Why is there such a disinterest in pre-colonial Sub-Saharan history?

The one dude defined history as written knowledge acquired over time. You are denying that the people of Africa did not bother to keep records.

What about this though
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Timbuktu_Manuscripts

The world would objectively be a better place if there were no blacks

Protip to everyone ITT: if you think "history" exclusively means "things written down," you're a complete and total retard.

I support nigger immigration to Europe because of posters like you

Oral lore.

Dude its Veeky Forums.
Lower your expectations of good dialogue by a lot.

That doesn't mean you shouldn't call a retard a retard.

Why can't we ever discuss things anymore without getting into a game of fucking semantics?,

DISCUSS AFRICA

WE WUZ KANGS N SHIIIET HONKY

Nothing interesting happened in Sub-Saharan Africa prior to colonization and the vast majority of sub-Saharan "civilizations" never developed literacy so they weren't able to record their history in the first place.

plenty of interesting shit happened there

Okay then. Pose a topic.

You seem to think that there are arbitrary barriers getting in the way of some obvious discourse. What is there to talk about?

Which can either intentionally or unintentionally be changed with each retelling

We will never know.

>Events occurring before written record are considered prehistory.
Suck a dick nigger

Today, I learned that I'm a specialist in "prehistoric" medieval Britain.

> Coming here in good faith, seeking honest dialog on sub-Saharan history
> Not expecting endless race-baiting, edgy racist remarks, and bants

wew lad. You have my sympathies.

Because Africa was fucking massive and most tribes were very far spread out and had barely any contact with one another, there was also so many languages and not a lot of historical writings survived

Let's talk about the Timbuktu Manuscripts. There's about 700,000 of them from as early as the 13th century, but does anyone know what's actually in them?

But it does though.

There isn't a disinterest. I wrote my Master's thesis on medieval military operations in the Kingdom of Kongo and I have dozens of books on that topic alone.

The scholarship is out there, it's just that people like you don't read it.

What constitutes sources considerate to what is available.

and so can writing too with a change of words here and there alognside the fact of the bias of the author.

Thing is with Oral lore is that yo have to prove in the field if the accounts are true.

the same reason there such a disinterest in post-colonial Sub-Saharan Africa

/thread

>Why is there such a disinterest in pre-colonial Sub-Saharan history?

Same reason nobody gives a shit about Central Europe in 500 A.D.

Best answer in the thread.

Didn't they have like the wealthiest man who had ever lived (Musa I of Mali)?

Not an argument

Because there literally was no history prior to the arrival of whitey. No kidding.

Not even one important discovery or invention or something of the sort. It's literally retardation: The continent.

Because there's a lack of historical record and advanced political/economic systems. There's about as much interest as any other place and period of time that heavily relies on archaeology and guess-work. There's plenty of interest in Ancient Egypt, because complex systems were raised and a historical record was kept.

So silly user.

based

AY HOL UP,

DAS RACISSS

Part of it is that modern africa is so fucked in a lot of places that its hard to study. That and people tend to gravitate towards the history of their own people, and since modern africa is largely fucked there isnt such a strong academic tradition always.
Oh sorry i mean "hurrrrr niggers"

That is the definition I believe

Again there's plenty of interest in pre-colonial subsaharan history

John K. Thornton is a big guy in the field

I think this book ought to appeal to Veeky Forums

>1500-1800
By that time literally everyone else already had a great deal of development while niggers stayed as apes.
You look at precolumbian america and it had much more records, technology, culture, everything (and since way before the euros came), while niggers remained as literal cavemen for their whole existence

Nothing you've said is true, I would recommend that you read Africa and Africans in the Making of the Atlantic World, 1400-1800, also by John. K Thornton. As well as that, The Oxford Handbook of African Archaeology is also very good for more of a general overview.

The you acknowledge black immigration is a negative thing for whomever suffers it.

Well tecchincally the San people did record events by painting on cave walls while the bantu people didn't because they were to civilized to live in caves. So the San people have more history than the bantu farmers at the time.

Lack of serious long-term impact by the events that took place and little record of them.

Shit like the Teutonberg forest ambush had long term consequences that you can see just looking at a map today, while African history pre-colonialism has little impact, as what little they had built up was overturned and replaced by the invading Europeans.

Thank you for at least bringing something for us to read. I do appreciate it.

There is not much to study because the sub saharans barely recorded their own history. Infact the fucking word history or something even similar to it cannot be found in any native african tongue.

lmao

Wait so Americans are as smart as Arabs and Turks/Greeks are as smart as Canadians?China's entire IQ average is 105? Who makes these shitty charts?

I'm not going to sugar coat this for you.

What your people need to do is:

Create a university or a center for academic study.

Give your people a competitive education, with lots of years of study and post grades.

Develop research centers, and interesting studies.

For example you can take all the Timbuktu manuscripts and transtlate them.

You have to do all of this without asking from help or money from white folks, and if some whitey wants to help he must remain anonymous for the sake of the argument.

White researchers are lazy as you can't imagine, if the texts aren't in english they just don't bother in reading them.

We in south america realized this ages ago after the spanish inquisition destroyed our texts, and traditions, even the ones that didn't had anything to do with religion.

The study of history it's a constant struggle to get lazy fucks, to read things they aren't interested in.

Otherwise you get this thread, the academic world it's not better than this senegalese stamp collectors board.

According to the chart? I'd guess an aborigine.

Yeah but say if you have a stele from say the 2nd century BC you can see what the guys recorded there and then, then you can compare it with what other steles say and reach a consensus.

But with oral lore you can never know what the original tale was because there is no record of it

As a black Veeky Forums user i wouldnt even attempt to talk about black culture, unless its b8. I just lurk and learn. You'll geddit.

It's a chart for IQ of aboriginal people's. So not white Americans/Canadians. Don't know if it's actually legit though.

WE WAZ KINGZ

No problem, happy to help. It's kind of shitty to see something that I've spent most of my academic career studying being dismissed out of hand by so many people though.

>Infact the fucking word history or something even similar to it cannot be found in any native african tongue
What absolute nonsense. Are you a 19th century anthropologist?

There's a lack of written records for a lot of shit we consider part of civilization's history, especially the earlier you go. In those cases people often use later accounts (in this case oral) and corroborate it with archaeological evidence and common sense.

No written records = no history. You can try and argue that oral traditions are history, but they probably contain more mythology than actual fact.

Nah, let the oral lore count.

Illiad confirmed for 100% historically accurate.

There

Just because you personally aren't aware of the history of a part of the world doesn't make it "shit"

There are very few records but it's full of interesting mysteries. Ignore the /pol/cucks.

>Why is there such a disinterest in pre-colonial Sub-Saharan history?

because for the last 100-200 years the meme has been that africans have no history and they were banging rocks together when the white man came to the continent, as a result the public believes that africans were nothing more than hunter gathers and believe that the history of hunter gatherers are not worth studying.

AIDF please go. There are no interesting battles. No interesting civilizations that accomplished anything remotely notable. No interesting military strategy. No interesting systems of belief. No interesting architecture. Literally nothing of note.

Fix'd

Not enough good and accurate sources.

Also this

In Africa you want to learn bout shit during the colonial era you have to

-speak the local language if you don't want to bring a translator around or face barriers if they can't speak a common language with you and even then it's not their primary language so the account may not be as well spoken compared if it was in say Ovimbundu.
-constantly travel to the power that colonized the land often so if you live in Canada you have to go to say Germany or Spain constantly because they have the colonial records
-You also have to learn the colonizer's language to read their records.

Shit sucks if two different powers ruled a nation like Tanzania which was German owned then later on British. So the language barrier is a mess and this isn't going into if the place is stable or not.

Even worse.

your interests are shit-tier though. you're just some other nobody pleb with a dilettante interest in muh wars. this board is about history, not what interests you

Like what

Why should be interest in it and not South East asian than had a lot or more cool shit going one. Like war elephants, naval battles and pirates or giant stone cities? More or less in the same latitud, jungles, malaria but like I could see myself living in there but I never would south of Egypt.

What are the words for history in nigger language user. If you're so smart you can tell us right?

Why are all the lines following modern borders except in North America? Also how do you determine intelligence? Don't use IQ scores because IQ is heavenly dependent on environment you grow up in and what kind of skills the IQ test actually tests for.

Ethiopian written history goes back thousands of years

IQ predicts good outcomes in all developed and developing societies it is colorblind in this relevant regard.

there were still east coast trading civilizations like Kilwa

Dude what?
Also in Kabyè language we say something like takayaar

it looks like they guessed based off modern iq statistics then assumed every indian had exactly 85 iq

0.5/10 because somehow people on the east half of papau new guinea had 5 less iq points

These posts are the cause why the "WEWUZKANGS" Claims exist.

>No interesting battles
>No interesting military strategy

Try reading this
You fucking idiot

>war elephants, naval battles and pirates or giant stone cities
But Africa (south of Egypt) had all of those things!

Damn

that is not how averages are meant to be understood. India is very stratified and does indeed have a caste system of cognitive elite.

>Makes sense, after they deny we are human, we have souls, we have agency

>Senses
I grant you that but all animals have senses
>Human
Sure
>Souls
The soul is a judeo-christian invention, we gave you souls
>Agency
Clearly not, you didn't invent one thing, conquer anything, explore anything, you didn't leave the continent. So no agency.

Same reason nobody gives a shit about pre-Rurik East Slavic history. Tribal history is boring.

>be Sub-Saharan African child of single mom
>fight in gangs all day
>muh dicks Sub-Saharan female
>get eaten by a lion
>black single mon raises child alone
It's hard to have history when the same thing keeps repeating itself ad infinitum for countless generations.

>t. I know nothing about Africa besides memes

I made a thread, got to like 200+ posts then died.