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 – EdDue 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