I'm just getting trough the volume now, but it certainly sounds awfully familiar

sorry

There's a big difference between a craft to go island hopping with, and a craft that can cover thousands of miles of open water over many months and all of the associated storms and hazards associated with such a journey. When someone says "ocean-going ship," it's the later you're usually talking about.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kon-Tiki

It seems that early Polynesians may well have been able to do more than "island hop."

For the author's study, "oceangoing" is defined as:

--Any ship that had successfully crossed the Atlantic Ocean

--Any ship that had successfully crossed the Pacific Ocean

--Any ship that had reached the Indian Ocean from either Europe or the Far East

It's on Table 3 on page 75 of the pdf of the study linked to in the article:

http://www.nyu.edu/fas/institute/dri/Easterly/File/CominEasterlyGong_AEJ.pdf

The settlement of New Zealand and Hawai'i 'island hopping'?

Can we not have historically inaccuracy masquerading as fact on here please. Academic Journal sources for your alternative version of History please.

There was no "India" to speak of to be honest. You had various Kingdoms under different rulers at different times. Even then the Western part of the sub-continent was pretty much under Acheminid/Sassanian/Persian influence for the most part of 300BC to 650AD.

There were no "Muslim" invasions. You had the Arab/Turk army of Mohammad Bin Qasim, you the Turkik Mughals and you had various Afghan incursions. India remained resolutely multicultural and predominantly Hindu to this day. No one spoke Arabic as a lingua-franka, ever. Most courts spoke Farsi, then urdu, then English - never Arabic. Hindi and Sanskrit co-existed so did all the local languages.

Be a raving nationalist by all means but seriously, let's have some sources.

DIRECTHEX:

Eactly what would the Muslim invaders of India need to have done to qualify as Muslim in your eyes? Prostrate themselves 24/7 in the direction of Mecca?

The Turkic Muslim invaders (after early Arab ones) established proudly, declaredly ISLAMIC regimes in India. Their chroniclers gloried in them having put masses of Hindus to the sword and destroyed all artefacts of Hindu civilization that fell into their hands.

Countless Hindu temples were destroyed and replaced by mosques. Not Muslim enough for you?

Very few large and pre-Islamic Hindu temples survive in areas where Isalm dominated for long periods; many survive in Southern India were the Muslim hold was much less powerful. Coincidence?

The jizya, or the tax on infidels, was imposed on Hindus. Not Muslim enough for you?

Ruling elites were established where Hindus never had any but strictly subordinate roles. Not Islamic enough for you?

India remained societally mainly non-Islamic because Indian populations were vast, and many Hindus fought tenaciously to resist Islam. Hindu survival was not a Muslim gift.

The history of the Indian Subcontinent is as complex and as farcical as that of the European Continent. The Muslim Invasions only set India back for a few generations. India under the Mughal Empire (With a predominantly muslim leadership), created a composite culture which, until the late 18th Century, was technologically advanced. The civilisational divide between Hindus and Muslim is a result of social and imperial tensions of the mid-twentieth century.

Set back, like how? Seriously. Evidence?

Evidence please

DIRECTHEX:

What is YOUR evidence for the claim that Muslim invasions did not establish Muslim regimes on India?

Evidence, please. You'll have a hard time telling us that for instance Aurangzeb did not see himself as Muslim.

As for India's science. its big contributions in mathematics happened before the Muslim invasions; India ceased to be creative in science as it had been prior to the coming of Muslim rule.

I think you need to look at your postings.. you just contradicted yourself.

Here's some sources :

A history of India By Hermann Kulke, Dietmar Rothermund

Trade and civilisation in the Indian Ocean: an economic history from the ...
By K. N. Chaudhuri (http://books.google.co.uk/books?hl=en&lr=&id=ByT1l36ZxGoC&oi=fnd&pg=PR8&dq=history+of+muslim+india&ots=HtNLGHJZbT&sig=OYR233O3RmgrZJp78LbzG5wd0bY#v=onepage&q=history%20of%20muslim%20india&f=false)

Or

An Intellectual History of Islam in India (http://www.questia.com/PM.qst?a=o&docId=72233458)

Or

A History of Islamic Societies - M Lapidus (http://www.questia.com/PM.qst?a=o&docId=72233458)

and for something completely different try this

Sufi Folk Literature and the Expansion of Indian Islam (http://www.jstor.org/pss/1062004)

On a wider note:

Babur, the founder of the Mughals started his reign in 1526/1527. Aurgengzaib was a nasty man , he arrived was in power from 1658 to 1707. That's way past any of the periods you are talking about.

Of course you can read all about it in The Mughal Empire by John F. Richards (http://books.google.co.uk/books?hl=en&lr=&id=HHyVh29gy4QC&oi=fnd&pg=PR12&dq=The+Mughals&ots=5qiQ4J5-h7&sig=7A-jVsB0Eu9zZKtlTM7eGTN6Beg#v=onepage&q=The%20Mughals&f=false)

and if you're so inclined

Asghar Ali Engineer's piece "Islam and Muslims in India" in "Religion, Conflict and Reconciliation" edited by J.D Gort (http://books.google.co.uk/books?hl=en&lr=&id=VJ0UxLFlsiAC&oi=fnd&pg=PA239&dq=Mohammad+BIn+Qasim+&ots=zC6TRhe1Zo&sig=-HKmKznm-1L6wccFZdv1z2L67LE#v=onepage&q&f=false)

also

Intercourse Between India and the Western World - From the Earliest Time to the Fall of Rome By H. G. Rawlinson
The Greeks in Bactria and India By William Woodthorpe Tarn

Enjoy the reading. Especially before posting spurious nonsense.

DIRECTHEX:

In what way do the sources you have cited prove that Muslims did not establish Islamic regimes in India, as you claim?

Now for some actual citations from Muslim sources on Muslim crimes in India:

In 1000 AD Mahmud of Ghazni defeated Raja Jaipal, a scion of the Hindu Shahiya dynasty of Kabul. This dynasty had been for long the doorkeeper of India in the Northwest. Mahmud collected 250,000 dinars as indemnity. That perhaps was normal business of an empire builder. But in 1004 AD he stormed Bhatiya and plundered the place. He stayed there for some time to convert the Hindus to Islam with the help of mullahs he had brought with him.

In 1008 AD he captured Nagarkot (Kangra). The loot amounted to 70,000,000 dirhams in coins and 700,400 mans of gold and silver, besides plenty of precious stones and embroidered cloths. In 1011 AD he plundered Thanesar which was undefended, destroyed many temples, and broke a large number of idols. The chief idol, that of Chakraswamin, was taken to Ghazni and thrown into the public square for defilement under the feet of the faithful. According to Tarikh-i-Yamini of Utbi, Mahmud's secretary,

"The blood of the infidels flowed so copiously [at Thanesar] that the stream was discolored, notwithstanding its purity, and people were unable to drink it. The Sultan returned with plunder which is impossible to count. Praise he to Allah for the honor he bestows on Islam and Muslims."

In 1013 AD Mahmud advanced against Nandana where the Shahiya king, Anandapal, had established his new capital. The Hindus fought very hard but lost. Again, the temples were destroyed, and innocent citizens slaughtered. Utbi provides an account of the plunder and the prisoners of war:

"The Sultan returned in the rear of immense booty, and slaves were so plentiful that they became very cheap and men of respectability in their native land were degraded by becoming slaves of common shopkeepers. But this is the goodness of Allah, who bestows honor on his own religion and degrades infidelity."

The road was now clear for an assault on the heartland of Hindustan. In December 1018 AD Mahmud crossed the Yamuna, collected 1,000,000 dirhams from Baran (Bulandshahar), and marched to Mahaban in Mathura district. Utbi records:

"The infidels...deserted the fort and tried to cross the foaming river...but many of them were slain, taken or drowned... Nearly fifty thousand men were killed."

Mathura was the next victim. Mahmud seized five gold idols weighing 89,300 missals and 200 silver idols. According to Utbi, "The Sultan gave orders that all the temples should be burnt with naptha and fire, and levelled with the ground." The pillage of the city continued for 20 days. Mahmud now turned towards Kanauj which had been the seat of several Hindu dynasties. Utbi continues: "In Kanauj there were nearly ten thousand temples... Many of the inhabitants of the place fled in consequence of witnessing the fate of their deaf and dumb idols. Those who did not fly were put to death. The Sultan gave his soldiers leave to plunder and take prisoners."

The fate of Asi was sealed when its ruler took fright and fled. According to Utbi, ".... the Sultan ordered that his five forts should be demolished from their foundations, the inhabitants buried in their ruins, and the soldiers of the garrison plundered, slain and captured".

Shrawa, the next important place to be invaded, met the same fate. Utbi concludes:

"The Muslims paid no regard to the booty till they had satiated themselves with the slaughter of the infidels and worshipers of sun and fire. The friends of Allah searched the bodies of the slain for three days in order to obtain booty...The booty amounted in gold and silver, rubies and pearls nearly to three hundred thousand dirhams, and the number of prisoners may be conceived from the fact that each was sold for two to ten dirhams. These were afterwards taken to Ghazni and merchants came from distant cities to purchase them, so that the countries of Mawaraun-Nahr, Iraq and Khurasan were filled with them, and the fair and the dark, the rich and the poor, were commingled in one common slavery."

Mahmud's sack of Somnath is too well-known to be retold here. What needs emphasizing is that the fragments of the famous Sivalinga were carried to Ghazni. Some of them were turned into steps of the Jama Masjid in that city. The rest were sent to Mecca, Medina, and Baghdad to be desecrated in the same manner.

Invasion of India by Islamic imperialism was renewed by Muhmmad Ghori in the last quarter of the 12th century. After Prithiviraj Chauhan had been defeated in 1192 AD, Ghori took Ajmer by assault.

According the Taj-ul-Ma'sir of Hasan Nizami, "While the Sultan remained at Ajmer, he destroyed the pillars and foundations of the idol temples and built in their stead mosques and colleges and precepts of Islam, and the customs of the law were divulged and established."

Next year he defeated Jayachandra of Kanauj. A general massacre, rapine, and pillage followed. The Gahadvad treasuries at Asni and Varanasi were plundered. Hasan Nizami rejoices that "in Benares which is the centre of the country of Hind, they destroyed one thousand temples and raised mosques on their foundations".

According to Kamil-ut-Tawarikh of Ibn Asir, "The slaughter of Hindus (at Varanasi) was immense; none were spared except women and children, and the carnage of men went on until the earth was weary."

The women and children were spared so that they could be enslaved and sold all over the Islamic world. It may be added that the Buddhist complex at Sarnath was sacked at this time, and Buddhist priests were slaughtered.

Ghori's lieutenant Qutbuddin Aibak was also busy meanwhile. Hasan Nizami writes that after the suppression of a Hindu revolt at Kol (modern day Aligarh) in 1193 AD, Aibak raised "three bastions as high as heaven with their heads, and their carcases became food for beasts of prey. The tract was freed from idols and idol worship and the foundations of infidelism were destroyed."

In 1194 AD Aibak destroyed 27 Hindu temples at Delhi and built the Quwwat-ul-lslam mosque with their debris. According to Nizami, Aibak "adorned it with the stones and gold obtained from the temples which had been demolished by elephants".

In 1195 AD the Mher tribe of Ajmer rose in revolt, and the Chaulukyas of Gujarat came to their assistance. Aibak had to invite reinforcements from Ghazni before he could meet the challenge. In 1196 AD he advanced against Anahilwar Patan, the capital of Gujarat. Nizami writes that after Raja Karan was defeated and forced to flee, "fifty thousand infidels were dispatched to hell by the sword" and "more than twenty thousand slaves, and cattle beyond all calculation fell into the hands of the victors".

The city was sacked, its temples demolished, and its palaces plundered. On his return to Ajmer, Aibak destroyed the Sanskrit College of Visaladeva, and laid the foundations of a mosque which came to be known as 'Adhai Din ka Jhompada'.

Conquest of Kalinjar in 1202 AD was Aibak's crowning achievement. Nizami concludes: "The temples were converted into mosques... Fifty thousand men came under the collar of slavery and the plain became black as pitch with Hindus."

A free-lance adventurer, Muhammad Bakhtyar Khalji, was moving further east. In 1200 AD he sacked the undefended university town of Odantpuri in Bihar and massacred the Buddhist monks in the monasteries. In 1202 AD he took Nadiya by surprise. Badauni records in his Muntakhab-ut-Tawarikh that "property and booty beyond computation fell into the hands of the Muslims and Muhammad Bakhtyar having destroyed the places of worship and idol temples of the infidels founded mosques and Khanqahs".

Shamsuddin Iltutmish who succeeded Aibak at Delhi invaded Malwa in 1234 AD. He destroyed an ancient temple at Vidisha. Badauni reports in his 'Muntakhab-ut-Tawarikh':

"Having destroyed the idol temple of Ujjain which had been built six hundred years previously, and was called Mahakal, he levelled it to its foundations, and threw down the image of Rai Vikramajit from whom the Hindus reckon their era, and brought certain images of cast molten brass and placed them on the ground in front of the doors of mosques of old Delhi, and ordered the people of trample them under foot."

Muslim power in India suffered a serious setback after Iltutmish. Balkan had to battle against a revival of Hindu power. The Katehar Rajputs of what came to be known as Rohilkhand in later history, had so far refused to submit to Islamic imperialism. Balkan led an expedition across the Ganges in 1254 AD. According to Badauni,

"In two days after leaving Delhi, he arrived in the midst of the territory of Katihar and put to death every male, even those of eight years of age, and bound the women."

But in spite of such wanton cruelty, Muslim power continued to decline till the Khaljis revived it after 1290 AD.

Jalaluddin Khalji led an expedition to Ranthambhor in 1291 AD. On the way he destroyed Hindu temples at Chain. The broken idols were sent to Delhi to be spread before the gates of the Jama Masjid. His nephew Alauddin led an expedition to Vidisha in 1292 AD. According to Badauni in Muntakhab-ut-Tawarikh, Alauddin "brought much booty to the Sultan and the idol which was the object of worship of the Hindus, he caused to be cast in front of the Badaun gate to be trampled upon by the people. The services of Alauddin were highly appreciated, the jagir of Oudh (or Avadh - Central U.P.) also was added to his other estates."

Alauddin became Sultan in 1296 AD after murdering his uncle and father-in-law, Jalaluddin. In 1298 AD he equipped an expedition to Gujarat under his generals Ulugh Khan and Nusrat Khan. The invaders plundered the ports of Surat and Cambay. The temple of Somnath, which had been rebuilt by the Hindus, was plundered and the idol taken to Delhi for being trodden upon by the Muslims. The whole region was subjected to fire and sword, and Hindus were slaughtered en masse.

Muslim power again suffered a setback after the death of Alauddin Khalji in 1316 AD. But it was soon revived by the Tughlaqs. By now most of the famous temples over the length and breadth of the Islamic occupation in India had been demolished, except in Orissa and Rajasthan which had retained their independence. By now most of the rich treasuries had been plundered and shared between the Islamic state and its swordsmen. Firuz Shah Tughlaq led an expedition to Orissa in 1360 AD. He destroyed the temple of Jagannath at Puri, and desecrated many other Hindu shrines. According to 'Sirat-i-Firoz Shahi' which he himself wrote or dictated,

"Allah who is the only true God and has no other emanation, endowed the king of Islam with the strength to destroy this ancient shrine on the eastern sea-coast and to plunge it into the sea, and after its destruction he ordered the image of Jagannath to be perforated, and disgraced it by casting it down on the ground. They dug out other idols which were worshipped by the polytheists in the kingdom of Jajnagar and overthrew them as they did the image of Jagannath, for being laid in front of the mosques along the path of the Sunnis and the way of the 'musallis' (Muslim congregation for namaz) and stretched them in front of the portals of every mosque, so that the body and sides of the images might be trampled at the time of ascent and descent, entrance and exit, by the shoes on the feet of the Muslims."

After the sack of the temples in Orissa, Firoz Shah Tughlaq attacked an island on the sea-coast where "nearly 100,000 men of Jajnagar had taken refuge with their women, children, kinsmen and relations". The swordsmen of Islam turned "the island into a basin of blood by the massacre of the unbelievers".

A worse fate overtook the Hindu women. Sirat-i-Firuz Shahs records: "Women with babies and pregnant ladies were haltered, manacled, fettered and enchained, and pressed as slaves into service in the house of every soldier."

Still more horrible scenes were enacted by Firuz Shah Tughlaq at Nagarkot (Kangra) where he sacked the shrine of Jvalamukhi. Firishta records that the Sultan "broke the idols of Jvalamukhi, mixed their fragments with the flesh of cows and hung them in nose bags round the necks of Brahmins. He sent the principal idol as trophy to Medina."

In 1931 AD the Muslims of Gujarat complained to Nasiruddin Muhammad, the Tughlaq Sultan of Delhi, that the local governor, Kurhat-ul-Mulk, was practising tolerance towards the Hindus. The Sultan immediately appointed Muzzaffar Khan as the new Governor. He became independent after the death of the Delhi Sultan and assumed the title of Muzzaffar Shah in 1392 AD. Next year he led an expidition to Somnath and sacked the temple which the Hindus had built once again. He killed many Hindus to chastise them for this "impudence," and raised a mosque on the site of the ancient temple. The Hindus, however, restarted restoring the temple soon after. In 1401 AD Muzaffar came back with a huge army. He again killed many Hindus, demolished the temple once more, and erected another mosque.

Muzaffar was succeeded by his grandson, Ahmad Shah, in 1411 AD. Three years later Ahmad appointed a special darogah to destroy all temples throughout Gujarat. In 1415 AD Ahmad invaded Sidhpur where he destroyed the images in Rudramahalaya, and converted the grand temple into a mosque. Sidhpur was renamed Sayyadpur.

Mahmud Begrha who became the Sultan of Gujarat in 1458 AD was the worst fanatic of this dynasty. One of his vassals was the Mandalika of Junagadh who had never withheld the regular tribute. Yet in 1469 AD Mahmud invaded Junagadh. In reply to the Mandalika's protests, Mahmud said that he was not interested in money as much as in the spread of Islam. The Mandalika was forcibly converted to Islam and Junagadh was renamed Mustafabad. In 1472 AD Mahmud attacked Dwarka, destroyed the local temples, and plundered the city. Raja Jaya Singh, the ruler of Champaner, and his minister were murdered by Mahmud in cold blood for refusing to embrace Islam after they had been defeated and their country pillaged and plundered. Champaner was renamed Mahmudabad.

Mahmud Khalji of Malwa (1436-69 AD) also destroyed Hindu temples and built mosques on their sites. He heaped many more insults on the Hindus. Ilyas Shah of Bengal (1339-1379 AD) invaded Nepal and destroyed the temple of Svayambhunath at Kathmandu. He also invaded Orissa, demolished many temples, and plundered many places. The Bahmani sultans of Gulbarga and Bidar considered it meritorious to kill a hundred thousand Hindu men, women, and children every year. They demolished and desecrated temples all over South India.

Timur the Lame invaded in 1399 AD. He starts by quoting the Quran in his Tuzk-i-Timuri: "O Prophet, make war upon the infidels and unbelievers, and treat them severely."

He continues: "My great object in invading Hindustan had been to wage a religious war against the infidel Hindus...[so that] the army of Islam might gain something by plundering the wealth and valuables of the Hindus." To start with he stormed the fort of Kator on the border of Kashmir. He ordered his soldiers "to kill all the men, to make prisoners of women and children, and to plunder and lay waste all their property". Next, he "directed towers to be built on the mountain of the skulls of those obstinate unbelievers". Soon after, he laid siege to Bhatnir defended by Rajputs. They surrendered after some fight, and were pardoned. But Islam did not bind Timur to keep his word given to the "unbelievers". His Tuzk-i-Timuri records:

"In a short space of time all the people in the fort were put to the sword, and in the course of one hour the heads of 10,000 infidels were cut off. The sword of Islam was washed in the blood of the infidels, and all the goods and effects, the treasure and the grain which for many a long year had been stored in the fort became the spoil of my soldiers. They set fire to the houses and reduced them to ashes, and they razed the buildings and the fort to the ground."

At Sarsuti, the next city to be sacked, "all these infidel Hindus were slain, their wives and children were made prisoners and their property and goods became the spoil of the victors". Timur was now moving through (modern day) Haryana, the land of the Jats. He directed his soldiers to "plunder and destroy and kill every one whom they met". And so the soldiers "plundered every village, killed the men, and carried a number of Hindu prisoners, both male and female".

Loni which was captured before he arrived at Delhi was predominantly a Hindu town. But some Muslim inhabitants were also taken prisoners. Timur ordered that "the Musulman prisoners should be separated and saved, but the infidels should all be dispatched to hell with the proselytizing sword".

By now Timur had captured 100,000 Hindus. As he prepared for battle against the Tughlaq army after crossing the Yamuna, his Amirs advised him "that on the great day of battle these 100,000 prisoners could not be left with the baggage, and that it would be entirely opposed to the rules of war to set these idolators and enemies of Islam at liberty". Therefore, "no other course remained but that of making them all food for the sword".

Tuzk-i-Timuri continues:

"I proclaimed throughout the camp that every man who had infidel prisoners should put them to death, and whoever neglected to do so should himself be executed and his property given to the informer. When this order became known to the ghazis of Islam, they drew their swords and put their prisoners to death. One hundred thousand infidels, impious idolators, were on that day slain. Maulana Nasiruddin Umar, a counselor and man of learning, who, in all his life, had never killed a sparrow, now, in execution of my order, slew with his sword fifteen idolatrous Hindus, who were his captives."

The Tughlaq army was defeated in the battle that ensued next day. Timur entered Delhi and learnt that a "great number of Hindus with their wives and children, and goods and valuables, had come into the city from all the country round".

He directed his soldiers to seize these Hindus and their property. Tuzk-i-Timuri concludes:

"Many of them (Hindus) drew their swords and resisted...The flames of strife were thus lighted and spread through the whole city from Jahanpanah and Siri to Old Delhi, burning up all it reached. The Hindus set fire to their houses with their own hands, burned their wives and children in them and rushed into the fight and were killed...On that day, Thursday, and all the night of Friday, nearly 15,000 Turks were engaged in slaying, plundering and destroying. When morning broke on Friday, all my army ...went off to the city and thought of nothing but killing, plundering and making prisoners....The following day, Saturday the 17th, all passed in the same way, and the spoil was so great.that each man secured from fifty to a hundred prisoners, men, women, and children. There was no man who took less than twenty. The other booty was immense in rubies, diamonds, garnets, pearls, and other gems and jewels; ashrafis, tankas of gold and silver of the celebrated Alai coinage: vessels of gold and silver; and brocades and silks of great value. Gold and silver ornaments of Hindu women were obtained in such quantities as to exceed all account. Excepting the quarter of the Saiyids, the Ulama and the other Musulmans, the whole city was sacked."

Not Islamic enough for you?

DIRECTHEX:

The Muslims fought among themselves, too, in India; sometimes with Hindu allies. But they all stood for Islamic rule, and whoever won imposed it ruthlessly on the Hindus. Only when predominantly Hindu or Sikh political forces won did these communities escapwe subjecthood.

If nothing else, the citations I have made from MUSLIM sources will give readers taken in by your bland cover-up of the infamy and Islamic character of Muslim rule in India just what Muslim leaders themselves said and did.

I'm pretty sure that both Timbuktu/Mali and Zimbabwe/Maputsatha (or whatever it's successor was called) were STONE AGE cultures until the 14th or 15th centuries when Arab and Portagee slavetraders brought them into the bronze age. These "civilizations" were even more backward than the Mesoamerican cultures that built "pyramids"--4000 years AFTER the Egyptians did.

Colonialism messed with mainly social-marital-familial relationships: British "missionaries" encouraged anal sex as a method of birth control for Africans; mercantilists forced indigs to stop growing food and grow stuff for export (like sesal and hemp) which confused the male-female division of labor. Women were devalued through these sorts of colonial mechanisms, which led directly to dowerism and eventually to modern bride-burnings in India.

Timbuktu was not Stone Age. You need to do some reading brother. Timbuktu was one of the foremost centres of learning until the Gold/Salt trade moved and made it less important. Actually it's comparable to Bruge in Belgium which reached its gothic pomp and then promptly lost its importance. Though Timbuktu was more important and longer living than Bruge managed to be.

I haven't been able to find ANYTHING online that indicates that the Mandinka were not a stone age people until Arab slavetraders came along. Maybe they could work gold and copper, which I suppose might classify the culture as copper age, but it looks like Timbuktu was just a spot where nomads hung out in the wintertime--until the Arabs came. Hell, the place wasn't even used for that until 1000AD. Sounds like you are reciting some politically-correct crap that your public school teachers fed you.

Here you go mate - by the way, if you're part of an academic institution Web Of Science is always a good thing.

Social history of Timbuktu: The role of Muslim scholars and notables, 1400-1900
Post a Comment - Saad, Elias N. (1983)

Timbuktu and the Songhay Empire: Al-Sa'Di's Ta'Rikh Al-Sudan Down to 1613 and other contemporary documents By John O. Hunwick

Timbuktu under Imperial Songhay: A reconsideration of autonomy MA Gomez - The Journal of African History, 1990 - Cambridge Univ Press

History, Oral Transmission and Structure in Ibn Khaldun's Chronology of Mali Rulers Ralph A. Austen and Jan Jansen
History in Africa (1996)

P.S. My "Public School" was founded in the 1550s.

It must be nice to think that Europe is the mother of all things "worthwhile". I only wish it were true. Then the rest of us who wasted our time inventing numbers, astronomy and philosophy can just take a break and be put in our proper place as we were a few centuries ago. BTW Indian Civilisation did not collapse with the arrival of the Muslims, the invasions damaged and ultimately enriched it. If you have any doubt, please refer to the Taj Mahal. I've heard its quite beautiful.

Sir,

Why is Britain a plague upon Hindustan, while the Mughals were the bringers of enriching syncretism? At least the Queen's English and Hindi shared a common ancestor! Altaic languages, not so much. As for architecture, certainly India's richness is par excellence. I hope the Taj Mahal is quite wonderful. Never seen it. And Eurocentrism as an aside? At least is wasn't 'fascist pig.'

But architecture, ghazals, and illuminated manuscripts do not translate into economy, production, or suffrage. I don't want to belabor the ways in which a vibrant culture like India's was changed by conquest. I'd rather ask about ways in which India or China could possibly "lead the world" when their societies are so markedly stratified? I'm not going to refer to the West's democratic tradition vis-a-vis the East's preference for autocracy. But how could these huge nation-states possible equally enfranchise their entire populations?

There is synthesis and innovation in the Europics that has not seen its like in Asia. Period. 'Dormant for centuries' is a euphemism for either regression or stagnation. Surely, technology will disperse to other cultures, and innovation is not the sole province of Europe. But to say, "We created philosophy and numbers three thousand years ago," is a cop-out to the modern-day reality. I'm glad you didn't add, "So there." Indians, Pakistanis, and Chinese continue to immigrate en masse to the West for freedom and opportunity. Latin Americans immigrate to the U.S. Africans immigrate to Europe. Why is this?

In India, China, Pakistan, and Africa, life is very cheap. I have never been to South America. A lay-over in the Gulf states is enough to see that raw numbers and manpower will always be the East's solution. And why not? It is its strength. Just because technology, individuality, and innovation is the Europic's solution to problem sets does not mean it is the answer for all the world. I think your repressed "Eurocentrism" is what is causing you to bristle at these rather basic and transparent observations.

Remember, many iconic math and science concepts such as Pascal's triangle other culture spheres came across and named much earlier, though our naming conventions do not reflect or acknowledge.

While I refrain from citing Wikipedia, as example, it does have a nice list of old inventions portraying China as historically technologically advanced:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Chinese_inventions

But as the author argues, they eventually stagnated and allowed formerly backward cultures to surpass them in a span of several hundred years.

It is true that Europe in the post-war years has definitely improved its behavior compared to the previous centuries vis-a-vis human rights and political freedoms despite occasional retreat to medievalism (like attitudes towards head scarves and Roma). In terms of technology, it has definitely surpassed Asia & Africa in advancing ideas and invention that originated there since the Enlightenment.

It is also true that life is cheap throughout the developing world; but it is also irrevocably true that it was far cheaper in the time of slavery and colonialism, when most of the problems of the "lesser people" were created.

The problem with Eurocentric Discourse is not that it describes the present accurately, which it tends to do; but its description of the past as a kind of inevitable vector towards itself, thereby devaluing every intellectual and inventive step that preceded it. Among the posts here it was mentioned that Eurocentrism is a code word for Fascism. I agree that it is. But Eurocentrism is distinct from Europhilia, which is a phenomenon of admiration of European culture(s) and is a worthy point of view; while the former is a nasty, evil relic of Colonialism, Imperialism & Slavery - all of which are inherently fascist.