If the West actually taught a balance history

WE

NIGGA I'M COMING FO YO IN MY SPACE CHARIOT

>Name one Sub-Saharan philosopher.

Oral histories don't work that way. Name some European philosophers from before writing was introduced to Europe.

>Name one weapon used predominantly in Sub-Saharan Africa that changed warfare for the continent.

The gunpowder weapon and the horse.

Oh, you mean invented in Africa. The iron sword.

I AM A KING. I FEEL IT NIGGA. THE POWER OF MY PHAROH ANCESTORS FLOWING THROUGH MY VEINS.

A 19th century spear? Cool bruh Wat

>the Dogon People had science that was more advanced then even Einstein's General Relativity
top keks jamal.

>Oral histories don't work that way.
So you can't, and deflect with
>Name some European philosophers from before writing was introduced to Europe.
Not gonna work.
>Oh, you mean invented in Africa.
He said sub-Saharan Africa. Funny how your reading comprehension suddenly drops.

Oh are these the peeps that identified the closest star to earth or some sheet? Or an invisible one??

...

So they didn't have a written language to spread ideas. Got it

The iron sword was invented either in Western Turkey by the Celts there or was invented by the Gauls or Germans.

>Not gonna work.

Because there are none.

>He said sub-Saharan Africa. Funny how your reading comprehension suddenly drops.

Yes, the iron sword.

Written language was invented once or twice, never by Europeans.

Iron working was invented more than once.

since your defending Africa

name one sub saharian african scientist on the level of Newton?

This reads like a nigger wrote it.
Anyway, just Western, Eastern, or Arabian achievements individually stand far, far, above anything most of Africa has contributed, especially black Africans.

You can name European philosophers, Arab philosophers, Persian philosophers, Chinese philosophers, Indian philosophers, et al but not one sub-Sarahan philosopher

>name one sub saharian african scientist on the level of Newton?

Let us say we knew their name, what difference would it make?

Africans still developed in the same direction at the same rate as the rest of the world.

>never by Europeans.
It was adopted by them, and if it hadn't been invented by the Arabs, they would've invented it.
Anyway, the fact that niggers were too stupid to even adopt it shows something.

but why would they do that

because there wasn't and no they didn't

when Europeans first stepped foot on Africa it was alien invasion tier differences in technology

I can name philosophers from places that had developed to the level that they had both writing and transmission of writing from one culture to another. This happened independently in a few places, and all the precursors happened in Africa.

You guys really assume Africa developed iron working, developed farming, developed cities, used gunpowder and horses, and would have stopped right there? They reached the limit of African development at precisely the moment they were conquered? That is an amazing coincidence.

So we have a liberal on here already trying to defend Africa's and say that Africa was superior to the West

got to love liberals

Europe was already way ahead of Africa during the middle ages

>It was adopted by them, and if it hadn't been invented by the Arabs, they would've invented it.

Prove they would have invented it.

>Anyway, the fact that niggers were too stupid to even adopt it shows something.

They adopted it in the Sahel and East Africa.

>when Europeans first stepped foot on Africa it was alien invasion tier differences in technology

Which part of Africa?

The parts with iron tools? The parts that traded for guns? The parts on the monsoon trade network?

again you can't name one African scientist on the same level as Sir Isaac Newton in terms of accomplishment

Who disagrees?

They were two thousand years ahead.

there has never been a black man with equal intelligence to this man

EVER

Name the first European scientist worthy of note.

...

Then the development of agriculture is not relevant to a discussion of African history?

History is a list of famous names?

Archimedes

So from 2500 years ago.

You believe that before this man invented everything, Europeans did nothing of note?

Who was the man that discovered general relativity

was it a black african man

no it was a WHITE MAN

Then we'd expect an African archimedes around now, if they weren't conquered, based on the rate at which they developed the things Europeans developed before Archimedes.

Debatable.
He was Jewish.
Certainly, they had been much less important than the Middle East and Asia until around then.

and yet there isn't and never will be a black that reaches the level of archimedes, gauss, newton, einstein etc.

>Jews
>white

Developing agriculture and metal working is not a sign of any kind of intelligence, only the record of famous inventors?

Blacks are simply incapable of higher thought...

yeah because developing agriculture is the same as developing Universal Gravitation and launching the modern study of physics...which is what Newton did

fuck off

ashkenazi jews have high amounts of white blood in them

>contributions of Africa
>contributions

I don't know, the slave trade was relatively good covered. Not the West's fault if the Africans did not produce anything after the period of the Roman Empire that contributed to their society

The Crusades have always been misrepresented in favor of the Muslims to make them look like completely innocent victims, when in fact they perpetrated that shit by invading, we responded with the crusades.

You at least understand that Africans developed agriculture.

what is your goal

are you trying to prove that blacks have equal capability to whites?

As if the East teaches history correctly. They teach Islam in history class, and they teach that Islam was the original religion, which is BS.

>goal

You're trying to prove they aren't equal in capacity.

You'll have to explain how it's possible that Africans developed at the same rate as Europeans.

>Jesus was a historical figure

Only after Caucasians.

Racism was invented to justify colonization. If there was no racism, European scholars could not have logically retained their colonial holdings or gained them in the first place. It would have been greatly inconvenient to teach "balanced" history.

well look at them today? they literally live in mud huts in most places in africa

Then you understand that Africans and Caucasians are equal in their ability to develop agriculture, considering it was only a couple of thousand years apart, after a couple of tens of thousands of years of independent development.

That's after they were conquered, and while they're still under foreign rule.

You'll have to prove they never developed in sophistication before they were conquered.

>Implying racism was invented by imperialism

Have you ever read Tacitus, Vitruvius or Hippocrates?

Ever read rhe Bible? It's racist as fuck.

Every culture in human history got conquered by someone at some point. Shit excuse.

>same rate
GREAT B8 M8

If you consider Indo-European peoples to be European, then yes, Europeans invented language, and indirectly invented the characters we use today.

Are Celts not European? Because any Iron Age Greek or Persian said "Those pale faced Barbars sure know how to smith"

Aristotle was probably the first scientist, insofar that he started cataloging and classifying nature.

>Xenophobia based on distinct differences in religion, language, homeland, respectively
Nice try, gents. Historic cultural anxieties were never as systematic or severe. Like nationalism, racism has the proclivity towards the belief that it existed throughout history when in fact it is undergoing constant change even now. Racism is a unique conception formulated only quite recently in human history. Did systems operate similarly in history? Yes, but to call them the same is a mistake.

Biblical racism was pretty hardcore, you not knowing this means you're a cretin who never read the book.

>cultural anxieties
>80,000 Latin speaking died because of anxiety during the Vespers

You'll have to prove that Africa didn't develop anything at all since humans left the continent if you want to convince user that Africans cannot develop anything at all.

So when a society is at that level, we start to record Aristotles. Before that level they don't. And Africa was not at that level at the time it was conquered.

Is there some special reason to think Africa was right about to stop developing anyway when Europe conquered it?

btw: 'Europe conquered it' is not an answer.

>proving a negative
wew

Why do you care so much?

America is a Western country, with Western education. Maybe you should go to Africa if you want more African history in the curriculum books.

I'm not arguing that Africans were incapable of creating complex, multiethnic empires like the Indo-European peoples did, I'm arguing that they didn't, and as a result the skewing of history reflects that.

If you're the same as the bait poster, then your arguement was that history skewed west because Europeans are racist. Which is false.

What was their IQ? Are you really advocating for IQ, but arguing against the existence of outliers in intelligence?

During the European renaissance Subsaharan Africa still had iron age tier technology, I mean they're just shit. Great Zimbabwe from the high middle ages isn't even better than Sardinian structures from 2000 AD.

It's been proven that they did develop. If you say Africans cannot develop, you'll have to produce some evidence that suggests all the evidence for iron tools and agriculture is fake.

2000 BC

>I'm not arguing that Africans were incapable of creating complex, multiethnic empires like the Indo-European peoples did, I'm arguing that they didn't, and as a result the skewing of history reflects that.

They did create those things, though. Indo-Europeans did it thousands of years before they wrote it down as well.

The Vespers were not committed with a conception of race though. It sought out Roman/Italian citizens and those who spoke only Latin.
Yes, there's an othering between the Philistines and Israelites in the Old Testament, but again this is not based on a conception of race but on religious differences and covenants with respective gods. I think you are incorrectly applying modern conceptions of race onto the ancient text, when there is no substantial reason to do so.

So you're saying Africans are as smart as Europeans. They both developed the iron age.

Now you have to prove Africans were about to stop developing in 1850.

>They did create those things, though. Indo-Europeans did it thousands of years before they wrote it down as well.

They had it at roughly the same time. Indus Valley had a written language, Sumerians, Greeks, etc. Written language is an important part of civillizional development.

They had written language 3000-ish years ago. They had multi-ethnic empires before that.

In Africa, before European conquest, the Mali were a multi-ethnic empire with writing.

When Ezra came back from Babylon he literally cleansed Judea to the point of exiling mixed race children to the desert and killing their parents if they refused. Not to mention Nuremberg laws tier mixing rules in the Torah, cleansing the Holy land under Joshua to the last child, Jesus calling Samaritans dogs etc.

If you think it's only some Philistines then you factually never read the fucking book, it makes Euro colonialism looks like a picnic.

Even literal retards can progress to iron age.

You said yourself (I think) race was different then. And you're right. Today we don't think Romans were a race. But they did. They barred citizenship and public office and enlistment based upon it. That's identical to fascist Germany or Indistrial America banning Jews or Blacks from the same.

Therefore, when the order went out to kill Romans, it was likely just a racial as political.

You're saying there's an African Empire as complex as, say, the Roman Republic?

So developing agriculture and iron-working are not accomplishments.

When did Europeans first accomplish anything? Did Archimedes do it? Which of his inventions was the first invention that only a non-retard could come up with?

I'm not even sure Bantus existed when the Sardinian culture started farming.

Can they? There are still human groups that didn't.

Yeah they just popped out of cow dung 1000 years ago.

Whether you're Christian or not, we all know he existed.

>You're saying there's an African Empire as complex as, say, the Roman Republic?

Mali c. 1400 AD was definitely the equal of Rome c. 600 BC.

Have you guys ever seen half Ethiopian, half European people?
Even if Ancient Egyptians had some East African admixture, there's no reason to think they looked even remotely "Black" or acted Bantu.

Europe dominated world affairs from the 17th to 20th centuries. It's not Eurocentrism that determines why so much of European history is taught in history it's because, during this period, the history of Europe was THE HISTORY OF THE WORLD. Almost every single country was influenced by Europe on some level. If you cut out Europe from the curriculum you'd be cutting out a huge part of non European countries' history as well.

According to your Christian derived culture.

>the development of agriculture
>sub-saharan Africa
What the fuck am I reading

"""Humans"""

You have access to a search engine like everyone else. If you don't already know the places that developed agriculture independently, I don't even.

>when Europeans first stepped foot on Africa is was alien invasion tier differences in technology

Hahahahahahahhahahaha

No

19th century, sure, but before then Euros got wrecked when they tried to penetrate the "dark continent," a combination of disease and resistance from organized inhabitants.

1400 AD? That's great and all, considering it existed concurrently to the same Roman Empire that was 2000 years older than it.

Also, the Mali Empire sounds like an Empire only in name, collecting tithes from associated villages. The spread of laws and language is great though.