Do you accept Cheikh Anta Diop's cradle model of civilizations

I always thought greeks loved existence too
werent they notorious hedonists?

Where do Asians and Mesoamericans fit in?

Those are Black civilizations suffering from albinism.

What's his take on the Nok valley? Or Indus valley? Or Yellow river valley? Or New Guinea?

East asia definitely the egyptian model but i dont really

>be Japan
>resourceless island
>warlike culture
>caste system
>"Egyptian model"
No

Of course it isn't. The matriarchal part? Debatable. It's claimed by some that the Greek myths describe a transformation from a matriarchal society to a patriarchal one, and that this might've happened in prehistoric times. Doubt there were many matriarchies in Africa at the point just before colonization, though. Utopia? Fuck outta here with idealistic nostalgia and "muh noble savage" shit. "Muh hyperborean vril-force atlanteans" and "muh egyptian-nubian solar peace-embracing nature-communion melanin hebrews" are equally cancer.

>inherent destructive blabla
Is that why the west got its shit kicked in by the Muslims for almost 1000 years and the whole european continent stagnated after the fall of rome while the West got cucked by Muslim and Norse raiders and slave-traders to the point where they could hardly dare set foot on a boat? It's not "inherent", just a result of socio-economic, social, ideological etc. whatever factors.

Egypt, cosmopolitan and xenophillic? What crack is this nigger smoking?

>Is that why the west got its shit kicked in by the Muslims for almost 1000 years

I consider Islamic civilization to be Western. Both are influenced by Abrahamic and Greco-Roman culture.

Maybe after the Greek Dynesty. Irony is rich.

You may as well consider Western society Middle Eastern.

The Arabian peninsula is not similar to the European Peninsula no matter how you spin it.

>I consider Islamic civilization to be Western. Both are influenced by Abrahamic and Greco-Roman culture.

I prefer the 'Judeo-Islamic', 'Greco-Roman', and 'Euro-Western' division.

J-I and G-R influenced E-W directly. Christianity in Europe was an offshoot of Judeo-Islamic civilization, before Europe became the core of Euro-Western. Like Westphalianism and communism in Russia, whatever that will turn into.

Reminder Christianity and Islam have more similarities with each other than they do Judaism.

I disagree.

Christianity is doctrinal, Judaism and Islam are 'practical'. With Christianity, the important part is that you believe a certain thing. With Judaism and Islam, the important part is that you practice correctly, and that you are born into the chosen people for the former.

They all differ, but if you split them in two, Christianity belongs in it's own category.

He revolutionized ideas and theories surrounding Nile Civilizations by pointing to various links between African groups.

The conditions that made these civilizations are rooted in the Neolithic Subpluvial but most importantly the dessication afterwords that pushed people North, south and in the East (Nabta Playa)

Matriarchy is misconstrued, it's more accurately matrilineality. But overall he did change perceptions.
He was an afrocentric Egyptologist in that he believed that Egypt was not formed by Eurasian invaders but rather formed through complex waves of people throughout "green Sahara"

>Gentle, idealistic, peaceful nature with a spirit of justice
I'm sure this is a objective unbiased statement.
>Xenophilia
Weren't the Egyptians renown for separating foreigners and considering them as a pollution to a lot religious rites? Especially considering outside of ports, a lot of the foreigners they probably saw were desert nomads who didn't impress them.
>Cosmopolitanism.
>Social collectivism.
Yes, they collectively worked together and went through many toils for their mortal-rulers who inherited their crown. Greeks didn't--even old Homeric ones show most monarchs as being flawed and no better than ordinary yeomen. Even Linear B tablets don't overtly praise the wanaxs. If they're so idealistic and have a spirit of justice, why allow some autocrat rule over them?
>Material solidarity – alleviating moral or material misery
so decadence?

>Idea of peace, justice, goodness and optimism
>>>

>Literature emphasizes novel tales, fables and comedy.
Sounds like escapism entertainment.
>Nomadic-hunting (piracy)
No less immoral than some autocrat claiming divine rite to what religions his people should believe and what property they have to pay tribute to him.
>Ferocious, warlike nature with spirit of survival.
There's nothing wrong with this--especially when you live in a geographical spot that leaves you vulnerable to resulting to that or planning out defenses to it.
>Patriarchal family.
Like every culture that conquered Egypt?
>City state (fort)
Classical Greece was a ethic nation of city-states. Ideally, shouldn't this be better model, seeing how it allows every state to develop it's own culture and rule closer to home?
>Xenophobia
Then why did they make Zeus into the patron of the protector of guests?
>Parochialism
>individualistic minded
Being socially-collective minded is far more vulnerable and in-practice, actually parochial, than individualist minded.
>Moral solitude.
more like independent and idealistic
>literature favors tragedy
literally goat

To summarize:
Ancient Egyptians:
-herd-minded
-decadent
-materially dependent, slave to their impulses
-apathetic to political or social affairs, trusting it to the minority that strives to reach the top of the ladder
-the elites have no modesty and emphasis on placing themselves and consider themselves demi-gods
-superstitious--give priest their own political social-hierarchical class and privileges over the non-aristocratic population
-culturally stagnant
-arrogant to the affairs of the outside world
-don't possess retrospective or critical thinking, which is how their monarchy got established and secured for so long
-feminized to the point of servile

Greeks / Northern Cradle
-independent minded
-Sophrosyne
-ascetic, master of their needs
-active in their state; see the need to participate in the affairs and matters of the State to guarantee it's survival. Distrusts any ruler without constitutional restraint and checks and balances
-rulers and statesmen are noble and modest and dedicated to putting the needs of their citizenry and constituents and their prosperity before their own
-culturally innovative
-curious about the outside world; highly inquisitive explorers who have no bounds in their search of knowledge
-critical and innovative thinkers--see the need that the State needs a large body of intellectuals and passionate thinkers to effectively operate.
-masculine and noble--emphasize on the defense and stability of their state.

he is a debunked historian

>afrocentric
You could've just said "retard" you know

No.
He isn't a retard. The findings of the Eastern "Sahara", Nabta Playa and the shared Aqualithic history of Africa is becoming more and more apparent.

Recent archaeological evidence suggests that this theory is incorrect as regions in Europe and east Asia were also developing complex civilisations around the same time, they just weren't as expansive.

>afrocentrism
You could've just said "special" or "he took the short bus to school" you know.

so multicultural good guys versus monocultural bad guys

This is obviously him imposing his modern values on ancient cultures.

>Abundance of vital resources.

No I don't accept his model and I hat ethis meme. Abundance of resources means nothing, knowing how to extract and use them means far more.

i guess you could say iron, wheat/barley/corn, abundant seafood and drinkable water are pretty important