3 ms·

> Most African societies do not have a single strong king - I think you are confusing Africa with Europe. Europe and Asia are the societies that have always had

by w00pla 17y ago

> Most African societies do not have a single strong king - I think you are confusing Africa with Europe. Europe and Asia are the societies that have always had a system of very powerful leadership at the top, and a large peasant class. Africans usually had a strong leader. The size of these societies does however differ. A good example is smaller “family type” groups. These are sometimes called a “kraal” in South Africa (that is why many place names are name of leader + kraal). At least in the 18th and 19th century there was a lot of consolidation among these groups into larger groups. Probably the best example of this is the Zulu kingdom. Large strongman leaders included Dingaan and Shaka (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Zulu_kings http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Zulu_kings). Even smaller groups have exactly the same pattern. The governance is also top down. Even today in many rural areas of countries (which are trust or tribal areas with community property) it is usually the chief that controls them. He tells his followers who to vote for as an example. Since all ground is communal and basically controlled by the chief/king, he has significant power. The power of tribal leaders has significantly decreased with urbanisation though. > But I guess knowing what you are talking about is not fundamental to your argument. And what qualifies you as an expert? Either make a good argument or refrain from posting.

maxklein 17y ago
When you say "Africa", I assume you are not speaking of "South Africa". Most of Africa has always been organised into communities, where the communities select a non-heriditary leader, who represents the community in a meeting of all local leaders. This is why the chief "controls" the land - it is his job to make impartial decisions on land. He cannot assign all the land to himself, that never happens in Africa (in constrast to Europe). Rather, he is a caretaker. In Europe, the king is a man who tells people what to do, and his decisions are completely separated from the people. In Africa, the chief is a person who is best thought to represent the decisions of the people, and so what he says is representative of the people who he leads. His very role depends on him being the voice of the people - it is impossible for a chief to not do this, because he does not have an army to force the people to follow what he wants. His army are the very people he leads. Ground is not communal, ground is owned by individuals in small portions across the villages or towns. Africa is mostly compared of Niger-Congo speaking people, and most of them use exactly the same system I describe here. The far South Africans, which you are basing your argument on, are not representative, just as Ethiopians or Somalis would not be representative. I believe there has hardly ever been a situation in Africa where a chief attacked his own people with an army, and caused some kind of internal massacre. The structure of society does not allow this.
- w00pla 17y ago
  > When you say "Africa", I assume you are not speaking of "South Africa". My experience is admittedly limited to Southern African countries (SADEC countries including Zambia and Angola). I chose the South African examples since they are the best documented. But I see no reason to believe that there would be a significant difference in other African countries. > Most of Africa has always been organised into communities, where the communities select a non-heriditary leader, who represents the community in a meeting of all local leaders. Not really – I have not seen any evidence of this. Most of the leaders are hereditary or semi-hereditary (when the line is broken by the brother or family member of the chief). As another example, take the Bamagwato. Ian Khama is the chief of the Bamagwato (in Botswana). He is the great-great grandson of Khama III (who is again had his chieftanship descend from his father). Ian Khama is the president of Botswana (this is not to detract from Botswana’s good governance and its incorporation of Western values). > He cannot assign all the land to himself, that never happens in Africa (in constrast to Europe). Unfortunately many similar things happen. A good example is the Reed Dance in Swaziland. King Mswati selects brides for himself from people (he recently selected one that was under the age of consent). The whole purpose of the Chief is self-serving. > In Africa, the chief is a person who is best thought to represent the decisions of the people, and so what he says is representative of the people who he leads. You live in a dream world. In the 1800’s, Shaka killed thousands of his own people because his mother died (and wanted people to share his pain). He also subjected them to famine. > Ground is not communal, ground is owned by individuals in small portions across the villages or towns. Not completely. Cattle are grazed communally and most work is performed communally. Ubuntu (most Bantu languages have a similar word) literally means “shared grazing land”. This actually also makes sense (specialisation of labour and all that). > I believe there has hardly ever been a situation in Africa where a chief attacked his own people with an army, and caused some kind of internal massacre. The Shaka example I showed you is a good example where he killed off and starved his own people. I personally believe that you may have a little too romantic view of Africa (while I concede that I may suffer from the opposite).
  - maxklein 17y ago
    I think it is pointless to argue with you, as you are speaking of an entirely different culture with an entirely different language group and an entirely different people. It's like arguing with someone about European Politics, and all his examples are about Ukraine.

by w00pla 17y ago

maxklein 17y ago

When you say "Africa", I assume you are not speaking of "South Africa". Most of Africa has always been organised into communities, where the communities select a non-heriditary leader, who represents the community in a meeting of all local leaders. This is why the chief "controls" the land - it is his job to make impartial decisions on land. He cannot assign all the land to himself, that never happens in Africa (in constrast to Europe). Rather, he is a caretaker. In Europe, the king is a man who tells people what to do, and his decisions are completely separated from the people. In Africa, the chief is a person who is best thought to represent the decisions of the people, and so what he says is representative of the people who he leads. His very role depends on him being the voice of the people - it is impossible for a chief to not do this, because he does not have an army to force the people to follow what he wants. His army are the very people he leads. Ground is not communal, ground is owned by individuals in small portions across the villages or towns. Africa is mostly compared of Niger-Congo speaking people, and most of them use exactly the same system I describe here. The far South Africans, which you are basing your argument on, are not representative, just as Ethiopians or Somalis would not be representative. I believe there has hardly ever been a situation in Africa where a chief attacked his own people with an army, and caused some kind of internal massacre. The structure of society does not allow this.

w00pla 17y ago
> When you say "Africa", I assume you are not speaking of "South Africa". My experience is admittedly limited to Southern African countries (SADEC countries including Zambia and Angola). I chose the South African examples since they are the best documented. But I see no reason to believe that there would be a significant difference in other African countries. > Most of Africa has always been organised into communities, where the communities select a non-heriditary leader, who represents the community in a meeting of all local leaders. Not really – I have not seen any evidence of this. Most of the leaders are hereditary or semi-hereditary (when the line is broken by the brother or family member of the chief). As another example, take the Bamagwato. Ian Khama is the chief of the Bamagwato (in Botswana). He is the great-great grandson of Khama III (who is again had his chieftanship descend from his father). Ian Khama is the president of Botswana (this is not to detract from Botswana’s good governance and its incorporation of Western values). > He cannot assign all the land to himself, that never happens in Africa (in constrast to Europe). Unfortunately many similar things happen. A good example is the Reed Dance in Swaziland. King Mswati selects brides for himself from people (he recently selected one that was under the age of consent). The whole purpose of the Chief is self-serving. > In Africa, the chief is a person who is best thought to represent the decisions of the people, and so what he says is representative of the people who he leads. You live in a dream world. In the 1800’s, Shaka killed thousands of his own people because his mother died (and wanted people to share his pain). He also subjected them to famine. > Ground is not communal, ground is owned by individuals in small portions across the villages or towns. Not completely. Cattle are grazed communally and most work is performed communally. Ubuntu (most Bantu languages have a similar word) literally means “shared grazing land”. This actually also makes sense (specialisation of labour and all that). > I believe there has hardly ever been a situation in Africa where a chief attacked his own people with an army, and caused some kind of internal massacre. The Shaka example I showed you is a good example where he killed off and starved his own people. I personally believe that you may have a little too romantic view of Africa (while I concede that I may suffer from the opposite).
- maxklein 17y ago
  I think it is pointless to argue with you, as you are speaking of an entirely different culture with an entirely different language group and an entirely different people. It's like arguing with someone about European Politics, and all his examples are about Ukraine.