Why does it seem so hard for some to accept some civilizations were less advanced than others...

Why does it seem so hard for some to accept some civilizations were less advanced than others? When I see a thread about Africa, there are always some people to claim the empires in western africa were as advanced as their europeans contemporaries. And basically, if you disagree with this, it's because of eurocentrism.
I fail to see the logic. Europeans invaded the whole world, but were still able to see that some civilizations were more advanced than others Is it eurocentrism to say China and Japan were far more advanced than Mali?

I feel like you're someone who doesn't have any particular interest in history but you just want to get into some kind of ideological dick waving contest with crazy lefties.

No it is not Eurocentric to say that China or Japan were more advanced than Mali but I doubt you've ever read a book about any of those societies so I don't know how it matters.

political correctness

The societies and civilizations of Africa are rooted first and foremost as Pastoralists societies with key niche populations arising and then out populating Pastoralists peoples. But both groups relied and vied for power over one another.

Without Pastoralists the manure farmers found necessary to survive away from the alluvial soil replenished annually would be all but impossible but without grains or crop stubble no herding group, not even Tuareg could survive in their numbers.

The civilizations of the Sahelian are NOT comparable to Egypt or China or Rome or Greece. Those civilizations are rooted first and foremost with agriculture in very fertile river bottoms were agriculture came before and developed much longer than in the Sahelian in the post-Neolithic Subpluvial.

Because people were sick of European powers dehumanizing non european peoples just because they didnt live up to European standards of civility.

This from peoples who slaughtered each other incessantly without compunction since the fall of the Roman Empire.

>there are always some people to claim the empires in western africa were as advanced as their europeans contemporaries.

They were at certain points in history.

I'm actually really interested in Japan and China history. For Africa, I didn't read much, but what I read always was disappointing. Due to the lack of sources I have the feeling historians have to recreate african history thanks to myths, tales, stories from travelers which are always exaggerate.

>They were at certain points in history.

This.

If anything, Mali was more advanced than Anglo-Saxon England in the 11th century.

>I have the feeling historians have to recreate african history thanks to myths, tales, stories from travelers which are always exaggerate.
This simply isn't true. Where are you getting this idea?

For starters try the works of John K. Thornton, he's the foremost historian on medieval central Africa and he doesn't do anything like what you just described. His book entitled Warfare in Atlantic Africa 1500-1800 is particularly highly thought of and can be found for free online.

>When I see a thread about Africa, there are always some people to claim the empires in western africa were as advanced as their europeans contemporaries. And basically, if you disagree with this, it's because of eurocentrism.

Nobody here ever says that. What happens is an idiot comes in and says there was NO civilization and that we all need to bow down to the gods of white nationalism and encourage racism against the "negro menace"(and somewhere along the thread Detroit and IQ somehow always get brought up). Then we have to tell them for the 100th time that there were in fact civilizations many of which were far more advanced than people give them credit for.

this

Reddit detected. That or a reddit CIA nigger.

>What happens is an idiot comes in and says there was NO civilization and that we all need to bow down to the gods of white nationalism and encourage racism against the "negro menace"(and somewhere along the thread Detroit and IQ somehow always get brought up).
I hope you realize (You)'re apart of the idiots he was referring to

To be fair to him. I forgot to mention the "everything that isn't /pol/ is Reddit or /leftypol/" brigade.

>advanced
>black civilization

Pick one, there has yet to be a single nigger civilization with architecture on par with the very first white civilization the Minoans of Crete.

this

The people that post about African history are patricians who don't make posts about "which civilization is better: X or Y?"

Patricians study history because it gives us the greatest stories ever told.

Plebs abuse it so that they can use it to justify the existence of their cancerous ideologies.

Tell me more about how Jared Diamond is part of the international jewish conspiracy

>Because people were sick of European powers dehumanizing non european peoples just because they didnt live up to European standards of civility.

If they don't want to be held to the standards of European civility, then they can get the fuck out and go back to Africa, where they can rape and eat each other to their hearts content, judgement free.

...

A bunch of half-naked spear chuckers are not the equivalent of fucking middle ages Britain I don't care how much fucking gold they have.

>spear chucking
How stupid are you?

Ok well theres that but not more advanced than Roman architecture.

I actually get mad when someone claims Great Zimbabwe, a meme collection of huts encircled by a wall, was some great civilization when Sardinians were building more complex structures 3000 years before that.

How stupid are you that you think Mali was more advanced than the Anglo -Saxons in the 11th century?

>not more advanced than Roman architecture.
You're still under the impression that people are arguing this. No one is. They're just saying that Africans weren't cave-dwellers across the board. How difficult is it for you to identify nuance?

Nuragic Sardinians actually had aqueducts, giant statues, hydraulic implants, arches, primitive sewers and baths.

And even if we compare the Nuraghi themselves to the enclosure at Zimbabwe, the Zimbabwe tower isn't even a tholos as far as I know, while Nuragics could build towers with up to 3 aereal tholoi on top of eachother.

>They're just saying that Africans weren't cave-dwellers across the board
But they were user, most of nigger kind were stone age spear chuckers for most of human history.

>Why does it seem so hard for some to accept some civilizations were less advanced than others?
It's not but the same people get mad when you point out that China was ahead of Western Europe for nearly all of history.

>Europeans invaded the whole world, but were still able to see that some civilizations were more advanced than others
Spaniards (before they spread diseases to wipe out the natives) admitted that the native architecture was just as good as their own so I agree.

>proving once again that you don't know anything about history.
You don't belong on this board.

The Mali weren't spear chuckers, they had cities, trade, intensive agriculture and pastoralism, they could field 10000s of cavalry, they were easily in the same ball park as Anglo-Saxon Britain, read more books.

This is coming from someone who gets triggered by virtue signalling liberals who expect me to believe le zimbabwe stone circle is equal to the taj mahal.

/pol/tards can't evenshitpost right.

He's less stupid than you, that's for damn sure

I agre, that and also the mudhut mosque from Mali is even worse

Depends on the time you are talking about. Some African civs did reach parity with some European civs but were ultimately left in the dust. Would you say thats a fair statement?

>I agre, that and also the mudhut mosque from Mali is even worse
I like it.

>they had cities, trade, intensive agriculture and pastoralism
So did the Anglo-Saxons, the fact they could gather loads of cavalry just means they were bigger with more people, not that they were more advanced. I mean it's probably a safe bet the Malians could gather more cavalry than the Republic of Venice in the 12the century, are we going to start claiming they're more advanced than them too?

>they were easily in the same ball park
That's great (debatable, but whatever that's not the point), but user claimed they were more advanced.

I'm not shitposting, that's my genuine opinion. If you're going to undermine the standards of Western civilization by pretending that the culture of some cannibal that spends his day scratching his bare ass and shooing away flies is of equal value, then I strongly encourage you to go live with the fucking heathens in Africa.

>tfw your genuine opinions have the value of a shitpost

Welcome to Veeky Forums, enjoy your stay and complimentary accusation of faggotry

You're so dense enlightenment bends around you.

He's not, but he is an amateur night hack writing
commie inspired shit though.

It's a euphemism for nigger, or boogie, or kafir, you double brainlet.

It was built by the French in 1906.

He's not wrong

Why would he complain about spear chuckers in the fucking middle ages?

The "enlightenment" was a mistake.

Civilized man does not chuck spears, he uses them in formation or on horseback.

>It's not but the same people get mad when you point out that China was ahead of Western Europe for nearly all of history.
I don't think it's that hard to admit. Japan too was on par with Europe on some aspects. But those who focus on african History seems desesperate to prove it was so much more advanced than what we'd expect.

>Minoans
>white

They weren't black either so don't go WE on me. Also, it's interesting to note that West Africa mostly slipped the Bronze Age and went straight for Iron.

It's a good thing the Malians did then.

>Minoans weren't white
Okay fucking what now?

You know who else was stone age tier for most of humanity? NEARLY EVERY HUMAN BEING THAT HAS EVER LIVED. The only stone age humans in Africa were a select group of racially distinct hunter gatherers who were by large the minority. Most of Africa was either populated by pastoralists, farmers, traders, or any combination of the three.

You heard me. Oh sure, they were certainly Caucasians and Europeans, but they weren't "white", you know what I mean? They were Mediterranean people, and Mediterraneans are usually darker than most Europeans (though that's not to say that there weren't fair ones).

But javelins are highly effective weapons and were used by both 11th century Malians and 11th century Anglo-Saxons.

>Mediterraneans aren't white
Why is (((somebody))) consistently pushing this meme?

Not all of the women looked like that. And fuck your implied "hurr kike" meme, I think Jews are white/Caucasian too thanks to slumming it up in Europe for 2000 years.

If you want, you can think of this like how Middle Easterners are Caucasian and can sometimes have light skin (especially the women who stay inside all day long, just like your Minoans), but they aren't "white" the same way your average Greek or Anatolian Turk isn't "white". I guess you can chalk this up to being good ol' American racial autism.

It was rebuilt in 1906 after it had fallen into disrepair, but it had existed long before that.

And the French didn't rebuild it, they just ordered for it and financed the reconstruction. The actual construction was done by local labourers and was directed by a local mason.

>Jews are white
>Mediterraneans aren't white
wew

Do you know what a tan is ?

It's consistently seen in wall paintings and frescoes all across the meditarenia.

Hiding from the sun was practices by females exclusively as darker skin was seen as unappealing - that tradition still exist in korea and india.

While man, working during the day were far darker.

If you stick a meditarenian person in northern europe - he will look far whiter than back home.

>and was directed by a local mason.
...but designed to imitate a french cathedral.

Boy, I'm glad we're here in /pol/. How embarrassing would it have been had I accidentally thought I was browsing Veeky Forums.

The "enlightenment" is why you can post here rather than doing farmer work to survive.

No they just weren't. At it's maximum height of power, the empire of Mali or the empire og Songhai wouldn't have even had a chamce of winning in a war against the Italian city states or a big european feudal monarchy.

Well most of human history people were living in tiny communities with basically no technology at all, regardless if they were Europeans or Africans.

What you should be asking yourself is why you would take the anomaly(e.g the technocratic Western civilization), and judge the rest of the world by it's standard, when the West has basically only been more technologically advanced than the rest of the world for 400 years.

WE

He meant civilizations from West Africa.

Fuck off nigger lover

t. Cletus

Seriously, do people like you even like history? Or do you just like to say that you're superior to everyone else and that's it?

>My kangz were better than your kangz so let's not talk about your kangz

cultures have no hierarchy
advanced sure, but the avarage polfag will instantly turn this into a better worse relation which is false in this matter

its pretty shitty that this whole cultural thing got a political shade thanks to ideoligies

WUZ

Minoans have the same facial structure as Europeans making them white.

therefore latinos are white too.

Yeehaw!

You tell dem der doggone yankee bastards!

Speak for yourself peasant.

No you can see some Amerindian facial traits in spics.

Someone is mad.

You can also see Arabic features in Spaniards, including their language.

(((Some people))) try very hard to keep race and "racist" talk under control.

The only reasons why people would say Mediterraneans are the same race as germanic Europeans, are either a mixed racial person like many americans, or we wuzzers trying to claim Greece and Rome as 'muh ancestors'.

We wuzzing is comparing ourselves to collective races like blacks and asians.

t. Jew

...

Any suggested reading?

Thanks!

In a debate when European ethnicities come into question we wuzzing is no longer valid.

...

>collective races

Bullshit. Just like the entire idea behind 1 race per continent theory.

Germans are not Celts who are not Slavs who are not Mediterraneans. Anybody who tried to group these different races into one single race is a moron who was Americanized.

This is based on genetic distances user.

All Europeans make a collective Europid type human.

Found the eastern-european or the Iberian trying to piggyback on the more successful races in europe.

Or the New World colonial trying to put europes races into a blender so they match up with him, for we wuz purposes.

He's not wrong

All Europeans cluster closer to each other than anyone outside Europe

Everyone from Ireland to Russia to Italy

>piggyback
No you imbecile it is a collective human grouping. Serbs and Poles dont give a solitary shit about the Romans.

That's because of the EU and NATO.

>No you imbecile it is a collective human grouping. Serbs and Poles dont give a solitary shit about the Romans.

Then they are not apart of the same collective human grouping as the Iberians or Italians or whatever, genetics be damned (that's just one factor). Those two cultures you mentioned are closer to Turkey than to France.

Collective grouping user, we are all Europid type humans. Also you are braindead if you think Spaniards are closer to a Turk than a German.

The Euros closest to middle easterners are the Macedonians.

Sven, you don't get to claim the accomplishments of the Romans and Greeks, they're not you ancestors.

No, Poles and Serbs are closer to Turkey is what I meant.

user, you don't get to draw the line ethnic groupings based on arbitrary lines you invented.

Wtf since when (((enlightment))) means deluding yourself with lofty idea?