Why was the medieval African armies incredibly inferior to the Euroasian medieval armies?

[Basra-]

Musa@Lol



southafrica is doing good though, would that count as a african nation doing good?

A big NO!!! South Africa used to be great when they had white government and white president. Since Mandela and a slew of adoon presidents, the economy has gone downward. I mean, isn't the current black president in a corruption scandal now? The adoon south Africans are going ape on immigrants because of the a downward In jobs and overall prosperity of the country.




PS Musa---is the enonomy in englang that bad?

[Revolutionary]

Wha does adoon mean?

[Khalid Ali]

adoon means slave

[NoAngst]

Well the West achieved technological & economic progress through imperialism , as did all other previous empires before them.

Imperialism certainly helped CEMENT Western domination and economic edge over others but it's simply not true to say imperialism caused Western dominance in the first place. The West rose to prominence because of their superior culture (social organization, military doctrine, economic system, etc.).

When the Mongol hordes fanned out of central Asia conquering all the lay before them, they were absorbed by the cultures they conquered. Same happened with early Arab/Muslim conquests. In later Arab/Muslim conquests, their culture supplanted that of their vanquished foes. Ditto with European imperialism. For example, there was nothing African cultures could offer to Europeans colonialists, so Africans were colonized both physically and mentally.

The West doesn't have monopoly on imperialism. If Imperialism was the deciding factor then Arabs would be ruling Europe today.

Civilization cannot be defined by the height of tall buildings, but only by the humanity between human beings.

It absolutely can be. It's not the only measure but it's one of the most important ones. We know the Ancient Egyptian, the Mayans, the Chinese, the Arabs, the Romans, the Greeks, the Hindus, etc., were all great civilizations in part because of the architectural ruins they left behind. Tall buildings are indicators of the degree of economic development achieved. So, a nation with plenty of tall buildings in its major urban centers signals economic development.

Remember my definition of civilized is:

Civilized = economically developed
Uncivilized = economically underdeveloped.

Technological accomplishment have no connection to social development which constitutes civilized behavior.

This is bizarre statement considering you're socializing with fellow Somalis across the globe over the internet. Humans being always interacted with each other but that was limited to people in the immediate vicinity. Now, you can socialize with people from all over the world thanks largely to technological progress.

The civil conduct between people in the poorest nomadic regions of Somalia are far more civilized than the heartless inner cities of Europe and America. The way in which neighbors care and interact with each other, looking after each others children is Somali humanity.

When you're actually getting at is called the Urban-Rural Cultural Divide. It has nothing to do with the West vs the Rest or Rich vs Poor but about the economic circumstances of the two communities. Rural people across the world appear more friendly, helpful and less rude than their urban counterpart. It's true in Mumbai, India as it true in NY, USA.

You need to learn what other societies are doing right so that you can get your house in order. Take a leaf from the Japanese. Before anyone else they realized that they were way behind the West and resolved to do something about it. They sent students to Europe to learn what Europeans were doing right. When the students returned the Japanese swallowed their pride and implemented radical changes in order to stave off colonization.

It's good to be proud and confident but obstinately so. As the saying goes "Pride falls before the man." Don't let pride get in the way of achieving your goal.

[TheMightyNomad]

Imperialism certainly helped CEMENT Western domination and economic edge over others but it's simply not true to say imperialism caused Western dominance in the first place. The West rose to prominence because of their superior culture (social organization, military doctrine, economic system, etc.).

When the Mongol hordes fanned out of central Asia conquering all the lay before them, they were absorbed by the cultures they conquered. Same happened with early Arab/Muslim conquests. In later Arab/Muslim conquests, their culture supplanted that of their vanquished foes. Ditto with European imperialism. For example, there was nothing African cultures could offer to Europeans colonialists, so Africans were colonized both physically and mentally.

Imperialism is how past empires including european empires gained economic progress. My assimilating & accumulating the knowledge , technology and cultures and most importantly the resources of the people they conquered.

Arabs did this, Axum did this, Awdal did this, Egypt did this, persians, greeks and turks. That is the method in which they made technological and economic progress.

How else do you explain the case of Arabs just common desert nomads who entered into technological and economical progress by conquering the great empires of Rome, Middeleast and Persia. Even Arabizing people. If technology was a reflect of a superior culture then why did these cultures get assimilated into Arab culture and not vice versa?

I can go deeper by explaining how much of modern world is actually islamic birthed out by Golden Age of Islam. We saw Arab-African building Andalusia, we see universities and science flourishing and which impact on European development. History testifies to the potential of Islam as a unifying force and a force for giving a power advantage.

But if modernity equals western culture. Then how do you explain away this? The point is you can't.

The West doesn't have monopoly on imperialism. If Imperialism was the deciding factor then Arabs would be ruling Europe today.

That is my point. Just like they dont have monopoly on imperialism they do not have monopoly on modernity. It has been a global effort.

So no one race alone can claim everything in modernity. Arabs and Africans did conquere Europe during the golden age of Islam thats how they made scientific and economic advances in which laid ground for the european renaissance.

You asked me how a civilization technologically progresses i told you through imperaliasm, which is true. Very accepted fact.

It absolutely can be. It's not the only measure but it's one of the most important ones. We know the Ancient Egyptian, the Mayans, the Chinese, the Arabs, the Romans, the Greeks, the Hindus, etc., were all great civilizations in part because of the architectural ruins they left behind. Tall buildings are indicators of the degree of economic development achieved. So, a nation with plenty of tall buildings in its major urban centers signals economic development.

Europeans have been firm in holding up themselves as creators of civilization: That only when people left Africa did civilization come into existence. This is done by doing exactly what the Romans did before, by defining civilization to include their traits, habits, and defining everyone else's on the outside of those virtues: the Greeks did it with the Persians despite being at a lower level of social-technological development. Hence despite all the sophistication of some "barbarian" tribes, they were still barbaric in Romes eyes. Civilization defined by the conquer is suspect. US foreign policy, like Roman foreign policy, like all foreign policies in antiquity uses these terms to seperate them from the other. It has no other serious purpose but in foreign policy.

However If you go by the distinction which i made. Technology i.e modernity has no constitution in being civilized. Only Social development , by that i mean the humane conduct between people i.e Humanity.

Civilized = Social development
Uncivilized = Immoral, unethical

Technology i.e modernity= Knowledge & innovation.

Economy= Material accumilation

Technological accomplishment have no connection to social development which constitutes civilized behavior.

This is bizarre statement considering you're socializing with fellow Somalis across the globe over the internet. Humans being always interacted with each other but that was limited to people in the immediate vicinity. Now, you can socialize with people from all over the world thanks largely to technological progress.

Ok let me explain deeper ''Socialization'' is the method people live co-existingly by conducting morally and ethically. This however has no connection to modernity, which just means technology.

For example <<the most uncivilized inhumane society may have advanced weapons, which they use to destroy nature and other humans. Would it be correct to say that possession of weapons of modern warfare automatically implied civilization? >>

Civilization= Social development

When you're actually getting at is called the Urban-Rural Cultural Divide. It has nothing to do with the West vs the Rest or Rich vs Poor but about the economic circumstances of the two communities. Rural people across the world appear more friendly, helpful and less rude than their urban counterpart. It's true in Mumbai, India as it true in NY, USA.

This is not an urban or rural divide. The point i am making is that Civilization can exist in both of these settings and is indifferent to modernity. This not a simple rich vs poor dischotomy. But rather Civilized and uncivilized is indifferent to Technological development.

Technological development does not instruct civilized behavior meaning : That people live ethically and morally together only Social development does.

For example some look at the West as the product of a technologically advanced decadent culture. The decadency being the product of the people's inherent culture. But suppose it is the "modernity" and "wealth" that produces decadence? That would mean as soon as Africa becomes economically on par with the West we too will lose cultural values, and descend into the same lifestyle of greed and excess, waste and indifference.

We can look at all wonderful nations throughout history and see the descent into decadence with the rise of power.

You need to learn what other societies are doing right so that you can get your house in order. Take a leaf from the Japanese. Before anyone else they realized that they were way behind the West and resolved to do something about it. They sent students to Europe to learn what Europeans were doing right. When the students returned the Japanese swallowed their pride and implemented radical changes in order to stave off colonization.

The problem is not accumilating knowledge or adapting new technologies from other societies. Knowlegde/wisdom or Technology is not the monopoly of one single culture nor does it grow out of a vaccum. All knowledge is shared and then advanced.

The issue i take is the fact that you think that non-western cultural values are incompatible with modernity and the west has a monopoly on modernity despite the fact modernity , technology has been a global human effort.

Only people with strong cultural agency can look at new technologies and see the technologies as distinct from the culture of the techno-bearers. They can then skillful take the technology and leave what threatens their self-identity. The more agency the more this happens; the less agency the less this happens.

Japanese entered into modernity with japanese culture as the foundation. They adopted systems and technologies then in turn made into their own version of modelled to the needs and demands of their society's culture.

People with a higher degree of agency selectively adsorbed new cultures, technologies, etc, and made them their own.

But how do you integrate your diversity and contribution into the world when you reject your own cultural values and end up a cultural orphan? Only loyal to European defintions, ideals and power structures?

It's good to be proud and confident but obstinately so. As the saying goes "Pride falls before the man." Don't let pride get in the way of achieving your goal.

This is not a matter of pride. This is a matter of you thinking Africans are only valid through the constructions of Europe.

What i am referring to is agency and self determination, not pride.

Each society must go through its own intelligent processes to figure out what is best for their interest. Europe has always been free to find its own path, and so to must Somalia. And success can never be measured by us all meeting up at the same conclusions because that would be an assault on diversity and plurality.

[TheMightyNomad]

And next time quote me in full context. You come accross as bigoted if you purposely quote people out of context like that.

[Raganimo]

People who believe that technological advancements are a result of "enlightenment" and other such nonsense are extremely shallow.

[Basra-]

Raganiimo

I agree. Enlightenment happened one time during History. It happen in Europe- when Europeans moved from dark ages to Enlightenment. When people started reading, and thinking and science booming!


Do we have an excat date when it started?

[gurey25]

Imperialism certainly helped CEMENT Western domination and economic edge over others but it's simply not true to say imperialism caused Western dominance in the first place. The West rose to prominence because of their superior culture (social organization, military doctrine, economic system, etc.).

When the Mongol hordes fanned out of central Asia conquering all the lay before them, they were absorbed by the cultures they conquered. Same happened with early Arab/Muslim conquests. In later Arab/Muslim conquests, their culture supplanted that of their vanquished foes. Ditto with European imperialism. For example, there was nothing African cultures could offer to Europeans colonialists, so Africans were colonized both physically and mentally.

Imperialism is how past empires including european empires gained economic progress. My assimilating & accumulating the knowledge , technology and cultures and most importantly the resources of the people they conquered.

Arabs did this, Axum did this, Awdal did this, Egypt did this, persians, greeks and turks. That is the method in which they made technological and economic progress.

How else do you explain the case of Arabs just common desert nomads who entered into technological and economical progress by conquering the great empires of Rome, Middeleast and Persia. Even Arabizing people. If technology was a reflect of a superior culture then why did these cultures get assimilated into Arab culture and not vice versa?

I can go deeper by explaining how much of modern world is actually islamic birthed out by Golden Age of Islam. We saw Arab-African building Andalusia, we see universities and science flourishing and which impact on European development. History testifies to the potential of Islam as a unifying force and a force for giving a power advantage.

But if modernity equals western culture. Then how do you explain away this? The point is you can't.

The West doesn't have monopoly on imperialism. If Imperialism was the deciding factor then Arabs would be ruling Europe today.

That is my point. Just like they dont have monopoly on imperialism they do not have monopoly on modernity. It has been a global effort.

So no one race alone can claim everything in modernity. Arabs and Africans did conquere Europe during the golden age of Islam thats how they made scientific and economic advances in which laid ground for the european renaissance.

You asked me how a civilization technologically progresses i told you through imperaliasm, which is true. Very accepted fact.

It absolutely can be. It's not the only measure but it's one of the most important ones. We know the Ancient Egyptian, the Mayans, the Chinese, the Arabs, the Romans, the Greeks, the Hindus, etc., were all great civilizations in part because of the architectural ruins they left behind. Tall buildings are indicators of the degree of economic development achieved. So, a nation with plenty of tall buildings in its major urban centers signals economic development.

Europeans have been firm in holding up themselves as creators of civilization: That only when people left Africa did civilization come into existence. This is done by doing exactly what the Romans did before, by defining civilization to include their traits, habits, and defining everyone else's on the outside of those virtues: the Greeks did it with the Persians despite being at a lower level of social-technological development. Hence despite all the sophistication of some "barbarian" tribes, they were still barbaric in Romes eyes. Civilization defined by the conquer is suspect. US foreign policy, like Roman foreign policy, like all foreign policies in antiquity uses these terms to seperate them from the other. It has no other serious purpose but in foreign policy.

However If you go by the distinction which i made. Technology i.e modernity has no constitution in being civilized. Only Social development , by that i mean the humane conduct between people i.e Humanity.

Civilized = Social development
Uncivilized = Immoral, unethical

Technology i.e modernity= Knowledge & innovation.

Economy= Material accumilation

Technological accomplishment have no connection to social development which constitutes civilized behavior.

This is bizarre statement considering you're socializing with fellow Somalis across the globe over the internet. Humans being always interacted with each other but that was limited to people in the immediate vicinity. Now, you can socialize with people from all over the world thanks largely to technological progress.

Ok let me explain deeper ''Socialization'' is the method people live co-existingly by conducting morally and ethically. This however has no connection to modernity, which just means technology.

For example <<the most uncivilized inhumane society may have advanced weapons, which they use to destroy nature and other humans. Would it be correct to say that possession of weapons of modern warfare automatically implied civilization? >>

Civilization= Social development

When you're actually getting at is called the Urban-Rural Cultural Divide. It has nothing to do with the West vs the Rest or Rich vs Poor but about the economic circumstances of the two communities. Rural people across the world appear more friendly, helpful and less rude than their urban counterpart. It's true in Mumbai, India as it true in NY, USA.

This is not an urban or rural divide. The point i am making is that Civilization can exist in both of these settings and is indifferent to modernity. This not a simple rich vs poor dischotomy. But rather Civilized and uncivilized is indifferent to Technological development.

Technological development does not instruct civilized behavior meaning : That people live ethically and morally together only Social development does.

For example some look at the West as the product of a technologically advanced decadent culture. The decadency being the product of the people's inherent culture. But suppose it is the "modernity" and "wealth" that produces decadence? That would mean as soon as Africa becomes economically on par with the West we too will lose cultural values, and descend into the same lifestyle of greed and excess, waste and indifference.

We can look at all wonderful nations throughout history and see the descent into decadence with the rise of power.

You need to learn what other societies are doing right so that you can get your house in order. Take a leaf from the Japanese. Before anyone else they realized that they were way behind the West and resolved to do something about it. They sent students to Europe to learn what Europeans were doing right. When the students returned the Japanese swallowed their pride and implemented radical changes in order to stave off colonization.

The problem is not accumilating knowledge or adapting new technologies from other societies. Knowlegde/wisdom or Technology is not the monopoly of one single culture nor does it grow out of a vaccum. All knowledge is shared and then advanced.

The issue i take is the fact that you think that non-western cultural values are incompatible with modernity and the west has a monopoly on modernity despite the fact modernity , technology has been a global human effort.

Only people with strong cultural agency can look at new technologies and see the technologies as distinct from the culture of the techno-bearers. They can then skillful take the technology and leave what threatens their self-identity. The more agency the more this happens; the less agency the less this happens.

Japanese entered into modernity with japanese culture as the foundation. They adopted systems and technologies then in turn made into their own version of modelled to the needs and demands of their society's culture.

People with a higher degree of agency selectively adsorbed new cultures, technologies, etc, and made them their own.

But how do you integrate your diversity and contribution into the world when you reject your own cultural values and end up a cultural orphan? Only loyal to European defintions, ideals and power structures?

It's good to be proud and confident but obstinately so. As the saying goes "Pride falls before the man." Don't let pride get in the way of achieving your goal.

This is not a matter of pride. This is a matter of you thinking Africans are only valid through the constructions of Europe.

What i am referring to is agency and self determination, not pride.

Each society must go through its own intelligent processes to figure out what is best for their interest. Europe has always been free to find its own path, and so to must Somalia. And success can never be measured by us all meeting up at the same conclusions because that would be an assault on diversity and plurality.

The mighty nomad, truly your wit and eloquence are mighty..
I couldn't have said it any better.

What the Europeans had going for them was mastering the art of war and pushing it to new boundaries.
This was because Europe was the most violent place on earth, they were at war continuously for 500 years.
The Indians and Chinese, Koreans, Japanese, javanese were as culturally advanced if not more advanced than the Europeans in the 1500's.
The Asians were also technologically more advanced than the Europeans, i know its difficult to imagine,
but Chinese and Korean cannons were a generation ahead of anywhere in europe, the Japanese copied muskets from the portugese traders in 1540, they made changes and improved them, so by 1570's japanese muskets were better than anything the europeans had, and the japanese could field a trained and experienced army as large as france and austria combined, which were the European giants.
The same with Ottoman and Indian muskets which were superior to the europeans.

outside of weapons which the europeans were closely behind everyone else in Asia, and Shipbuilding which they were also closely behind, the europeans were far behind in every other field.
from road constuction to medicne, to public health, to architecture , even in manufacturing of practically every item.

The europeans however had developed the scientific method by expanding on muslim sciences, this would allow them to
leap ahead of everyone else.
but to leap forward they needed resources, which they got thanks to their superior military culture, by looting the americas.

by the 1750's the Europeans caught upto the asians in weapons technology and started moving ahead,
and caught up in steel making, but were still behind in textiles and ceramics .
It took untill the 1850 for the europeans to make textiles as fine as bengal or china, and the same time for them to make ceramics of quality (wedgewood).

but sadly from the time the Europeans burst onto the scene in the 1500's, the Asians and africans had to deal with the extremely bad personal hygiene of the Europeans.
Would you believe regular bathing and brushing teeth became commonplace just before world war 1, 1914.

If you were a poor china man or an indians, sometime you would smell a european before you see him,
disgusting creatures,
but now they look down on the poor slum dwelling indians and african who have a tradition of regular bathing,
but have no access to water and sanitation due to extreme poverty.
while historically europeans wether they peasants or noblemen all stank like hell..

[Raganimo]

No way the mighty nomad is only 17 years old

You have to admire the fact that he puts a lot of energy into his posts which is why they are mostly quality posts, unlike most of us here.

[TheCadaanGuy]

I think the climate has to do with how civilisations rose and flourished. Agriculture no doubt helped massively.

Look at Egypt, almost all of their civilisations are located along Nile river. They did well but not in comparison with other civilisations located little bit further north.

Arabs, Somalis, Africans, etc had much slower head start because they spent more time trying to survive in extreme climate.

Arabs were in constant contact with other civilisations meant they were ahead of Africans but still behind anyone else.

[NoAngst]

Imperialism is how past empires including european empires gained economic progress. My assimilating & accumulating the knowledge , technology and cultures and most importantly the resources of the people they conquered.

Actually, there's no empirical data to support your claim. The data we have clearly shows that Europe, on eve of their colonization of much of the world, was already more economically developed than the regions they conquered. Below is historical GDP per capita of the world from 1 A.D. to the present.



Colonialism is certainly a factor in explaining European dominance over the rest but it's not the deciding factor. I prefer Jared Diamond's Geography theory in explaining economic disparity.

If colonialism was a deciding factor, why are Arabs/Muslims backward and underdeveloped today? Arabs/Muslims had 1000 year colonialism head-start over Europeans. Islamic colonialism started in the 7th century whereas European colonialism only commenced, in full force, around 18th century. Shouldn't Arabs be as economically advanced as S. Korea, Japan, Finland, UK, Netherlands, etc.? If not, why not?

How else do you explain the case of Arabs just common desert nomads who entered into technological and economical progress by conquering the great empires of Rome, Middeleast and Persia. Even Arabizing people. If technology was a reflect of a superior culture then why did these cultures get assimilated into Arab culture and not vice versa? Rather than Arabs "assimilate" others, Arabs were assimilated and absorbed into local cultures. This is why

You're confused (the highlighted bit is contradictory).

The Arabs hardly came up with new technology but instead used existing technology among the people they conquered. Even the so-called Arab Numerals are actually of Hindu origin. The Arabs, as marauding nomadic people, are a classic demonstration of what happens when people of inferior culture and attainment conquer superior people. The Persians are still there. The Hindus are still there. The Spanish and Europeans are still there. Hell, they even still speak their ancient languages. None of these people were "Arabized" only weaker groups like Africans.

I can go deeper by explaining how much of modern world is actually islamic birthed out by Golden Age of Islam. We saw Arab-African building Andalusia, we see universities and science flourishing and which impact on European development. History testifies to the potential of Islam as a unifying force and a force for giving a power advantage.

But if modernity equals western culture. Then how do you explain away this? The point is you can't.

You're confused, once again.

I never said modernity equals Western culture. You're confusing me with someone else.

Second, North African Muslims conquered and colonized Spain, so that's hardly something to brag about. I know Muslim run Andalusia was tolerant and progressive place for its times but that's the exception that proves the rule not the rule. By and large, Islamic colonialism has been just as disastrous as any other colonialism.

That is my point. Just like they dont have monopoly on imperialism they do not have monopoly on modernity. It has been a global effort.

So no one race alone can claim everything in modernity. Arabs and Africans did conquere Europe during the golden age of Islam thats how they made scientific and economic advances in which laid ground for the european renaissance.

You asked me how a civilization technologically progresses i told you through imperaliasm, which is true. Very accepted fact.

You must be confusing me with someone else. I never said anyone has monopoly on modernity. Many peoples and civilizations have played a vital role in creating the world we live in today. I know Europeans owe a great deal of their achievements to the ancient empires and peoples that came before them. Man is not an island after all.

All I'm saying is don't be so arrogant and prideful as to dismiss learning from the West in what they're doing right. In fact, you should promiscuous as to who you learn and adopt ideas from. If the Japenese, non-Western people, have a better solution to a modern problem we should learn from them. Why does it matter who you learn from?

Europeans have been firm in holding up themselves as creators of civilization: That only when people left Africa did civilization come into existence. This is done by doing exactly what the Romans did before, by defining civilization to include their traits, habits, and defining everyone else's on the outside of those virtues: the Greeks did it with the Persians despite being at a lower level of social-technological development. Hence despite all the sophistication of some "barbarian" tribes, they were still barbaric in Romes eyes. Civilization defined by the conquer is suspect. US foreign policy, like Roman foreign policy, like all foreign policies in antiquity uses these terms to seperate them from the other. It has no other serious purpose but in foreign policy.

I don't believe that, so try again. What you're describing is called Eurocentrism.

However If you go by the distinction which i made. Technology i.e modernity has no constitution in being civilized. Only Social development , by that i mean the humane conduct between people i.e Humanity.

Well, technology is a tool so it can't confer any values directly. But technological advancement shapes social order which in turn results in new morals and values. Take for instance Globalization. Ever since the advent of the globalized there's been coalescing of values globally. Global citizens of today are moving towards shared values regarding what's fair and just or what's right or wrong. Slavery is textbook example. Most people today reject the institution of slavery but that wasn't always the case. It only became the case after anti-slavery campaigns reached critical mass which was only possible thanks to technology.

Civilization= Social development

And how do you develop "social development" without economic development? And how is economic development possible without technological progress?

Think about it before you respond.

This is not an urban or rural divide. The point i am making is that Civilization can exist in both of these settings and is indifferent to modernity. This not a simple rich vs poor dischotomy. But rather Civilized and uncivilized is indifferent to Technological development.

Technological development does not instruct civilized behavior meaning : That people live ethically and morally together only Social development does.

Unfortunately, the historical record disagrees with you. The development of modern ethics and morals has developed in lockstep with technological progress. As humans we are currently living in the most advanced moral and ethical era. No time in human history have humans attained such lofty moral and ethical standards. We also happen to be living in the most technologically advanced. So, you can assert bold claims all you like but thinking people know otherwise.

For example some look at the West as the product of a technologically advanced decadent culture. The decadency being the product of the people's inherent culture. But suppose it is the "modernity" and "wealth" that produces decadence? That would mean as soon as Africa becomes economically on par with the West we too will lose cultural values, and descend into the same lifestyle of greed and excess, waste and indifference.

We can look at all wonderful nations throughout history and see the descent into decadence with the rise of power.

It's usually fascists and Islamists who say the West is decadent and therefore weak. Hitler said as much. But I agree that economic progress tends towards what conservative call "decadency." I see nothing wrong with decadency which is really a slur against social liberalization.

And, yes economic progress does lead to social liberalization (i.e. decadency).

Regarding African losing "cultural values," what's wrong with losing cultural values? What's inherently good about these values? If these values serve a positive social role, they'll survive on their merit otherwise they'll wither. Why should bad ideas and pratices get protection from critical scrutiny? There's no reason to be afraid of change. What you're describing is called Traditionalism - the believe traditional practices and customs ought to be maintained come what may.

The issue i take is the fact that you think that non-western cultural values are incompatible with modernity and the west has a monopoly on modernity despite the fact modernity , technology has been a global human effort.

I actually never said any of that and I don't believe it. Your problem is you've been brain fuked by Europeans to the point where whenever you hear "modernity," "progress," "technology," etc., you immediately associate them with the Europeans and frantically attack anyone who supports modernity or social or technological progress.

I'm not advocating that we abandon our traditions and customs and adopt other customs wholesale. All I'm saying is we should be open to learn from EVERYONE. If Europeans at this point in time happen to offer greater lessons than others, so be it.

[TheMightyNomad]

The data we have clearly shows that Europe, on eve of their colonization of much of the world, was already more economically developed than the regions they conquered.

Obviously. Thanks to the Islamic golden ages.

Colonialism is certainly a factor in explaining European dominance over the rest but it's not the deciding factor.

So following your logic then the Arab conquest is a certain factor explaining dominance over the Ancient Empires of Rome,Europe and Nabatean, Persia etc.

Not only that but it dwarfs your myth, because despite the fact that the various empires they conquered were technologically more advanced then them , they were assimilated into Arab culture and Islam and not vice versa. Which means that civilization is never tied technology.

Obviously i am not denying that Europe in the time period before the age of Imperialism had a significant economic and technological lead. Hovever much of the foundation for that was put in place by the Golden Age Of Islam ,which was the impetus for the birth of the renaissance.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OGhr0eZGdio

If colonialism was a deciding factor, why are Arabs/Muslims backward and underdeveloped today? Arabs/Muslims had 1000 year colonialism head-start over Europeans. Islamic colonialism started in the 7th century whereas European colonialism only commenced, in full force, around 18th century. Shouldn't Arabs be as economically advanced as S. Korea, Japan, Finland, UK, Netherlands, etc.? If not, why not?

European civilization has been continous since before the rise of the greeks to fall of the roman empire, to the beginning of Dark Ages and throughout.
Don't you even try to exclude various periods within European history to make it seem like Europe began with progress and not a decline. Are we going to act like the greeks and Romans didnt progress without the help mesopotamia,Phoenicians etc and most of all by Ancient egyptians. Are we going to act like the European Dark ages grew out of a vaccum they built from and not with the help of Islamic civilizations which introduced many of the things that laid foundations to our modern world. For 7 whole centuries Islam was leading the world in science & technology. Simmilarly to English, back then Arabic was the lingua franca.

All empires rise and decline then go through a period of self assessment , but that transission from decline to self-assesment and then to a rise has been interrupted by European colonialists who are constantly denying not only Africa but the Muslim world of their own right to self determination and their agency.

They did this especially by methods of neo-colonialism. Japan which you keep mentioning was one nation who could seek its own destiny outside of the contructions of Europe. They were not colonized by Europe and any influence or technology they adopted was via their own agency.

Like have said before. Each society must go through its own intelligent processes to figure out what is best for their interest. Europe has always been free to find its own path, and so to must Somalia and the Muslim world. And success can never be measured by us all meeting up at the same conclusions because that would be an assault on diversity and plurality.

You're confused (the highlighted bit is contradictory).
The Arabs hardly came up with new technology but instead used existing technology among the people they conquered. Even the so-called Arab Numerals are actually of Hindu origin. The Arabs, as marauding nomadic people, are a classic demonstration of what happens when people of inferior culture and attainment conquer superior people. The Persians are still there. The Hindus are still there. The Spanish and Europeans are still there. Hell, they even still speak their ancient languages. None of these people were "Arabized" only weaker groups like Africans.

The point i was making is that they incorporated all the new technologies, systems of the empires they conquered and formed into their interpretations of it.

All knowledge is tranfered and advanced no new knowledge grows out of a vaccum. The fact Arabs and Muslims extracted influence from other people is besides the point , they took what others made advanced it , corrected it. improved on it and perfected it. As well invented new things to readress problems.

One of the greatest contributions they made was the Arabic script which was used to intitutionalize all this accumulated knowledge and give life to scholarship & intellectualism to the average layman.


BTW Arabs arabized the whole middeleast which was vast areas were not Arab to being with. From the nabateanians to assyrians to the Sassanians etc(more than i can recall). Including Egypt. If technology was reflected on culture this would not have happened.

If you believe people invent shit and advance stuff out of nothing , then that contradicts your whole point which is we need to learn from others. Which i have nothing against.

You're confused, once again.

I never said modernity equals Western culture. You're confusing me with someone else.

Yes that is what you are really saying indirectly and keep it civil & rational by leaving the ad hominems ''You're confused''.

I will qoute you to demonstrate what you are saying.

<< It is reflected in our customs, attitude, beliefs, behavior, and so on.>>

Here you are indirectly saying that modern technology implies superiority of western cultural values. How does that make sense when modernity innit of itself has been a Global effort and is not of any ethical construction.

Cultural values of Somalis can exist in the most technologically advanced settings just as any other.

Second, North African Muslims conquered and colonized Spain, so that's hardly something to brag about. I know Muslim run Andalusia was tolerant and progressive place for its times but that's the exception that proves the rule not the rule. By and large, Islamic colonialism has been just as disastrous as any other colonialism.

I didnt mention it to brag, but to highlight if modern Technology was birthed out of western culture, then how do you explain away the fact that Persians, Arabs,African, Turkish muslims introduced , advanced and invented vast amount of sciences that impacted European development and gave birth to the foundation of this modern world.

Islamic colonialism did not hinder the west in progression infact it sparked them into it. Islamic colonialism did not oppress and deny & rob the Western world of their ressources & self determination & culture.

Now ask yourself what type of civilization,progression & technological & economic development did European colonialism bring Africans & Muslims.
Islam gave birth to great rich indepedent states like Mali,Adal, Ajuuran, Benin, Ottoman etc and even the great libraries of Timbuktu in empires where intellectualism and scholarship was developed. The contributions of several africans ( including Somalis) to the Muslim world is very documented.

All European colonialism did was handicap,loot & deny africans & muslims not only of their own cultural heritage but their own economic & technological destiny.

You must be confusing me with someone else. I never said anyone has monopoly on modernity. Many peoples and civilizations have played a vital role in creating the world we live in today. I know Europeans owe a great deal of their achievements to the ancient empires and peoples that came before them. Man is not an island after all.

If you agree that no one has a monopoly on Knowledge and technology then you must concede to the fact that there is no cultural values attach to modernity or technology, it is always relative.

All I'm saying is don't be so arrogant and prideful as to dismiss learning from the West in what they're doing right. In fact, you should promiscuous as to who you learn and adopt ideas from. If the Japenese, non-Western people, have a better solution to a modern problem we should learn from them. Why does it matter who you learn from?

Why, must we spend all our time, energy and resources studying only the western man, who has never bothered to study us except for some anthropological or exploitative purposes? Has the West the monopoly of wisdom? Are we conceding that we have nothing to contribute to humanity? What have we benefited from this subservience all this while? What chance do we have in a world which is increasingly shaped and dominated by the western man? This, I hardly need to add, is not to say that knowledge from the west is necessarily evil, far from it, a lot of it is not only useful, but is even Islamic or Somali in essence. The point is the that epistemological basis is largely atheist and the knowledge and culture so produced will continue to undermine rather than strengthen us

The Japanese was never handicapped by the European colonial & neo-colonial yoke, naturally when they adopted new technologies and systems from the outside they filtered it through their own cultural lens. Reshaping every influence that came in, into their own interpretations that was reflective on the needs & demands of their society( i.e Interests).

Thus beyond the over reaching hand of Westernization many cultures put their foot down in the monocultural stream of globalization to take ownership of their spaces. The Japanese practices Japanese culture in the modern workplace. They did not completely base their work ethos on Europe just because Europe brought technological gifts to Japan in the 19th century (Convention of Kanagawa)

I don't believe that, so try again. What you're describing is called Eurocentrism.

Demonstrate to me that you don't believe it. Everything you have said soo far has been European centered were you give sollace & precedent to Europeans alone and them alone.

Well, technology is a tool so it can't confer any values directly. But technological advancement shapes social order which in turn results in new morals and values. Take for instance Globalization. Ever since the advent of the globalized there's been coalescing of values globally. Global citizens of today are moving towards shared values regarding what's fair and just or what's right or wrong. Slavery is textbook example. Most people today reject the institution of slavery but that wasn't always the case. It only became the case after anti-slavery campaigns reached critical mass which was only possible thanks to technology.

Technology has no correlation to peoples moral or ethical values. Like you said its only the tools which people use to cope with their daily lives.

In otherwords technology is purely material and nothing more than that. How does high accumaleted materialism change moral and ethical behavior of human beings?

Hence like i said before
<<the most uncivilized inhumane society may have advanced weapons, which they use to destroy nature and other humans. Would it be correct to say that possession of weapons of modern warfare automatically implied civilization? >>

Suffice to say wether you are technologically developed or not has no bearing on your ''Humanity'' as a person. Therefore technological development never defines civilized or uncivilized.

And how do you develop "social development" without economic development? And how is economic development possible without technological progress?

Think about it before you respond.

Social development has several factors & definition the one i mentioned the ''Humane'' defintion of it (i.e Ethical & Morality). Has no correlation with technological development as we know technological developent is simply material.

Yes Social development has linkage to Economics. But can you tell me what this social change entails? and what are some of its factors?

Look into that next time you respond to me.

Unfortunately, the historical record disagrees with you. The development of modern ethics and morals has developed in lockstep with technological progress.
As humans we are currently living in the most advanced moral and ethical era. No time in human history have humans attained such lofty moral and ethical standards. We also happen to be living in the most technologically advanced. So, you can assert bold claims all you like but thinking people know otherwise.

What part of history did you read? So when Nazi Germans developed into a technological powerhouse they didnt spark a World war and genocide millions. They didnt become immoral & unethical by wiping millions of jews & exhorting them the most horrendous treatment.

Many contemporary western historians and scholars believe that the glitter of science and technology had by the second half of this century began to fade in the face of the destruction it had wrought not only on the physical environment but also on man's social environment.

Social and economic inequality, weakening of the family unit and the crisis of values, were to unleash series of unprecedented consequences that continue to suffocate the life of the modern man. In the words of a prominent Western scholar, "the modern era had put its enthusiastic hopes in the mastery of nature and society. For more than two centuries man believed that the continued perfecting of rationality would have as a result the unceasing growth of his power and, consequently, an increase in well-being and happiness, freedom and equality among people. Now, not only has he experienced the limits of his power, but he has discovered that the rational and technological civilisation creates new problems and that it endangers the balance between man and nature, individual and society. The deception", he added, "is all the more painful because the progressivist had exalted people's desires and confidence." Such was the tragic end of modernism. In the eloquent words of Erich From, "in the nineteen century the problem was that God is dead, in the twentieth century the problem is that man is dead."

It's usually fascists and Islamists who say the West is decadent and therefore weak. Hitler said as much. But I agree that economic progress tends towards what conservative call "decadency." I see nothing wrong with decadency which is really a slur against social liberalization.

And, yes economic progress does lead to social liberalization (i.e. decadency).

Well at least your honest about your stance that you believe in decadency which is a Eurocentric concept. And you are wrong its usually ethical and moral people who say that West is a decadent continent.

Thats why they will descent into decadency regardless how technologically developed they have become. So i cannot understand how you can think moral degeneration and decay is not a bad thing when some historians hold that the fall of Rome can be attributed to internal decadence.

Not just Rome but several civilizations before and after them. To create a harmonies society , people need to redress these instrinsic imbalances in human relations.

Regarding African losing "cultural values," what's wrong with losing cultural values? What's inherently good about these values? If these values serve a positive social role, they'll survive on their merit otherwise they'll wither. Why should bad ideas and pratices get protection from critical scrutiny? There's no reason to be afraid of change. What you're describing is called Traditionalism - the believe traditional practices and customs ought to be maintained come what may.

All human values are rooted somewhere, we cannot prove "right" and "wrong" by mere logic, because even those values at some stage must be anchored in some fundamental truths unique to the user. Most of Africa roots itself in God and cultural traditions of those who have gone before us. Honor in Japan (Seppuku (切腹) is not necessarily honor in America. Respect in Islam is not respect in Vodon. The cultural or moral root is not always universal. "Human rights" is therefore relative and dependent on the culture of a society.

For example, according to psychologist Gregory Bateson, in traditional Balinese families, mothers routinely stroke the penises of their young sons, and such behavior is considered no more incestuous than breast-feeding.

Those majority who believe in Qur'an and Bible, Talmud and Gita may seek their moral root in the teachings of those faiths. We have no business to interrogate peoples moral anchor, because it has always been rooted in some tradition.

Some people quote Bible, Some Quote Qur'an some may quote ancestors.

Tomorrow human rights could say the death penalty is "inhumane" this is not an absolute truth just because Amnesty says so. Torture was once an unthinkable violation of our basic humanity, US has new laws which say it isnt.

At the end of the day each society must go through its own intelligent processes to figure out what is best for their interest.

I actually never said any of that and I don't believe it. Your problem is you've been brain fuked by Europeans to the point where whenever you hear "modernity," "progress," "technology," etc., you immediately associate them with the Europeans and frantically attack anyone who supports modernity or social or technological progress.

If you go back to 3rd page of this thread you can see that i was addressing Khalid Ali who said:

basra is right the white man is superior the white man rules mucof the world build much of the technology humanity is so proud

You replied in a defense to this saying the following << (civilized here means: Economically Developed). Somalis are uncivilized and therefore not modern. It is reflected in our customs, attitude, beliefs, behavior, and so on.>>

Its funny enough you contradicted your own statement later by saying material accumulation (i.e Economic development) leads to decadency (i.e Moral degenaration).

So no i dont associate modernity with europeans, It is evident that some people here do and i was going out of a leap to address such fallacious thinking. I reject such thinking.

I support modernity and social change from the Islamic and Somali context, infact i am a first year science(BsC) major myself studying information technology ( which is alot of programming,coding, hardware engineering etc.) and i study culture,history ,humanities, media ,politics as a hobby and islamic philosophy and Somali philosophy. (self-study).

I want us Somalis to enter modernity with our culture as the foundation. And let our culture evolve and reconstruct itself naturally through our own self assesement.

But i dont want materialism to be the overriding factor of our being, as much as i love technology & science i do not believe it should come at the expense of our communities social well-being. And our social well-being took a huge blow every since the civil war, adding more to it would be suicidal.

Thats why we need Religion and culural values. To prevent us from descending further into decadency.

I'm not advocating that we abandon our traditions and customs and adopt other customs wholesale. All I'm saying is we should be open to learn from EVERYONE. If Europeans at this point in time happen to offer greater lessons than others, so be it.

[/quote]

That i agree with. I have never resented the idea of learning anything from Europeans. Granted they have alot of useful knowledge. But i reject the idea that in order for us to technologically develope we need to copy or borrow cultural values from others.

Contrary it is our cultural values that allows us to take useful influences from other nations and shape it into our own interpretation.By Somalinizing it. It also allows us to integrate our own unique contribution into the world.

I want us to become technological and economic producers and not just consumers.

Granted there are several unique challenges Somalis and Muslims worldwide must address to adapt to contemporary times, not denying it. But this urge to evolve should not come from any outside demand or context, but from within.

[Ololhilaac]

And next time quote me in full context. You come accross as bigoted if you purposely quote people out of context like that.

https://youtu.be/oa_b9vmg7D0[/youtube]

Check this out.

Peace and Bariis. O.H.

[Ololhilaac]

Fail. ^

I wanted to post a yt video.https://youtu.be/oa_b9vmg7D0