Because development is not a linear process in the way that those countries who began civilization first are forever ahead. A major factor in case of Africa is colonialism with which colonial powers prevented any developement during the colonial era and created really bad conditions for developement and disadvantages in world-market competition after de-colonisation.

The place of the oldest Civilization was where the frankenscene came from. It is untold but endure to date.

I think even during Pharaonic Egypt, what was happening in Egypt was different from what was happening in all of Africa.

Typical reason for all those countries including Egypt, for lagging behind in the race of development is the Feudal Systems prevailing in those countries at that time.

Due to strong hold of these powers, industrial revolution didn't worked well and with the crunch of labour power (as labor was in influence of feudal lords) for industries, investors moved to other nations.

That is the same reason why England (Master) who started industrialization lagged behind America (colony of England). America never had strong feudalism and that was reason for availability of easy and cheap labor and in turn developed industrial power.

Marie Grasmeier To add to your statements, colonialism was designed to function as a predatory relationship between the colonizers and the colonized. Additionally, Europeans initially entered into equal trade partnerships with Africans in the 15th century. Over the ensuing four centuries, however, these partnerships became increasingly unequal. Chattel enslavement and related conflicts particularly drained the continent of its strongest human resources in the prime of life.

Virendra Singh But England, as we can clearly see, is not in an economic situation as most African countries, so you cannot blame "feudalism". There is almost no country in Europe that does not have a history of feudalism. E.g. Germany is one of the most succesful exporting economies today despite abolishing feudalism only as late as in 19th century. Not to mention Japan which is quite successful in the world-system.

You cannot deny the devastations caused by colonialism, which Kenja Mccray explained, just by blaming it all to a history of "feudalism".

Africa is underdeveloped and dependent today because of colonialism and neo-colonialism. Even after independence most African countries are still attached to the apron strings of their various colonial lords in terms of economy, official languages, educational systems, dressing among others.

Praise Owojuyigbe, thank you for reminding us about the importance of neo-colonialism to this discussion.

Dear Marie Grasmeier i understand your points but society has to be seen with Sociological Lenses where we view the past experiences in present calculations.

England started the industrialization but was not able to stand in front of its own colony America. Reason is simple as i mentioned in my earlier communication.

Now, when we move from Macro to Micro feudalism we could see how that has created negative impact on nations growth.

Countries having kings or centralized feudalism is different story as that was at national level converting its character to Central governing system.

But lower feudalism as was in India with various kingdoms prove my point.

Hi,

First of all, I´m not fully qualified to answer this question. Mainly because I'm just a student starting a long path to understand a little more about how we got here!

The AI "felt" that I could be useful...I disagree but I admit that the question has been "hammering" my head all weak. Especially because it does not make sense (sorry; I really need to improve my social skills). So I decided to give it a try, without seeing any other answers firstly, but I'm pretty sure that someone already had put you on the right track.

Yes; Africa is the cradle of (human) life! And the sky is (quite often) blue! Both are unchallenging truths. More the latest than the first. However, the connection between an event occurred 2,4 million years ago and the appearance of Egyptian civilization is flimsy, at best.

Mrs. Ples is not related to Narmer, and the "cradle" is in South (of) Africa; 4000 miles (roughly 6500 km) away from Memphis (not Elvis' Memphis!).

Also relevant to the case the first "Civilization" was, quite possibly, not in Egypt. It also depends on what you think "civilization" means.

For a lot of early modern historians (from the "Age of Enlightenment") civilization was a synonym of personal rights and liberty, toleration, fraternity, equality, fair and accountable (constitutional) government and even secularism (total separation of church from the state). The idea of a "Medieval Civilization", for instance, was an absolute paradox.

To our contemporary eyes "Civilization" has a more "etymologic" value. The word came from Latin "Civitas", meaning "City", and we widen the epitome to all

forms of (ancient) peoples and cultures who were able to sustain, in a relatively small geographic area, large agglomerations of humans, provide them with basic needs (food, water, shelter, security) allowing concomitantly the existence of non-productive occupations (like clerics, officials, bureaucrats, soldiers, scribes). That permitted organized religion, organized state, organized (and permanent) army.

With this came the centralization of power(s) and the unification of a way of living.

Before Old Egypt envolve to this level of achievement many others, some are less known, peoples precede then. Sumer is generally recognized as the first civilization about 6000 years ago. But before that, we have also the Harappa people, in the Indus Valley, who were able to create vast cities and even had written language. Writing is a wide accepted milestone as a "needed" technological acquirement for large organized societies. (Nevertheless, the Tawantinsuyu People were able to create a short-lived Empire that is also called the "Inca Civilization" without had anything close to a writing system. The khipu knots were quite limited and, you guessed, weren't writing). I will not go deeper on this but please search about Mehrgarh or Göbekli Tepe.

Now let us focus on a little tiny detail; from the beginning of the Egyptian Civilization to nowadays some time had passed; more or less 5000 years of History! Ignoring that particular aspect is quite incomprehensible. Just 200 years ago no one, in more than a millennia, was able to read hieroglyphs and the brightest minds of the time had enthusiastic discussions about if it was a logographic kind of language, ancient "comics" or just elaborate, and odd, ornamentation.

But what about politically? Since 1000 years before the "Common Era" that Egypt was receiving increased influence from the Mediterranean world. To deal with the Canaanites, that first appeared in Egypt about 1800 BCE and even established an independent kingdom in the Nile Delta, the Egypt rulers had to pay a huge price. The country was weakened and even, for some time, again divided. By 1650 BCE, the Hyksos invaded the territory of both Egypts (North and South), they were "Asiatic" foreigners that brought several technical warfare innovations (chariots and horses) that made them almost invincible. It took some time for the Egyptians to adopt (to) this new way of fighting and eventually the Upper Egypt Theban lords start a rebellion (several in fact) which eventually drove the Hyksos out of Egypt.

Then it was time for the "Sea Peoples" to attack. They are quite a mystery until now, reportedly they were a seafaring confederation, possibly of Greek origin, that attacked ancient Egypt (nut not only, see the Bible) from 1220 BCE until the Late Bronze Age (and its violent transition to Iron Age). Soon the Persians came. And after them the Macedonians. And the Romans. And the Sassanids. And the Byzantines. And the Muslims from the Rashidun Caliphate. And I don´t even talk about the influence of England (and/or France or USA/USSR). For short; it was a complex bloody non-linear glorious mess that is also called History!

Now can you answer me this? How come a land that, 2000 years after the pyramids' construction in Ancient Egypt, did not even had the Neolithic Revolution (or discovered the wheel, writing, metal works and so on) is, at present time, the most powerful country in the world? Go figure!

P.S. - Don´t bother answering it ...it was just a rhetorical question!

Most importantly, civilization did not begin in Egypt. Mesopotamia was at least 1,000 years ahead. Your question deals with the fact that ancient Egyptians kept themselves isolated from the rest of the continent. The were bounded by desert on the west, mountains on the east, and a series of cataracts on the Nile to the south. Until the first millennium BCE they did not have contact with the Nubians to the south, except sporadically in the Middle Kingdom (witness tomb furnishings illustrating Nubian soldiers and servants). With countries further west or south we have no evidence whatsoever of contact..

My question is when to talk of black or African civilization history will surround it with Egypt. Were Ancient Egyptians Black?

Taiwo Alare Social categories like "Black" and "white" were not existent before early modern time and the invention of racism.

Who was regarded as "Black" or "white" over history was not a given but contingent and changing over time. See, e.g. Noel Ignatiev's book "How the Irish became white". Under British rule, the British regarded the Irish as "Black".

So I think it does not make sense to speak about Ancient Egyptians in those categories.

Thanks

Praise Owojuyigbe Kenja Mccray

Coming back to neocolonialism: I guess you already know it but for the public reading this thread I would recommend Walter Rodney: "How Europe underdeveloped Africa."