Відео

Yes, he said "effectively," and later compared the degree of isolation to that of pre-colonial Australia. At no point do I suggest he said the Sahara "cut off all trade," I simply explain why Sub-Saharan Africa wasn't actually "effectively" cut off. All of my points are about the frequency of movement across or around the Sahara, not its mere existence; see my repeated use of terms like "regularly" and "extensive." The only strawman here is your comment's blatant misrepresentation of my argument.

Thank you! I plan to make a video on the real reasons for African poverty in the future, so those topics may come up in that and I could potentially make more videos focusing on those topics, but my area of expertise lies in pre-colonial times, so it will depend very much on how much relevant information I come across during my research.

Technically even the concept of "Africa" is a European imposition - groups native to Africa had no concept of continents, let alone the arbitrary set created by the Ancient Greeks - but we still use the term for convenience. The same goes for "Sub-Saharan," it can at times be a useful geographic label. However, you're absolutely right that it can also be extremely misleading; the groups living immediately north and south of the Sahara were extremely heavily connected to each other for much of history, meanwhile those in the Sahel had virtually no cultural connections with many other groups lumped together with them under the label of "Sub-Saharan." It's way more valuable to think of a "Saharan World" in the same way historians talk about a "Mediterranean World" or, when talking about more recent history, an "Atlantic World." The term "Sub-Saharan" reinforces the myth of the Sahara as an impassible barrier, rather than the center point for a network of trading routes and interaction between the cultures surrounding it. Isaac Samuel has a great article about this, it's included in my citation list in the pinned comment.

@SomasAcademy Sub Saharan is a more insidious term that Africa.. Greeks were respectful. Generally speaking, the term Sub Sharan is meant to convey a certain type of African..

The cataracts prevent you from sailing along the full length of the Nile, however, it's very possible to sail for lengths in between the cataracts and move by land to get around the cataracts, which is not as efficient as continuous maritime travel but is more efficient than fully overland travel. Moreover, hugging the banks of the Nile allowed for overland travel without the same logistical difficulties of travelling across the desert. Ancient Egypt continuously traded and fought with their southern neighbors throughout history.

@@SomasAcademy Yes but they never were able to get past Al-Sudd to trade with people in the south, the Ottomans Greeks Romans weren't even able to do so. I would be happy to believe you if you had any source that backs your claim of the Nile being used for trading with other cultures, also nothing indicates they had knowledge of what happens to the Nile after Khartoum. It was their main transport inside the empire but as far as i know there's no evidence for travel on the nile outside their lands and as far as the 4th cataract

​@@inigo9000 At no point did I suggest or even imply that the Egyptians were travelling south of Khartoum, let alone the Sudd, via the Nile. What I stated was that trade up and down the Nile has been extensive throughout history, providing another avenue for contact between North and Sub-Saharan Africa. I did not specify trade by boat, nor did I say anything about this trade existing across the entire extent of the Nile; all I stated was that movement up and down the Nile passed between North and Sub-Saharan Africa. Sudan is frequently considered part of Sub-Saharan Africa, so this statement does not imply travel past the Sudd, which is all the way in modern South Sudan. All it implies is contact between Ancient Egypt and Nubia (which includes parts of Sudan), which I'm sure you're aware is very well documented. Even if we instead define "sub-Saharan" by the actual southern edge of the Sahara rather than by modern national boundaries, then the statement still holds true, as the kingdoms of Kush, Meroe, Alodia, and later states firmly included territory south of the Sahara, which ends much farther north than Khartoum. Moreover, I never stated anything about Egyptians specifically, so even if we were to consider Nubia firmly North African instead of Sub-Saharan, my statement would also apply to trade along the Nile between Nubians and their southern neighbors (though when I wrote the script I had trade between Egypt and Nubia and later Nile Valley states in mind, as I'm not as familiar with Nubia's trade relations with its southern neighbors). So, however you slice it, the fact that the Sudd acts as a barrier has no bearing whatsoever to the accuracy of my comment.

Not completely ignoring it at all, the tsetse fly is not present continuously throughout Sub-Saharan Africa, and some animals are more resistant than others. North of the tsetse belt there are obviously pack animals, including donkeys, cattle, and camels, as discussed. Further south in Africa, tsetse-resistant breeds of certain livestock have been cultivated, hence how there are cattle throughout the entire continent (though in low-lying and heavily forested areas even these more tsetse-resistant breeds have issues, so it's not geographically constant).

Africa's western coast is problematic, though more due to powerful waves and currents than depth, I'm not sure where you got this claim about shallow coasts from. As for rivers, you have it precisely backward, "modern ships" have significantly MORE of an issue with African rivers of various depths than local canoes that sit higher in the water, which were used for most of history.

The claim being refuted is that Africans never developed or practiced agriculture even "in lush areas where agriculture would've been possible" because they "had no real incentive to."

@@SomasAcademy this guy really wants some clout. Especially with the fake verification badge. History class worthy video btw

That timestamp links to one of several sections where I'm talking about trade that bypassed the Sahara. The point, as I explicitly describe in the video, is that going across the Sahara wasn't the only path for contact between Africa and Asia, and trade happened along these alternate paths, hence even if the Sahara was an absolute barrier, it didn't isolate Sub-Saharan Africa. These sections about trade between Africa and Asia that didn't go through the Sahara comes after the section where I discuss the constant movement of people and goods across the Sahara from 2:22-3:44.

I didn't say the river had "coasts" I said the river was LIKE a "coast." It's an analogy, following on from the analogy of the Sahara to a sea. This is the problem with skimming through a video looking for lines to quibble with, you don't pay enough attention to follow a train of thought that lasts more than a sentence.

@ You said “The Sahara has an equivalent coast in the form of the Nile Valley”. Analogy or comparison, it’s still as huge stretch Don’t make assumptions about me. I didn’t skim thru the video, I watched the whole thing. And for context, I don’t even the know the original video you’re responding to or the creator.

I said the word "coast" in quotation marks, hence why I put emphasis on it. This came after a long analogy between the Sahara and the Mediterranean, but you still misinterpreted it to a sufficient degree that you thought pointing out that rivers have banks rather than coasts was a pertinent correction. Hence why I say you weren't paying attention. And when I say "skimming" I don't mean skipping through, I mean watching through with limited attention to cherry-pick things out of context to respond to, as you did here and in several other comments.

Limited evidence of trade demonstrates that "some degree" of trade occurred prior to the arrival of camels, as I said, while after the arrival of camels contact was extensive, as I said.

@ you must see the logical fallacy, right? It’s like saying Siberia has a good public transportation because it has the trans-Siberian railway. Just because there evidence of that a trade route(s) existed doesn’t mean that it wasn’t a huge barrier to trade (and therefore development) for sub Saharan Africa.

@ evidence of major trade routes are cities along the trade route. Where are the cities in the Sahara ?

The only logical fallacies here are your motte and bailey fallacy of ignoring the specific claims I was refuting in the video to instead present more defensible versions of the arguments, and your false equivalency between my point that the Sahara was regularly crossed and thus did not act as "a large ocean, rendering Sub-Saharan Africa an island" cut off from "the developments going on along the trade routes between Europe, the Middle East, and Asia," and a claim like "Siberia has good public transportation because it has the trans-Siberian railway." What I demonstrated in the video was that the Sahara was not an impassable barrier, as it was very frequently crossed once camels became available in the region, and could be bypassed through trade along the Nile, across the Red Sea, and via the Indian Ocean. As discussed in the video, the Sahara is more akin to a sea like the Mediterranean; it is difficult to cross, and obviously not subject to dense human settlements, but with the appropriate technology it can be crossed and has been constantly throughout history. Obviously there are also differences - boats can be improved, unlike camels, and have the potential to carry a lot more - but to imply the Sahara didn't have major trade routes because of a lack of cities is as absurd as saying the Mediterranean couldn't have had major trade routes because of its lack of cities. Moreover, the flow of ideas and technologies is not dependent solely on the exchange of large quantities of goods, but also the movement of people, and as discussed in the video, there was plenty of that; numerous scholars crossed the Sahara regularly. The Sahara isn't a hospitable environment for human settlements. That said, just as there are Island towns and cities across the Mediterranean, there are some oasis towns and cities across the Sahara, shown in several maps of historical trade routes I showed and verbally discussed in the video. In addition to the sea analogy, and analogy can also be drawn between the Sahara and the vast stretch of grassland, desert, and mountains that make up Central Asia, which was similarly difficult to cross and didn't foster many major population centers, instead being largely occupied by nomads. EE obviously doesn't think of as cutting off trade routes between "Europe, the Middle East, and Asia," considering it was the main region overland trade routes passed through, and I don't think you would either. The geographical features of this region absolutely are obstacles, just as the Sahara is; however, with appropriate pack animals (often camels in both cases, usually Bactrian in Central Asia rather than Dromedary as in the Sahara), these obstacles can be passed. Similarly, in both cases maritime trade could go around the geographic barriers. Therefore, it would be absurd to say that East Asia was cut off from "the developments occurring on the trade routes between the Middle East and Europe"; it's equally absurd to make similar statements about Sub-Saharan Africa being cut off. If you're not convinced by my video or my replies then consider consulting the sources cited in my pinned comment and book recommendations in the video description, many of which were written by professional scholars and present far more extensive evidence than the summary I presented in the video.

Planned for this March!

Anyone who does say genetics is a fuckwit

You are mistaken. What exactly societies looked like varied across the world throughout history, but prior to the Early Modern Era (when Europe experienced a number of major developments over a relatively short period of time), it would not be reasonable to describe Africa as "underdeveloped" compared to Europe and Asia; John Thornton discusses this in his book, "Africa and Africans in the Making of the Atlantic World," which I would highly recommend. Please check out my two previous videos on West African history and the other channel and book recommendations linked in the description to learn more about African history.

Thank you, and Happy New Year!

That's not the one I went on, but would be cool! Maybe someday if Ronu Spirit becomes aware of me ;P

Reduced its volume relative to what? Relative to the amount of trade over a similar distance of water, definitely. Relative to the amount of trade over a similar distance of grassland... hard to say. But regardless, it did not isolate Sub-Saharan Africa from North Africa and Eurasia to a greater extent than the vast stretch of deserts and grasslands between Europe and East Asia isolated them from each other, which is why EE's presentation fails. Moreover, as discussed in the video, there was also maritime trade between East Africa and Asia, so trade could go around the Sahara as well as over it. And, very important in the context of the video, the quantity of goods being transported makes limited difference to the spread of ideas and technologies, which is what EE was trying to suggest was hampered by the supposed isolation of Sub-Saharan Africa. Similarly, what types of goods are being exchanged makes a major different toward how wealth is moving (this is something I'll probably discuss in more depth in a future video explaining the actual reasons for modern African poverty), but this matters little toward the spread of ideas. Also, it would be a significant oversimplification and overgeneralization to characterize African trade with Eurasia as being a flow of raw materials one way and "finished, high value goods" the other prior to the Atlantic era (again, I'll probably cover this in more depth in a future video). Cereals and cattle were quite widespread in Africa. There were regions where other types of staple crop were predominant, and certain landscapes made cattle vulnerable to tsetse flies, but cattle and cereal crops like sorghum could both be found all the way from northern to southern Africa. The rest of your comment I largely agree with.

Thank you, and stay tuned!

You've heard wrong. Many African crops do indeed have lower yield than others like wheat, but wheat also has a lower yield than others like maize and rice. Yet, just as Europe's lower yield crops relative to Asia didn't prevent it from transitioning from subsistence farming, nor did Africa's lower yield crops prevent them from transitioning from subsistence farming. Moreover, parts of Africa also grew wheat and rice, as mentioned in the video. When Africa began trading with Europe, agricultural commodities were some of their most valuable exports, including palm oil, spices like long pepper, and luxury fabrics made from baobab bark and palm, among other things. Written language may seem like a "basic tech advancement," but has only developed a handful of times in human history. Europe, South America, and Australia never independently developed writing at all (at least no systems that can confidently be identified as writing; Europe had the Vinca symbols and South America had Quipu, but we can't read either of these and don't know how much meaning they can actually transmit). Writing can be very useful, however, so in some cases it spread very far from points of origin. For example, the Egyptian script was adapted into the Proto-Sinaitic script, which was then adapted into every script in Europe and most in Asia. In Sub-Saharan Africa, the Proto-Sinaitic script also developed into the Ge'ez script in Ethiopia. Meanwhile, the Arabic Script (also ultimately derived from proto-Sinaitic) spread throughout the Islamic parts of Sub-Saharan Africa, being adapted into a number of modified forms better suited to local languages and heavily used in the Sahel and Swahili Coast and occasionally elsewhere by the Middle Ages. Sub-Saharan Africa also developed several more systems of proto-Writing (scripts that don't convey full sentences but can be used to send messages), including the Nsibidi script, which was widely used in West Africa by secret societies (though not by the general public), Adinkra, a system of symbols used to represent a wide range of cultural concepts among the Akan, or the Lusona system in West Central Africa, which couldn't be used to effectively transmit messages but was used to help people remember things.

@ interesting about the crops. Regarding language, I guess “basic technology” is really just an argument of semantics (is spoken language the basic form vs proto-writing vs. alphabetic writing). Further, maybe back in the day written was advanced but today we view it as basic. I am aware of the interconnected nature of written language as well as spoken languages (Indo-European languages, Ural languages, and so on). Based on what you said it seems like there may have been a few alphabetic scripts present in certain parts of Africa for hundreds of years. But I can’t really tell how widely adopted they were (maybe Africa didn’t leave its dark ages, European reference) and this sort of technology was only adopted by a small group. I also want to say I don’t necessarily support EEs hypothesis but I do want to say your counter to his point regarding “basic technology” relies on disputing a single technology, wheels. And you do this by showing that some groups were exposed to wheels and that also some groups used wheel-like devices for various reason. And then you downplay the failure to translate the exposure to wheels into vehicles because they didn’t have the roads for wheels (environmental factors). But it’s not like roads and footpaths weren’t in common use before the wheel came along. Why didn’t some groups attempt to improve their road systems for wheels? You’re critique I think is valid but I think it leads to the argument that a lot of African communities did not employ “basic technology” not because they were unaware of them but because they failed to adopt and develop them. And maybe that’s because of cultural reasons or power reasons (easier rule over less advanced societies). But I don’t think you’ve yet disputed the point that sub-Saharan Africans failed to develop and/or adopt “basic technology.”

@@Meatwadbob The wheel was the only "basic technology" EE brought up that they claimed Africa didn't have. This video was a response video to EE, hence I responded to their points and not to other points they hypothetically could have raised. and I already answered your question in the video, if you bothered to pay attention. I think you should probably do some research into African history, so that you can have a more grounded understanding rather than making guesses about a subject you have no knowledge of. I provided a list of book recommendations in the description. I also listed all my sources in the pinned comment. Isaac Samuel's blog is an especially useful, accessible resource. You could also probably stand to do some further research into European history, since "the dark ages" is not generally accepted by modern historians as a legitimate label, but I'm not a Medievalist so I don't have a list of reading recommendations on that topic ready.

@ you responded to their example not their point. The example being wheels, the point being sub-Saharan Africa lacked basic tech. Because you battered the only example, you also questioned the point, but EE was trying to summarize what a larger work talked about: there was a lack of basic technology in sub-Saharan Africa. You don’t really engage with the point after that, just saying you disagree with the authors but you suggest reading them. You also suggest reading others. Maybe that additional knowledge will somehow help? Maybe it will show that sub-Sahara Africa didn’t lack basic technologies or maybe it will show that it did? I know I’m not knowledgeable about African history but the authors of the article do seem very knowledgeable about its history and they’ve made a compelling argument. Or am I wrong? I did watch your video, I guess I missed the part where you did say wheels were more adopted but they fell out of favor. Similar to the European Dark ages!!! Finally, what’s with the semantics again. They’ve called it the Dark Ages for hundreds of years. I’m not here to argue about how modern historians feel about its accuracy, or whether people will ever stop calling it the Dark Ages.

I did respond to their point, once again it appears you didn't bother to pay attention to the video. Yes, you are wrong, the authors of the article are not knowledgeable about African history. In this video I focused on EE's video, hence the wheel example in particular, though I also highlighted certain other mistakes in the article on-screen throughout this video, such as their incorrect assertion that Ge'ez was the only Sub-Saharan African writing, which I didn't focus on in this video since it's not a claim EE repeats (though as noted in the on-screen text, this is a topic I may cover in a future video). Similarly, I didn't go into their incorrect statements about the use of plows in Africa, though these are addressed by Thornton in "Africa and Africans in the Making of the Atlantic World." I would suggest checking out Isaac Samuel's critique of "Why Nations Fail" for more information about what the authors of that paper get wrong about African history. It appears you did indeed miss the part of the video where I discussed the use of wheels in parts of Sub-Saharan Africa prior to the replacement of wheeled vehicles by pack animals like camels. It was a pretty significant section of my argument, so the fact you missed it really does confirm that you weren't paying much attention. The rejection of the term "dark ages" isn't just a matter of "semantics," it's about fundamental misunderstandings of the period. When people call the Middle Ages "the dark ages" they suggest either that it was a particularly grim or "backwards" period, which it was not - the people who popularized the term "dark ages" and asserted that the period was far more grim and barbaric than their own were at the same time practicing race-based chattel slavery and genocidal colonial expansion, waging wars on a previously unseen scale over minor differences in religious belief, and executing thousands of people on accusation of being witches - or are invoking the more recent myth that this is a period "cloaked in darkness" by a lack of sources, which is also wrong. It's not just about the terminology, it's about the misconceptions the terminology represents.

I won't be making a video responding to EE's video on India because Indian history is not my area of expertise, but let the record show that I'm INDIAN American lmao, my mum is from Mumbai

@SomasAcademy make video You are Indian it's your responsibility

@SomasAcademy you have time for Africa but not for india

It's not a matter of time, it's a matter of specialty. I have a Master's degree in African history, whereas I don't know much more about Indian history than the average person. If you want someone to make a video responding to Economics Explained on India, by all means, do it yourself. You are in no position to insist that I try to educate others on a subject I myself have no expertise in.

Colonial exploitation Is the only which actually has been influential in determining India's current poverty but it doesn't explain everything in the slightest, nations like Vietnam and China have suffered the same things yet are much richer and more developed than India