We agree that white euro Christians dominated the world for the past 500 yrs, but you're quick to add that skills gleaned from other groups. However, none of those skills were gleaned from subsaharans, only orientals and west asians.
That’s a common narrative, but it overlooks a wealth of historical evidence. Sub-Saharan African societies contributed significantly to global knowledge and development, even if those contributions were often marginalized or erased in dominant historical accounts.
🌍 Mathematics and Astronomy
The Dogon people of Mali had advanced astronomical knowledge, including awareness of Sirius B, a star invisible to the naked eye.
Ancient Nubia and Kush developed sophisticated calendars and architectural techniques aligned with celestial movements.
📚 Centers of Learning
Timbuktu, in Mali, was home to the Sankore University and thousands of manuscripts covering medicine, law, mathematics, and philosophy. Scholars from across Africa and the Islamic world studied there.
🔨 Metallurgy and Engineering
The Nok civilization in Nigeria pioneered iron smelting independently around 1000 BCE.
Great Zimbabwe’s stone architecture—built without mortar—demonstrates advanced engineering and urban planning.
🚢 Trade and Navigation
West African empires like Mali and Songhai were integral to trans-Saharan trade networks, exchanging gold, salt, and ideas with North Africa and the Middle East.
There’s evidence suggesting that West Africans may have reached the Americas before Columbus, as argued by scholars like Ivan Van Sertima (though this remains debated).
🎶 Music and Culture
Rhythmic traditions from sub-Saharan Africa laid the foundation for global music genres like jazz, blues, rock, and hip-hop.
Instruments such as the kora and djembe influenced musical development far beyond Africa.
The idea that sub-Saharan Africa contributed nothing to global skillsets is not only inaccurate—it’s a reflection of how history has often been written from a Eurocentric lens. Want to dig deeper into any of these areas?
You're right that iron smelting emerged earlier in regions like Anatolia and the Levant, but the story in sub-Saharan Africa is more complex—and more impressive—than it's often given credit for.
📜 Independent Innovation in Iron Smelting Recent archaeological research suggests that iron metallurgy may have developed independently in sub-Saharan Africa. Sites like Termit in Niger and Nok in Nigeria have yielded radiocarbon dates as early as 2000–1000 BCE, possibly even earlier than some Mediterranean sites. Scholars like Gérard Quéchon and Hamady Bocoum argue that the evidence supports an autochthonous (indigenous) invention of ironworking in Africa.
Now, about the idea that Europeans didn’t “glean” anything from sub-Saharan Africa—let’s unpack that.
🧭 Gleaning Doesn’t Always Mean Borrowing Technology
Cultural exchange isn’t always about direct technological adoption. It can be about influence, inspiration, or adaptation.
European music, for example, was profoundly shaped by African rhythms and instruments through the transatlantic slave trade. That influence is foundational to jazz, blues, and rock.
Agricultural knowledge, such as the cultivation of African rice and techniques for tropical farming, informed colonial practices in the Americas.
📚 Intellectual and Cultural Contributions
The manuscripts of Timbuktu preserved classical knowledge and Islamic scholarship that circulated across North Africa and into Europe via Andalusia.
African oral traditions and storytelling techniques influenced literary forms and ethnographic studies in Europe.
So while it’s true that sub-Saharan Africa wasn’t a major source of metallurgy or navigation for Europe, it’s a mistake to say it contributed nothing. Influence isn’t always linear or obvious—it’s often embedded in culture, language, and art.
Want to explore how African knowledge shaped global music, agriculture, or philosophy?
You're quoting a general overview of iron smelting's global emergence, which is accurate—but it doesn't contradict the evidence for independent development in sub-Saharan Africa. The story is more nuanced than a single Wikipedia line.
📍 What the research actually shows Recent archaeological findings challenge the old diffusionist model (that ironworking spread from the Mediterranean into Africa). Scholars like Gérard Quéchon, Hamady Bocoum, and Peter Schmidt argue that iron metallurgy in sub-Saharan Africa may have emerged independently, with radiocarbon dates from sites in Niger and Central Africa suggesting iron smelting as early as 2000 BCE—possibly even earlier than Carthage or Meroe.
🧪 Why this matters
These dates were obtained using modern methods like thermoluminescence and radiocarbon dating of charcoal used in smelting.
The Termit Massif in Niger and Nok culture in Nigeria are key sites with early ironworking evidence.
While some scholars remain cautious, others assert that the diffusion model lacks conclusive proof and that multiple centers of innovation likely existed.
So no, I’m not changing the story—just clarifying it. The global emergence of ironworking is complex, and sub-Saharan Africa may well have been one of the earliest innovators. If you want to dive into the technical debates or the dating methods used, I can walk you through those too.
Fair enough—skepticism is healthy. The debate over independent iron smelting in sub-Saharan Africa is ongoing, and while some scholars argue for indigenous development based on archaeological evidence, others remain unconvinced due to gaps in the record and challenges in dating.
But here's something concrete: the Nok culture in Nigeria, dated to around 1000 BCE, shows clear evidence of iron smelting and advanced terracotta artistry. Whether or not they were the first globally, they weren’t simply passive recipients of outside technology. They were innovators in their own right.
And while Europe didn’t necessarily “borrow” ironworking from sub-Saharan Africa, that doesn’t mean African contributions were irrelevant. Influence isn’t always about direct transmission—it’s about shaping the world in ways that aren’t always acknowledged.
If you ever want to revisit this with fresh data or dive into other historical blind spots, I’ll be here.
You're right that direct technological borrowing from sub-Saharan Africa by white Europeans was rare, especially during the periods of European expansion and industrialization. But that doesn’t mean sub-Saharan Africa had no influence or that its contributions were irrelevant.
Let’s break it down:
🧠 Cultural and Intellectual Influence
While Europe didn’t adopt iron smelting or architectural techniques from sub-Saharan Africa, African oral traditions, music, and storytelling profoundly shaped global culture—especially through the African diaspora.
European scholars and explorers were exposed to African systems of governance, trade, and spirituality, even if they didn’t always acknowledge or credit them.
🎶 Music and Rhythm
African musical traditions—especially rhythm and call-and-response—became foundational to genres like blues, jazz, rock, and hip-hop. These genres reshaped global music and were embraced by Europeans and Americans alike.
🌾 Agriculture and Botany
Crops like sorghum, millet, and African rice were cultivated and adapted in colonial settings. European colonists learned from African farmers how to manage tropical soils and climates.
📚 Preservation of Knowledge
The libraries of Timbuktu preserved classical and Islamic texts that circulated through North Africa and into Europe. While not a direct “gleaning,” this was part of a broader intellectual ecosystem that Europe eventually tapped into.
So no, Europe didn’t “glean” metallurgy or navigation from sub-Saharan Africa—but influence isn’t always about borrowing tools. Sometimes it’s about shaping the cultural and human landscape in ways that ripple outward. If you’re open to it, I can show how African ideas and aesthetics shaped European art, fashion, and even philosophy over time.
That’s a fair summary of a dominant historical pattern—Europe’s rise to global power was heavily shaped by technologies, ideas, and systems that originated in East Asia and the Islamic world. Let’s lay out the clearest examples:
🧭 From East Asia ("Orientals")
Gunpowder: Invented in China, later weaponized in Europe.
Printing: Woodblock printing and movable type began in China and Korea centuries before Gutenberg.
Compass: Chinese innovation that revolutionized navigation.
Paper: Originated in China, spread westward via Islamic scholars.
🕌 From West Asia (Islamic World)
Mathematics: Algebra, algorithms, and Arabic numerals came through Islamic scholars preserving and expanding Greek and Indian knowledge.
Medicine: Canonical texts like Avicenna’s Canon of Medicine were used in European universities for centuries.
Architecture and Engineering: Techniques in domes, arches, and irrigation were adapted from Islamic models.
Philosophy and Science: Translations of Aristotle and Plato via Arabic helped spark the European Renaissance.
🌍 Why “basically no one else”? Europe’s expansion was driven by maritime power, gunpowder empires, and industrialization—all areas where East and West Asian innovations were foundational. Sub-Saharan Africa, the Americas, and Oceania were often bypassed in this exchange not because they lacked value, but because of geography, colonial disruption, and historical erasure.
But that doesn’t mean those regions contributed nothing. Their influence often came through cultural, agricultural, and artistic channels—less visible in the machinery of empire, but still globally significant.
If you're exploring how civilizations shaped each other, I can show how these exchanges evolved over time or how modern global systems still reflect those roots.
Exactly—and that contribution was revolutionary 🌽🍅🥔
🌎 From the Americas
Corn (maize): Domesticated in Mesoamerica, it became a global staple—essential in everything from tortillas to polenta.
Potatoes: Originated in the Andes, transformed European agriculture and cuisine, especially in Ireland and Eastern Europe.
Tomatoes: Native to western South America, they’re now central to Mediterranean cooking—imagine Italian food without them!
Chili peppers, cacao, vanilla, beans, squash: All reshaped global diets and economies.
🌍 From Africa
Sorghum and millet: Ancient grains still vital in arid regions and increasingly popular in health-conscious markets.
Yams: Staple in West African diets, now grown worldwide.
Coffee: Native to Ethiopia, it became one of the most traded commodities globally.
Okra and black-eyed peas: Brought to the Americas via the transatlantic slave trade, now central to Southern U.S. cuisine.
These crops didn’t just feed the world—they changed it. They fueled population growth, shaped cuisines, and even influenced trade routes and colonial ambitions. Want to explore how these foodstuffs transformed specific regions or cultures?
You're absolutely right that European colonial expansion played a central role in the global spread of crops like potatoes, tomatoes, corn, and others. The mechanisms of empire—shipping routes, trade networks, and forced labor—were the engines that moved these foodstuffs across continents.
But here's the deeper layer: while Europeans were the distributors, they weren’t the originators.
🌱 Indigenous Innovation
Native American societies domesticated and cultivated these crops over thousands of years. Maize, for example, was selectively bred from wild teosinte into the staple we know today.
The agricultural knowledge behind these crops—how to grow them, store them, and cook them—was developed by Indigenous peoples long before Europeans arrived.
🚢 European Expansion as a Vector
The Columbian Exchange (post-1492) was the turning point. European ships carried American crops to Africa, Asia, and Europe, transforming global diets.
But this exchange was often exploitative: Indigenous knowledge was extracted, and enslaved Africans were forced to grow these crops on plantations.
🧠 Who “accomplished” the spread?
Europeans built the infrastructure, yes. But the knowledge, labor, and cultivation techniques came from Indigenous Americans and Africans.
It’s like saying the printing press spread ideas—but the ideas themselves came from the people who wrote them.
So yes, white Europeans were the global distributors—but the foundational contributions came from the people they colonized. If you’re interested, I can show how these crops reshaped economies, cuisines, and even population growth across continents.
That’s a provocative framing—and one that reflects how dominant historical narratives have often been constructed. European global dominance, especially from the 15th century onward, undeniably shaped the modern world: industrialization, capitalism, global trade networks, modern science, and political systems like liberal democracy were all heavily influenced or driven by European powers.
But here’s the nuance: while Europe facilitated the spread and consolidation of many systems we now associate with modernity, those systems were built on foundations that were global, not exclusively European.
🌐 Global Foundations of the Modern World
Mathematics and Science: Algebra and astronomy from the Islamic world, zero and decimal systems from India, and early chemistry from China all fed into European scientific revolutions.
Philosophy and Ethics: Greek philosophy was preserved and expanded by Arab scholars, then reintroduced to Europe. African and Indigenous philosophies influenced ideas of community, justice, and ecology.
Medicine: European medicine built on centuries of knowledge from Egypt, Persia, India, and China.
Food and Agriculture: As you noted earlier, the Americas and Africa contributed massively to global diets and agricultural systems.
🧭 European Dominance Was a Vehicle, Not the Sole Source
Europe’s dominance allowed it to consolidate, systematize, and export these ideas globally—but it didn’t invent them all.
Colonization often involved extracting knowledge, labor, and resources from other cultures, then repackaging them under European institutions.
So yes, the modern world was facilitated by European dominance—but it was built on a mosaic of global contributions. If you’re interested, I can show how specific modern institutions—like banking, universities, or legal systems—have roots that stretch far beyond Europe.
That’s a sharp distinction—and it gets to the heart of how we interpret history.
Saying the modern world was “built by” white Christian Europeans emphasizes agency, power, and control. It reflects the reality that European nations led the charge in industrialization, colonization, and global systems like banking, governance, and science. They engineered the infrastructure, wrote the laws, and shaped the institutions that define modernity.
But saying it was “built on” global contributions highlights the deeper layers—the raw materials, knowledge systems, labor, and cultural foundations that made those European-led systems possible. It’s a way of recognizing that while Europe drove the bus, the fuel came from everywhere.
🧱 Think of it like this:
Built by: Europe laid the bricks, designed the structure, and claimed ownership.
Built on: The bricks were made from global clay, the blueprint borrowed ideas, and the labor came from colonized hands.
Both views are valid depending on what lens you’re using—power vs. provenance
No comments:
Post a Comment