Obama's new African adventure: Hunting LRA

[IDB87]

Wars of reunification = conquest?

It was not a war of reunification. The tribes that formed the Mali Empire were exerting their power and securing their dominance, much like every other tribe.

By the late twelfth century, the formerly dominant Ghana Empire had collapsed, following internal strife and political intervention of the Almoravids in the eleventh century. A number of smaller neighboring states rushed to fill the power void, including the Sosso people of the Kaniaga kingdom, and the Mandinka people of the Upper Niger. Under the leadership of Sumanguru Kanté, the Sosso seized Koumbi Saleh, former capital of the Ghana Empire, and expanded outward, conquering the Mandinka among others.

Goodness! Look at that C word towards the end. I thought they didn't bother with such things as conquering their neighbors?

Also in that conflict was the passion of Sundiata Keita to liberate his homeland that had been conquered by the Ghana.

Growing up, the Mandinkas were conquered by king Soumaoro Kanté of the Ghana Empire. [Sundiata Keita] devoted his life to building an army to overthrow the king and liberating his homeland.

Anyways - do you deny the impact that the Almoravids had on Western Africa?

 

[IDB87]

Evidence?

*I'll give you a hint, no. The basis of their economy was the trade of gold and salt. It is clear that the "volume" of slaves greatly differed from before the time of European arrival to after the time of European arrival. It is undeniable that Western Europe had "some" effect on West Africa. That, combined with the late 15th and 16th century conquest by Islamic empires to the north helped to militarize the Benin or "Gold" Coast. The same can be said for the Congo as well.

Abu Abdullah Muhammad Ibn Battuta suggests that slavery was quite a substantial part of the Mali empire.

 

[L.Y.S.]

Anyways - do you deny the impact that the Almoravids had on Western Africa?

No, but I also don't deny the impact Western Europe had either, which people seem to like to down play as if it were some "blame game". When it’s really just an acknowledgement of history. Nothing racially motivated about it. If anyone bothered to slightly study, they'd see that southern West Africa militarized heavily during the time of slave trading. It is undeniable that slave trading have an impact. I did not say it was "damaging" negative or anything. I simply acknowledged Western Europe's impact on Africa. Yet people seem to be getting defensive as if they must "defend" and clear the name of the white man. This is clearly laughable and a horrible interpretation of intent. And this has become a massive derail that I'll end as of now.

It is certainly understood that there were "some" things happening, but it is just not at the level most suggest. Geni had it right when he said "our records of Africa are murky at best".

Was there militarization? Of course. Was there increased militarization with the arrival of Europe? Yes as well. I see no reason to get "defensive" about the truth. It is what it is. People are trying to re-write history to fit their own intrinsically "politically" correct versions of history that may or may not have merit.

 

[IDB87]

No, but I also don't deny the impact Western Europe had either, which people seem to like to down play as if it were some "blame game".

You said,

Western arrival actually militarized Africa. Many Africans began to adopt warrior cultures.

This is false in the sense that only Western arrival militarized them. When shown past African cultures conquering neighbors and forming Empires of their own, you moved the goal posts by claiming they weren't "really" soldiers, they were just a police force.

You did not deny that the Almoravids had an impact on Africa. What was that impact?

 

[L.Y.S.]

Error of interpretation as usual

 

[IDB87]

Error of interpretation as usual

It doesn't help when the statement is clear as mud or in this case, too precise. If you wish to clarify your original statement, feel free.

 

[L.Y.S.]

It doesn't help when the statement is clear as mud or in this case, too precise. If you wish to clarify your original statement, feel free.

Western arrival actually "helped" to militarize "Southern West Africa" and "Central Africa". Many "Southern West Africans" and "Central Africans" began to place a "greater emphasis" on warrior cultures and "conquest" which was "relatively small" before the "arrival Western Europe".

(This is what the statement "meant".) I even conceded before that Islam played a crucial role in helping to militarize "Southern West Africa" before. And it is clear that the "primary" function of militaries of the "Sahelian Empires" were primarily relegated to policy duty; "However", there were "occasions" that the military was used in "some" conquest. But the "primary" way of securing trade routes were through "trade alliances". Most of the force used was in the quest of "reunifying" previously lost trade routes.

I should've been "clear" with my words, and I will state them in more "precise" matters in the future to prevent this "misinterpretation" of my position. My "ambigous" statement could've "lead" to the "misinterpretation" of my original position.

 

[IDB87]

I should've been "clear" with my words, and I will state them in more "precise" matters in the future to prevent this "misinterpretation" of my position. My "ambigous" statement could've "lead" to the "misinterpretation" of my original position.

Western arrival actually militarized Africa. Many Africans began to adopt warrior cultures.

Not to get in to a pissing match, but there is nothing ambiguous about this statement. It is a rather straightforward statement with a clear meaning and one clear interpretation - that being that Western arrival to Africa was the sole cause for militarization of Africans.

 

[L.Y.S.]

Not to get in to a pissing match, but there is nothing ambiguous about this statement. It is a rather straightforward statement with a clear meaning and one clear interpretation - that being that Western arrival to Africa was the sole cause for militarization of Africans.

Invalid since I also agreed several posts back that Islam helped to militarize some parts of Africa as well.

ETA: Western arrival wasn't the "only" influence but it was a large influence. Slave trading was vital to their economies. There was also the rise of hardcore Islam in West Africa which my ancestors successfully fended off from reaching deeper into South Western Sub-Saharan Africa.

Yet this statement was ignored.

 

[IDB87]

Yet this statement was ignored.

Missed the edit. Thanks for pointing it out.

 

[L.Y.S.]

Missed the edit. Thanks for pointing it out.

No problem, it was all in good faith as a skeptic.

 

[Caustic Logic]

You said,

Originally Posted by L.Y.S.
No, but I also don't deny the impact Western Europe had either, which people seem to like to down play as if it were some "blame game".
You said,

Originally Posted by L.Y.S
Western arrival actually militarized Africa. Many Africans began to adopt warrior cultures.

This is false in the sense that only Western arrival militarized them. When shown past African cultures conquering neighbors and forming Empires of their own, you moved the goal posts by claiming they weren't "really" soldiers, they were just a police force.

You did not deny that the Almoravids had an impact on Africa. What was that impact?

Where did the "only" come from? It wasn't in the parts you cited. Is it not possible for x amount of a phenomenon to arrive in African culture from one source, then another amount y, of the same problem come in later from another? And isn't it even possible that y brings 10 or 1,000 times more than x, making x effectively irrelevant when discussing the impact of y on Africa?

And if that were true (not saying it is), wouldn't that make excusing y's contributions to the problem by citing how x also added some, once, rather a weak argument?

That's my thought towards helping put a derail back on track. Nothing more to add for now.