...
Post A Reply
my profile
|
directory
login
|
register
|
search
|
faq
|
forum home
»
EgyptSearch Forums
»
Deshret
»
Report: Mansa Kankou Musa named richest person to ever live
» Post A Reply
Post A Reply
Login Name:
Password:
Message Icon:
Message:
HTML is not enabled.
UBB Code™ is enabled.
[QUOTE]Originally posted by Sundjata: [QB] [QUOTE]Originally posted by The Explorer: 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]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.[/QUOTE]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.[/QUOTE]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.[/QUOTE]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. [/QUOTE]This doesn't make the Mali [b]empire[/b] 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.[/QUOTE]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.[/QUOTE]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.[/QUOTE]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.[/QUOTE]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.[/QUOTE]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.[/QUOTE]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.[/QUOTE]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.[/QUOTE]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.[/QUOTE]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.[/QUOTE]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.[/QUOTE]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?[/QUOTE]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.[/QUOTE]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. [/QUOTE]I'm kind of lost on where the side discussion on Ibn Battuta is going so I really have no response to this, unfortunately. [/QB][/QUOTE]
Instant Graemlins
Instant UBB Code™
What is UBB Code™?
Options
Disable Graemlins in this post.
*** Click here to review this topic. ***
Contact Us
|
EgyptSearch!
(c) 2015 EgyptSearch.com
Powered by UBB.classic™ 6.7.3