My question is about the Sudan region of Africa, the transitional zone where the Sahara gradually becomes the Savannah. This is apparently very desirable real estate and I can’t figure out why. Are there valuable plants that thrive on this weird grass/sand mixture, like in Dune?
Are you sure you don’t mean the Sahel and not the Sudan?
I believe its value is due to the Sahara expanding to the south. So the Sahel shrinks, which means there’s the same number of people trying to make a living on a smaller and smaller bit of real estate. So there’s conflict between the tribes living there.
With a bit of research, perhaps you did mean the Sudan. Apparently that’s the name of the western part of the Sahel. Was unaware of this meaning of that name.
The Sudanis a little bit lower. Did you know Mali used to be known as French Sudan?
What it the reason you think it is desirable real estate? Just because people are fighting over territory doesn’t mean it’s inherently valuable.
It is the same story as altogether too much of the world. The land of southern Sudan isn’t what is valuable. It is the oil beneath. Lots of it.
Actually, that’s kind of the definition of valuable.
Do you mean Sudan, THE Sudan, or the SUDANS? 'Cause I’m talking about THE Sudan.
No, it isn’t. People fight over essentially worthless land all the time because of national pride or other non-economic reasons.
Could you provide some evidence of the premise of your question, that the area has “desirable real estate”?
If it’s desired, then by definition it’s desirable. Whether you think it’s valuable or not is irrelevant.
Then the question in the OP is tautological and thus pointless. The premise of the question seems to that there is some intrinsic economic value in the area. The question is very vague, and the OP hasn’t really clarified what he is looking for despite requests.
Conflicts in the area may be spurred by many different factors. At a basic level, there are more people trying to make a living, often as herders, in an area that is being overgrazed. To them, grass is certainly a “valuable plant,” and worth fighting over, but it’s not intrinsically more valuable to outsiders than other grasses. In other areas conflict is based on minerals or other resources. And of course, much of the conflict in the area is religiously/ideologically based and has little to do directly with resources.
I read it as asking whether there are extrinsically valuable items in the area. There may or may not be: that’s factually answerable. If the area is desirable only for intrinsic reasons, like ancestral homeland or recent usurpation, that’s an interesting answer as well
As did I. Since the OP starts out by asking about “valuable plants,” I presumed the first meaning was intended. But he hasn’t clarified how he concluded it was “desirable real estate.”
The Sudan is a huge area, with many different conflicts with a variety of different causes, some of them economic and some of them not. Which is why I was looking for clarification over what kind of value or desirability he’s referring to. Boko Haram is an example of a group in The Sudan (in the wider sense) that is involved in a conflict that is not primarily economic (although there may be economic aspects to it).
If centuries of colonization and border conflicts aren’t evidence of its desirability, I’m not sure what is. Comparable areas in Australia, Central Asia and the American Southwest seem quite abandoned by comparison, but according to Wiki,
It has been populous enough throughout its history to fuel a robust Mediterranean slave trade. A part of the world that I would expect to have virtually nobody living in it has always been quite populated, and I just wonder what the draw of the place is. If you want me to account for your lack of curiosity, I can’t do it.
Y’know, getting snarky when you’re asked to clarify a vague question isn’t the best way to get a response.
I think your premise that colonization and conflicts in the area are due to unusual or unique resources rather than historical factors is faulty. First, some of the areas you cite are not really comparable. Australia, for example, was inhabited by hunter gatherers with little political organization until it was taken over by a single powerful colonizing country, which accounts for the lack of border conflicts. On the other hand, if you think that Central Asia is “quite abandoned” and hasn’t had conflicts and colonization, you need to read more about its history. There’s been a constant ebb and flow of invading peoples through this region for thousands of years.
Obviously the Wiki cite is wrong if it refers to the whole of Africa, since agriculture, trade, and political systems developed in the Nile Valley long before they did in the Sudan. If it refers to sub-Saharan Africa, then early development of agriculture may have been due to spread from Egypt and North Africa, and the fact that agriculture is easier in savanna areas than in the tropical rainforests further south. The fact that a slave trade became established there, and that Islam first became established there, is easily explained because it’s the first populated area you come too after crossing the Sahara from North Africa. This doesn’t require there to be any special resources there.
I’m going to pick your brain, the biologist (botanist ?), but how much has desertification crippled the traditional grazing range of the Eastern Sahel, from the times where the Sahel was dominated by West African powers like the Songhai?
I though Boko Haram was a creature of NE Nigeria, predominantly. It’s also to blame for violence in Southern Sudan?
As far as I know, quite a lot. The Sahara has been desertifying since at least 3000 BC, and has continued to the present. It has been accelerating in recent decades due to climate change and increasing overgrazing.
The OP is talking about the Sudan as a region, not the countries of Sudan or South Sudan. (See his link above.) Boko Haram is based in northern Nigeria, which is part of the Sudan region. AFAIK they have reached into the neighboring countries of Cameroon and Niger, but not as far afield as Sudan/South Sudan.
One thing, though - Agriculture in the Nile Valley is an import from the Fertile Crescent, whereas agriculture in the Western Sudan is an indigenous development.
Thanks, I had thought desertification was a more recent phenomenon, though as you pointed out, its acceleration increased recently, even if the entire process is much older. Ignorance fought. I guess the Empire was founded then on mineral wealth, with food requirements being met through trade networks. Hard to see the non-river valley land supporting a significant population and resource surplus to take up empire-building. Albeit I imagine the Niger and Gambia River valleys are as absurdly fertile as the Nile.
I’d never heard before of Sudan being used in such a sweeping geographical manner.
That would make a lot of sense, except that the history of the region doesn’t support this. It came to the attention of Europeans sometime in the late Roman/early Medieval period as a prime place to poach slaves for the Mediterranean slave trade. The later Atlantic slave trade focused more on the Guinea coast. My assumption is that the area had more natural resources to support a population 1500 years ago than it has now, but the area is still under some contention.
I first heard about it in this regard in some cheesy adventure story in the 1970s (No, I don’t remember the title or the author) where a mercenary talked about how, with enough men and guns, he could control “the entire Sudan!” It was my first hint that “Sudan” and “The Sudan” weren’t exactly the same thing.