Did sub-Saharan Africa have great...

...

>Thinks the only people who hate niggers are nords
>Thinks any of those accomplishments mean shit to Black Africa

>A Scandinavian has much more in common with a Roman than an Igo has with a Xhosian.

This is patently false. Scandenavian laguages aren't from the same family as latin and the Romans never reached scandanavia.

They are in the same indo-european family. With Slavic languages too.

Latin, slav languages and germanic languages aren't all that different.

europeans colonized the americas, asia, australia and africa the destruction of architecture occurred in the initial stages of colonization and was sometimes governed by religious intolerance as many pagan temples were demolished or converted in to churches

wasting huge amount of resources however to destroy infrastucture only out of spite was not common unless you are the mongols

so, no the reason we see no major amounts of permanent buildings in africa and australlia of pre-collonization unlike what can be observed in the americas and asia was not due to systematic destruction but the fact the natives never really constructed a noticeable amount of stone structures

No, evidence is still there.

That doesn't mean they are the same people,

>PIE is estimated to have been spoken as a single language around 3500 B.C.E.

Look dude imagine there were only people in the world. How ridiculous does it sounds that people that were in the north are the same people as the civilized people in the south only because they have the same origin. You guys should be honest with yourselves.

*only white people in the world

>That doesn't mean they are the same people,
No, it doesn't.
Just saying linguistically. I speak slav and germanic languages and often identify latin words that are basically the same as slav or germanic words. And I don't mean borrowed words.

Who is who and what color and what race, which people is harder for me to tell.

> They had the Mali Empire.

Sure, their greatest achievement was a fucking sandcastle supported by mud and sticks.

Kekked and checked

Some Americans are proud of being "vikings" because their ancestors wrote in runes and pillaged places. Mansa Munsa was the richest man in History.

Because being viking IS impressive.

Vikings went from Scandinavia to fucking iceland and America, to fucking Byzantium and the FUCKING Caspian sea, yes, you heard me right, the Caspian fucking sea.

Also the people who are proud of being Celts. IIRC these dudes don't even have literature.

WE WENT PLACES N SHIT

I won't lie that vikings are cool in a sense but if we are talking about being civilized Vikings are fucking nothing.

i heard somewhere that they found a longship up the mississippi, so possibly even further than newfoundland. also, they also reached persia and traded there which is cool

>Did sub-Saharan Africa have great, sophisticated cultures
Yes.

>of which all evidence of which was destroyed by European colonists out of racial hatred?
No.

General ignorance of African history is sad but not unsurprising. Africa was historically isolated from the Western core really until the middle 19th century, and outside of East Africa there are basically no indigenous written records. There was no grand conspiracy to destroy evidence, although a lot of white settlers tried to prove that some ancient group of Greeks or Phoenicians constructed the Zimbabwean stoneworks.

What the fuck is a race?

> Mansa Munsa was the richest man in History.

He wasn't, just one more pandering myth.

Augustus had an estimated wealth of over 1.6 trillion, several times that of Mansa.

Heck, there is a German banker from the 15th century that had comparable wealth to Mansa lol

>a society is defined is exclusively by isolated monuments

I hate this meme

Even if what you say is true, the wealth he had is still impressive. And I'm not impressed in terms of civilization that vikings/celts are the same of Romans.

Africans made mud huts and vikings made what? houses with grass on top?

Not think so

Vikings made longships that forged the largest trade network on Earth up until the Mongols re-established the trade routs with East Asia.

You can shit on vikings living in wooden villages, but at least they impacted three fucking continents with their culture.

That's pretty cool desu. I like diversity in the earth and don't feel everyone needs to be building the same things.

>i heard somewhere that they found a longship up the mississippi

Well, don't believe everything you hear.

Good for them. Being good at trade still doesn't put you in the same league as the Greeks or Romans, who were good at trade, good at warfare, good at architecture and literature, good at statecraft, etc. The Vikings were good at trade. The Greeks and Romans were good at civilization.

I am not comparing them to Greeks and Romans though.

The issue is cumstains here comparing them to sub saharan African tribes.

When you think about it building a structure that large out of only mud and sticks is pretty impressive and speaks very highly of their civilization.

Yes, just as smearing shit all over your face is also impressive and speaks very highly of your ability to block out smell.

Building with stone and marble is simple and requires much less maintenance. Making sand and sticks stand up let alone making a mosque out of it is pretty good, not St. Peters tier but good nonetheless.

> Being this deluded.

not an arguement

Can't argue against mud > marble

Its all about what you have readily avaliable

>Building with stone and marble is simple

Oh really? You've decided this after years and years as a master builder, right?

>requires much less maintenance

Making a building in such a way that it requires a lot of maintenance, is not exactly an achievement, is it now?.

I suppose the Africans should have just went to the marble store. Oh wait that's retarded. They made good work with the shit materials that were available.

No all of their societies are more primitive than the Assyrian Empire.

>I suppose the Africans should have just went to the marble store. Oh wait that's retarded.

How is that retarded? Plenty of other civilizations managed to trade goods along vast distances.

>houses with grass on top?

Engineered the finest ships in the world at the time.

Debatable. I think that an encounter with the byzantine navy wouldn't have ended that nicely for the vikings. But it was very good indeed.

Because trade isn't as fucking easy as meeting up and just exchanging shit. The journey has to be worth it.

Why the fuck would an ancient Egyptian go any father south then Nubia/Sudan?

Somebody redpill me on Axum (ancient Ethiopia).

1: Egyptians go only as far south as Nubia/Sudan to trade, that's as far south as they will go.
2: Trade goods from Egypt now in Egypt.
3: Nubians trade with people to the south.
4:?????
5: PROFIT THROUGH TRADE!

Pretty rich mercantile empire in the Horn of Africa.

Very adept trading wise.

Semi-adept militarily

One of two subsaharan african civs to rule outside the continent.

Loved monoliths

>Racial hatred

Colonists harbored no hatred for the locals. They couldn't, they considered them barely human. It was contempt.

They came to this conclusion precisely because nothing of note seemed to be happening around the entire continent.

>They came to this conclusion precisely because nothing of note seemed to be happening around the entire continent.

What would a European find impressive about what amounts to an everyday town

the fact that they could go somewhere that seemed far enough away from home that it could be another planet to them, someplace beyond the knowledge of even the most educated wisemen back home, and find a city that seemed similar to what they knew.
Oh, but they needed to be more impressive to be worth the time of day, so just treat them like they're barely human.

>europeans colonized the americas, asia, australia and africa the destruction of architecture occurred in the initial stages of colonization and was sometimes governed by religious intolerance as many pagan temples were demolished or converted in to churches

Unless it was the French. They just took credit for any fantastic architecture they found

IIf you actually knew something about history aside from Veeky Forums memes and the general reactionary pushback here to /pol/'s love of all things German or Germanic you would know that the vikings fought very well for people with limited resources compared to their neighbors.

Or they destroyed it like they did in Asia. France had a weird cycle of protection, negligence, building shit to leave a mark and destruction to prove a point/show who's boss for the colonial properties.

Nah there was plenty of flat out relegating them to sub-human status and "guy goes to colony and seeing as now there's calss of peopel below him he goes fullblown power crazy douche mode to them. rich (and/or) powerful guy has a playground of people to boss around and do stuff like chain women to his bed or thinks that natives goign through puberty faster means it's okay to indulge in lolicon."

You might be mistaking them for cognates when they are simply loan words.

Good question.