Thread: Black african civilization prior to european colonalization and racist stereotypes

[quote name='caffeine' date='23 June 2010 - 12:41 AM' timestamp='1277278878' post='161724']

...it's pretty clear from looking at ancient Egyptian art that there were dark- and light-skinned Egyptians.[/quote]

It is not clear at all. The Egyptians remained a fairly insular race, genetically, until the time of the conquests by Greeks and later Romans. they did have relationships in Namibia, but there is not evidence of any migrations of people, or mingling of cultures.



Sub-saharan civilizations, pre-contact were not builders, and did not build structures ntended to last for a long period of time. On the east coast, the Arab immigrants who came to Africa around 800 AD, did build and did so along the same lines as they had in Arabia. there was also a spread south across the Sahara from Mediterranean that increased as Islam was spread.



The total lack of writing, necessary to express and promote ideas is a severe detriment to what we call "civilization". Greek civilization is represented by Plato, not the conquests of Alexander. It is represented by the inredible distance in years and miles that Greek culture has spread. there are no cultures in Sub-saharan Africa that show any signs of such attributes of civilization.



As I pointed out, this is also true of Germany and many other areas, and you see no such attempts to create a fictional past.



Your own arguments defeat your point. In Britian many, many Roman remains are found, both stone and many of wood. But the long term occupation and the wealth of evidence for a civilized society exist. Great Zimbabwe was begun around 1000AD. What was its purpose, who lived there, what did they think; these are the attributes that establish a society as civilized.



Sub-saharan Africa, prior to the arrival of Asian and Europeans, was not, not had it been, civilized. The why has many parts. Sub-saharan Africa was very poor in grain crops. Grain crops ar condusive to long term storage, alleviating famines and fostering trade between groups. Yes, there was farming, but largely of parishables which contribute to famines. A good example of this is Ireland. In the early 1700s, the British landowners moved the economy to potatoes for the English economy. The loss of animal husbandry and other grain crops resulted in the potatoe famine of the later 1800s.

[quote name='Zaragrunudgeyon' date='23 June 2010 - 11:34 PM' timestamp='1277361260' post='161861']

It's the white man's fault.

[/quote]

That may be. But if so, why did the "black" man allow it to happen? Every people every where has been invaded and taken over at some time. Hitites, Sumarians, Persians, the list is endless. Some survive, some do not. Almost all peoples become a melting pot of those who have passed through before.

[quote name='ArizonaIrish' date='24 June 2010 - 01:47 PM' timestamp='1277408854' post='162003']

That may be. But if so, why did the "black" man allow it to happen?

[/quote]



That is the question. For some reason they let it happen. Let themselves be trampled on and exploited. They didn't have good enough weapons to match, to resist, the will, the organization, the communication to mass in numbers over a long period of time.



So then if a group of people can't do that, bad things happen to them.

[quote name='ArizonaIrish' date='24 June 2010 - 09:43 PM' timestamp='1277408591' post='162001']It is not clear at all. The Egyptians remained a fairly insular race, genetically, until the time of the conquests by Greeks and later Romans. they did have relationships in Namibia, but there is not evidence of any migrations of people, or mingling of cultures.[/quote]



How on earth do you know the genetic makeup of Ancient Egyptians? What we do know if that Egypt was subject to population influxes from both south and east, and went on campaigns of conquest long before the Greeks and Romans arrived. The idea that they remained genetically 'pure' throughout this is silly. I very much doubt they had any contact with Namibia, that being a long long way from Egypt, but if you mean Nubia they had more than just relationships. Nubia was under Egyptian rule for a long time, and Egypt was in turn conquered by Nubian kings.

Sub-saharan civilizations, pre-contact were not builders, and did not build structures intended to last for a long period of time. On the east coast, the Arab immigrants who came to Africa around 800 AD, did build and did so along the same lines as they had in Arabia. there was also a spread south across the Sahara from Mediterranean that increased as Islam was spread.

Well this is clearly untrue. Whatever we can say about the people who built Great Zimbabwe, they did build it, and they did so befor contact. And I'm not clear why you consider it so significant whether the building materials used were ones which would last a long time.

The total lack of writing, necessary to express and promote ideas is a severe detriment to what we call "civilization". Greek civilization is represented by Plato, not the conquests of Alexander. It is represented by the inredible distance in years and miles that Greek culture has spread. there are no cultures in Sub-saharan Africa that show any signs of such attributes of civilization.



As I pointed out, this is also true of Germany and many other areas, and you see no such attempts to create a fictional past.

While most sub-Saharan African people didn't have any writing system, it's not true that none did. People in the Horn of Africa long used an alphabet derived from Arabic, and there were a few ideographic and pictographic writing systems used in West and Central Africa

Sub-saharan Africa, prior to the arrival of Asian and Europeans, was not, not had it been, civilized. The why has many parts. Sub-saharan Africa was very poor in grain crops. Grain crops ar condusive to long term storage, alleviating famines and fostering trade between groups. Yes, there was farming, but largely of parishables which contribute to famines. A good example of this is Ireland. In the early 1700s, the British landowners moved the economy to potatoes for the English economy. The loss of animal husbandry and other grain crops resulted in the potatoe famine of the later 1800s.

That's not the cause of the potato famine. It was the impoverished farmers who grew potatoes for themselves because they can grow in small, poor lots which was all they had. There was a great deal of grain production, but this was exported rather than being distributed to the mass of poor Irish who couldn't afford it.

[quote name='Zaragrunudgeyon' date='25 June 2010 - 01:26 AM' timestamp='1277443574' post='162050']

That is the question. For some reason they let it happen. Let themselves be trampled on and exploited. They didn't have good enough weapons to match, to resist, the will, the organization, the communication to mass in numbers over a long period of time.



So then if a group of people can't do that, bad things happen to them.

[/quote]





Sounds like you stole some text straight from a kindergarten book Zarglebags.

Un-fucking-believable that you apes pass off slavery as being the black man's fault for letting it happen.

WTF?

While I agree you with wholeheartedly Inky, one of the underreported stories during the horrible slave trade years were that most Africans sold into slavery were already slaves. (granted, it created a market for it and likely increased the number of inter-tribe disputes which typically resulted in the losing side becoming slaves).



It doesn't make it right, but it is actually the antithesis that they were not matched. It's such a silly point of view. They were certainly matched, except in technology. Technology does not get developed as quickly in nomadic civilizations as it does as urbanized ones. It's jut the way of the world.

[quote name='PoliticalHotwire' date='25 June 2010 - 08:42 AM' timestamp='1277469735' post='162081']

While I agree you with wholeheartedly Inky, one of the underreported stories during the horrible slave trade years were that most Africans sold into slavery were already slaves. (granted, it created a market for it and likely increased the number of inter-tribe disputes which typically resulted in the losing side becoming slaves).



It doesn't make it right, but it is actually the antithesis that they were not matched. It's such a silly point of view. They were certainly matched, except in technology. Technology does not get developed as quickly in nomadic civilizations as it does as urbanized ones. It's jut the way of the world.

[/quote]



True that... I can compromise to say that the Africans did contribute to slavery by selling their own, but to make africans out to be a weaker, un-productive people is another story.

Their oppression is their biggest weakness.

[quote name='PoliticalHotwire' date='25 June 2010 - 05:42 AM' timestamp='1277469735' post='162081']

While I agree you with wholeheartedly Inky, one of the underreported stories during the horrible slave trade years were that most Africans sold into slavery were already slaves. (granted, it created a market for it and likely increased the number of inter-tribe disputes which typically resulted in the losing side becoming slaves).



It doesn't make it right, but it is actually the antithesis that they were not matched. It's such a silly point of view. They were certainly matched, except in technology. Technology does not get developed as quickly in nomadic civilizations as it does as urbanized ones. It's jut the way of the world.

[/quote]

For some reason people have emotions invested in what is a scientific discussion.



The African people, all of them, were rather easily taken/conquered/colonized by Europeans. This occurred for a number of reasons, technology being one, but most importantly, the europeans had political and economic structures that were easily adaptable to many different situations. The Europeans took all of the Americas with few people and few resources. They also dominated most of Asia and the middle East, again with few resourses. In each case, there were many different reasons why this happened.



Now, the "europeans" were themselves conquered over and over and over by outsiders and themselves. The infamous Gauls, who emerged from north western Europe to menace the Romans eventually settled in central Turkey, and then simply disappeared. Goths, Huns, Mongols, over and over it happened. Civilizations are born, grow and then merge with others.



The problem with Africa is the slow pace of adaption to ways which are improvements in social and economic organization. The status of almost all of Africa has declined since the colonies were given their freedom. A special case in point is Zimbabwe, were as Rhodesia balcks were without power, political and economic, though their living status was above the norm for Africa. Rhodesia was a food exporter and brought in much outside labor. It is now an economic ruin, barely able to feed itself. Many African nations are in a similar state, with few stable and economically viable.



Link



This is the real discussion, how to move forward today. Not to create some fantasy past for Africa, for it simply will not make a difference. It is most unfortunate that they have thrown off that European heritage.

[quote name='ArizonaIrish' date='24 June 2010 - 02:43 PM' timestamp='1277408591' post='162001']

It is not clear at all. The Egyptians remained a fairly insular race, genetically, until the time of the conquests by Greeks and later Romans. they did have relationships in Namibia, but there is not evidence of any migrations of people, or mingling of cultures.



Sub-saharan civilizations, pre-contact were not builders, and did not build structures ntended to last for a long period of time. On the east coast, the Arab immigrants who came to Africa around 800 AD, did build and did so along the same lines as they had in Arabia. there was also a spread south across the Sahara from Mediterranean that increased as Islam was spread.



The total lack of writing, necessary to express and promote ideas is a severe detriment to what we call "civilization". Greek civilization is represented by Plato, not the conquests of Alexander. It is represented by the inredible distance in years and miles that Greek culture has spread. there are no cultures in Sub-saharan Africa that show any signs of such attributes of civilization.



As I pointed out, this is also true of Germany and many other areas, and you see no such attempts to create a fictional past.



Your own arguments defeat your point. In Britian many, many Roman remains are found, both stone and many of wood. But the long term occupation and the wealth of evidence for a civilized society exist. Great Zimbabwe was begun around 1000AD. What was its purpose, who lived there, what did they think; these are the attributes that establish a society as civilized.



Sub-saharan Africa, prior to the arrival of Asian and Europeans, was not, not had it been, civilized. The why has many parts. Sub-saharan Africa was very poor in grain crops. Grain crops ar condusive to long term storage, alleviating famines and fostering trade between groups. Yes, there was farming, but largely of parishables which contribute to famines. A good example of this is Ireland. In the early 1700s, the British landowners moved the economy to potatoes for the English economy. The loss of animal husbandry and other grain crops resulted in the potatoe famine of the later 1800s.

[/quote]



What BS....Google is available to most everyone. I could easily call you out by posting reference after reference testifying to the rich culture and the "civilization" of sub-Saharan Africa. Why don't you research, before you post false conclusions?