Back To Our Roots - A Look at African History
PROMPTED by the letter of one of your readers who wrote about the birth of humanity on the African continent and along the lines placing all African misfortunes of today at the door of the white race.
I will here try to explain how some people came to dominate other
people, not to justify domination.
Due to the fact that our recent historical past has been
extremely politicised, and in many cases distorted, we ought not to
forget to look further back into Africa's history before the
arrival of colonialist powers.
I am led to believe that all Africans, regardless of their skin
colour, have to require more knowledge of their prehistoric
past.
If we focus only from the time of slavery onwards we won't learn
much about Africa nor ourselves.
When it comes to the colonisation issue there are usually two
sorts of arguments; those who see it in a more positive light and a
negative one.
For example, many whites are of the opinion that the colonisers
were not so bad because they brought advanced Western culture and
civilisation, which includes modern technology, medicine, religion
etc.
However, Africans have never been without religion and Africa
even gave birth to the languages spoken by the authors of the Old
Testament, New Testament and the Holy Koran, the moral and ethical
pillars of Western civilisation.
Others, mostly black, see it differently.
They are more concerned about the cruelty committed by the
colonisers like slavery, apartheid and other sorts of
humiliation.
I personally think that all "black and white" issues have to be
seen in a much more balanced manner and all injustices - from
whatever side they come - have to be denounced in the strongest
possible terms.
I also do believe that so-called "civilisation" does not
necessarily lead to greater human happiness and it would be wrong
to assume that the tribal type of life was bad and the modern one
of today is better.
It is a well-known fact that neither Africa nor Europe was
democratic or peaceful when the process of colonisation took its
turn.
The question is why Africa and most of the world was colonised
in the first place? Obviously, by searching for the right
explanation we have to involve ourselves in the fields of science;
evolutionary biology, biogeography, archaeology, anthropology
etc.
and all this would be impossible to examine here.
Nevertheless my sole objective is to cast some light on those
segments of our prehistorical past which have powerful effect on
shaping African's destiny.
The fact is that humans lived in Africa longer than anywhere
else; our ancestors originated there around 7 millions years
ago.
There are five human groups (in Africa-Ed.): Blacks (in
historical books called Bantus) Whites, Asians (Madagascar),
Khoisan and Pygmies.
The last group differ from Bantus in their smaller size, more
reddish skin colour, shape of the head and other differences in
physical appearance [What about the Nelotic people of Ethiopia and
Somali etc.? - Ed.].
These groups were occupying the African continent long before
the arrival of European colonialists.
We must be aware of the fact that until the end of the last Ice
Age around 11 000 BC, all people on all continents were still
hunter-gatherers and, from there on, different rates of development
on different continents took place.
This led to the technological and political inequalities of AD 1
500.
While many were still living in the Stone Age (Aboriginal
Australians and Native Americans), other people like those in
Eurasia and sub-Saharan Africa already developed agriculture and
metallurgy.
Why? Racist minds would be attempted to link all these very
complicated issues with differences in intelligence of the
different human races but there is no convincing proof to support
such claims.
This is also another reason for writing this letter.
I think the shortest and best explanation on this complicated
issue is given by some journalist who said: "History followed
different courses for different peoples because of differences
among peoples' environments, not because of biological differences
among people themselves".
Because of limited space, I will concentrate on prehistoric
development on the African continent and underline some
(dis)advantages which played a decisive role in shaping its
destiny.
The land issue in Namibia today has much to do with complicated
human developments on the African continent and could become even
more complicated - if not disastrous for all of us - if the
approach to it turns into a political game.
According to historians, dramatic people movement (most probably
the biggest one in human history) took place in the past 5 000
years.
That was the Bantu expansion that started out of the West
African corner where Nigeria and Cameroon are situated today.
According to historical evidence, more than 200 million Bantu
people, now spread across the map of Africa arose from these two
countries.
They basically moved in three directions:two to the south and
one to the south-east.
Their spread was in no way without challenges.
They were confronted by many diseases, and tsetse flies were
killing their cattle.
The San people were also similarly displaced and reduced in
numbers by the arrival of invading Bantu farmers (and later by
white farmers) to the south a few centuries later.
The fact is that both Pygmies and Khoisan were still
hunter-gatherers without crops and livestock.
The failure of the Khoisan to develop agriculture was not due to
any inability of theirs as farmers but merely because southern
Africa's wild plants were mostly unsuitable for domestication.
Neither were Bantu or white farmers able to develop southern
African native plants into food crops! Thanks to their wet-climate
plants and crops inherited from the West African homeland, the
Bantu were able to farm in the wet areas of East Africa and the
Great Lakes region unsuitable for all those previous occupants.
With the addition of iron tools and weapons to their wet-climate
crops, the Bantu also put together a military industry that become
unstoppable in the sub-equatorial Africa of the time.
African's smiths manufactured steel over 2 000 years before the
Bessemer furnaces of 19th-century Europe and America.
Within a few centuries, in one of the swiftest colonising
advances of recent prehistory, Bantu farmers had swept all the way
to Natal.
To approach the question about Bantu's advantages over Khoisan
and Pygmies and the process of engulfing them, we must recognise
the fact that there still exist many mysteries .We know for certain
that they were eliminated in many ways.
Some of them were made slaves; some were killed, and, in the
case of Khoisan also infected by malaria to which the invading
Bantu had already developed a genetic resistance.
One thing we are sure about is that in places where Khoisan and
Pygmy people lived for perhaps tens of thousands of years there are
now Bantu.
There is clear historical evidence that Sub Saharan Africa was
not always "black" as it is generally assumed today.
If we want to find an answer why Eurasian development had
proceeded at a much faster pace then Africa, then we have to take
geographical and other factors into consideration.
There is a similarity between Bantu expansion and European
colonisation because both conquests are based on great accidental
advantages.
It is well known that Europeans entering America and Africa
enjoyed the advantage of weapons, literacy and political
organisation, all necessary to sustain costly exploration and
conquest.
In fact, all of these advantages are closely linked to food
production and the domestication of plants and animals.
Africa's record of domestication of wild animals is very
poor.
The sole animal that was domesticated in Africa, excluding North
Africa, is the guinea fowl.
Wild ancestors of domestic cattle, donkeys, pigs, dogs and
domestic cats were native to North Africa, Southwest Asia and most
probably India.
As a result, domestic animals did not reach Sub Saharan Africa
until thousands of years after they began to be utilised by
Europeans and Asians.
In conclusion, Europe's colonisation of Africa had nothing to do
with difference between European and African people themselves,
rather it was due to the accident of geography and bio-geography
and to the continents' different axis'.
Slavko Filipovic
Okahandja, Via E-mail,
Note:Address provided - Ed
Due to the fact that our recent historical past has been extremely
politicised, and in many cases distorted, we ought not to forget to
look further back into Africa's history before the arrival of
colonialist powers.I am led to believe that all Africans,
regardless of their skin colour, have to require more knowledge of
their prehistoric past.If we focus only from the time of slavery
onwards we won't learn much about Africa nor ourselves.When it
comes to the colonisation issue there are usually two sorts of
arguments; those who see it in a more positive light and a negative
one.For example, many whites are of the opinion that the colonisers
were not so bad because they brought advanced Western culture and
civilisation, which includes modern technology, medicine, religion
etc.However, Africans have never been without religion and Africa
even gave birth to the languages spoken by the authors of the Old
Testament, New Testament and the Holy Koran, the moral and ethical
pillars of Western civilisation.Others, mostly black, see it
differently.They are more concerned about the cruelty committed by
the colonisers like slavery, apartheid and other sorts of
humiliation.I personally think that all "black and white" issues
have to be seen in a much more balanced manner and all injustices -
from whatever side they come - have to be denounced in the
strongest possible terms.I also do believe that so-called
"civilisation" does not necessarily lead to greater human happiness
and it would be wrong to assume that the tribal type of life was
bad and the modern one of today is better.It is a well-known fact
that neither Africa nor Europe was democratic or peaceful when the
process of colonisation took its turn.The question is why Africa
and most of the world was colonised in the first place? Obviously,
by searching for the right explanation we have to involve ourselves
in the fields of science; evolutionary biology, biogeography,
archaeology, anthropology etc.and all this would be impossible to
examine here.Nevertheless my sole objective is to cast some light
on those segments of our prehistorical past which have powerful
effect on shaping African's destiny.The fact is that humans lived
in Africa longer than anywhere else; our ancestors originated there
around 7 millions years ago.There are five human groups (in
Africa-Ed.): Blacks (in historical books called Bantus) Whites,
Asians (Madagascar), Khoisan and Pygmies.The last group differ from
Bantus in their smaller size, more reddish skin colour, shape of
the head and other differences in physical appearance [What about
the Nelotic people of Ethiopia and Somali etc.? - Ed.].These groups
were occupying the African continent long before the arrival of
European colonialists.We must be aware of the fact that until the
end of the last Ice Age around 11 000 BC, all people on all
continents were still hunter-gatherers and, from there on,
different rates of development on different continents took
place.This led to the technological and political inequalities of
AD 1 500.While many were still living in the Stone Age (Aboriginal
Australians and Native Americans), other people like those in
Eurasia and sub-Saharan Africa already developed agriculture and
metallurgy.Why? Racist minds would be attempted to link all these
very complicated issues with differences in intelligence of the
different human races but there is no convincing proof to support
such claims.This is also another reason for writing this letter.I
think the shortest and best explanation on this complicated issue
is given by some journalist who said: "History followed different
courses for different peoples because of differences among peoples'
environments, not because of biological differences among people
themselves".Because of limited space, I will concentrate on
prehistoric development on the African continent and underline some
(dis)advantages which played a decisive role in shaping its
destiny.The land issue in Namibia today has much to do with
complicated human developments on the African continent and could
become even more complicated - if not disastrous for all of us - if
the approach to it turns into a political game.According to
historians, dramatic people movement (most probably the biggest one
in human history) took place in the past 5 000 years.That was the
Bantu expansion that started out of the West African corner where
Nigeria and Cameroon are situated today.According to historical
evidence, more than 200 million Bantu people, now spread across the
map of Africa arose from these two countries.They basically moved
in three directions:two to the south and one to the
south-east.Their spread was in no way without challenges.They were
confronted by many diseases, and tsetse flies were killing their
cattle.The San people were also similarly displaced and reduced in
numbers by the arrival of invading Bantu farmers (and later by
white farmers) to the south a few centuries later.The fact is that
both Pygmies and Khoisan were still hunter-gatherers without crops
and livestock.The failure of the Khoisan to develop agriculture was
not due to any inability of theirs as farmers but merely because
southern Africa's wild plants were mostly unsuitable for
domestication.Neither were Bantu or white farmers able to develop
southern African native plants into food crops! Thanks to their
wet-climate plants and crops inherited from the West African
homeland, the Bantu were able to farm in the wet areas of East
Africa and the Great Lakes region unsuitable for all those previous
occupants.With the addition of iron tools and weapons to their
wet-climate crops, the Bantu also put together a military industry
that become unstoppable in the sub-equatorial Africa of the
time.African's smiths manufactured steel over 2 000 years before
the Bessemer furnaces of 19th-century Europe and America.Within a
few centuries, in one of the swiftest colonising advances of recent
prehistory, Bantu farmers had swept all the way to Natal.To
approach the question about Bantu's advantages over Khoisan and
Pygmies and the process of engulfing them, we must recognise the
fact that there still exist many mysteries .We know for certain
that they were eliminated in many ways.Some of them were made
slaves; some were killed, and, in the case of Khoisan also infected
by malaria to which the invading Bantu had already developed a
genetic resistance.One thing we are sure about is that in places
where Khoisan and Pygmy people lived for perhaps tens of thousands
of years there are now Bantu.There is clear historical evidence
that Sub Saharan Africa was not always "black" as it is generally
assumed today.If we want to find an answer why Eurasian development
had proceeded at a much faster pace then Africa, then we have to
take geographical and other factors into consideration.There is a
similarity between Bantu expansion and European colonisation
because both conquests are based on great accidental advantages.It
is well known that Europeans entering America and Africa enjoyed
the advantage of weapons, literacy and political organisation, all
necessary to sustain costly exploration and conquest.In fact, all
of these advantages are closely linked to food production and the
domestication of plants and animals.Africa's record of
domestication of wild animals is very poor.The sole animal that was
domesticated in Africa, excluding North Africa, is the guinea
fowl.Wild ancestors of domestic cattle, donkeys, pigs, dogs and
domestic cats were native to North Africa, Southwest Asia and most
probably India.As a result, domestic animals did not reach Sub
Saharan Africa until thousands of years after they began to be
utilised by Europeans and Asians.In conclusion, Europe's
colonisation of Africa had nothing to do with difference between
European and African people themselves, rather it was due to the
accident of geography and bio-geography and to the continents'
different axis'.Slavko Filipovic
Okahandja, Via E-mail,Note:Address provided - Ed