What is your favorite part of pre colonial sub Saharan African history?

...

I'm sorry but he's right.

Not counting North Africa, pre-colonial Africa was shit.

It had some kingdoms like Mali and Songhai but those were either based in Islamic culture and therefore not truly sub-saharan or they were less than nothing.

Even then, Mali and Songhai are maybe the most known African civilizations, they don't come close to anything from Europe, Asia, ME or even the Americas

This shit never gets old

youtube.com/watch?v=vLXOkZtAkPw

>It had some kingdoms like Mali and Songhai but those were either based in Islamic culture and therefore not truly Sub-Saharan or they were less than nothing.
Why does being based in Islamic culture make them not truly sub-saharan?

Because they didn't make their civilization from the ground up, Arabs gave it to them.

Almost every notable civilization was strongly influenced by other civilizations.

You have to admit, it's a great business model. You can get rid of that annoying village down the road and get paid for doing it. It's possible all African Americans are descended from the most annoying stupid faggots in Africa that were forcibly exported by everyone else.

All of it

Because they had to copy a culture originating from the Middle East to become semi important.

It's the same reason we don't count Rhodesia as a true sub-saharan country but rather as a white/western nation in Africa.

Per definition you're right though, Mali and Songhai were sub-saharan but that's a stupid thing to say because of the reasons I mentioned.

There is a difference from a culture "being influenced" like the Frankish empire and Rome

and simply copying another culture and calling it your own.

>Europe never caught up to Africa until the late 1800s
>late 1800s
>1800s

>Europeans were behind

>Axum

>Kush

>Nubia

Literally 3 names for the same nation lmao.

>Axum
It refers to the kingdom located in Ethiopia in the Horn of Africa

>Nubia
The name for the region below Egypt

>Kush
The name of the kingdom located in Nubia

Literally the same nation in different time periods.

Would you say that the Acheamenids, Parthians and Medians were 3 different empires?

If so, what about Nazi-Germany, the German empire and the Weimar republic? Different nations?

After all, they did not have the exact same area as the other ones.

Okay I just checked a map of Africa and it turns out Ethipia is not under Egypt.

Okay fuck what I just wrote.

Rhodesia is different because the ruling class were almost all Europeans. The rulers of Songhai and Mali were Sub-Saharan Africans, regardless of how much culture was taken from the Arab world. Pretty much all Muslim countries of that scale took a lot from Islamic culture, but no one says the Safavid Empire wasn't really Persian.

>but no one says the Safavid Empire wasn't really Persian

Because Persians had their own already established cultural identity, they became muslim yes but they already had their own culture.

Sub-saharan Africa was nothing but simple cultures until Muslims arrived.

Axum

SO

you

BE

SAYING

SAYIN'

WE

He dabbin

WUZ

KANGZ

fuck off

N

and....

SHEIT

IT APPEARS TO ME THAT YOUR PERSON IS SUGGESTING THAT

t. alberto barbosa

:^)

Wow it relly makes you think

fuck off it's so obviously true. I bet you yell fedora at anything anti-religious

>Sub-saharan Africa was nothing but simple cultures until Muslims arrived.
Which history books have you read that gave you this impression?

acheamenids, parthians, and medians were very much different empires and not at all comaprable to the germans. The former were governed by different major ethnic groups, the latter all being germanic. Germanic people also held a consistent governing presence, whereas the former examples very much did not.

>or even the Americas
Which ones?

Incas, Aztecs, Mayans.

>EUROPE had some kingdoms like FRANCE and ENGLAND but those were either based in CHRISTIAN culture and therefore not truly EUROPEAN or they were less than nothing.
>ASIA had some kingdoms like KOREA and JAPAN but those were either based in BUDDHIST culture and therefore not truly ASIAN or they were less than nothing.

No no, see the thing is they took the ball and ran with it, and is still here today alive and kicking. Where the fuck is the Songhai?

>korea
>buddhist
opinion discarded

>m-muh Islamic culture makes them not sub-saharan empires
Shitpost discarded
Back to

No, the thing is those kingdoms succeeded because they copied semitic culture. Prior to Christianity, France and England only consisted of simple cultures.

Is this like the HEIGHT,FACE,FRAME of cultures?

>Africa
>Not Australia

You're objectively wrong.

Absolutely. Parthia was run by the Parthians, Median was run by the Medes and Acheamenids was run by the Persians.

Safavid empire, like the Ottomans and Mughals was run by turks. It was not a Persian empire.

Fuck off faggot. Being influenced by Islamic culture meant that those civs were unnaturally boosted from whatever shucking and jiving they were doing before to a more advanced level, ya know, sort of like when the Europeans colonized the placed.

...

you mean romans aping Greeks?

When they raided and took their neighbors as slaves. So they could then sell them to muslims, other african tribes, and later the Europeans.

Retard. In that case all of Europe doesn't deserve praise because of their Greek and Roman influences.

He's got you there.

I suppose the Axum Empire and the Mali Empire had some interesting aspects to it.

But because of little to no interactions with other civilisations, they didn't progress further.

Their culture and their gods however, is highly fascinating to me.

>Arabs gave it to them

If it wasn't for the interactions with the Greeks, the Romans would be nothing.

If it wasn't for the interaction with the Romans, England would still be running around naked in the forests.

>Implying British Australia in the last 250 years hasn't come to exceed anything that has happened in Sub-Saharan Africa at any point in history

The part where the Bantus were working fucking iron before almost anyone else yet they somehow forgot about it.

>forgot

Your mum dropped you as a baby?

And the Bantu didn't come up with iron

It was more likely a Mande ethnicity

The big problem with Sub-Saharan Africa's history is that pretty much none of it is recorded.
I'm thinking more about the area around Southern Africa, just to be clear.

They have myths and legends, but no written records of who did what and when. I'm sure if we actually what happened during the thousands of years they were there, we'd get some interesting stuff. Look at the ruins at Great Zimbabwe. Once it was the heart of a massive trade empire that was reduced to a scattering of frightened villages by the time the Europeans arrived, driven to near extinction by the tribes to the south.

Pretty much this.

We will never know.

Axum was an important trading up for spices.

>But because of little to no interactions with other civilisations
Wew lad

This. Also the continent isn't stable enough for serious archeological efforts that could potentially uncover amazing stuff.

ain't even mad, but

>architecture

really? I'm not even /pol/ or redpill or anything but seriously is someone suggesting that cathedrals and renaissance architecture is eclipsed by african architecture? I mean, is he referring to the pyramids? I am so confuse

...