Why do people cite non-Bantu civilizations when defending Sub-Saharan Africa?

They actually had the zimbabwe civilization. Irrelevant and small but they developed it in complete isolation, unlike europeans, who basically cucked themselves into middle eastern and north african civilization.

It was actually pretty important in the area and it was a part of a line of big political entities in the region.

>beginning with the premise that Bantu civilizations are the default for Sub-Saharan Africa when Bantus were back-migratory invaders who displaced indigenous SSA tribes

Read a book motherfucker.

Europeans created a lot of independent civilizations, even more impressive than Zimbabwe

But yes Zimbabwe is pretty impressive

lmao people from siberia didn't accomplish anything fuckin subhumans lol

this is literally your argument reworded

Subsaharan races are a subspecies and could never created a truly human civilization.

Zimbabwe, Shongai, Yoruba, Swahili, Zimbabwe

All meme civilizations, and some among them had heavy Arab influence. The negro never invented a writing script, tell wheel, or a dwelling more than 2 stories.

>never invented a writing script

Just like Europeans

And europeans civilizations have heavy mesopotamian influences. They never invented writing, the wheel, or a building greater than 2 stories. They stole it all from the mesopotamian warrior

> or a building greater than 2 stories

Not him but Cucuteni, Minoans, Nuragics, Myceneans

Though I think his point is retarded and the Axumite empire built castles

not according to latest archaeological discoveries made by the CassinI probe

This. We wuz shakespeare n invention n sheeitt

>And europeans civilizations have heavy mesopotamian influences.
And have surpassed Mesopotamia a million times over

Uh, they did? Just look at the Romans.

And subsaharans have generally surpassed europeans now too, since they're population isn't declining compared to the average Europeans. I too can use completely arbitrary subjective means to determine how advanced a civilization is

All indigenous european groups had their own alphabets, please stop with his mesopotamia meme already

>All indigenous european groups had their own alphabets

Their own alphabets were derived from Phoenician

Rats outbreed humans too, it doesn't make them human. Look at how subsaharans live without outside civilizing influence. They live in utter chaos. Examine their skulls and faces and even physically they are off model. They would be extinct like other subspecies if compassionate Europeans hadn't kept them afloat this long.

>all indigenous europeans have their own alphabets
retard/10
>>>/historybook/

>And subsaharans have generally surpassed europeans now too, since they're population isn't declining compared to the average Europeans
Imagine being this stupid. All means are "subjective," but I still put EInstein above a cannibal. An immediate jump to extreme skepticism is always a sign that you've lost the argument.

also, why the hysterics? we can admit that african civilizations are presently inferior without doing wrong. In fact, it would be wrong not to admit what is true.

European civilizations were once pretty primitive, but I'm sure you've never defended them for the reason that they were always shitting out babies. Try to have some personal culture my dude

>why the hysterics I just wanna ignore facts and reinforce my preconceived notions

>Invaders, displaced.

Boy they just migrated and assimilated a lot of them.

>please stop telling me facts I don't like already

>he doesn't know about the Finno-Korean hyper war
Literally?

>But yes Zimbabwe is pretty impressive
lmao how low can your standards get?

Can you name a fact I've ignored? Or don't you maintain that everything is subjective, including the worth of facts?

That's the Great Zimbabwe structure not the kingdom