Were African civilizations impressive or were they still really primitive?
Were African civilizations impressive or were they still really primitive?
Other urls found in this thread:
Subsaharan states formed when Europeans and Arabs needed outposts for their conquest and purchase of slaves from the dark continent.
Carthage is pretty impressive
Depends on what you find impressive. Personally, I think the Axum dynasties and Christian Ethiopian kingdoms were pretty neat.
Pic related. One of a dozen monolithic churches at Lalibela.
The isolated ones in the south and especially in the congo were really primitive, but anywhere with access to trade routes and/or conquering invaders generally did better
I personally believe that there was no civilizations in Sub Saharan Africa, all these recently discovered ones are a fabrication for political reasons.
To add more fuel to the fire I also believe that blacks are the direct descendent soft Homo erectus, if not the great apes itself.
Kind of impressive until you notice the people and get a sense of scale. It's the size of a modern home.
Yes thats right the carthaginians were negroes
We wuz
Thoughts?
It sure would explain a lot if that were the case. You are right about the civilizations though, even the ruins, which are lauded by the left and held as proof of civilization, are utterly pathethic when compared to anywhere else. They find a small stone wall that surrounds five small stone houses and suddenly that is proof of an ancient grandiose civilization in Africa. Like hell it is.
West African ones were... decent, nothing imrpessive yet decent. Anything below the equator (except the for east coast) were basically caveman tier.
No serious natsoc would claim that.
It is true and it is too bad they use it for evil.
I’ve never heard a racialist deny Jewish IQ. If anything, it’s always used as a ‘see! I’m just being objective!’ token.
This is somewhat unrelated but I go on to Ethiopian music videos to jack off to the women in it.
Here’s my favorite one: youtu.be
When a "Civilizations" borders are circular it is a sign that there were no true borders and that the "Civilization" in question was not a true civilization but a decentralized collection of tribes.
This is the case for most of the "Civilizations" and "Empires" of Africa.
>ayyubid
>umayyad
I know this is bait but it's kind of true. Some of the blobs on this map in central and southern Africa were little more than a collection of tribes yet they call them "Kingdoms" "States" and "Empires"
It would be like calling Celtic tribal confederations during antiquity Empires instead of tribes.
Most of africa was uninhabited, much like south america. The western empires pale in comparison to the americas.
Celtic tribal confederations had roads and extensive trade networks at least
We don't know the soil in west Africa is acidic and doesn't leave much behind.
They do find terracotta statues and pottery some of the stone settlements have existed for millennia however.
this is only true for those on the niger delta not the coastal states
Those are the medieval ruins of Tichitt anyway, still impressive
Literally everything points to Africans just having low IQ. Their modern behaviour world-wide. Modern IQ-tests. The state of their nations. Their state of technological and organizational development when Europeans arrived there.
The answer is not that 'the ground is acidic'. There were no damn impressive ruins because they never built anything impressive during their entire existence.