Africans and resources

[Kloofvreter]

And likewise there was nothing in Europe or America either before development and progress! Do you think white people were created with cars and mines?!?!

Now let's think. In 1652, a ship (yes, a man-made seafaring vessel!) sailed here, and within a generation or so, there was a populous city, as opposed to nothing. Thousands of years before that, there were multi-storied buildings in Europe and elsewhere, as opposed to nothing. And stay on topic please, I actually want answers relevant to the question I asked.

 

[Mila]

African peoples have been mining gold for thousands of years. Not very deep mining (they didn't have the technology to do that) and they used slave labour (the khoisan). Read Michiners "the Covenant" for a fictionalized example.

I think more to the point is iron.

http://www.south-africa-tours-and-travel.com/bantu.html

The great southward Bantu migration in Africa took place in sub-Saharan Africa (south of the Sahara Desert), over some 2,000 years.

With the development of the iron blade, reaping became easier for the bantu people and agriculture took on a whole new meaning.

Populations grew faster than before and people were encroaching on each other's land.

This necessitated an enlargement of territory, which led to the migration of African black tribes from the Great Lakes in central Africa, to the south of Africa

A linguistically related group of about 60 million people living in equatorial and southern Africa, they probably originated in West Africa, migrating downward gradually into southern Africa. This migration was one of the largest in human history.

The cause of this movement is uncertain, but is believed to have been related to population increase, a result of the introduction of new crops, such as the banana (native to south Asia), allowing more efficient food production.

The development of metalworking skills promoted specialisation of products and trade between regions followed. The different chiefdoms settled in different patterns; dispersed homesteads were found in the fertile coastal regions to the east, and concentrated in towns in the desert fringes to the west.

 

[dlk001]

Maybe not, but who did? And were there gold and diamond mines when they got here?

My point is you got that issue wrong which suggests to me that you have no interest in researching the topic and history around it. As a result, I do not see a point of where this discussion is heading and what you are trying to achieve?

If you around in Johannesburg, you should try joining "Friends of Kloofendal" for a history on first discovery of Gold. Its actually Fun and it will only take 2hrs of your Saturday morning. You can find them on http://www.footprint.co.za/friendsofkloofendal.htm.

 

[Kloofvreter]

My point is you got that issue wrong which suggests to me that you have no interest in researching the topic and history around it. As a result, I do not see a point of where this discussion is heading and what you are trying to achieve?

I'm not trying to archive anything. Don't be so touchy about something that doesn't even concern you.

 

[cr@zydude]

Now let's think. In 1652, a ship (yes, a man-made seafaring vessel!) sailed here, and within a generation or so, there was a populous city, as opposed to nothing. Thousands of years before that, there were multi-storied buildings in Europe and elsewhere, as opposed to nothing. And stay on topic please, I actually want answers relevant to the question I asked.

Really, were there multi-storied buildings in the Netherlands or UK, or France 1 000, 2 000, 3 000 years ago? The most advanced cilvilisations at that that time would have been in Egypt, Greece, Italy, and the Arabic states to the east.

 

[LancelotSA]

Now let's think. In 1652, a ship (yes, a man-made seafaring vessel!) sailed here, and within a generation or so, there was a populous city, as opposed to nothing. Thousands of years before that, there were multi-storied buildings in Europe and elsewhere, as opposed to nothing. And stay on topic please, I actually want answers relevant to the question I asked.

Um, you lead the discussion in this direction. They brought the technology with them (ting ting - any light bulb there?). At one point your revered "white people" were also making fire with sticks and living in makeshift housing. They weren't born with cars and stoves! Circumstances, whether this was weather or whatever, meant a need for advancement that others may not have felt the need for.

These arguments always piss me off anyway. It is like the missionaries who feel the need to go in and save the Amazon tribes. Who says they needed saving? Who says they weren't happy with things the way they are.

Dude, you are desperately wanting everyone to agree with you that black people are useless and NEED white people. You aren't going to get me to do it. The history you hold in such high regard is the one fed to you by a crooked political system. How much black history did you learn in school?

 

[Kloofvreter]

Really, were there multi-storied buildings in the Netherlands or UK, or France 1 000, 2 000, 3 000 years ago? The most advanced cilvilisations at that that time would have been in Egypt, Greece, Italy, and the Arabic states to the east.

Yeah thousands was a misleading term perhaps, I forgot posters analyze every word. Look at the city of London. Look at Rome. How old is that?

EDIT: Anyway, I'm trying to stay on topic, related to the question I asked.

 

[Gawain]

as predicted a lot of yada! yada! and deflecting but no answers to the question

How much black history did you learn in school?

admitedly not much ... maybe since they never wrote anything, "their" history is hard to prove by either side, we only have the past to base their accomplishments on ( and that includes before the whites landed here)

 

[Kloofvreter]

Um, you lead the discussion in this direction. They brought the technology with them (ting ting - any light bulb there?). At one point your revered "white people" were also making fire with sticks and living in makeshift housing. They weren't born with cars and stoves! Circumstances, whether this was weather or whatever, meant a need for advancement that others may not have felt the need for.

These arguments always piss me off anyway. It is like the missionaries who feel the need to go in and save the Amazon tribes. Who says they needed saving? Who says they weren't happy with things the way they are.

Dude, you are desperately wanting everyone to agree with you that black people are useless and NEED white people. You aren't going to get me to do it. The history you hold in such high regard is the one fed to you by a crooked political system. How much black history did you learn in school?

Yeah well basically we agree on the same thing, just in different ways. We bought the technology to a nation that had none, after all the years of their existence. And you're right, I'm straying off-topic, so as per my post before this, I'm trying to stay on topic here. Resource related question.

 

[dlk001]

I'm not trying to archive anything. Don't be so touchy about something that doesn't even concern you.

So, why bother start a discussion if you have no objective? I'm not being touchy, forums are not about trolling, they also about us learning from each other. Yes, it concerns me because I'm a forumite and I am in mining and civil engineering industry.

 

[TooFastTim]

I'm not talking about sifting the soil and in the rivers, but deep mining. So you sort of understand my question, then.

Not quarrying or panning. When I said deep I meant kilometers underground. They African peoples were mining at about the same depth as the English were mining tin.

*edit* I should qualify that last statement: at the same depth that English were mining tin in the middle ages.

 

[LancelotSA]

I have a question I would like to ask, and it will probably piss many people off, but tough luck. I see so many native Africans complaining about the white man who stole their land and it's resources. Now mining and farming are good examples. Now my opinion is that if the Oppenheimers didn't start mining, all those diamons and minerals would still be under the ground. So what are those resources that we are stealing from the natives, besides land?

You so desperately want your question answered... well let me give you an answer. Since the arrival of the white man in this land they have always fought the locals or used them for slavery. Now I am no expert on slavery but it is my understanding that no effort is made to educate or advance slaves. If they were allowed to advance themselves and not be suppressed who knows where they would have been hundreds of years later.

You, of course, will say that they would have still been where they are. I say that at worst we will never know and at best they may well have made great advancements themselves. The "whites" started by panning for gold too. Mining came later. Natural advancement and progress takes place when it is not forcibly suppressed!

 

[Redeemed]

I think more to the point is iron.

http://www.south-africa-tours-and-travel.com/bantu.html

You forget the golden rhino that was stolen and hidden for decades by the Apartheid government precisely to perpetuate the myth of African inferiority.

 

[Kloofvreter]

The harsh reality is:

Africans are consumers, not producers.

That seems to be how it is.

Not quarrying or panning. When I said deep I meant kilometers underground. They African peoples were mining at about the same depth as the English were mining tin.

Source?

**No, I'm not trying to disprove you, I would also like to go and read more about this.

NOTE

Why I started this thread is because of the ANCYL moaning about us robbing them from their resources, while I believe they would not have been able to extract it themselves had we not started doing it. But I'm trying to keep anything political out of this conversation. Perhaps this indicated where I'm coming from with my ori****l post?

 

[Kloofvreter]

You do desperately want your question answered... well let me give you an answer. Since the arrival of the white man in this land they have always fought the locals or used them for slavery. Now I am no expert on slavery but it is my understanding that no effort is made to educate or advance slaves. If they were allowed to advance themselves and not be suppressed who knows where they would have been hundreds of years later.

You, of course, will say that they would have still been where they are. I say that at worst we will never know and at best they may well have made great advancements themselves. The "whites" started by panning for gold too. Mining came later. Natural advancement and progress takes place when it is not forcibly suppressed!

You are correct. Without help there would have been no deep mining for gold by them. That is sort of my point.

 

[TooFastTim]

Ooh, read Michener and hunt down his sources. Love him or hate him his research was impeccable.

 

[Mila]

And the Settlers were fleeing from a Religious nightmare and revolution in their country.
So who was wrong one came over Land and one Over the Ocean.

What is the BIG issue, who said that before all this whiteys were not living in Africa and Black People in Europe and they decided : Oh fark no we do not like the climate lets change places?

According to the Bible Adam and Eve was created in the image of God. And according to all the knowledge we have he was rather more white than black, then God punished people for in fighting and he created different languages and I guess then he made some Back people too, cause where else did they come from?

So if we take that argument I guess Whiteys were first on earth.

And if we do not do religion well yeah it’s like it is the luck of the draw was that the ship was first invented by people who lived at calmer see saw the need to travel by ocean and not land...


And see again we have established that Religion has done far more damage than porn has ever.

If it was not for the religious revolution the settlers would not have felt the need to run away from Europe and Old Jan would have had a port for a Trading and not much more.


// flame suit

 

[Kloofvreter]

And the Settlers were fleeing from a Religious nightmare and revolution in their country.
So who was wrong one came over Land and one Over the Ocean.

What is the BIG issue, who said that before all this whiteys were not living in Africa and Black People in Europe and they decided : Oh fark no we do not like the climate lets change places?

According to the Bible Adam and Eve was created in the image of God. And according to all the knowledge we have he was rather more white than black, then God punished people for in fighting and he created different languages and I guess then he made some Back people too, cause where else did they come from?

So if we take that argument I guess Whiteys were first on earth.

And if we do not do religion well yeah it’s like it is the luck of the draw was that the ship was first invented by people who lived at calmer see saw the need to travel by ocean and not land...


And see again we have established that Religion has done far more damage than porn has ever.

If it was not for the religious revolution the settlers would not have felt the need to run away from Europe and Old Jan would have had a port for a Trading and not much more.


// flame suit

New thread maybe?

 

[JungleBoy]

Please move thread to philosophical debates as it's clearly about "what if"

 

[LancelotSA]

You are correct. Without help there would have been no deep mining for gold by them. That is sort of my point.

Um, where did I say that? I said if they were allowed to progress and develop themselves instead of being suppressed they would not doubt have reached that stage themselves!!