Taken from How Europe Underdeveloped Africa

[OsunkoyaIfayomi]

Because of the superficiality of many of the approaches to "underdevelopment" and because of resulting misconceptions, it is necessary to re-emphasize that developement and underdevelopment are not only comparative terms, but they also have a dialectical relationship one to the other: that is to say, the two help to produce each other by interaction. Western Europe and Africa had a relationship which insured the transfer of wealth from Africa to Europe. The transfer was only possible only after trade became truly international; and that takes one back to the late 15th century when Africa and Europe were drawn into common relations for the first time-along with Asia and the Americas. The developed and underdeveloped parts of the present capitalist section of the world have been in continuous contact for four and a half centuries.
The contention here is that over that period Africa helped to develop Western Europe in the same proportion as Western Europe helped to underdevelop Africa

[rebelAfrika]

uh ohhhhhhhhh..."development" and "underdevelopment" have a "DIALECTICAL" relationship with each other.

*my detractos say* rebelafrika...you are SOOOOOOOOO WACK for bringing up dialectical analysis again!

*I say* but I DIDN'T bring it up though...that GREAT SON OF AFRICA Walter Rodney is the one who brought it up. *shrugging shoulders*

[OsunkoyaIfayomi]

Dialetical.1) The art or pratice of arriving at truth by the exchange of logical arguments
2) dialetics- A method of argument, that weighs contradictory facts or ideas with a view to resolving real or apparent contradictions

[OsunkoyaIfayomi]

The first significant thing about the internalization of trade in the 15th century was that europeans took the initative and went to other parts of the world. No Chinese boats reached europe, and if any African canoes reached the Americas (as is sometimes maintained) they did not establish two-way links.

Ifayomi note: The verdict is still out as far as I am concerned as to wheather we sailed the seas prior to the european, this is something I have yet to research, therefore i am not suer about the statement that the european took the initative to go to other parts of the world.

What was called international trade was nothing but the extension overseas of european interest.

...From the beggining, europe assumed power to make decisions within the international trading system. An excellent illustration of that is the fact that the so called international law which governed the conduct of nations on the high seas was nothing else but european law. Africans did not participate in its making, and in many instances, African people were simply the victims, for the law recognized them only as transportable merchandise

to be continued

[rebelAfrika]

You're teasing me with some of my favorite parts of this book! Not just "International Law"...but pay attention when he talks about "Maritime Law." These europeans basically imposed laws ARBITRARILY on everybody! They just "made up the rules" as they went along. They just disregarded the fact that AFRICANS HAD THEIR OWN LAW. They could do that because they had ships with canons to enforce their "law" then. Today they have the army, navy, air farce and marines...but even with all that...it doesn't make their law "legal." But all this bullshit goes back to a time when they created law based on pure "piracy"...or piracy IN THE LITERAL SENSE OF THE WORD!!! ("Ol' PIRATES yes they rob I! Sold I to the merchant ships!"--Bob Marley).