Why do blacks think that whites are holding them back?

Why do blacks think that whites are holding them back?

When in fact without the white influence and colonization majority the blacks would still live as primitive hunters and gatherers today.

For 50.000years they lived in Africa alone without any foreign opression and they have not invented anything noteworthy during that time.

The only great African civilizations that basically had sand castles were influenced by Arabs.

So the blacks themselves created nothing on their own always relying on foreigners to teach them things and give them technology. They brought nothing to the table and they have not shaped the world in any way.

Even mentioning the greatest black inventors we see a pattern of nearly all of them being born outside Africa and a lot of them not even being fully black.

haven't you heard?
Blacks were actually the rulers of the world and all important people in history were black, until white devil came and destroyed everything.

Well even without that blaming slavery is still far fethed when most Africa was not enslaved and Europeans were not actively going around Africa destroying black civilizations.

It's really hard to admit that one group of people created nothing while Arabs Asians and Europeans all contrubuted things.

Hell even Indians who people love to mock or Pakistanis gave the world a lot of great things.

Sorry racist, your so called "theory" has been disproven tons of times. European colonization of Africa seriously upset the regions political balance and plunged the continent into chaos. Now you're paying for it with wide open borders. Also try posting some real African architecture next time, pic related, African.

egyptians were what we would consider "white" today, so basically the pyramids were built by white people.

Oh boy this sure is a Veeky Forums thread and not /pol/ whining at all.

Fuck off.

OP specifically talking about blacks
Subsaharans claiming north African civilisation is as idiotic as Chinese claiming Indian civilisation, just because both are "Asian"

>when most Africa was not enslaved and Europeans were not actively going around Africa

you are making the same mistake faggots like
make when making these epik trolles

Africa was enslaved to fuck and back loooooooooooooooooong before Europeans gave a one sunday morning fuck about it - by arabs

>Africa was enslaved to fuck and back loooooooooooooooooong before Europeans gave a one sunday morning fuck about it - by arabs
So are Slavs, yet they eventually achieve civilisation

Upset what exactly? Were great African empires destroyed along with their buildings and literature or did the tribal warfare increase a bit?

Egyptians were Arab

See this is what whitey does, y'all disenfranchise Black Folk and try to steal our culture and claim it as y'alls own. Egyptians were BLACK, B-L-A-C-K they are on Africa, Africans are black, therefore Egyptians were Black. Jfc DNA and scientists even agree that the Egyptians were Black, not white. White people smdh.

WE

How about you prove me wrong instead of whining? Yes the Arabs enslaving blacks helped the blacks develop iron working skills and arhitecture

Egyptians were Arabs

Nothing about this woman looks like a negroid female

They're brown, just like modern Egyptians

Arabs didn't occupy and convert eastern Europe to islam,, they just dragged off some folks and that was it.

Also I'm not being apologetic for the lack of African civilizations; achievement's here at all, I just generally don't like rants about mug evil colonialism, when arabs fucking genocided africans through conquest and slavery on a scale that's just completely in another ballpark compared to europe, yet it's all whitey's failt

The resemblance is uncanny

>Arabs enslaving blacks helped the blacks
>butchering 100,000,000 people helped them
thanks, Mao!

>Look mom, I posted it again!

Allow me to cuck your shit up, senpai.

First, a definition: "civilization", as classically defined, simply means a society that possesses both stable urban centers and a true writing system.

Now, some starting points:

1. Civilization only ever independently developed in two places: Mesopotamia and Mesoamerica.

2. Europe NEVER independently developed writing or civilization. ALL European written languages are the direct descendants of Levantine writing systems.

3. The development of civilization directly jives with contact dates with previous civilizations. This is why South-Eastern Europe developed civilization well before Northern Europe. Rome had been civilized for ~800 years before the first Northern Celtic/Germanics EVER put pen to paper. Large swaths of Northern Europe were uncivilized until the 13th century A.D.

CONT.

ah, but what race you are is based upon either perception and genetic, or both.
so, that's exactly why in a lot of court cases in america north indians were considered "white"
also the reason why nubians are still almost white, because they have significant caucasian admixture, even though they may not be perceived as white
plus coptics are closest to ancient egyptians and they will be considered white by people with IQs above 120, so yeah,the egyptians were white.

The African population exploded during colonization.

Just to make that point clear, for ALL OF RECORDED HUMAN HISTORY UNTIL 15 YEARS AGO, Sub-Saharan Africa had fewer people than Europe. Nonetheless, it has always been more diverse in terms of genetics and ethno-linguistics.

Put simply, having a small but extremely diverse population on a huge continent is not very conducive to the INDEPENDENT development of civilization. Sadly, this diversity greatly assisted Europeans in divide and conquer tactics during the colonial era and some of those policies resulted directly in genocide (as in Rwanda and Burundi). Many of these issues still plague much of Sub-Saharan Africa today and the politicization of ethnicity (i.e. "if you're part of ethnic group A, you vote for party A or you're a traitor!") is a huge problem today and directly results in massive amounts of corruption.

>muh natural resources
Many of the "natural resources that should have magically thrust civilization and wealth upon the blacks" simply weren't valuable or even known until the 19th century or beyond. I've literally seen /pol/sters cite Uranium and diamonds as would-be sources for African pre-colonial wealth. /pol/ seems to be patently unaware that most precious metals were largely disdained until Arab or European contact.

CONT.

>Zulu spear
>black technology

Even when you try to shill the Blacks still had simple short spears in 19th century while others were way ahead of them

Now, in terms of independently developing civilization, Sub-Saharan Africa was at a series of disadvantages, namely:

1. A smaller population (compared to Europe, East Asia, South Asia, etc.) and thus much lower population density in an area roughly two times the size of the United States. Sub-Saharan Africa didn't catch up to Europe in terms of population until about 2000 A.D.

2. A desert roughly the size of the United States separating most of Sub-Saharan Africa from the Levant, the "Cradle of Civilization". By contrast, there was no large geographic separation between Europe and the Levant.

3. Large plains interspersed with jungles, which made interior, far-reaching navigation largely impracticable until European explorers arrived in the 19th century.

CONT.

Racist white kids need to leave, shoo shoo back to /pol/ you children.

1. Like virtually all psychometricians, do you believe that IQ tests are an accurate measure of general intelligence or 'g'? If so, we can continue.

2. Like virtually all psychometricians, do you believe that IQ measures the same things in black and white populations (i.e. a black with an IQ of 90 will perform much like a white with an IQ of 90 on a variety of tests)? If so, we can continue.

3. Like virtually all psychometricians, do you acknowledge the Flynn effect, which demonstrates real differences in 'g' within populations over time? If so, we can continue.

4. Like virtually all psychometricians, do you acknowledge that the average IQ of black Africans is ~81 (Wicherts, et al 2010 -- just for you Lynnposters), African-Americans 85, and black Britons 86? If so, we can continue to the final point:

5a. If you acknowledge the above, then any cognitive "deficiencies" in black populations today must have been largely present in white populations (in America and Europe) before 1950, since contemporary black Africans, black Americans, and black Britons all have higher average IQs than the white populations of those eras.

You must also acknowledge that the average German in Nazi Germany* and average white American in the 1950s (/pol/'s most idyllic eras for the hwhite man) are less intelligent (on average) than almost any black population (for which we have data) today.

5b. If you don't acknowledge the above, there's no point in conversation since your beliefs aren't based in scientific literature.

Reported for copy pasting shill pasta