Is there a reason why many people don't know alot about Sub Saharian Africa

There's quite some cool stuff, even if it's quite modern.

there's nothing to know about.

>Since when do 12 year olds browse Veeky Forums?
>"ironically" going lmao kek too funni 10/10 xDDDD

You tell me, user.

1. they never produced written language of any kind, meaning they have virtually no history to study
2. their way of life for the past few millennia has remarkably little to show for itself in the archaeological record so not even anthropological studies yield much to talk about
3. every bit of recorded history that mentions their people was written by outsiders who dismissed them as primitives and savages, hence little care or effort was taken in examining their cultures
4. knowledge of sub-Saharan African is not a valuable educational commodity because it is largely irrelevant to the first world's economic and political machinations, thus there is very little incentive for educational systems to prioritize learning about it

tl;dr it's niche as fuck and there's barely anything to study in the first place so most people don't bother and they aren't really worse off for it

there sure as hell knew a lot about it before South Africa and Rhodesia were taken away from the Whites! Watch the old videos or go to a library and look though headlines-- it was everywhere. Then, when Mugabe got control (and took all the land of the White farmers. caused a famine and came begging and was of course given food) and with ZA currently imploding (it's going to have credit reduced to junk (it should be already) and you re going to have Zuma's ex-wife running the nation. It would be laughable but for all the poor White South Africans who will starve.

Oh, ZA also has an up and coming communist party who call themselves EFF ("economic freedom fighter") and wear red berets (negroes love getting free t-shirts and anything with flashy colors) and they plan to go full Zip, taking all White land and property. God help us.

Maybe just give them back their land and let them rot if they are retards as you say? Oh wait we can't we need the fucking mines and the cheap slaves because we whites are above that.

Could have something to do with the lack of achievement and written language in the area

No, he's referring to the cancer which belongs to you

written language or writing system?

What would they possibly do with it if they got it?

Fuck all that's what, and without the resources most of the world around you would collapse.

So why don't you go and work in the mines so the world will stay intact?
What can they fucking do when their only choices are working all day every day for barely any food to survive or get shot?

Literature, at any rate

as in documentation, stories and novels, notes

we hardly know what the fuck happened prior to European arrival

I was just wondering if there was a difference between writing system and written language

en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Blood_River

TheBattle of Blood River(Afrikaans:Slag van Bloedrivier;Zulu:iMpi yaseNcome) is the name given for the battle fought between 470Voortrekkers("Pioneers"), led byAndries Pretorius, and an estimated 15,000–21,000Zuluattackers on the bank of theNcome Riveron 16 December 1838, in what is todayKwaZulu-Natal,South Africa. Casualties amounted to 3,000 of kingDingane's soldiers dead, including two Zulu princes competing with princeMpandefor the Zulu throne. ThreePioneerscommando members were lightly wounded, including Pretorius himself.

>Is there a reason why many people don't know alot about Sub Saharian Africa

Writing never really spread there in antiquity.

> isn't it quite sad

Who cares?

>Is there a reason why many people don't know alot about Sub Saharian Africa
No one cares about sub-human savages.

Geez is a very old writing script dating back to 6th century BC

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ge'ez_script

Nubians also had a script

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Meroitic_alphabet

Although these are 2 of the most known and talked about Sub-Saharan Cultures

It's truly a shame that the Nigerians lost Nsibidi. Fucking Muslims.

Nubians and Ethiopians are not Sub-Saharan Africans however.

>Nubians and Ethiopians are not Sub-Saharan Africans however.

Really? Then what is?

"Sub-Saharan Africans" generally refers to the Bantu, West African, Khoisan/Xhosa peoples. Ethiopians are Afro-Asiatics, and Nubians are Nilo-Saharans. Neither are "Sub-Saharan Africans".

>Oh wait we can't we need the fucking mines and the cheap slaves
The US has a trade DEFICIT with South Africa of over a billion dollars due to regular $500 million dollars grants, which they promptly waste on corruption.

the ones who profit from these "mines" you talk about are people like the Oppenheimers, Jews who own the diamond mines. People like you are so fucking stupid/brainwashed, you don't even realize how stupid you are. You have this idea of "muh White oppression" in your empty head and just parrot it. Were it not for the money that get from the US, they'd already be starving. Last year for the first time, ZA became a net maize importer. Rhodesia ("Zimbabwe") has been living off Us aid for 17 years now.

Tell me again how evil Whitey is?

I'm not sure I understand what makes them not sub-Saharan

This is one of the best laughs I've had in a while. Western "aid to Africa" at work. Not even Arabs are this fucking wasteful with money...

dailymail.co.uk/news/article-4087360/Champagne-fuelled-parties-private-jets-Batmobile-James-Bond-SUBMARINE-Extraordinary-spending-African-dictator-s-playboy-son-trial-using-impoverished-people-s-cash-fund-five-star-lifestyle.html

My fav picture- WE WUZ SUBMARINERS N' SHEEIT.
Trying to imagine the look on some old money Swiss in his yacht as a negro in a giant, pastel colored, fish submarine pops out of the water next to him...

Everything below the bigass tropical jungle is deemed subsaharan with an exception made for people at the horn of africa as they are ethnically and culturally very different due to much interaction with arabs.

worth it, thats cool as fuck

>not sub-Saharan
They didn't originate below the Sahara. although this field is now a mess and politically driven, with certain academics desperate to claim a past for certain groups they never had. The result is that, much like with news, they've muddied the waters so much that no one really knows the truth anymore.

>thats cool as fuck
I'm going to make a wild guess you've never been to the French Riviera or Corsica or Sardinia?

They are different ethnically because they are a mixture of Lowland East Cushites and migrators from the Levantine happening in 7-6,000 BC. Horn of Africans have actually little arab in them but a significant portion of Ancient levantine.

And their Cultural is influenced from Arabs but has definite unique flavors to it

>Lowland east cushites
So these gave them the big foreheads?

What enourmous skullcapavity the pureblooded cushites must have had!

I live in Africa and I don't know much about Sub-saharan africa except South Africa

What part of africa are you living in?

Best answer.

Probably

Theres no actual full blooded South or lowland East Cushites left so they have to guess what they looked like.

But Scientists guess that they were very dark skinned thin nosed, slim cheeked, and afro haired

That + West Eurasian+ Some minor other african admixture = most Horn of africans

North, I should add I also know about Rhodesia thanks to Veeky Forums

>1. they never produced written language of any kind, meaning they have virtually no history to study

As some have stated some civilizations did and those are consequentially the most studied

Many white South-Africans have lived there their entire life, as did their parents and grandparents. They didn't exactly invade and colonize the place last month.

Dude, what. They're not going to get shot for not working. Apartheid was abolished 20 years ago. I'll admit there are still problems, but it's not the US in the 18th century.

>The result is that, much like with news, they've muddied the waters so much that no one really knows the truth anymore.
is that why this, from the same study, differs from this

How hard would it be to claim some land for myself in an African country? Making yourself a vassal of sort.

Just pay off the locals by throwing around some local currency (worth shit) and they'll love you. Pay them to be servants.

Probably

That one seems runs contrary to the fact that Melanesians are closely genetically related to Asians

But even that one points out that they are very different than other blacks in West Africa

>Geussing it didnt have alot of recorded history in writing.
Simply this. They could fill entire libraries with history if they only invented a system of writing and commited it to paper/clay/stone/etc.

The desertification of Africa has nothing on the desertification in peoples minds. Pretty soon the Sahara is going to reach down past Zanzibar and Nigeria for determining 'sub-saharan'

>B...b...but my sociology professor!

:^)

>West Africa
I thought this was about all of sub-sahran africa along with Khoisan and Xhosa peoples. The Fst chart shows them all as distinct groups, but where does the line draw between sub-Saharan and nonsub-Saharan in that chart?

That one is genetic distance and the other is generations

This oneStates that Lowland cushities Broke way with Europeans and asians

And that one states that they have more in common with Bantus then with Europeans

But they are as different from each other than Native americans are to the Japanese according to that.

However I just looked at the study and it said that they didn't have enough Cushitic speakers in it and that could mess with their data.

So I'd suspect that Cushitics probably differ even more from Niger-Congo speakers.

Niger-Congo is West Africa and Nilo-Saharan is in some parts of East Africa

I don't know what you mean by where does it draw the line?

A line between subSaharan africans and non-subSaharan africans

>Is there a reason why many people don't know alot about Sub Saharian Africa

yes, because it's not on a map so it doesn't exist.

SSA means anywhere south of the Sahara (anyone saying it means otherwise is retarded flatout) but it makes no sense as a term if you actually put it to any real scrutiny.

...

this is not in africa you moron this was probably in oceanian countries

You're probably as stupid as you look. The difference here is that they live in these mudhuts today, the Europeans do not.

No I've been to Africa. Most people there still live in mudbrick huts with grass roofs.

On the other hand, is correct. What may be loosely termed "the western world" no longer lives in such homes for the most part.

Most African-Americans should go back to Africa to learn more.

And you're stupider than you think, because that's completely besides the point.
When people talk about Scandinavian huts and lifestyle it's beautiful and pure, but when they talk about African it's uncivilized and barbaric.

>No I've been to Africa. Most people there still live in mudbrick huts with grass roofs

What a retarded sentence

I've been to Somalia and Eritrea and most people do not live in Mud huts

At worst they usually live like this, as they have for centuries

Some live in regularish houses

Africa is HUGE and should stop being generalized

>Although these are 2 of the most known and talked about Sub-Saharan Cultures
Interesting that Ethiopia tests lower than Nigeria in iq

You are aware that those aren't set in stone scores right?
You have to take things in context

1. IQ raises with the wellbeing of a countries educational system and health and lowers with the detriment of them.

Which is why IQ scores rose sharply in Scandinavian countries for years. And why are grandparents had IQs in the 80 range.

>Ulric Neisser estimated that using the IQ values of 1997 the average IQ of the United States in 1932, according to the first Stanford–Binet Intelligence Scales standardization sample, was 80. Neisser states that "Hardly any of them would have scored 'very superior', but nearly one-quarter would have appeared to be 'deficient.'" He also wrote that "Test scores are certainly going up all over the world, but whether intelligence itself has risen remains controversial."

>Data from 14 nations reveal IQ gains ranging from 5 to 25 points in a single generation. Some of the largest gains occur on culturally reduced tests and tests of fluid intelligence. The Norwegian data show that a nation can make significant gains on a culturally reduced test while suffering losses on other tests. The Dutch data proved the existence of unknown environmental factors so potent that they account for 15 of the 20 points gained. The hypothesis that best fits the results is that IQ tests do not measure intelligence but rather a correlate with a weak causal link to intelligence. This hypothesis can also explain difficult trends on various mental tests, such as the combination of IQ gains and Scholastic Aptitude Test losses in the United States.

psycnet.apa.org/?&fa=main.doiLanding&doi=10.1037/0033-2909.101.2.171

2. Ethiopia just had a civil war, a war with Somalia, a Communist inspired holocaust that killed 500,000 people mostly intellectuals and a huge famine. That will hurt it harshly. Just like it did with the Irish.

Plus Lynns data is iffy at best. Havards study showed African immigrants to have a 89 IQ which is above Lynns 70 average.