Was this continent 'africa'really for Africans or were we short changed by the ealier type of europeans?
400525
Way to play the undeserving victim.  Maybe if Africa could pull its head out of its ass long enough to form some sort of stable government and quit raping and pillaging their entire populations, then maybe you would actually have a reason to be proud to be an African.
364383
What does this question mean??\n\nIf you mean politically, then I'd have to say that Africa is further behind in that respect, or even South America.\n\nAnd hundreds of years ago, the Arabs were actually the first to do a number of things, like develop a counting system and bring paper to Europe.
397661
Yes, I don't understand why people have such a hard time accepting this truth but yes, life began in Africa.  We are all descendants of Africans.
974873
No, Just happen to be that europeans were christians and white people decided to used their racism to segregate from blacks. Pretty sad stuff...
1058531
Black people were a mercancy so they did´nt came one by one but by bunches , anyway do you mean america as in the US or as the continent
622427
You are trying to sound intelligent..You want to know why humans left Africa in what Years??? Another source  http://www.egyptsearch.com/forums/Forum8/HTML/001731.html
959143
Europe, Asia and Africa
687662
Europe & Africa (& also Asia)
731642
How come you did not mention your own nationality? Anyway, I've lived in some African countries and really liked the environments - very friendly and stress free. I've also lived in the USA and was in fact very disappointed - very stressful and hostile society (despite the diversity), especially down south in Texas.
93187
some west africans worked for europeans helping to capture west africans and other africans to be taken through the triangle trade route for slavery.  africans had to stay aware of the europeans, so basicly they lived as paranoid people.
1063166
First of all, two of them are continents and one, a country. Therefore, to try to categorize all of asia and all of africa and then compare it to america would not be an equal comparision. \n\nEach of the three first follow different religions. Africa is mostly composed of indegenious religions. And because the majority of the people are in agriculture, less people are thinking in a more philosophical sense. Overall, the continent should not be striving to follow philosophy but instead improve their status and conditions of thier people. \n\nIn Asia, there are many different types of religions but also there is a more definite following of philosophy. An example is Hinduism. It is a way of life- not a religion. Also, when countries in Asia were being formed, there was an early concept of writing, leading to literacy and education which brings out philosophy. One should do one's duty and leave the rest. Do not worry about things that you have no control over. \n\nIn America, because it is a more newly formed country in which ideas were planted here instead of formed, the philosophy is still new and doesn't have as a deep rooting as Asia would. \n\nDepending on the country/continents' background, history, and status, this leads to there different philosophies. Similarity trends in philosophy would be that they teach a person about life, how to lead, the meaning and its existence. All philosophy has the same ultimate goal. The difference is that people choose to take different methods and paths in order to achieve thier sense of reaching their goal. \n\nAnother interesting comparison would be to look at Greeks. They are also the founders of philosophy (Aristotle, Plato). THier contributions would affect more on the western civilization. \n\nI am not very knowledable about philosophy but I wrote down my thoughts and ideas. \nI hope it helps!
1036158
The continent of Africa is huge.  \n\nIn response to the person who said "they're living in a desert"-you obviously have never looked at a map or taken a geography course.  A huge amount of Africa is on a coast or in a jungle.  Africa is enormously diverse.  \n\nIn response to the person who said that over-population is the problem: You've got the wrong impression.  In some areas of Africa, a full third of the population is dying of HIV/AIDS, leaving only children and elderly behind.  Birth control, while important, is not the main issue here.  These people need solid education, without the interruption from wars and famine, and medication.  If these two things were addressed, starvation would be a thing of the past, a ghost of a nightmare.  \n\nConsider looking at www.Heifer.org for more information.
635149
I think so.  And it's a shame that more people haven't answered this question.  It's horrible what goes on in those regions, and people don't seem to care because Africans tend to be seen as lesser people.  Hence, the lack of action.
764303
(ever notice that latitudinal correlation between economic power and distance from the equator?)\nSomebody asked earlier "why is Asia still a poor country?" \nI gave the following answer and it's also true for why Africa is a poor country :\n\n\nThis is a complex question to answer in such short form but, I'll try. In short, Climate and history have shaped human economics.\nWealth (a middle class) is a fairly recent development even in western culture. Not so long ago, everywhere in the world, societies had an elite ruling class and the general masses were poor. Corruption and inequality was present in all cultures. \nThings we typically think are responsible for wealth like; Good laws, fair practices, good government and human rights are more a product of a robust middle class.\nThe significant historical events that gave rise to economic power were; transportation of goods, technology, and most significanty the industrial revolution. That's history.\nBut what about geography? Why did these events occur sooner in some parts of the world rather than other parts? That is the meat of ur question. The answer is climate.\nViewed in it's simplest way, It is less comfortable to live in a cold climate. It takes the burning of more energy, materials and work to be able to house, clothe and feed urself in a cold climate. A place where food is hard to grow for a few months out of the entire year, u need to have lots of clothes to stay warm, good shelter to stay warm, and you have to heat that shelter.\nThat was the catalyst for development. "necessity is the mother of invention" Yes, sounds too simple to be true right?\nConversly, in a warm climate, it's easier to have housing, food and comfort even if ur poor. Easier for the rulers to keep the masses alive. The disparity between an elite ruling class and massive lower class had stability. Everything works, no need for things to change. Progress occured more slowly. \nViewed in the most basic way, societies of colder climates, though less populated, still developed faster due to demand for goods and discomfort of living. Tropical countries fell behind with this develpmental pace. Thats the answer to ur question why poverty still exists all along the geographic equator. It's not just Asia. It's Africa, Southamerica etc. \nHere's the kicker, Things are now changing very rapidly. With what we call globalization, the world becoming a smaller place, the balance of power and wealth is in flux more than ever before in the history of the human race. What direction it will go... how it will end up is anyone's guess.\nThe history of economic power is an intricately complex subject.\nI hope my simple and gerneralized explanation answers ur question.  Despite having been older and populated for longer, countries located along the equator did not develop at the same rapid speed to keep up with the more recent countries located in cooler regions.\nHope this answered ur question.
604567
First, the Europeans had known right along about Africa (which was a short hop across the Mediterranean) and about Asia, though their dealings with the Far East (India to China) came rather late, and were a result of contact with Muslims, esp. after the Crusades.\n\nAs for America, the discovers knew NOTHING about America (leaving aside for now the brief settlement from an earlier discovery by people from Iceland --by way of Greenland) when Columbus stumbled into it when trying to get to the Far East more quickly by crossing the Atlantic (rather than trekking by land or sailing around Africa).  This is, of course, why they were "discoverers"!  (Actually, he would have been a discoverer if he had found the route he was looking for rather than a new continent he wasn't looking for.)\n\nIronically, Columbus's critics --who said it was too far and too dangerous-- had a much more accurate estimate of the earth's circumference than he did!   \n\nFurther irony, Columbus never knew that he HAD discovered a new continent.  He died believing he had reached the edge of the "Indies" [hence they are called the West Indies to this day].   It was Amerigo Vespucci who first concluded, while exploring the coast and part of the interior of South America in a 1501-02 voyage, that this was not part of the Far East at all, but a new continent. (The widespread circulation of his letter on this point explains how he became associated with the discovery itself and why mapmakers put a version of HIS name on a map of the "new world" in 1507.)\n\nOne other consideration -- why didn't they sail out to attempt such things earlier?   Because it was only in the 15th century that Europeans (beginning with the Portugese) developed the navigational tools and skills to undertake such voyages.\n\n**Note to mon l -- none of this had ANYTHING to do with "falling off the edge of the earth".  All these folks knew (and the educated had known for many centuries) that the world was round (contra later anti-Catholic propaganda and a blunder in a popular 19th century biography of Columbus that has influenced the popular understanding ever since).  The obstacle the experts --including some fine navigators-- saw was the great DISTANCE to Asia -- and on that point, they were correct!
5402
The European nations didn’t just go to Africa to conquer it.  The nations of North Africa and Europe knew each other with explorers and conquers going both ways and all of this going back pre-Roman.  Central and Southern Africa was largely unknown.  What was know was seen as primarily wild and without unifying nations.  \n\nAs raw resources came into the awareness of various country, expansion began into these wild territories.  Through the years this continued and grew.  As the cultures involved came into increasing contact, abrasive relationships grew which as often as not led to hostilities.\n\nWhile today we can look back from what we consider a higher moral ground, that certainly was not the controlling policies of the day.
558604
In terms of actual, hard paleontological and archaeological evidence, there is no disagreement amongst the scientific community that Homo sapiens originated in Africa.\n\nThis has nothing to do with the fact that three of the modern species of great ape, which are also the three which are most closely genetically linked to modern humans are found in Africa.  This is strong corroborating evidence, but it is the actual physical bones and tools of early humans that are first found in Africa.\n\nThis also takes place LONG after the break up of Pangea.  A map of the Earth at the time would look pretty much exactly the same as it does now.  The main differences would be on the coast lines, where differences in sea levels during glaciations or in inter-glacial periods would reveal or conceal large sections of coastal real estate.\n\nThe African origin of humans is also evidenced in mitochondrial DNA studies and other projects mapping the human genome and regional variations.  The greatest genetic diversity among all human populations occurs amongst African peoples.  Genetic comparisons between groups such as the San and !Kung tribes of the Kalahari, the Mbutu tribes of the Congo basin, and populations in East and West Africa show more genetic variability than exists between Asians, North American Indians and Europeans.  This indicates that Africa was the site of the original development of the human population, and that all the other groups of human 'races' are actually descended from just one group of the diverse African genetic mileau (the East African branch actually).  \n\nYes, that means that if you were able to trace back through the family trees you would find that the Grand Wizard of the KKK is actually more closely related to the Masai warriors of Kenya than Oprah Winfrey is (who is of West African descent).\n\nFrom Africa, humans spread out all over the globe, crossing land bridges and sailing across stretches of water to reach Australia at least 45,000 years ago (by the Upper Swan River near Perth, as well as the Willandra lakes region in the southern interior by 40,000 years ago), and crossing the Beringia land bridge exposed between Alaska and Russia to colonize North America about 12,000 years ago.\n\nThe only debate in scientific circles is whether there was one or several migrations of humans out of Africa.  The first anatomically modern humans (Homo sapiens sapiens) appear in South Africa, at the cave complex of Klasies River Mouth by 100,000 years ago.  After that, the same phenotypic subspecies, with a distinctive round cranium, thin walled skull, lack of a strong brow ridge and a protruding chin (also known as a mental eminence) started appearing in the Middle East, Europe and Asia.\n\nSome indicate that this suggests that anatomically modern humans arose in South Africa, and spread out once again from there to take over or intermingle with all of the populations of earlier Homo sapiens (such as the Neandertals) that had migrated out of Africa.  There are others who have proposed a 'regional continuity' model, where the populations of Homo sapiens that had moved out of Africa and into Europe and Asia somehow totally independently for some reason developed the exact same phenotypic changes in morphology seen in the South African population, and Homo sapiens sapiens evolved throughout the entire range of the species.  No one has yet managed to propose a viable mechanism for this unusual pattern of evolution.  It has always seemed to me to be a vaguely racist hypothesis, as if even scientists are unwilling to accept the evidence that all humans could possibly have come from Africa THAT recently.\n\nStrong, independent physical evidence comes from the fields of palaeontology, archaeology, geology, biogeography, and genetics that humans definitely originated in Africa, and moved out from there to colonize the rest of the world.  There is also evidence that it happened as many as three times (Homo erectu