdom family of Khufu, Khafre and Menkaura that builded the great Pyramids of Giza.
Pharaoh Ramses II and his families may have been the richest person ever after Malian Emperor Mansa Musa and Pharaoh Khufu family. Ramses owned the Nubian bishari gold mines. The largest gold mines in the ancient world.
posted
How specifically was Mansa Musa's wealth estimated; material possessions, ancient Malian publicized book-keeping, ancient texts authored by travelers from contemporary countries, etc; what?
quote:Originally posted by lamin:
The claim is that Musa was the world's wealthiest man ever--in relative terms. So what did he do for Tombouctou given all that money?
Spending money on infrastructure or the common people is usually not a good measure of how rich a public figure can be. This can be seen from contemporary cases: A number of some of the wealthiest personalities in the world, in terms of monetary possession, come from the U.S. Yet, there is no shortage of crumbling infrastructure in the country. Look at the wealth of the Saudi royalty, and then look at the state of much of the ordinary Saudis. Consider how wealthy Mobutu was, before his death, and contrast that to the state of his country. You cannot always assume that the state of a country is a good measure of just how wealthy their wealthy elite are.
Posts: 7516 | From: Somewhere on Earth | Registered: Jan 2008
| IP: Logged |
posted
And that's the the point. What's the point of saying that "so-and-so monarch was the wealthiest person in history" when there is nothing to show for it? Is this some kind of sly perverted propaganda so that the present-day looting of Africa can continue unchallenged?
Mobutu, Abacha, and other assorted African President thieves amassed great amounts of stolen wealth but who respects them for that?
Posts: 5492 | Registered: Nov 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Son of Ra: @Truthcentric
Agreed! I am actually more interested in other African civilizations besides the Nile Valley ones. We already know so much about them that they are no longer a 'mystery'.
I agree that the enigmatic quality ancient Egypt once enjoyed in the public eye has mostly evaporated due to all the data we have collected on it. I still think early Nubia and the southern Nile region in general could use more study though.
Yeah you're right about Nubia, but I'm mostly interested in Islamic African empires or those of the Sahel/West Africa.
@Everyone
Does anyone have good information on the Kanem empire?
The empire was actually quite large.
Posts: 1135 | From: Top secret | Registered: Jun 2012
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by lamin: And that's the the point. What's the point of saying that "so-and-so monarch was the wealthiest person in history" when there is nothing to show for it? Is this some kind of sly perverted propaganda so that the present-day looting of Africa can continue unchallenged?
Mobutu, Abacha, and other assorted African President thieves amassed great amounts of stolen wealth but who respects them for that?
Ok, so first you were basing your skepticism on the assumption that little money went towards infrastructure and now you're claiming that's there's no point to addressing the claim of Musa's wealth because of this assumption? Your logic is twisted and you're all over the place. Besides, the empire of Mali was in no way comparable to a modern African dictatorship under the auspices of a modern nation-state (a European creation). By all accounts the average citizen in Mali lived comfortably and much of his money went towards promoting Islam, so your point is once again totally bunk.
Anyways, challenging you on this I see is senseless since you clearly know very little about the history of the Sahel and its governance with regards to its economic prosperity. In addition, the standards that you use to assess it are Eurocentric and fallacious (which is why you've failed to respond to any of the valid points made above). You reek of ignorance and that's all that I have left for you. Please stop contaminating this thread with your politically-charged negativity.
Posts: 4021 | From: Bay Area, CA | Registered: Mar 2007
| IP: Logged |
posted
Pharaoh Tutankhamun is among the top richest 40 people that ever live. The artifacts of King Tut tomb is worth at least $ 10 to $20 billion. King Tut gold dead African funerary mask according to me is worth at least $ 1 billion. His solid gold sarcophagus is worth at least $ 4 billion. Those artifacts are so expensive because they are 3000 years old and belong to an Egyptian Pharaoh.
19 cent French impressionist paintings are selling for $150 million. Egyptian timeless gold artifact of great antiquity belonging to ancient Pharaoh are worth more. Egyptian artifacts are not for sale they are the property of the Egyptian people and African people control by the Egyptian museum.
Posts: 5374 | From: sepedat/sirius | Registered: Jul 2012
| IP: Logged |
quote: You reek of ignorance and that's all that I have left for you. Please stop contaminating this thread with your politically-charged negativity.
Now who are you to start stupid flame wars over a silly white-origined point about Musa's wealth. You are not a moderator to decide who should comment when and where.
That's it you get your dumb kicks out of some medieval monarch running off to Arabia weighted down with gold. As if that is of any significance.
I made a sceptical point about Musa's supposed wealth and that's it. Then you fly off the handle as if someone insulted you. Just get a life.
Posts: 5492 | Registered: Nov 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
"you get your dumb kicks out of some medieval monarch running off to Arabia weighted down with gold
Point and case on why all of your points are appallingly ignorant and unworthy also evident by you ignoring everyone else' counter points, which is just plain rude. You only respond directly to the above due to what appears to be female tendencies and estrogen-induced sensitivity. It all points to the fact that you simply have a political agenda based on your animosity and suspicion of white folks. I don't need to be moderator to ASK you to take your nonsense elsewhere, and trust me, I have a GREAT life that isn't filled with misery and afrocentric paranoia.
Anyways... moving on. Posts: 4021 | From: Bay Area, CA | Registered: Mar 2007
| IP: Logged |
posted
I take it that no one here is informed enough to account for this:
How specifically was Mansa Musa's wealth estimated; material possessions, ancient Malian publicized book-keeping, ancient texts authored by travelers from contemporary countries, etc; what?
quote:Originally posted by Sundjata:
Ok, so first you were basing your skepticism on the assumption that little money went towards infrastructure and now you're claiming that's there's no point to addressing the claim of Musa's wealth because of this assumption?
It does appear Lamin was initially channeling his skepticism around what Mansa Musa would have supposedly spent on building Timbuktu. Fact is, not all wealthy people are extravagant spenders on what does not directly tie in with their own self-interests.
quote:Besides, the empire of Mali was in no way comparable to a modern African dictatorship under the auspices of a modern nation-state (a European creation).
What makes a nation-state "modern" in contrast to an ancient nation-state?
Also: If say, Mali had a monarchy with absolute power, then how is that different from a dictator claiming absolute power in a contemporary nation state?
quote:By all accounts the average citizen in Mali lived comfortably and much of his money went towards promoting Islam, so your point is once again totally bunk.
What do these accounts specifically say? Hopefully these are not accounts communicated in tributary commemorations made to the ruler of the land. Rulers generally seek to set up a history-recording apparatus that will speak highly of said rulers once they are gone, so that history can judge them pleasantly.
Posts: 7516 | From: Somewhere on Earth | Registered: Jan 2008
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by lamin: The claim is that Musa was the world's wealthiest man ever--in relative terms. So what did he do for Tombouctou given all that money?
The AEs were the first people in the world to build in stone. So they bequeathed to Africa the pyramids, the Sphinx, and the immovable monuments of Thebes, Memphis, Luxor, Abu Simbel, etc. With all that money he could have built up Tombouctou to give us something more lasting like in Zimbabwe and Ethiopia.
What do you mean ''give us''? Since when are (African) rulers concerned with building extensively just for foreign Africans' future bragging rights? You're unrealistically holding Mansa Musa accountable with your distorted perceptions of what complex culture really is, and you're anachronistically working pan africanist sentiments into medieval Mali.
Posts: 8785 | From: Discovery Channel's Mythbusters | Registered: Dec 2009
| IP: Logged |
^What ancient Egyptians and Ethiopians built with is irrelevant to the question of Musa's wealth, first of all. Secondly, what does stone have to do with anything, especially given the fact that no such building material existed in the region?
Agreed, western African complexes like Mali essentially worked with what was readily available. I've written on this myself. What's interesting, is that Mansa Musa was alleged to have made use of foreign architects from coastal north Africa, like Egypt, to aid in construction projects in ancient Mali. Clearly, Mansa Musa was seeking to bring to Mali the best the international community had to offer at the time, even if the projects ultimately had to be designed to be unique to Mali.
quote:Also, you'd be hard pressed to name one library or university in ancient Egypt or Ethiopia, besides of course Alexandria that was installed by foreigners and that was still relatively short-lived.
In ancient Egypt, temples served as schools outside of the home environment. I wouldn't downplay the building of the Alexandrian Library in Egypt, given that the Egyptian city became a center of learning in its own right. The city became a center of learning, because both local and international scholars drew upon on preexisting knowledge that was already acquired in the Nile Valley. Otherwise that center of learning would have been in Greece instead of the Nile Valley.
quote:Musa established a safe-haven for scholarship and left a legacy and tradition of learning that debunks one of the most enduring African stereotypes and instills pride in any student who studies the history with any depth.
Indeed, ancient Mali served as learning center in the region. Mansa Musa deserves credit for making that happen. The other credit goes to local scholars.
Posts: 7516 | From: Somewhere on Earth | Registered: Jan 2008
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by The Explorer: I take it that no one here is informed enough to account for this:
How specifically was Mansa Musa's wealth estimated; material possessions, ancient Malian publicized book-keeping, ancient texts authored by travelers from contemporary countries, etc; what?
Needless to say the article isn't very scientific, but as they are adjusting for inflation and the value of currency at different points in history, in this case I'd assume they heavily took gold into account and Musa's control over what's estimated to have been around half the world's source in it at the time.
"We started off with roughly 50 people then finalized the top 25 after adjusting for inflation to convert the fortunes into 2012 dollars. For example, the annual rate of inflation change between 1913 and 2012 is 2199.6% so $100 million in 1913 would be equal to $2.299.63 billion in 2012 dollars. We also used the most recent price for an once of gold which is roughly $1750 as of October 17, 2012."
quote:What makes a nation-state "modern" in contrast to an ancient nation-state?
Also: If say, Mali had a monarchy with absolute power, then how is that different from a dictator claiming absolute power in a contemporary nation state?
A "nation-state" in and of itself has very modern definitions surrounding it. I'd argue that Songhay was closer to that approximation than Mali, though it still didn't fully fit the criteria. Mali was more like a confederation of kingdoms; a true imperial structure with a nation at its head, but comprising a series of states that were politically unified, hence the structure was more loose. Musa therefore likely had a strong degree of influence over his fellow Mandinka, but not over all of his citizens, namely the vassal states on the periphery and many of the Berber-speaking Muslim occupants with whom it was necessary to appease in some sense (he did so under his own volition of course without compromising his cultural roots in Mande). Moreover, there wasn't a legal code or constitution that all citizens were required to follow. The Kurukan Fuga, established by Sundiata some generations prior only applied to the Mandinka inhabitants.
quote:What do these accounts specifically say? Hopefully these are not accounts communicated in tributary commemorations made to the ruler of the land. Rulers generally seek to set up a history-recording apparatus that will speak highly of said rulers once they are gone, so that history can judge them pleasantly.
Well the specific quote I recalled continued from the Tarikh al-fettash quotation I posted above, I believe the part written by Mahmud Ka'ti (he says the inhabitants are "rich and live comfortably"). Good point though as at that time Timbuktu was ruled under an Islamic aristocracy, and most of his writings seemed to favor Muslims (he saw Mali as an exemplar of Muslim governance and likely wanted to promote that). However, his writings were rooted in earlier descriptions and some of what he said was echoed by unbiased first-hand accounts, such as those of Ibn Battuta who was impressed by the dress, hospitality, and generosity of the inhabitants. In addition he emphasized Mali's security and the population's abhorrence to thievery, even when considerable wealth was involved, which shows the typical Malian wasn't wanting for much.
Posts: 4021 | From: Bay Area, CA | Registered: Mar 2007
| IP: Logged |
posted
lamin And that's the the point. What's the point of saying that "so-and-so monarch was the wealthiest person in history" when there is nothing to show for it? Is this some kind of sly perverted propaganda so that the present-day looting of Africa can continue unchallenged?
Mobutu, Abacha, and other assorted African President thieves amassed great amounts of stolen wealth but who respects them for that?
^^You are way off on any credible analysis of Mansa Musa. WHo says there was nothing to show for it? To the contrary, we know about Mansa Musa and the wealth of Mali by the records he left behind, and what contemporaries say. The documentation available shows that Mansa's kingdom was more prosperous than numerous contemporary European kingdoms. The record left behind by Mansa in fact debunks numerous bogus "biodiversity" claims about so-called "perpetual" poverty in Africa compared to Europe. Let's look at Britain of the same era as medieval Mali for example:
".. there was no English commercial revolution, no development of banks and credit facilities that can be claimed for thirteenth-century Italy. One consequence of this relative backwardness was that in the thirteenth century, an increasing proportion of England's foreign trade came to be in Italian hands.. In a very real sense late thirteenth-century England was being treated as a partially developed economy. Much of its import-export business was handled by foreigners (Gascons and Flemings as well as Italians. Its main exports were aw materials - wool and grain- rather than manufactured goods, There had been, in other words, no industrial revolution."
.. Moreover, despite the claims sometimes made for the cloth-fulling mill, there were no significant advances in industrial technology. Nor was there anything to compare with the highly capitalized development of the Flemish cloth industry in the twelfth and thirteenth centuries."
"..Above all, there was no agricultural revolution.. the technical limitations under which they worked meant no significant increase in yields was possible, neither from sheep in terms of weight of fleece, nor from seed in terms of yield of grain. Though the use of the horse as a draught animal was spreading, this was of marginal importance. ."
".. Thus in many respect England remained a stagnant economy. It can indeed be argued that by comparison with some of its neighbors, especially Flanders and Italy, England was less advanced in the thirteenth century than it had been in the eleventh.. In twelfth and thirteenth-century England, people felt they lived in a country which was economically advanced by comparison with the lands of their Celtic neighbours."
--John Gillingham, Ralph Alan Griffiths. 2002. Medieval Britain: a very short introduction.
In short, Mansa left plenty behind to show. Indeed, Malian gold was important to the era's world economy.
RECAP:
Mali in the same 1200-1300 time period most likely exceed numerous kingdoms in contemporary Europe in terms of wealth, extent of territorial dominion, and size of its armed forces. And this is before the Black Death was to begin to ravage Europe. For example..
"Mali was the source of almost half the Old World's gold exported from mines in Bambuk, Boure and Galam." (--Stride, G.T & C. Ifeka. Peoples and Empires of West Africa: West Africa in History 1000-1800". Nelson, 1971)
Other historians point to the impact of Malian gold in economic development of the Mediterranean:
"The most important foundation of Malian power, however, was control of gold, and it is as a man of gold that Mansa Musa is still remembered. His story is quite important to world economic history, since the supply of gold he commanded played a crucial role in the economic growth of the Mediterranean." --Merry E. Wiesner 2002. Discovering the Global Past
and
"It should be remembered here that during the fourteenth and fifteenth centuries there was an acute shortage of precious metals in Europe and in the Muslim lands and that the only really important source of gold was in the western Sudan and its hinterland." --M. Małowist (1966). The Social and Economic Stability of the Western Sudan in the Middle Ages. Source: Past and Present, No. 33, (Apr., 1966), pp. 3-15. Published by: Oxford University Press
Prosperity of Mali in NON gold areas like agriculture "From an examination of Omari's writings, which come from the same period and are based on Sudanese accounts, it may be concluded that particularly agriculture and fruit-gathering, and also, in certain parts of the country, hunting and the rearing of livestock, assured the Mali peasants of a relatively prosperous and independent life, satisfying their needs without much contact with the outside world."
Arab travellers from the fourteenth to the sixteenth centuries all tell us that Mali towns Timbuktu, Gao and lesser places - were in general well supplied with victuals, and there is no doubt that the towns obtained some of their provisions by trade with the peasantry. The rural areas had a surplus of agricultural and animal products which was dispatched for sale in the towns. Ibn Batoutah and other sources indicate that the western Sudan even exported a certain amount of millet and rice to the Sahel regions, not only to Walata but also farther towards the districts where rock-salt and copper were exploited for import into the Sudan.
“Jaime Cortesao has drawn historians' attention to Portuguese sources of the early fifteenth century, according to which Portuguese gold currency was at that time based on importing from Morocco gold which must have come from the Sudan. The same author is of the opinion that it was above all in Sudanese gold that Morocco paid the import costs for European and Levantine goods brought by the Genoese and the Venetiansl2 a suggestion confirmed by several Italian documents. It should be added that Sudanese trade was not the only way in which Sudanese gold in large quantities reached Egypt and the Near East. Sudanese pilgrims, who each year visited Egypt and the holy places of Islam in Arabia, brought with them very considerable quantities of gold to spend on the journey and on arrival in Cairo, Mecca and Medina.”
----M. Małowist (1966). The Social and Economic Stability of the Western Sudan in the Middle Ages. Source: Past and Present, No. 33, (Apr., 1966), pp. 3-15. Published by: Oxford University Press.
More on Malian gold and world economy "The rising European demand for gold, added to the perennial market in the Islamic states, stimulated more gold production in the Sudan, to the enormous fiscal advantage of Mali. In the latest medieval period overall, West Africa may have been producing almost two-thirds of the world's gold supply." -- Ross E. Dunn. 1987. The adventures of Ibn Battuta, a Muslim traveler of the fourteenth century
Posts: 5905 | From: The Hammer | Registered: Aug 2008
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by zarahan- aka Enrique Cardova:
Prosperity of Mali in NON gold areas like agriculture "From an examination of Omari's writings, which come from the same period and are based on Sudanese accounts, it may be concluded that particularly agriculture and fruit-gathering, and also, in certain parts of the country, hunting and the rearing of livestock, assured the Mali peasants of a relatively prosperous and independent life, satisfying their needs without much contact with the outside world."
Arab travellers from the fourteenth to the sixteenth centuries all tell us that Mali towns Timbuktu, Gao and lesser places - were in general well supplied with victuals, and there is no doubt that the towns obtained some of their provisions by trade with the peasantry. The rural areas had a surplus of agricultural and animal products which was dispatched for sale in the towns. Ibn Batoutah and other sources indicate that the western Sudan even exported a certain amount of millet and rice to the Sahel regions, not only to Walata but also farther towards the districts where rock-salt and copper were exploited for import into the Sudan.
Good source. This is particularly instructive with respect to the last question that I addressed posed by The Explorer. Couldn't find a source quick enough that addressed it. I know there are primary accounts that I had on hand that spoke to this but they're buried away and I honestly need to re-aquatint myself with them.
Posts: 4021 | From: Bay Area, CA | Registered: Mar 2007
| IP: Logged |
Needless to say the article isn't very scientific, but as they are adjusting for inflation and the value of currency at different points in history, in this case I'd assume they heavily took gold into account and Musa's control over what's estimated to have been around half the world's source in it at the time.
A fair answer, considering that paucity of more tangible specifics talked about.
quote:A "nation-state" in and of itself has very modern definitions surrounding it. I'd argue that Songhay was closer to that approximation than Mali, though it still didn't fully fit the criteria. Mali was more like a confederation of kingdoms; a true imperial structure with a nation at its head, but comprising a series of states that were politically unified, hence the structure was more loose. Musa therefore likely had a strong degree of influence over his fellow Mandinka, but not over all of his citizens, namely the vassal states on the periphery and many of the Berber-speaking Muslim occupants with whom it was necessary to appease in some sense (he did so under his own volition of course without compromising his cultural roots in Mande). Moreover, there wasn't a legal code or constitution that all citizens were required to follow. The Kurukan Fuga, established by Sundiata some generations prior only applied to the Mandinka inhabitants.
AFAIK, a nation-state is any territorial entity whose community has a sense of unified nationality, and whose boundaries are usually marked and protected, under the auspices of some controlling concern or another (ruling apparatus). Most nation-states tend to be governed centrally, be it a monarchy, non-monarchy dictatorship or plutocratic.
A nation-state can have city-states, or be a confederation of smaller polities, and still be just that, a nation-state. With the above in mind, the nation-state goes as far into antiquity as the likes of ancient Egypt. In this respect, I would not consider the nation-state a European created concept.
In that Mali was largely Islamic, it appears that its ruling class essentially sanctioned it as an official religion of the state, for good or bad, and that this tacitly served as a legal code for the citizenry to live by. Also, all political entities brought under the centralized authority had to pay tribute at the center; this too would have essentially amounted to a legal code.
Hence, it boils down to the question of where then does one draw a line that renders a nation-state "modern" vs "not modern"?
I am not convinced by the idea that a nation-state is either a modern concept or a European creation. I will however say, that the contemporary states of Africa are mainly, with some exceptions, European creations, as they drew the national boundaries and altered the preexisting forms of centralized authority.
quote:Well the specific quote I recalled continued from the Tarikh al-fettash quotation I posted above, I believe the part written by Mahmud Ka'ti (he says the inhabitants are "rich and live comfortably"). Good point though as at that time Timbuktu was ruled under an Islamic aristocracy, and most of his writings seemed to favor Muslims (he saw Mali as an exemplar of Muslim governance and likely wanted to promote that). However, his writings were rooted in earlier descriptions and some of what he said was echoed by unbiased first-hand accounts, such as those of Ibn Battuta who was impressed by the dress, hospitality, and generosity of the inhabitants. In addition he emphasized Mali's security and the population's abhorrence to thievery, even when considerable wealth was involved, which shows the typical Malian wasn't wanting for much.
What makes you think Ibn Battuta could not have been a biased observer?
Posts: 7516 | From: Somewhere on Earth | Registered: Jan 2008
| IP: Logged |
Timbuktu was ruled under an Islamic aristocracy, and most of his writings seemed to favor Muslims (he saw Mali as an exemplar of Muslim governance and likely wanted to promote that). However, his writings were rooted in earlier descriptions and some of what he said was echoed by unbiased first-hand accounts, such as those of Ibn Battuta who was impressed by the dress, hospitality, and generosity of the inhabitants. In addition he emphasized Mali's security and the population's abhorrence to thievery, even when considerable wealth was involved, which shows the typical Malian wasn't wanting for much.
^A good point. No doubt Battuta as a Muslim would have certain religious sensibilities or biases, but his account as Maowist 66 above mentions is echoed by other travelers to Mali as to the general productivity of the region- an important point- it was not merely gold that made the kingdom prosperous, but thriving agriculture, trade and governance. This contradicts those who like to claim such cannot or did not exist in Africa in a major way until the coming of European "civilization." And Europe itself is a heavy borrower and copier- from alphabets to key technologies and advances derived from elsewhere.
Do you have anything on Mali's influence further south, down to the Atlantic Coast?
Explorer sez: Agreed, western African complexes like Mali essentially worked with what was readily available. I've written on this myself.
^^I am looking for more analysis on internal developments prior to the European interlude. Where on you blog do you have the write-up?
Posts: 5905 | From: The Hammer | Registered: Aug 2008
| IP: Logged |
AFAIK, a nation-state is any territorial entity whose community has a sense of unified nationality, and whose boundaries are usually marked and protected, under the auspices of some controlling concern or another (ruling apparatus). Most nation-states tend to be governed centrally, be it a monarchy, non-monarchy dictatorship or plutocratic.
A nation-state can have city-states, or be a confederation of smaller polities, and still be just that, a nation-state. With the above in mind, the nation-state goes as far into antiquity as the likes of ancient Egypt. In this respect, I would not consider the nation-state a European created concept.
In that Mali was largely Islamic, it appears that its ruling class essentially sanctioned it as an official religion of the state, for good or bad, and that this tacitly served as a legal code for the citizenry to live by. Also, all political entities brought under the centralized authority had to pay tribute at the center; this too would have essentially amounted to a legal code.
Hence, it boils down to the question of where then does one draw a line that renders a nation-state "modern" vs "not modern"?
I am not convinced by the idea that a nation-state is either a modern concept or a European creation. I will however say, that the contemporary states of Africa are mainly, with some exceptions, European creations, as they drew the national boundaries and altered the preexisting forms of centralized authority.
This is debatable because as noted, the definition itself is a modern one associated more precisely with the emergence of France. So what I mean by this is that the term used in its compounded form is usually associated with the birth of nationalism in Europe, ultimately tied to a majority ethnic group or nation solidifying its geopolitical and legal hegemony over a centralized state. All within the territorial borders are citizens of that state who hold no other allegiances in precedence (e.g., I'm American first and foremost). This is why I'm careful with how I approach these terms. Even when I argued for a nationalism in Songhay for my undergrad thesis it was under the guise of "nationalist sentiment" restricted to the Western half of the empire because there are too many issues with how westerners approach this term. I could not properly defend the idea, in thesis form, that AE or Mali were nation-states because every criteria needed to match the definition doesn't fit the situation. Mali for instance relied on strategic alliances and was more decentralized the further one moved from the capital. Islam was not a legal code as its laws were not enforced outside of the control of the qadi in towns like Timbuktu and Djenne. The namesakes of the empire even, the Malinke were predominantly pagan and didn't share a national identity with say, the Kel.
As for ancient Egypt, it was certainly a state but seemingly one dictated by a monarch's imposition on his subjects. That Egypt was considered through history an alliance between "Two Lands" seems to contradict the idea, plus records are too scant to identify any nationalist sentiment between the two.
quote:What makes you think Ibn Battuta could not have been a biased observer?
More appropriately I'd say seemingly unbiased towards, as no evidence exists that he WAS, in the affirmative. His many criticisms of Mali as well as Mansa Suleyman would seem to attest to this and no one was checking his travel log against any political or religious agenda.
Posts: 4021 | From: Bay Area, CA | Registered: Mar 2007
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Sundjata: You only respond directly to the above due to what appears to be female tendencies and estrogen-induced sensitivity.
I agree with your position on Mali, but sorry, misogynistic insults like these are uncalled for. There's no need to resort to gendered insults in a debate over history.
Posts: 7069 | From: Fallbrook, CA | Registered: Mar 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
^With all due respect it is my perogative to respond in kind if my intention was not to offend specified parties (women). One thing about me is that being grown, I phrase things the way I choose and political correctness is usually the last concern of mine. That said, it was clearly never a "debate" and we both chose to let it go until you reintroduced another side issue into this thread. However, you are entitled to your opinion.
-------------------- mr.writer.asa@gmail.com Posts: 4021 | From: Bay Area, CA | Registered: Mar 2007
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by zarahan- aka Enrique Cardova:
Explorer sez: Agreed, western African complexes like Mali essentially worked with what was readily available. I've written on this myself.
^^I am looking for more analysis on internal developments prior to the European interlude. Where on you blog do you have the write-up?
If by "internal developments" you are referring to architecture, then I had written on it under "Before the Ruins", a namesake which is similar to that of a discussion I had broached on ES several years ago. To supplement this, I also sought to bring attention to the prospect of Sahelian architectural traditions not having totally disappeared into oblivion since the demise of pre-colonial west African complexes, under the blog entry titled "Modernization of Sahelian/Sudanic Archtectural Traditions", as they are reincarnated in the "modern" renditions now found in parts of western Africa.
Posts: 7516 | From: Somewhere on Earth | Registered: Jan 2008
| IP: Logged |
This is debatable because as noted, the definition itself is a modern one associated more precisely with the emergence of France.
Whether the term "nation-state" is something of a relatively recent usage should not matter in so much as whether the definition of the term applies to a given situation under discussion or analysis.
As I observe it, the implicit idea in the definition of a "nation-state" takes one back to antiquity.
quote: So what I mean by this is that the term used in its compounded form is usually associated with the birth of nationalism in Europe, ultimately tied to a majority ethnic group or nation solidifying its geopolitical and legal hegemony over a centralized state.
Centralized polities of antiquity too featured citizenry who were apparently unified due to "nationalism", and that such polities sought to protect their existence through maintaining order internally through "legal" channels, which in turn would facilitate the pursuit of geopolitical interests. I don't see the inconsistency here, as it relates to the definition of a nation-state.
quote: All within the territorial borders are citizens of that state who hold no other allegiances in precedence (e.g., I'm American first and foremost). This is why I'm careful with how I approach these terms.
I can see this idea having taking hold well into antiquity, and not just a "contemporary" state of mind.
quote: Even when I argued for a nationalism in Songhay for my undergrad thesis it was under the guise of "nationalist sentiment" restricted to the Western half of the empire because there are too many issues with how westerners approach this term. I could not properly defend the idea, in thesis form, that AE or Mali were nation-states because every criteria needed to match the definition doesn't fit the situation. Mali for instance relied on strategic alliances and was more decentralized the further one moved from the capital.
I cannot conceive of the Malian complex being a decentralized polity, given that Mansa Musa would have been the embodiment of absolute authority at the center. All social units under the Malian socio-political system would have shown allegiance ultimately to Mansa Musa or whomever else was in the seat of the monarchy. This qualifies for a nation-state, just as it does to this day. There are states today within nations that feature their own respective governments, but ultimately, said states have to answer to authority at the center, where decisions of international trade and paying "taxes" are concerned, and in some cases, the appropriation at the center, of material that is needed to build infrastructure in a state. Mansa Musa's expenditures in Timbuktu is itself a famous example of such appropriation of funds.
quote:Islam was not a legal code as its laws were not enforced outside of the control of the qadi in towns like Timbuktu and Djenne.
Islam formed the basis of the schools (Madrasas) and mosques funded or subsidized by Mansa Musa. These are not meant to "enforce" the religion in the entire complex, but the effect is to channel the religion into the population through these mediums. The communities which followed that religion, which happened to be the religion sanctioned at the seat of power, would essentially be living by the codes of that religion. As for other localities, which allegedly did not pursue an "Islamic" way of life, they would have nevertheless been legally-bound to pay allegiance to the center, the Malian monarchy, in ways outlined in the examples noted in the reply just above.
There very well could have been other "legal codes" that the social unites of the Malian polity were administered by, but given the paucity of written documentation, it would be hard to judge the extent of "legal codes" applied across the Malian polity. Paucity of such material does not speak to absence of legal codes. Without legal codes, no centralized polity can exist.
quote:The namesakes of the empire even, the Malinke were predominantly pagan and didn't share a national identity with say, the Kel.
Even today nation-states have multiple social elements that do not necessarily share the same identity politics, whether in religion or ethnicity. As for the Kel Tamasheq, I am not sure the extent they were integrated into the Malian complex, if at all.
quote: As for ancient Egypt, it was certainly a state but seemingly one dictated by a monarch's imposition on his subjects.
That doesn't make it any different from centralized rule in nation-states today, where corresponding authority "imposes" on their citizenry.
quote: That Egypt was considered through history an alliance between "Two Lands" seems to contradict the idea, plus records are too scant to identify any nationalist sentiment between the two.
If the Pharoah was the absolute power of the land, I don't see how any idea of "Two Lands" contradicts the idea of statehood here. There are certainly periods wherein there is indication of relative schism between authority in the north and control in the south. In many of those scenarios though, it appear that at least one center of power thought of other localities as semi autonomous, not absolutely.
quote:More appropriately I'd say seemingly unbiased towards, as no evidence exists that he WAS, in the affirmative. His many criticisms of Mali as well as Mansa Suleyman would seem to attest to this and no one was checking his travel log against any political or religious agenda.
In what contexts was Mali "criticized"? Could Ibn Battuta attitude towards Mali be at some level be colored by the seemingly passionate allegiance of the Malian ruling class to Islam? It's possible, but that is no proof.
Could his observations be hindered by his focus on building projects, landmarks and the wealth (e.g. possession of gold) handled from the seat of power, as oppose to actual living standards of ordinary citizenry? Again, certainly possible. If one takes today's example, the mass media tend to focus on the GDPs of countries, economic infrastructure and landmarks, which usually obscure the actual living standards of the populace.
Take say, the U.S. By the economic indicators of its income, it is a fairly wealthy nation, and by most appearances, as portrayed in the media, most people are living "comfortably". In reality however, infrastructure are being compromised, while a good section of the population is actually living in poverty. The lowering of the bar of what is "officially" considered "poverty", also identified in terms of income, has had the effect of artificially placing a sizable portion of the population into "a decent living standard" bloc, when in reality they are facing poverty. Meanwhile, basic wages have been stagnant.
If Ibn Battuta was part of a relatively well-off intelligentsia, then how does one know that there is not a certain level of "bourgeoisie" sympathy in his commentary?
Again, taking example of the press in the "west". Big "news" names tend to highlight the "positive" qualities of the ruling class elsewhere who are considered "allies" of the ruling class in the "west", while being mute on the less "desirable" qualities, that happen to give a broader insight into how the greater part of the populace is handled. Only in scenarios, whereupon the relationship between the ruling class of a particular territory and those in the "west" fall apart, does one start to get a more vociferous emphasis on the "undesirable" qualities of the former, and how they supposedly handled the ordinary segments of their populace.
I suppose cultural anthropologists have to do with whatever recorded information is at their disposal, and in that sense, historians like Battuta have to be taken at their word, but that doesn't necessarily speak to the big picture of actual situations.
Posts: 7516 | From: Somewhere on Earth | Registered: Jan 2008
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by The Explorer: Whether the term "nation-state" is something of a relatively recent usage should not matter in so much as whether the definition of the term applies to a given situation under discussion or analysis.
As I observe it, the implicit idea in the definition of a "nation-state" takes one back to antiquity.
Centralized polities of antiquity too featured citizenry who were apparently unified due to "nationalism", and that such polities sought to protect their existence through maintaining order internally through "legal" channels, which in turn would facilitate the pursuit of geopolitical interests. I don't see the inconsistency here, as it relates to the definition of a nation-state.
Wasn't my point. I was in the process of developing it, but towards that end of course it would be fallacious to assert simply because "nation-state" as a term has a very recent inclusion into anyone's lexicon, that it is a recent phenomenon. The point is that it seems to have been developed, necessarily because it described a particularly novel situation, where the terms "nation" and "state" harmoniously overlap.
Hence, centralized states obviously exist well into antiquity, but per your claim I see no evidence of said overlap or nationalistic sentiments extending as far back. At least with respect to the examples given so far in Mali or Ancient Egypt.
quote: I cannot conceive of the Malian complex being a decentralized polity, given that Mansa Musa would have been the embodiment of absolute authority at the center. All social units under the Malian socio-political system would have shown allegiance ultimately to Mansa Musa or whomever else was in the seat of the monarchy. This qualifies for a nation-state, just as it does to this day. There are states today within nations that feature their own respective governments, but ultimately, said states have to answer to authority at the center, where decisions of international trade and paying "taxes" are concerned, and in some cases, the appropriation at the center, of material that is needed to build infrastructure in a state. Mansa Musa's expenditures in Timbuktu is itself a famous example of such appropriation of funds.
Mali was imperial in structure, so the centralization wouldn't have been uniform. As stated, the further one traveled away from the capital, the more Musa's authority relied on loose alliances of local rulers, who would have enjoyed a bit more autonomy than governors of nearby states. Prime example being Kaabu (founded by one of Sundjata's generals) who, given its autonomous foundation, easily transitions into a militarized state after Mali lost its grip, and even outlasts Mali proper well into the 19th century. Simply because various soci0-political units within the polity showed ultimate allegiance to one ruler doesn't qualify it as a "nation-state". It only qualified it as a state. Different nations can have allegiances to one state, especially within an imperial structure such as Mali which I argue was the case.
quote:Islam formed the basis of the schools (Madrasas) and mosques funded or subsidized by Mansa Musa. These are not meant to "enforce" the religion in the entire complex, but the effect is to channel the religion into the population through these mediums. The communities which followed that religion, which happened to be the religion sanctioned at the seat of power, would essentially be living by the codes of that religion.
This is not true and certainly was not the case. This is why in Ahmed Baba's time the term "Bambara" came to be associated with the term "non-believer" to describe factions of the state who clearly did not live by Sharia law. The Malinke again were basically synonymous with the Bamana. Sundjata himself was a Bamana and they are to this day the most prominent ethnic group in Mali.
quote:As for other localities, which allegedly did not pursue an "Islamic" way of life, they would have nevertheless been legally-bound to pay allegiance to the center, the Malian monarchy, in ways outlined in the examples noted in the reply just above.
As were traders and merchants outside of the state (coming to and fro). People were taxed but taxation doesn't form the basis of any legal code.
quote:There very well could have been other "legal codes" that the social unites of the Malian polity were administered by, but given the paucity of written documentation, it would be hard to judge the extent of "legal codes" applied across the Malian polity. Paucity of such material does not speak to absence of legal codes. Without legal codes, no centralized polity can exist.
Which is why Mali was more decentralized the further one left Niani-Timbuktu-Djenne-Gao.
quote:Even today nation-states have multiple social elements that do not necessarily share the same identity politics, whether in religion or ethnicity. As for the Kel Tamasheq, I am not sure the extent they were integrated into the Malian complex, if at all.
"Identity politics" isn't the issue. The issue is nationality. They did not all view themselves as Malians. For instance, you'd be hard pressed to argue that all under the Mongol empire who were forced to swear allegiance to the Khans saw themselves as Mongols or belonged to the same nation under its domination. Yes, they were forced to pay taxes and give up certain lands, but that doesn't qualify the Mongol empire as a nation-state. And the Kels were very much integrated as settlers and scholars in Timbuktu and elsewhere, who even had their own quarters that were SEPARATE from the Soninke quarters, for instance. They paid taxes and were citizens within the empire like anyone else and many can be named by name.
quote: That doesn't make it any different from centralized rule in nation-states today, where corresponding authority "imposes" on their citizenry.
If the Pharoah was the absolute power of the land, I don't see how any idea of "Two Lands" contradicts the idea of statehood here. There are certainly periods wherein there is indication of relative schism between authority in the north and control in the south. In many of those scenarios though, it appear that at least one center of power thought of other localities as semi autonomous, not absolutely.
Again, "statehood" and "nation-state" are two different issues. Prior to the French revolution there was no "nation-state" in France, just an absolute monarchy governed by imposition on different peoples of varying allegiances and sensibilities. What created "nation-hood" within the "state" was the unification of peoples towards a common goal, purpose, destiny, and order. I think the separation of the north and south in AE was clearly demonstrated during the 25th Dynasty when Upper Egypt's alliance among its people and governors were directed in a southern direction, as opposed to the North, where the Kushite Pharaohs were forced to IMPOSE their will.
quote:In what contexts was Mali "criticized"? Could Ibn Battuta attitude towards Mali be at some level be colored by the seemingly passionate allegiance of the Malian ruling class to Islam? It's possible, but that is no proof.
Could his observations be hindered by his focus on building projects, landmarks and the wealth (e.g. possession of gold) handled from the seat of power, as oppose to actual living standards of ordinary citizenry? Again, certainly possible. If one takes today's example, the mass media tend to focus on the GDPs of countries, economic infrastructure and landmarks, which usually obscure the actual living standards of the populace.
Take say, the U.S. By the economic indicators of its income, it is a fairly wealthy nation, and by most appearances, as portrayed in the media, most people are living "comfortably". In reality however, infrastructure are being compromised, while a good section of the population is actually living in poverty. The lowering of the bar of what is "officially" considered "poverty", also identified in terms of income, has had the effect of artificially placing a sizable portion of the population into "a decent living standard" bloc, when in reality they are facing poverty. Meanwhile, basic wages have been stagnant.
If Ibn Battuta was part of a relatively well-off intelligentsia, then how does one know that there is not a certain level of "bourgeoisie" sympathy in his commentary?
Again, taking example of the press in the "west". Big "news" names tend to highlight the "positive" qualities of the ruling class elsewhere who are considered "allies" of the ruling class in the "west", while being mute on the less "desirable" qualities, that happen to give a broader insight into how the greater part of the populace is handled. Only in scenarios, whereupon the relationship between the ruling class of a particular territory and those in the "west" fall apart, does one start to get a more vociferous emphasis on the "undesirable" qualities of the former, and how they supposedly handled the ordinary segments of their populace.
I suppose cultural anthropologists have to do with whatever recorded information is at their disposal, and in that sense, historians like Battuta have to be taken at their word, but that doesn't necessarily speak to the big picture of actual situations.
I'm specifically referring to his criticisms on the synchronistic way that Malians practiced Islam, especially with respect to women who he complained ran around naked at times (without the veil), their polyandry (taking in more wives than permitted and wives cheating on husbands), and Sueleyman's lack of hospitality). He seems to go both ways and made general observations that weren't obscured by anyone else' opinion. Of course this is my interpretation and why I find him to be among the more reliable sources.
Posts: 4021 | From: Bay Area, CA | Registered: Mar 2007
| IP: Logged |
Wasn't my point. I was in the process of developing it, but towards that end of course it would be fallacious to assert simply because "nation-state" as a term has a very recent inclusion into anyone's lexicon, that it is a recent phenomenon. The point is that it seems to have been developed, necessarily because it described a particularly novel situation, where the terms "nation" and "state" harmoniously overlap.
Hence, centralized states obviously exist well into antiquity, but per your claim I see no evidence of said overlap or nationalistic sentiments extending as far back. At least with respect to the examples given so far in Mali or Ancient Egypt.
You are not suggesting that nationalism was absent in either Dynastic Egypt or ancient Mali?
This would be like implying that the citizenry of either complex had no sense of a national identity, which sets them apart from people of other nationalities. If that were the case, there would be no territory(s) to mark or defend.
We would not be seeing wall murals of Egyptians clearly segregating Egyptians, as a class of people, from "other" people.
quote:Mali was imperial in structure, so the centralization wouldn't have been uniform. As stated, the further one traveled away from the capital, the more Musa's authority relied on loose alliances of local rulers, who would have enjoyed a bit more autonomy than governors of nearby states.
It would be incorrect to call the relationship an "alliance", since these localities, if they were considered part of Mali, would have been subordinated to the authority of the Malian monarchy. This is the first instance I'm hearing the implication that ancient Mali under Mansa Musa is not a centralized polity.
Again, even "states" in say, a federalized setup, have a certain degree of autonomy, yet they are still subordinated to the central authority of the federated framework.
quote: Prime example being Kaabu (founded by one of Sundjata's generals) who, given its autonomous foundation, easily transitions into a militarized state after Mali lost its grip, and even outlasts Mali proper well into the 19th century. Simply because various soci0-political units within the polity showed ultimate allegiance to one ruler doesn't qualify it as a "nation-state".
As long as a locality pays allegiance to a higher authority at the center, it is essentially part of that polity. If you are arguing for a scenario wherein a locality was brought under the sphere of Malian control, that is under the authority of Malian monarchy, but that the community of that locality did not nationally identify with Mali, then that locality will essentially be a vassal state. This does not have any bearing on the Malian polity being a nation-state.
If anything, you are implying that said locality had its own nationalism and own centralized polity, albeit subordinate to the center of power in the Malian social system.
quote:This is not true and certainly was not the case. This is why in Ahmed Baba's time the term "Bambara" came to be associated with the term "non-believer" to describe factions of the state who clearly did not live by Sharia law.
Are you then trying to make the case that a "state supposedly paying allegiance" to the Malian monarchy, would have been bound to no "legal code" whatsoever, in terms of its relationship with the higher authority, which happens to be the said monarchy?
As for the religion, it was not said that everyone would have practiced it. It was however noted, that it was the official religion of the Malian nation, and that the ultimate authority of the Malian social system used channels to spread the religion as a code to live by. Some localities would have used said religion as a code (legally and morally) to live by, and some would not have. However, every locality considered part of the Malian social system, including any "vassal" social unit, would have been bound by some "legal code" or another, to pay allegiance to the ultimate seat of power, the Malian monarchy.
quote: The Malinke again were basically synonymous with the Bamana. Sundjata himself was a Bamana and they are to this day the most prominent ethnic group in Mali.
Okay?
quote:As were traders and merchants outside of the state (coming to and fro). People were taxed but taxation doesn't form the basis of any legal code.
Tariffs on occasional trade items is not the same thing as localities appropriating a portion of their income to the central authority, as a compulsory and legally-bounded duty.
quote:Which is why Mali was more decentralized the further one left Niani-Timbuktu-Djenne-Gao.
If there was allegiance between said localities and the seat of power, it cannot be said to have been "decentralized".
quote:"Identity politics" isn't the issue. The issue is nationality. They did not all view themselves as Malians.
The keyword here, is that "not all". If there is no sense of nationality either within Mali or within the localities you are implicating, then there can be no nationality whatsoever. There would be no such thing as Mali, or whatever other "state" you are tacitly implicating.
quote:For instance, you'd be hard pressed to argue that all under the Mongol empire who were forced to swear allegiance to the Khans saw themselves as Mongols or belonged to the same nation under its domination.
True that not all compelled to pay allegiance to the Mongolian empire will necessarily see themselves as "Mongolians". However, I am equally hard pressed to make the case that Mongol was not a nation in its own right, whereupon there are communities and localities that perceive themselves as just that, "Mongolians", just as I would be hard pressed to make such a case about Ancient Rome. There are communities under the Roman empire that will not have perceived of themselves as Romans, but then there are others, that did perceive themselves as citizenry of Rome.
quote: Yes, they were forced to pay taxes and give up certain lands, but that doesn't qualify the Mongol empire as a nation-state.
This would speak to that "legal code" you broached earlier. I mentioned it in the same vein, that is to say--it would have been a feature in the polities in question, not to argue for it as a qualifier of what a nation-state supposedly is.
quote: And the Kels were very much integrated as settlers and scholars in Timbuktu and elsewhere, who even had their own quarters that were SEPARATE from the Soninke quarters, for instance.
If they were "very much integrated", then they would have had a sense of nationality as citizenry of Mali.
quote:They paid taxes and were citizens within the empire like anyone else and many can be named by name.
Then there you go.
quote:Again, "statehood" and "nation-state" are two different issues. Prior to the French revolution there was no "nation-state" in France, just an absolute monarchy governed by imposition on different peoples of varying allegiances and sensibilities. What created "nation-hood" within the "state" was the unification of peoples towards a common goal, purpose, destiny, and order.
Can you give me an example of a "state" that is not characterized by community of people who have a unified sense of identity?
quote:I think the separation of the north and south in AE was clearly demonstrated during the 25th Dynasty when Upper Egypt's alliance among its people and governors were directed in a southern direction, as opposed to the North, where the Kushite Pharaohs were forced to IMPOSE their will.
Dictators "impose" their will on people of nation-states of today. Monarchies of today "impose" their will on the societies they are presiding over, yet few people will use that to disqualify said societies as "nation-states".
quote: I'm specifically referring to his criticisms on the synchronistic way that Malians practiced Islam, especially with respect to women who he complained ran around naked at times (without the veil), their polyandry (taking in more wives than permitted and wives cheating on husbands), and Sueleyman's lack of hospitality). He seems to go both ways and made general observations that weren't obscured by anyone else' opinion. Of course this is my interpretation and why I find him to be among the more reliable sources.
Being critical does not absolve a historian or the person expressing an opinion in writing, from bias. In this case, the writer is criticizing what he perceived as inadequacies in the practice of Islam among certain people; he is not necessarily expressing a critical analysis to class structure of a given society. Given the paucity of those who wrote extensively in the likes of ancient Mali, of course there is value in examining the work of historians and writers alike. That is not the point. It is about how much of the bigger picture can one glean from the lens of said writers, given the social setting they would come from, including the political and class orientation which they would have most identified with.
Posts: 7516 | From: Somewhere on Earth | Registered: Jan 2008
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by The Explorer: You are not suggesting that nationalism was absent in either Dynastic Egypt or ancient Mali?
This would be like implying that the citizenry of either complex had no sense of a national identity, which sets them apart from people of other nationalities. If that were the case, there would be no territory(s) to mark or defend.
We would not be seeing wall murals of Egyptians clearly segregating Egyptians, as a class of people, from "other" people.
Nationality is not inherently territorial. Regardless of where one is located for instance, they may still choose to identify themselves via their nation's identifier, or even if they weren't born in a particular nation via their heritage (e.g., "Italian American"). Borders can change and this fact wouldn't make any difference. For instance, when the Portuguese first landed in the Gambia in the late 15th century they communicated with Mandika Sofas who still asserted their allegiance to Mali and the "Mansa", and this was well after Mali lost its control over the Sahelian centers where no such allegiances existed any longer among non-Mandinka.
As far as Egyptian murals being used as an example of a national identifier that symbolizes the nation-state, after thinking about it for a second, there seems to be merit in that statement. I didn't buy it at first and was going to rebut by pointing out that the "nationalities" depicted in the table of nations, were of generalized groupings of people that didn't necessarily belong to a single state or ethnic group and that they were elite-driven and idealized. Yet the Egyptian depiction is indeed an exceptional case where their nationality overlapped and was associated with a particular state. Interesting. I'm almost willing to concede in that regard. I was reading an article online that questioned whether or not Egypt was the first nation-state, and while they concluded "no", this wasn't taken into consideration and there was too much focus on nationalism among the common citizen. That, we wouldn't know, but the elites seemed to conceive of it as a nation-state.
quote:It would be incorrect to call the relationship an "alliance", since these localities, if they were considered part of Mali, would have been subordinated to the authority of the Malian monarchy. This is the first instance I'm hearing the implication that ancient Mali under Mansa Musa is not a centralized polity.
Again, even "states" in say, a federalized setup, have a certain degree of autonomy, yet they are still subordinated to the central authority of the federated framework.
Most authors on Mali characterized it the way that I have and I never claimed it not to be a "centralized polity", which in this case is relative. Songhay was more centralized than Mali for instance. My assertion was that the further away one was from the capital, the more decentralized it became. They used a decentralized system of governance which Koufecou Traore compares to a Mango that was strongest at its core. Closer to the capital legal codes were enforced, traffic and trade was closely managed, and taxes were collected by district heads. On the outskirts farbas were mostly reduced to being tax collectors.
And "alliance" would not be an incorrect way to characterize the situation as this is how Mali became an empire to begin with, not via force but through an alliance of 12 kingdoms. This is why Mansa means "king of kings". It played out to the effect that they all agreed Sundjata was Mansa and that his descendents would bare his title. And yes, states within countries possess a certain degree of autonomy but in Mali, as noted, it was disproportionate. Medieval African governances can't be compared to today's.
quote: As long as a locality pays allegiance to a higher authority at the center, it is essentially part of that polity. If you are arguing for a scenario wherein a locality was brought under the sphere of Malian control, that is under the authority of Malian monarchy, but that the community of that locality did not nationally identify with Mali, then that locality will essentially be a vassal state. This does not have any bearing on the Malian polity being a nation-state.
Yes it does because it means Mali was an empire and not a nation-state. At the height of the British empire when Britain held dominion over India, India was a vassal state but this did not make Indians British. Britain was a "nation-state" but the British empire was not.
quote:Are you then trying to make the case that a "state supposedly paying allegiance" to the Malian monarchy, would have been bound to no "legal code" whatsoever, in terms of its relationship with the higher authority, which happens to be the said monarchy?
In some instances this seems to be the case, particularly in the outer provinces, and their only requirement was to pay taxes. Laws were established by local chiefs, similar to indirect rule in colonial Africa.
quote:As for the religion, it was not said that everyone would have practiced it. It was however noted, that it was the official religion of the Malian nation, and that the ultimate authority of the Malian social system used channels to spread the religion as a code to live by. Some localities would have used said religion as a code (legally and morally) to live by, and some would not have. However, every locality considered part of the Malian social system, including any "vassal" social unit, would have been bound by some "legal code" or another, to pay allegiance to the ultimate seat of power, the Malian monarchy.
This would again be false and why Mali wasn't a nation. It wasn't an official religion as much as the elites who governed the region simply promoted it. And if you insist that some kind of legal code had to be enforced through out the entire region (larger than western Europe), you'd have to specify what that legal code was. As stated, a form of "indirect rule" was the norm as far as what my research on the subject has confirmed.
quote: Tariffs on occasional trade items is not the same thing as localities appropriating a portion of their income to the central authority, as a compulsory and legally-bounded duty.
It is still only taxation devoid of any legal code and like the American revolution, were it not for loyalties and "alliances", citizens would have been well within their rights to revolt based on the premise of "taxation without representation".
quote:If there was allegiance between said localities and the seat of power, it cannot be said to have been "decentralized".
I don't follow.
Ok, let me reiterate and clarify. Mali WAS indeed a centralized kingdom. Not in dispute. It however, developed into an empire which established a "decentralized" form of governance similar to the Ghanaian set-up. Power and authority became more decentralized, as in, the Mansa's influence waned the further one moved from the capital. This is not the case in America where we are all bound by the constitution and federal law.
quote:The keyword here, is that "not all". If there is no sense of nationality either within Mali or within the localities you are implicating, then there can be no nationality whatsoever. There would be no such thing as Mali, or whatever other "state" you are tacitly implicating.
As far as I know Mali was a name appropriated by the fulbe and applied ethnically to the Malinke. I don't know if anyone considered their self to be an actual citizen of one imperial polity referred to as "Mali" to be honest.
quote:True that not all compelled to pay allegiance to the Mongolian empire will necessarily see themselves as "Mongolians". However, I am equally hard pressed to make the case that Mongol was not a nation in its own right, whereupon there are communities and localities that perceive themselves as just that, "Mongolians", just as I would be hard pressed to make such a case about Ancient Rome. There are communities under the Roman empire that will not have perceived of themselves as Romans, but then there are others, that did perceive themselves as citizenry of Rome.
Yet the origins of that empire didn't evolve from a state, but a klan of nomads. Mali, while it evolved from a state, drew on an alliance of different kingdoms of varying nationalities. Opposite situation but presents the same challenge of trying to define it this way.
quote:This would speak to that "legal code" you broached earlier. I mentioned it in the same vein, that is to say--it would have been a feature in the polities in question, not to argue for it as a qualifier of what a nation-state supposedly is.
If they were "very much integrated", then they would have had a sense of nationality as citizenry of Mali.
Got you on the first point, but what evidence do you have to support the latter?
quote:Then there you go.
Citizens of a 'state' but belonging to a different nation that is, which is why they supported the 'Tuareg' coup of the 1430s that saw the conquest of Timbuktu, by none other than fellow Kel. Again, I don't think they saw themselves as citizens of Mali as much as Timbuktu within Mali. They didn't care who governed it as long as their interests were favored.
quote:Can you give me an example of a "state" that is not characterized by community of people who have a unified sense of identity?
France before the revolution. lol
quote:Dictators "impose" their will on people of nation-states of today. Monarchies of today "impose" their will on the societies they are presiding over, yet few people will use that to disqualify said societies as "nation-states".
See above for my concessions on Egypt. Though that wasn't exactly my point but I won't belabor it.
quote: Being critical does not absolve a historian or the person expressing an opinion in writing, from bias. In this case, the writer is criticizing what he perceived as inadequacies in the practice of Islam among certain people; he is not necessarily expressing a critical analysis to class structure of a given society. Given the paucity of those who wrote extensively in the likes of ancient Mali, of course there is value in examining the work of historians and writers alike. That is not the point. It is about how much of the bigger picture can one glean from the lens of said writers, given the social setting they would come from, including the political and class orientation which they would have most identified with.
Well, in that case everyone has biases. By "unbiased" what is meant is that Ibn Battuta had no apparent reasons to exaggerate or exalt the status of Malians by writing positive things about them when he did.
Posts: 4021 | From: Bay Area, CA | Registered: Mar 2007
| IP: Logged |
Nationality is not inherently territorial. Regardless of where one is located for instance, they may still choose to identify themselves via their nation's identifier, or even if they weren't born in a particular nation via their heritage (e.g., "Italian American"). Borders can change and this fact wouldn't make any difference.
Your account just now suggests that nationality is territorial. In the example you provided, one is still identifying with a particular territory. Italy is associated with a territory, and so is America.
quote: As far as Egyptian murals being used as an example of a national identifier that symbolizes the nation-state, after thinking about it for a second, there seems to be merit in that statement. I didn't buy it at first and was going to rebut by pointing out that the "nationalities" depicted in the table of nations, were of generalized groupings of people that didn't necessarily belong to a single state or ethnic group and that they were elite-driven and idealized. Yet the Egyptian depiction is indeed an exceptional case where their nationality overlapped and was associated with a particular state.
The ancient Egyptians were not unique in this respect. The Kushites, ancient Chinese, the Romans, the ancient Greeks all had a sense of nationality, that was associated with territory which had to be protected against outsiders. Ancient Egyptians even implicated other polities by name. They had the grammatical determinatives for that very purpose.
quote:They used a decentralized system of governance which Koufecou Traore compares to a Mango that was strongest at its core. Closer to the capital legal codes were enforced, traffic and trade was closely managed, and taxes were collected by district heads. On the outskirts farbas were mostly reduced to being tax collectors.
You see, you are referring to degree of control, whereas I'm simply looking at it from the perspective that, if a locality pays allegiance to the seat power in a different location, then that is not characteristic of "decentralization".
quote:
And "alliance" would not be an incorrect way to characterize the situation as this is how Mali became an empire to begin with, not via force but through an alliance of 12 kingdoms.
Which happened to consider the monarchy as the central authority? The centralized authority in Mali was not exactly a horizontal form of rule, but hierarchical, i.e. top down system of ruling.
quote:
This is why Mansa means "king of kings". It played out to the effect that they all agreed Sundjata was Mansa and that his descendents would bare his title.
Precisely!
quote: And yes, states within countries possess a certain degree of autonomy but in Mali, as noted, it was disproportionate. Medieval African governances can't be compared to today's.
In some ways, they are not analogous to contemporary states, yet it other respects, they can. Nation-state is not fundamentally a "modern concept". If anything, the nation-state is an outmoded social concept that still lingers on in human societies. Humans should socially be at a stage where antagonistic nation-states are a thing of the past, and globalization in some ways, serves as a paradox to the nation-state framework.
quote:Yes it does because it means Mali was an empire and not a nation-state. At the height of the British empire when Britain held dominion over India, India was a vassal state but this did not make Indians British. Britain was "nation-state" but the British empire was not.
Yet Britain was a nation state, which served as a springboard for an empire. Ancient Mali, likewise, featured territory that was treated as the seat of power.
quote:In some instances this seems to be the case, particularly in the outer provinces, and their only requirement was to pay taxes. Laws were established by local chiefs, similar to indirect rule in colonial Africa.
If they were not legally-bound to pay allegiance, then why did they? You don't have to pay taxes to a government to which you owe nothing. If you want an "alliance", then that is what you go about doing, without having to appropriate a portion of income to another government.
quote:This would again be false and why Mali wasn't a nation. It wasn't an official religion as much as the elites who governed the region simply promoted it.
You say it is false, and merely go onto reiterate what was just said. It is the official religion, as the seat of power subsidized the religion through various channels, from Madrasas to Mosques. National wealth went into the Monarchy's journey to pilgrimage, even though rulers will say that said wealth is their own.
quote:And if you insist that some kind of legal code had to be enforced through out the entire region (larger than western Europe), you'd have to specify what that legal code was.
It's common-sensical. There can be no centralized rule without a systematic framework for top down rule, which in turn cannot be sustained without some legal apparatus in place. The paying of taxes and appropriation of a portion of a locality's produce to the central authority was an ample enough example of requirement sanctioned at the seat of power.
quote:As stated, a form of "indirect rule" was the norm as far as what my research on the subject has confirmed.
Direct rule and "indirect rule" can accompany one another in a nation-state. It doesn't necessarily have to be either/or. In federations, direct and indirect rule co-exist. In Britain, for instance, the Monarchy has an indirect rule in many respects, yet public money goes into sustaining the lifestyles of the royalty; in that sense, they still enjoy direct rule. Obviously the seat of power in Mali had much more control than today's monarchy in Britain.
quote:It is still only taxation devoid an legal code and like the American revolution, were it not for loyalties and "alliances", citizens would have been well within their rights to revolt based on the premise of "taxation without representation".
If they were well "within their rights to revolt", why then pay taxes to another government? We are talking about income or produce that could instead go into developing a locality.
quote:I don't follow.
Ok, let me reiterate and clarify. Mali WAS indeed a centralized kingdom. Not in dispute. It however, developed into an empire which established a "decentralized" form of governance similar to the Ghanaian set-up. Power and authority became more decentralized, as in, the Mansa's influence waned the further one moved from the capital. This is not the case in America where we are all bound by the constitution and federal law.
Either the allegiance to the center was there, or it wasn't. There is no grey area here.
quote:As far as I know Mali was a name appropriated by the fulbe and applied ethnically to the Malinke. I don't know if anyone considered their self to be an actual citizen of one imperial polity referred to as "Mali" to be honest.
Mali strikes me as a confederation, albeit with a monarchy at the center rather than a plutocratic apparatus. By accepting the monarchy, i.e. the "king of kings", at the center, all those who involved would have also accepted citizenry of the Malian social system.
quote:Yet the origins of that empire didn't evolve from a state, but a klan of nomads.
Nation-states start from somewhere.
quote: Mali, while it evolved from a state, drew on an alliance of different kingdoms of varying nationalities. Opposite situation but presents the same challenge of trying to define it this way.
You keep saying "alliance", yet we know Mansa Musa represented a top down form of rule.
quote:Got you on the first point, but what evidence do you have to support the latter?
If the Tamasheq were "integrated" as you say, then that can only happen if they thought of themselves as citizenry of the Malian social system.
quote: Citizens of a 'state' but belonging to a different nation that is, which is why they supported the 'Tuareg' coup of the 1430s that saw the conquest of Timbuktu, by none other than fellow Kel. Again, I don't think they saw themselves as citizens of Mali as much as Timbuktu within Mali. They didn't care who governed it as long as their interests were favored.
This would tend to argue against the "integration" of "Tuareg" as you claimed earlier.
quote:France before the revolution. lol
The French thus did not see themselves as a citizens of the "state" regardless of social unity? Was the revolution then a fight for self-determination of disparate groups?
quote:See above for my concessions on Egypt. Though that wasn't exactly my point but I won't belabor it.
Egypt has nothing to do with it. Fact is that nation states even today, don't necessarily have a central authority which does not 'impose' its will on the people. Even in plutocracies that are treated as "democracies", top down rule is still "imposed" on the greater society.
quote:Well, in that case everyone has biases. By "unbiased" what is meant is that Ibn Battuta had no apparent reasons to exaggerate or exalt the status of Malians by writing positive things about them when he did.
It's not a question of him necessarily exaggerating, it's a question of him giving the bigger picture of the then realities surrounding the society he was describing. When someone says the U.S. is "rich", they are not necessarily exaggerating, but they are not giving the big picture of the reality either.
Posts: 7516 | From: Somewhere on Earth | Registered: Jan 2008
| IP: Logged |
Your account just now suggests that nationality is territorial. In the example you provided, one is still identifying with a particular territory. Italy is associated with a territory, and so is America.
It clearly doesn't and isn't defined that way. "Nation" is cultural. This is why I emphasized that borders can change where nations reside. In my example, people identify with BEING "Italian", not with the Italian state.
quote:The ancient Egyptians were not unique in this respect. The Kushites, ancient Chinese, the Romans, the ancient Greeks all had a sense of nationality, that was associated with territory which had to be protected against outsiders. Ancient Egyptians even implicated other polities by name. They had the grammatical determinatives for that very purpose.
I wouldn't go that far. The Kushites are enigmatic and we know them mostly through Egypt as part of a generalized grouping of "Nehesi". We know not what languages were spoken through out the kingdom nor their NATIONAL culture. We only know of the territory that the Kushite rulers controlled. at various stages. Rome was centered on one city and would be analogous to Mali as a true imperial structure; ancient China was based on dynastic rule and various coups that was built on the subjugation of preceding dynasties, while Greece was nothing more than an amalgam of city-states with different loyalties. None qualify under the modern definition or even approximate it, as AE may or may not.
quote:You see, you are referring to degree of control, whereas I'm simply looking at it from the perspective that, if a locality pays allegiance to the seat power in a different location, then that is not characteristic of "decentralization".
Which happened to consider the monarchy as the central authority? The centralized authority in Mali was not exactly a horizontal form of rule, but hierarchical, i.e. top down system of ruling.
1) The degree of control is what characterizes the structure of the state in general.
2) You keep referring to Mali as a "monarchy" which typically rules over a single nation. An empire governs many nations which is at the root of the problem with referring to the Mali empire as a "nation-state". Central authority has no bearing on the question.
quote: In some ways, they are not analogous to contemporary states, yet it other respects, they can. Nation-state is not fundamentally a "modern concept". If anything, the nation-state is an outmoded social concept that still lingers on in human societies. Humans should socially be at a stage where antagonistic nation-states are a thing of the past, and globalization in some ways, serves as a paradox to the nation-state framework.
Ah, but it is a modern "concept". This doesn't necessarily mean that it can't be retroactively applied. Others would and have argued that the value of the nation-state resides in the fact that no cultural entity should have disproportionate control, legally or economically, over most of the modern world. Globalization has progressed inevitably despite it.
quote:Yet Britain was a nation state, which served as a springboard for an empire. Ancient Mali, likewise, featured territory that was treated as the seat of power.
This doesn't make the Mali empire anymore a nation-state than the British empire was, and since Mali started via an alliance between twelve African kingdoms comprising various nations, it can't be compared to the history of Great Britain.
quote:If they were not legally-bound to pay allegiance, then why did they? You don't have to pay taxes to a government to which you owe nothing. If you want an "alliance", then that is what you go about doing, without having to appropriate a portion of income to another government.
They listened to their chiefs as many Africans did in the 19th century. Doesn't mean Nigeria for example, was part of the British nation-state.
quote:You say it is false, and merely go onto reiterate what was just said. It is the official religion, as the seat of power subsidized the religion through various channels, from Madrasas to Mosques. National wealth went into the Monarchy's journey to pilgrimage, even though rulers will say that said wealth is their own.
I did not reiterate what you said. You say Islam was an official religion, I say it was not. No different from Bush PROMOTING Christianity yet Christianity NOT being the official religion in the U.S. A state under Islamic rule is called a theocracy/caliphate. An example of that in West Africa would have been Sokoto, not Mali.
No matter where the funds came from, as Mansa it was Musa's prerogative to do as he wished with the funds he procured, including giving some of it away in Egypt. Had no bearing on the empire itself outside of some minority centers like Timbuktu.
quote:It's common-sensical. There can be no centralized rule without a systematic framework for top down rule, which in turn cannot be sustained without some legal apparatus in place. The paying of taxes and appropriation of a portion of a locality's produce to the central authority was an ample enough example of requirement sanctioned at the seat of power.
We are discussing history. You have to prove your argument with evidence, not what you deem to be common sense. I explained to you that the legal codes they followed were dependent on which province and what local chiefs/society established there. Taxation again, is not a legal code.
quote:Direct rule and "indirect rule" can accompany one another in a nation-state. It doesn't necessarily have to be either/or. In federations, direct and indirect rule co-exist. In Britain, for instance, the Monarchy has an indirect rule in many respects, yet public money goes into sustaining the lifestyles of the royalty; in that sense, they still enjoy direct rule. Obviously the seat of power in Mali had much more control than today's monarchy in Britain.
You are speaking hypothetically, yet the actual situation in the outer provinces, according to the evidence available suggested a system of indirect rule, period. Kingdoms/monarchies and large empires operate differently due to diversity and scale.
quote:If they were well "within their rights to revolt", why then pay taxes to another government? We are talking about income or produce that could instead go into developing a locality.
There actually were a few revolts that were put down militarily. When this wasn't the case, again, subjects remained loyal to their chiefs.
quote:Either the allegiance to the center was there, or it wasn't. There is no grey area here.
The "Grey area" is within the nuance. It isn't straight forward if you clearly understand the difference in government structure and the complexities with running an empire. You may be missing the point here.
quote:Mali strikes me as a confederation, albeit with a monarchy at the center rather than a plutocratic apparatus. By accepting the monarchy, i.e. the "king of kings", at the center, all those who involved would have also accepted citizenry of the Malian social system.
I'm referring to how they viewed themselves. You can't possibly know, without documentation what people did and did not accept. And please describe what "social system" you are referring to.
quote:Nation-states start from somewhere.
Of course but the Mongol empire was clearly never a nation-state. It grew into an empire from those humble beginnings, not a nation-state.
quote: You keep saying "alliance", yet we know Mansa Musa represented a top down form of rule.
Read or re-read the epic of Sundjata it you require some refreshment on this point. My account is completely accurate based on indigenous testimony. Sundjata was at the head of this alliance for a particular reason.
quote:GIf the Tamasheq were "integrated" as you say, then that can only happen if they thought of themselves as citizenry of the Malian social system.
This is fallacious reasoning as if there's no other reason they'd have been integrated. Truth be told they considered Timbuktu their home before it was peacefully annexed. They were citizens of Timbuktu and their "local chief" was the qadi, who in turn answered to the farba, who in turn answered to Musa. We have to stop comparing Mali to modern states.
quote: This would tend to argue against the "integration" of "Tuareg" as you claimed earlier.
It would not. Tuareg were integrated by virtue of Timbuktu being integrated, and peacefully so. Circumstances changed.
quote:The French thus did not see themselves as a citizens of the "state" regardless of social unity? Was the revolution then a fight for self-determination of disparate groups?
France was ruled under an absolute monarchy where a territory was defined by a central ruler and his will imposed. They were not "unified citizens" of the state as much as they lived and survived independently within its territorial constraints. There was no national comradery/social unity until they all rose up for the same goal of establishing a just government.
quote:Egypt has nothing to do with it. Fact is that nation states even today, don't necessarily have a central authority which does not 'impose' its will on the people. Even in plutocracies that are treated as "democracies", top down rule is still "imposed" on the greater society.
Again, not my point. A nation-state is one where a state has a culture (set of ideals, norms, etc..) which is prevented when those are dictated by one person or when people are kept separate/have no sense of nation-hood.
quote:It's not a question of him necessarily exaggerating, it's a question of him giving the bigger picture of the then realities surrounding the society he was describing. When someone says the U.S. is "rich", they are not necessarily exaggerating, but they are not giving the big picture of the reality either.
I'm kind of lost on where the side discussion on Ibn Battuta is going so I really have no response to this, unfortunately.
Posts: 4021 | From: Bay Area, CA | Registered: Mar 2007
| IP: Logged |
posted
The richest African and black person in the world today is Nigerian businessman Aliko Dangote who have a fortune of $16.1 billion.Black billionaires
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
This article refers to U.S. dollar billionaires who have some degree of Black African ancestry.
Aliko Dangote, the world's wealthiest Black person
Oprah Winfrey at the White House in 2010, the first female black or Afro-multiracial billionaire and the only black billionaire from 2004 to 2006 According to Forbes 2013 ranking of the world's billionaires, Nigerian business magnate Aliko Dangote with a net worth of $16.1 billion is the world's richest black person.[1] The other Blacks on the list are Nigeria's Mike Adenuga with $4.7 billion,[2] South African gold magnate Patrice Motsepe with $2.9 billion, and American Oprah Winfrey at $2.8 billion.
From 2001 to 2003, Forbes listed American television network executive Bob Johnson as a billionaire,[3] but dropped him after his fortune was split in his divorce.[when?][4] He returned to Forbes Billionaire list in 2007 with a net worth of $1.1 billion. In 2008 Johnson's wealth dropped again, this time to approximately $1.0 billion [5] and by 2009 he fell off the list again.
Nigerian petroleum executive Femi Otedola briefly emerged as a billionaire in 2009, but has not been listed in the following years.[6]
Multiracial billionaires with partial Black ancestry have also been identified over the years. Saudi Arabian billionaire Mohammed Al Amoudi, of Hadhrami Yemeni and Ethiopian descent, has been on the Forbes billionaire list since 2002 and in 2012 had a net worth of $12.5 billion.[7] Also included is Mo Ibrahim, a British billionaire of Sudanese Arab and Nubian ancestry,[8] who has been on the Forbes Billionaire list since 2008 and in 2012 had a net worth of $1.1 billion.[9]Michael Lee-Chin of Canada, who is Jamaican of Chinese and Black ancestry was on the list from 2001 to 2010, but dropped off in 2011.[10] In 2013 Isabel Dos Santos who is of both Black and Middle Eastern ancestry made the list with a $2 billion net worth. However as there are competing claims as to what degree multiracial individuals should be considered Black, these individuals have not been universally regarded as being Black billionaires.
Of all the Black or Afro-multiracial billionaires identified by Forbes, only Oprah Winfrey qualified for Forbes 2009's list of the world's 20 most powerful billionaires, a list which considered not only wealth, but also market sway and political clout. Winfrey was considered especially powerful because of her influence on American consumer choices and her pivotal role in getting Barack Obama elected.[11]
Contents [hide] 1 Members 1.1 Michael Jackson 1.2 Cultural reference
2 See also 3 References
Members[edit]
Number of black billionaires, Afro-multiracial billionaires, and all billionaires by year (wealth valuations by Forbes magazine at the time their international billionaire list is released each year) Year Number of Black billionaires Number of Afro-multiracial billionaires Number of all billionaires 1996 0 0 423, Richest: Bill Gates $18.5 billionUnited States 1997 0 0 224, Richest: Sultan Hassanal Bolkiah $38 billion Brunei 1998 0 0 209, Richest: Bill Gates $51 billionUnited States 1999 0 0 298, Richest: Bill Gates $55 billionUnited States 2000 0 0 322, Richest: Bill Gates $60 billionUnited States 2001 1: Only Bob Johnson $1.6 billionUnited States 1: Only Michael Lee-Chin $1 billionCanadaJamaica[12] 538, Richest: Bill Gates $58.7 billionUnited States 2002 1: Only Bob Johnson $1 billionUnited States 2: Mohammad Al Amoudi $1.5 billionEthiopiaSaudi Arabia Michael Lee-Chin $1.1 billionCanadaJamaica[13] 497, Richest: Bill Gates $52.8 billionUnited States 2003 2: Bob Johnson $1.2 billionUnited States Oprah Winfrey $1 billionUnited States[14] 2: Mohammad Al Amoudi $1.5 billionEthiopiaSaudi Arabia Michael Lee-Chin $1.4 billionCanadaJamaica[15] 476, Richest: Bill Gates $40.7 billionUnited States 2004 1: Only Oprah Winfrey $1.1 billionUnited States 2: Michael Lee-Chin $2.4 billionCanadaJamaica Mohammad Al Amoudi $1.4 billionEthiopiaSaudi Arabia[16] 587, Richest: Bill Gates $46.6 billionUnited States 2005 1: Only Oprah Winfrey $1.3 billionUnited States 2: Michael Lee-ChinCanadaJamaica & Mohammad Al AmoudiEthiopiaSaudi Arabia both worth $2.5 billion 691, Richest: Bill Gates $46.5 billionUnited States 2006 1, Only Oprah Winfrey $1.4 billionUnited States 2: Mohammad Al Amoudi $6.9 billionEthiopiaSaudi Arabia Michael Lee-Chin $2.1 billionCanadaJamaica[17] 793, Richest: Bill Gates $50 billionUnited States 2007 2: Oprah Winfrey $1.5 billionUnited States Bob Johnson $1.1 billionUnited States[18] 2: Mohammad Al Amoudi $8 billionEthiopiaSaudi ArabiaMichael Lee-Chin $1.6 billionCanadaJamaica[19] 946, Richest: Bill Gates $56 billionUnited States 2008 4: Aliko Dangote $3.3 billionNigeria Oprah Winfrey $2.5 billionUnited States[20] Patrice Motsepe $2.4 billionSouth Africa[21] Bob Johnson $1 billionUnited States [5] 3: Mohammad Al Amoudi $9 billionEthiopiaSaudi Arabia Mo Ibrahim $2.5 billion United Kingdom[22] Michael Lee-Chin $1.8 billionCanadaJamaica[23] 1,125, Richest: Warren Buffet $62 billionUnited States 2009 4: Oprah Winfrey $2.7 billion United States Aliko Dangote $2.5 billionNigeria Femi Otedola $1.6 billion Nigeria Patrice Motsepe $1.3 billion South Africa 3: Mohammad Al Amoudi $9 billionEthiopiaSaudi Arabia Mo Ibrahim $2 billion United Kingdom[24] Michael Lee-Chin $1 billionCanadaJamaica[25] 793, Richest: Bill Gates $40 billionUnited States 2010 3: Oprah Winfrey $2.4 billion United States Patrice Motsepe $2.3 billion South Africa Aliko Dangote $2.1 billionNigeria 3: Mohammad Al Amoudi $10 billionEthiopiaSaudi Arabia Mo Ibrahim $2 billion United Kingdom[26] Michael Lee-Chin $1 billionCanadaJamaica[27] 1,011, Richest: Carlos Slim Helu & family $53.5 billion[28] Mexico 2011 4:Aliko Dangote $13.8 billionNigeria[2] Patrice Motsepe $3.3 billion South Africa Oprah Winfrey $2.7 billionUnited States Mike Adenuga $2 billionNigeria [2] 2: Mohammad Al Amoudi $12.3 billionEthiopiaSaudi Arabia Mo Ibrahim $1.8 billionUnited Kingdom [9] 1,210, Richest: Carlos Slim Helu & family $74 billionMexico 2012 [1] 4:Aliko Dangote $11.2 billionNigeria[2] Mike Adenuga $4.3 billionNigeria [2] Patrice Motsepe $2.7 billion South Africa Oprah Winfrey $2.7 billionUnited States 2: Mohammad Al Amoudi $12.5 billionEthiopiaSaudi Arabia Mo Ibrahim $1.1 billionUnited Kingdom [9] 1,210, Richest: Carlos Slim Helu & family $69 billionMexico [29] 2013 4:Aliko Dangote $16.1 billionNigeria[2] Mike Adenuga $4.7 billionNigeria Patrice Motsepe $2.9 billion South Africa Oprah Winfrey $2.8 billionUnited States 3: Mohammad Al Amoudi $13.5 billionEthiopiaSaudi Arabia Isabel Dos Santos $2 billionAngola, Mo Ibrahim $1.1 billionUnited Kingdom [9] 1,426, Richest: Carlos Slim Helu & family $73 billionMexico
Apparently, we have different viewpoints of what a nation-state is. I'm going to leave it at that, but it was a good discussion.
-------------------- The Complete Picture of the Past tells Us what Not to Repeat Posts: 7516 | From: Somewhere on Earth | Registered: Jan 2008
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by lamin: And that's the the point. What's the point of saying that "so-and-so monarch was the wealthiest person in history" when there is nothing to show for it? Is this some kind of sly perverted propaganda so that the present-day looting of Africa can continue unchallenged?
Mobutu, Abacha, and other assorted African President thieves amassed great amounts of stolen wealth but who respects them for that?
Your statement has more to do with your lack of knowledge of history than it does of reality. If you build in Adobe due to materials available to you, and wars and everything else come to the city, do you think it will last? They don't even know what ancient Egyptian homes looked like because they were built with adobe, they are all gone now. almost ALL the buildings from Al Murabitoun empire in Morocco are gone except maybe one or so. There is no doubt to the power of that empire though.
There were cities in West Africa that were two and four times more dense in terms of building and population than London was at the equivalent time. But ALL of it is gone, because it was built with Adobe. Now someone could argue why not build in big stones. But I counter with, should they have done that with magic? The area geologically doesn't have those sorts of things to build with. they used what they had.
quote:Originally posted by Sundjata: According to inflation-adjusted survey of 25 richest people of all time:
quote:You've probably never heard of him, but Mansa Musa is the richest person ever.
The 14th century emperor from West Africa was worth a staggering $400 billion, after adjusting for inflation, as calculated by Celebrity Net Worth. To put that number into perspective -- if that's even possible -- Net Worth's calculations mean Musa's fortune far outstrips that of the current world's richest man Carlos Slim Helu and family.
Anyway, lets take him as an example of what can be accomplished.
Posts: 22234 | From: האם אינכם כילדי הכרית אלי בני ישראל | Registered: Nov 2010
| IP: Logged |
posted
Troll Patrol - Accumulating wealth: and being a worthwhile person, making a meaningful contribution to mankind, the world, etc. is NOT the same thing. Accumulating wealth simply means that you value money more than anything else. Most people, though they value money, don't feel that it is worth dedicating their lives to it's acquisition.
Plus over time, it makes you really stupid. Note Bill Gates (the second richest man) greeting the Prime minister of South Korea. The fool is greeting the leader of a country with his hands in his pockets.
Why? Because for years, his employees, and all others who want money from him, have been telling him what a great and important man he is. As is clear from the offensively condescending way in which he greeted the South Korean leader - he believed it!
Posts: 22721 | Registered: Oct 2005
| IP: Logged |
UBBFriend: Email this page to someone!
![[Confused]](confused.gif)
Your logic is twisted and you're all over the place. Besides, the empire of Mali was in no way comparable to a modern African dictatorship under the auspices of a modern nation-state (a European creation). By all accounts the average citizen in Mali lived comfortably and much of his money went towards promoting Islam, so your point is once again totally bunk. ![[Roll Eyes]](rolleyes.gif)
Printer-friendly view of this topic