In this thread we will debunk common myths said about sub Saharan Africans

In this thread we will debunk common myths said about sub Saharan Africans.

>Africans only lived in mud huts

Wrong

Other urls found in this thread:

reuters.com/places/china
bbc.com/news/world/asia/china
chinawatch.washingtonpost.com/
youtube.com/watch?v=826HMLoiE_o
metmuseum.org/toah/hd/iron/hd_iron.htm
twitter.com/SFWRedditImages

Looks cozy.

>Black civilization

Average IQ of 67

>roof is made of mud

This is a strawman, not a myth. I have literally never heard anyone say "Every single black African in history lived in a mud hut until colonization". But the fact is that the vast majority of black Africans lived in mud huts or similarly crude housing.
You're right, it's between 70 and 75.

>>Africans only lived in mud huts
Are you implying that's not true?

Celts lived in houses made out of literal shit and decorated it with the heads of their enemies. Niggers lived in mud huts.

Just because this isn't /pol/ doesn't mean you need to try HARD to be contrarian.

>White South Africans stole their land from the original inhabitants, who were Black

Actually, Whites settled the largely uninhabited coastal areas. The few Blacks in the area were Zulus. Then unrelated Bantus flooded in from the inland or other countries altogether to leach off of the White man's civilization's welfare system, and took over the country through a foreign-backed communist insurrection, and within a few years turned the place into a third world hellhole one famine away from an outright genocide of the few whites too poor to have fled. I hope you were paying attention, because this is what the future of your own country looks like, unless you're from Japan or Eastern Europe.

>or Eastern Europe.
We're already past the famine and genocide part.

>Actually, Whites settled the largely uninhabited coastal areas. The few Blacks in the area were Zulus.

What about the Xhosa

>The few Blacks in the area were Zulus. Then unrelated Bantus

Zulus are Bantus, and many of the other ethnic groups in SA are very closely related Nguni people

Fuck off niggers

This is a white Christian board

Pic related is one of the previous kings of Madagascar ~1778

The Bantu people (Nguni and Sotho-Tswana) have been here in south africa since 1000AD

The Khoisan people lived on the coast since prehistoric times

Later white colonizers began to claim the land was empty to justify their conquest of the Khoisan

Why is it we never hear about the brutal colonization efforts of the Zulus against their fellow Africans? Or the Persians colonizing everything from India to the Mediterranean? Or the Chinese colonizing dozens of non-Chinese peoples? Or Muslims colonizing all the way to the gates of Vienna? Self-hating Western ivory tower academics can’t even bring themselves to criticize the Mongols who murderously colonized almost all of Asia, the MidEast and well into Europe and instead, they focus on all those wonderful trade routes...

This behavior wasn’t exclusive to White Europeans, we’re just the best at it.

>Why is it we never hear about the brutal colonization efforts of the Zulus against their fellow Africans? Or the Persians colonizing everything from India to the Mediterranean? Or the Chinese colonizing dozens of non-Chinese peoples?
Because you don't read books, nigger.

We are the descendants of men from the Sahara who ran their prey down to heat exhaustion and death, using their social cohesion, personal endurance, ability to carry provisions, and ability to track and out-think their prey. We should be proud of that, whatever dwellings they lived in.

There is a distinction between empire-building, which is what you are referring to as what the older empires like the Persians or the Chinese or the Romans or the Ottomans practiced, and colonization, which is what European colonial states practiced in the 19th century.

The economic impact of colonization was much more devastating than the ancient form of empire-building practiced by the Romans or the Arabs or the Persians. Unlike the earlier forms of imperial conquest, 19th century colonialism saw a net economic extraction of resources and wealth from the colonies to the metropole, the center of the European empires. The entire distinction between poor third world countries and rich first countries began to arise in this period. This was also combined with a strong sense of scientific racism, which was especially prevalent in the 19th century and helped to justify this resource extraction.

> Just a minute, user! Let me take you on a wild goose chase of equivocation…

The Persians, Chinese, Romans, Ottomans, etc. were doing the same thing Europeans, just not as efficiently and had they been the ones colonizing X, they’d have been far more brutal about it.

So you basically just can't read at all, huh?

No, they annexed and integrated the conquered territories. They did not colonize them. The Persians had a pseudo bill of rights and the Romans granted citizenship to everybody. Gaul was just as Roman as Italy, Egypt, etc. They did not believe in the racial BS that Europeans did either.

Fucking this

The Ottoman Empire conquered most of southern Europe and yet you never hear about them in most history classes. The whole reason why there are Muslims in places like Bosnia is because they were conquered by the Ottomans.

>post a picture of European Engineer

WEWUZKANZ

Go die.

>big penises

Except you're wrong, there was virtually no difference and you are just making shit up.

When is conquest not justified?

Ottoman colonization is debateable, most others were not colonization.

One example does not prove the whole.

The wealth extracted from Africa is a fraction of the total actual wealth.
Ottomans were just as brutal, if not worse, than any amount of European colonialism.

>European engineer

Wow, I didn't know that the British colonial taking a photo next to the remains of post-battle Kumasi was an engineer!

Thanks for pulling that out of your ass

Don't know how accurate this map is but from everything I have read the Romans most certainly extracted wealth away from their province to enrich their heartland. Also citizenship came like 300 years after Rome became an empire. Rome evolved into an conglomerate but for a long time it was about resource extraction.

...

Are you some kind of idiot? You hear about all of those things. Get your fucking head out of your ass. The Zulus and Mongols are widely considered to be barbaric assholes. The Chinese are criticized all the time for Tibet and Xinjiang. Pretty much every civilization (not just the ones you don't like) is acknowledged to have committed atrocities throughout history.

If European colonialism gets more attention, it's probably because it covered most of the planet and affected every part of the world, it reached ended less than a century ago and it's still relevant to the contemporary world. If you can't figure that out, you're a lost cause.

>Romans rule western Europe for 400 years
>fully impose their civilization, their institutions, their technology, their economy, their infrastructure, etc
>natives destroy said civilization and wallow in shit for the next 400 years
>master race

>Europeans rule Africa for less than a century
>make a half-assed attempt at introducing the bare minimum of civilization, but not really
>Cold War destroys what little civilization existed and Africans wallow in shit for half a century
>sub-human

Am I missing something?

It does prove you are wrong but.

Itt

>They weren't kangz n shiet

You're spot on. But in his defense, if you're talking issues relevant to the contemporary world, then all fingers should be pointing furiously at China for their continued imperial ambition and colonization efforts.

This

The Romans, like so many empires in history, stumbled upon their empire by accident. While yes they did extract resources from their territories they also created and improved infrastructure, but not unlike what the colonial powers did in which infrastructure was built simply maximize resource exploitation. A state simply bent on resource extraction doesn't build aqueducts, amphitheaters, baths, and give their conquered subjects the opportunity to become citizens and participate in political life.

Stop listening to CNN or any of the major Anglo news networks. Most of the things you hear about China is nothing but propaganda from the Anglo-world that has come realize that its sun has set.

>china dindu nothing all western piggu lies

If you can't tell the difference between objective news reporting and straight up propaganda, then you should just stop reading because literacy is just a handicap for you.

>all wries all fithy wriers!

Lmao what.

Western media has been on the China hype train for a decade now, they barely even cover negative news from China

You're completely delusional if you remotely believe that, almost every single news piece from a major Western media outlet bashes the Chinese for the stupidest shit. The only ones who report on China objectively are small independent news sites, and non-Western media outlets

reuters.com/places/china
bbc.com/news/world/asia/china
chinawatch.washingtonpost.com/

look at all this ebil propaganda!

>Am I missing something?

Yes, the fact that the last two lines of green text in your first paragraph are bullshit. Rome destroyed itself, "barbarians" invigorated, revived and transformed it

nice b8 Cheng

And how many of these articles will ever be on the front page or make the daily news? Western news corps will make a circus over the treatment of factory workers in China but they won't report on the growing number of worker unions that have made major strides in worker rights. They shit on China for pollution but won't mention that fact that the exact same shit happened in the West during its industrial revolution or that the CCP is pushing hard for green technology.

All bullshit and lies, nothing but the elites telling you what to think and feel.

>Rome destroyed itself, "barbarians" invigorated, revived and transformed it
You're one of those "dark ages never happened" faggots, aren't you?

>The Persians, Chinese, Romans, Ottomans, etc. were doing the same thing Europeans

They weren't colonizing, they were annexing territories and integrating them and their inhabitants into their empire. Completely different as the older imperial model allowed for economic development across all areas whereas with the newer European colonial model, wealth was extracted from the colonies, which were exploited through slavery and harsh financial and economic practices, and basically left with massive net losses.

lrn2economics dipshit

How the hell would you even calculate this? We know very little about the minutiae of Roman economics, let alone enough to make accurate GDP calculations.

>China
>Tibet
I might be providing my own misconceptions here since I don't know a lot about it, but it was my understanding before the chinese invaded, Tibet was this peaceful place with buddhist monks who didndu nuffin until the chiense came.

But apparently they owned slaves and ran it like a serfdom.

the amount of historybuffs that just subscribe to the might makes right way of looking at things is baffling.

I don't really count Tibet as a case of Imperialism as it was a case of Chinks getting their shit back.

Chinese nationalists were born in the 19th Century with China looking like this. How could you fucking blame them if they spend half of the 20th Century getting all this back?

It's basically how your average edgy teenager that recently found Veeky Forums tends to think.

Most actual historians have more nuanced views.

Forgot my map

Yeah, because we're making so much progress now that everyone is "equal"...

Yeah, we are. What world are you living in?

In what area are we not making progress?

Technology? Science? Economy? Medicine? Finance? Engineering?

We have continuously made enormous progress in all of these areas for the past two centuries.

pre-qing han territory is the most comfy desu they dont call it zhong yuan ('the central plains') for nothing

Well its pretty much the only useful bit of the country.

>we’re just the best at it.

desu m8 I'm not sure

we did pwn the entire world except Korea and Japan, but I'm not sure it's gonna stick.

>But apparently they owned slaves and ran it like a serfdom.

100% correct, Tibetan Buddhism is basically a tyrannical theocracy.

>but not unlike what the colonial powers did in which infrastructure was built simply maximize resource exploitation

The entire point of infrastructure is to maximize resource exploitation, be it domestic or foreign.

youtube.com/watch?v=826HMLoiE_o

>moralizing history

lol

cherrypicking slant.

Who the fuck hasn't heard about the Persian, Turkish or Chinese empires?

A high school education is not going to focus on every historical power that came and went, there just isn't enough time. I didn't learn much about the Ottoman Empire either, but I also didn't learn about the French, Belgian, Brazilian, Armenian etc etc etc.

This argument is so disingenuous, I can barely deal with it.

Ours did.

That Europeans introduced slavery to the region and that West Africans didn't violently resist the abolition of it.

You really are dense if you think that makes an iota of difference. It's not about the wealth left in the soil after the Europeans left, of course they weren't able to extract the entire wealth of Africa in the 19th century. What it is about is the state Europe left Africa, i.e "We've realised what we did was wrong, sorry! bye bye".

A continent with no experience of running institutions or infrastructure, with huge piles of resources, but without the ability to extract them without foreign help and an uneducated, suppressed indigenous population is just not going to work. You people take an extremely simplified precept for a completely different situation and force it everywhere to fit your simple-minded safe space ideology.

Africa is not poor, most of its people are, but its wealth is in the hands of a mafia of corrupt officials, politicians and generals. Africa has a lot of resources, but its leaders are willing to sell them off for a pittance as long as it lines their pockets.

This is all actually pretty obvious, but it's hard to think, isn't it?

>A continent with no experience of running institutions or infrastructure

why is that generalization mostly true

>The idea that Africans had no metal working knowledge or ability

metmuseum.org/toah/hd/iron/hd_iron.htm

>Slavery was only done on a large scale by Europeans

The arab slave trade was larger went on longer and was far more brutal including liberal use of castration.

>That if the Europeans left Africa alone it would be far more if not just as developed.

The evidence lies in Ethiopia which was only occupied by Europeans for 5 years yet did not show the promised level of development.

>That whites didn't try and distort African achievements to justify thier rule.

The government of Rhodesia literally barred archeologists from reporting that blacks produced the stone structures instead favoring a myth about Portuguese built it.

You must understand, that lost resources were worthless to the natives. The hadn't a clue about how to mine on any grand scale, additionally gold and diamonds were totally worthless without Europeans to trade them with. Africa was utterly undeveloped when European found it and has only ever improved its economy due to European technology and trade. You must understand this mustn't you? Indeed the relationship between First rate powers and barely agricultural tribes was inequitable, but who would honestly expect anything otherwise. The fact that you really think the Roman Empire was kinder than European one's is spectacular double think. Also the reason slavery is now illegal across all of Africa is European intervention.

they don't shit on china for pollution thats your siege mentality coming into play.

culturally enriched it most of all.

>What it is about is the state Europe left Africa, i.e "We've realised what we did was wrong, sorry! bye bye".

It was more of its no longer profitable to occupy and manage Africa as the EU has destroyed the need for high level protectionism.

>A continent with no experience of running institutions or infrastructure

Whilst you are generally right this is hyperbole Europeans only occupied them for 80ish years there was certainly political experiance here especially in West and East Africa

>invigorated, revived and transformed it
Transformed is the only one I'll give you. The rest is horse shit.

>That colonies were profitable
Probably the biggest myth and one that can easily be examined by looking at GDP figures and noticing how loosing colonies had no negative impact on colonizing countries. Most colonies were mony sinks

It was protectionism and economic security rather than profit.

Europeans are not the fucking reason Africa has no experience of running institutions or infrastructure. They had no modern infrastructure or institutions when Europe found them and they had slightly more when Europeans left. The only reason they are now developing any of these things is because of the diffusion of European technology/expertise.

every roman conquest was made with the perspective of financial gain in mind. either resources or slaves or at least farming lots for the proletariat

White people ran these places as colonies up until the 1960s. They trained and educated very few black people. Only really Nigeria saw any sort of tilt towards education before independence.

The one state that was kept away from colonisation, Ethiopia, was run as an Empire until Salasie was dethrone in the late C20th (Can't remember exactly) around the same time as the wave of independence came. Again not conducive to running a modern administrative and bureaucratic system after one person rule.

Nigga the Ottomans didn't develop shit. Everything outside of Anatolia is was crap and still is, look and the Balkans and the Middle East.

This pic needs mises desu. Or Rothbard, preferably both.

>stirnerless version
trash

We've had this thread before.

There is nothing wrong with colonialism.

Damn thats a good point

Only if you believe European culture was equivalent to wallowing in shit pre and post-Roman presence

Which you probably do because you're a self-hating cuckold or some idiot mud

Americas: High culture
Europe: High culture
Asia: High culture
North Africa: High culture
Sub-Sahara Africa: Not really.

If you take everything into account, racial differences is the most logical explanation.

Taking all this into account, and recent developments and experiences with people from that area,

That's not true. The gold coast was the most developed african state pre-independence.

It's amazing how many historybuffs apply their own moral scruples to events. I swear, this board is a mix between that exaggerating cunt Howard Zinn and all of those FOX pundits who come out with a book about the founding fathers every 2 years.

Here's to you burying your head in the sand

GDP is not the sole indicator of economic health and using that as the only metric to measure the impact of colonization fails in every measure.

learn2economics

>Implying it wasn't

Europe was a backward dump on the peripheral of the Old World, if you think otherwise well then you're in fucking denial and need to read some books.