How racist were native africans? I don't mean that in anti-white sense, but black against more black sense...

Also the 'Caucasoid' Cushitic pastoralists of Eastern Africa who got replaced by Bantu farmers.

Thank gods we advanced beyond Celts, Gauls and Barbarians. Stuff like that.

Anthropologist know practically every primitives people's words for human involves them and others being subhuman.

>we advanced beyond Celts, Gauls and Barbarians.
To be fair Romans did advance beyond Celts and Gauls in some very racist ways.

They didn't however manage to "advance" the people living in Germany today.

Sub-saharan africans were tribalist, and that's a fluid identity with fluid conflict. Africans from and above the Sahel, on the other hand, were legitimately racist, and still are.

Weren't all people tribalists at some point in history?

They were on the "black=bad" kick long before islam. Even when they got into Islam, effort was put in to keep it from going too far south, because then there'd been legal problems involved with their slaving and raiding.

Those girls look like they need to be WHITED

Well this is correct in the sense that most autonyms are like "true men" "people" "men of men" but that doesn't mean people around them were human, rather it's they believed the way they lived and were was normative and everyone else was either closer or farther from them.
This is ignoring assimilation as being normal amongst pastoralists. Iraqw in Tanzania absorbed many farmers but most cushitics assimilated into farmers or nilotics.
It was cherished but the culture of light skin khoisan was seen as inferior.
Eh I disagree. It was rather an issue of when a people became Muslim and if they could create a ethnomythography aligning to the Prophet or Bilal. The West African nations of Mali were lauded but Zanj not so.

Even that oft quoted piece of Black inferiority in Islam is misquoted. Indeed West African Sahelians were celebrated, the long pagan Zanj were not.
Only in the sense of aesthetic and that's just biological and cultural interpretations of real physical changes
Hutu and Tutsi is simplified.

Administrators of the colonies and later the Protestant and Catholic church pitted the two together. All Tutsi but especially the southern Tutsi absorbed wealthy and powerful Hutu. Poor Tutsi mixed with poor hutu. The lines were not so easily drawn. In fact colonials made all Hutu with ten or more cattle tutsi.

This is a result of the break down in pygmy-Bantu trade relations. Not a dynamic throughout history. Even then Pygmy on average are lighter skinned, indeed their women were sought as wives for their skin but also kin networks of hunters and farm laborers.

Pic shows they are the same people but different mixtures of origins. Most may laud light skin in a partner but again that stems from cultural understandings of fertility. Not outright superiority unless we are talking about Abrahamic Africans.

>They were on the "black=bad" kick long before islam
I don't think that's true. Contact between North Africa and sub-Saharan Africa was very small before Islam and there was no large slave trade. Stereotypes of blacks, like other barbarians, existed in the Greco-Roman world to the north but that hadn't penetrated the Sahara, and even there it wasn't the same as later forms of racism. I think it's also worth noting that the Aksumites willingly adopted the Greek name 'Ethiopians' for themselves, which meant 'blacks' (specifically 'burnt-faced people'), so it hardly seems like they saw blackness as a bad thing.

It was only the penetration of Islam and the rise of the slave trade that made 'racism' a significant thing on the fringes of Africa.

>effort was put in to keep it from going too far south, because then there'd been legal problems involved with their slaving and raiding.
Do you have a source for this? From what I've read, racist attitudes of the time often meant that blacks were enslaved regardless of their religion, despite the disapproval of legal scholars, so there would be no need to hinder it's spread.

Tribalism=/=Racism

...

Basically white people are the only racists and are the worst

>It was rather an issue of when a people became Muslim and if they could create a ethnomythography aligning to the Prophet or Bilal. The West African nations of Mali were lauded but Zanj not so.
That's oversimplifying. The likes of Mali or Ghana might have been respected by merchants and scholars, but attitudes towards a specific kingdom doesn't reflect prevailing attitudes towards blacks in general (and I do mean 'blacks', since your average Arab or Berber didn't differentiate much between specific sub-Saharan cultures). The enslavement of West Africans was often justified on purely racial grounds, as blacks were seen by many as natural slaves descended from Ham (scholars like Ibn Khaldun and Ahmad Baba opposed this myth, but the average Muslim still believed in it).

You should read the article 'Ahmad Baba al Timbukti and his Islamic critique of racial slavery in the Maghrib' if you can find it
>Despite the diversity of urban West Africa, slavery and slave trading in the region were often justified by reference to ethnic and racial identities. The earliest North African texts that referred to West Africa described it as the Bilad al-Sudan (‘the land of the Blacks’), often associating Black racial identity with slavery. Although West African Islamic scholarship was already centuries old when Ahmad Baba was born, many North Africans still perceived the region as a land of unbelief. Slave traders used these negative stereotypes to justify both the trans-Saharan slave trade and a form of racial slavery practised in North Africa. These stereotypes may have also facilitated the aggressive foreign policy of Mulay Ahmad al-Mansur, the sultan of Morocco, who invaded Timbuktu in 1591 as part of his conquest of the Songhay Kingdom.

Even the East African 'Zanj' weren't always differentiated from West African 'Sudan', for example the 'Zanj Rebellion' seems to have mostly involved black slaves from the Sudan, not East Africa.

Yeah, I attached no moral judgement to the term. Tribalism isn't so bad, since usually it doesn't make much distinction beyond be the culture and speak the language, meaning that pathways existed towards integration into a tribe as opposed to simple subjugation and maybe extermination.

You're simplifying IMO

Chouki El Hamel, Black Morocco: A History of Slavery, Race, and Islam.

Speaks on this extensively, yes North Africans sought to simplify notions of blackness for their own material gain but in the broader islamic world their was in fact a recognition of different kinds of Black Muslims. They circumvented the "Muslims can't enslave Muslims" by trying to either erase Muslim histories or as Sahelians did by enslaving those whose lands they conquered.

The history of even Moroccan conquerers is complex. Ismail Ibn Sharif was the child of an African concubine and was noted as such by Songhai and others. When he formed the Black Guard he did so by declaring his bloodline to them and commanded that they protect their kin. El Hamel sources and translated this and speaks about it in his book.

I'm not really disagreeing with any of that. I'm just saying that popular attitudes, at least in North Africa, tended to stereotype blacks and treat them as natural slaves, even if they were Muslims.

Book sounds interesting, I'll try to find a copy.

>Nilotic people
>Caucasoid

they still are. we call modern tribal federations "nation states".

Let me put it this way.

Most Bantu creation stories go

>In the beginning there were no humans
>Only animals, plants, and the khoisan

I don't know much about Africans but I doubt they are any exception to the general rule that all ethnicites have hated each other, even other people of the same ethnicity just because they lived in a different village

>and the Khoisan

Meanwhile, the Khoisan don't consider white or black people to be human in their language, but call Asians human. Especially Vietnamese people apparently.

I kek'd heartily when I learned about that. Apparently they refer to asian tourists as their own kindred.

I can see why they would think that. Besides the hair, like for half of them, and asses, Khoisan do look like dark skinned Asian people.

Isn't that generally true of all humans?

Africans from the Bantu language groups habitually eat pygmies.

I think that's all you need to know about intra-African racism.

this

prior to bantu expansion africa was populated by veddoids/australoids, capoids, ethiopids, nilotes, mechtoids..

The Bantu expanded from Cameroon and culturally enriched the Pygmies & Khoisan, veddoids/australoids, capoids, ethiopids, nilotes, mechtoids..

the bantus are west african origin. the bushmenoids populated most of savanah africa from ethiopia to south africa.
the bantus expanded from west africa and genocided the original bushmens of east, central, and south africa.

pic related is not tolerated in the bantu jungle

bantus, hans, and albert edward the seventh

>prior to bantu expansion africa was populated by veddoids/australoids, capoids, ethiopids, nilotes, mechtoids..
>Mechtoids
Jesus Christ, how horrifying

Nor the ones in the british isles and all it's subsequent little tumors.

...

Not accurate, most modern countries are actually multi-national.

>tfw I'm Bantu

I'm pretty sure Congolese men treat the pygmies as food lol

The Bantu came from Southern Nigeria actually. West Africa is predominantly not Bantu user, and I really hope you don't think we are.

And by we, I mean anyone descended from West Africans.

Multi-ethnic and muti-racial, yes. Multi-national is a meaningless term in a world where the soil makes up the nation (as opposed to the race/ethnicity/culture).

>Cushitic pastoralists
>Nilotic
fucking retard

" "