Sub-saharan africans can't create great cultu-

More or less advanced that the wooden forts that the gunpowder using Russians used to colonize Siberia?

Mali also had gunpowder, BTW.

These were Russians in the 1300s and 1400s. Blows the fuck out of your sand mosque.

don't even think about saying it.

>wooden buildings

Sure.

>ruled by grass people

LOL

uh
how is an ocean an event
when did the portuguese acquire it

What?

>Mali sold slaves

>Mali produced gunpowder weapons

>Mali repelled Europeans for centuries

>grass people
Is English your first language?

>how is an ocean an event

It was where most of the trade of the planet happened.

>when did the portuguese acquire it

They sailed there in gunpowder equipped ships and killed the other traders.

>ignores that massive fucking stone fortress

I thought it was okay to ignore massive fortifications in this discussion.

Like what?

I'm thinking of whatever was there that Europeans were unable to capture, since they tried and failed throughout history.

What is there in Africa that's worth capturing? A fucking building made of mud is being presented as the pinnacle of high African sophistication and culture, I rest my case.

You tell me, Europeans have been stealing things from there for centuries.

So why did Europeans need to conquer parts of Africa if there is nothing in Africa?

You know the current Djenne mosque (the on in your pic) was built in 1907?

The one that stood there before has been described in not so flattering terms.
>There is no other written information on the Great Mosque until the French explorer René Caillié visited Djenné in 1828 and wrote "In Jenné is a mosque built of earth, surmounted by two massive but not high towers; it is rudely constructed, though very large. It is abandoned to thousands of swallows, which build their nests in it. This occasions a very disagreeable smell, to avoid which, the custom of saying prayers in a small outer court has become common."[4]

Pic related, how it looked in 1895

To get the resources in the ground that the Africans were too retarded to extract. This is actually a pretty important distinction between the conquest of Africa and other conquests. Mongols conquered places that were already highly civilized and wealthy in order to create a strong tax base. Europeans colonizers in Africa didn't care about tax base as there was none, all the Africans were fuck poor. Colonization of Africa would look 100% the same even if there were no Africans living there.

So Africa did have things worth capturing. Why did you say it didn't?

Then the idea is to enslave other places, and ethnically cleanse Africa? Why did Europeans do the opposite in real life?

>sub-saharan
>literally built in the Sahara

For all purposes, Africans might as well be ignored in Africa.
>Why did Europeans do the opposite in real life?
Because blacks were selling their fellow man into foreign bondage which is something the native Americans or the Chinese weren't retarded enough to do.

Why would Europeans buy them? Were African slaver-kings sailing into the capital cities of Europe and murdering locals until the oligarchs agreed to buy slaves?

>To get the resources in the ground that the Africans were too retarded to extract
No, that only came about well after the colonies were established. Colonial holdings started out as coastal trading posts where the Europeans relied on Africans living inland to do all the heavy lifting of actually getting whatever trade good they were looking for (usually gold, ivory, and slaves). With the exception of Cape Colony, Europeans were largely content to limit their involvement in the continent to those small trading posts.

The discovery of and subsequent rush for natural resources only happened at the very end of the 19th Century in southern Africa, and some of the most mineral rich regions like Katanga weren't even administered until 1900, let alone actually mined.

>all the Africans were fuck poor
Demonstrably false - West Africa was home to some reasonably wealthy kingdoms right up until the Scramble for Africa conquered them, and the ivory and slave trade in East Africa led some very wealthy polities in the area.

>Why would Europeans buy them?
Because they were for sale.

They weren't wealthy kingdoms, they were poor as shit kingdoms ruled by a single extremely wealthy individual/family.

And in what way were Europeans NOT in the slave business, then?

What an embarrasment of a thrad. None of you have any interest in this topic, you just abuse it to back up your political and social views.

What a dumb fucking argument.

Wrong, you idiot. The mosque described in 1828 was a shit one built by jihadists who let the old one fall apart because they hated art. The original mosque looked like this.

>they were poor as shit kingdoms ruled by a single extremely wealthy individual/family
Aren't we supposed to be focusing on Africa, not Europe?

Islamic scholars who bothered to cross the Sahara were amazed at the productivity and wealth of civilizations on the Niger river. The Swahili states and Arab traders that dealt with them built up significant amounts of wealth as well. And even well inland you had states like Buganda that were reasonably wealthy and successful. Even in the much-maligned Congo you had the Kongo Kingdom which was doing well for a while until rampant slave trading wrecked the economy.

Like everywhere, you'll end up with less successful and more impoverished states (Kanem Bornu, which had literally nothing to offer but slaves is a good example), but that doesn't mean that Africa didn't have successful and wealthy civilizations

Why are there so many cynics here? It frankly looks pretty impressive, not bad at all and good utilization of available (and more so abundant!) material. Yeah, sure, it can't match the complexity, technique and size of European architecture, but it isn't bad in its own right.

There were three Empires in West Africa, that survived and traded up until the time the slave trade really started kicking off.

Mali, Ghana, and a third I can't remember. The last lasted until the 1600s, I believe.

>the original was art

Songhai?

Someone is forgetting about the Sao civilization around Cameroon and Chad, which developed starting from the 6th century bc, they had fucking urban cities AKA towns and produced a lot of art, they also had bronze and iron tools

Meaning that negroes in Niger, Chad and Cameroon had a civilization contemporary to the classical greeks and early romans, and developed it in isolation

I think someone is praising a culture for meeting the bare minimum needed to exist. Africans don't even have the excuse the nords do of existing above the 50th parallel North

> Has no way of proving that making sandcastles is an achievement
> le ur argument is dumb
Making a sand castle is not an achievement

>This want negroid LARP'ers actually believe
Wow

>Africans don't even have the excuse the nords do of existing above the 50th parallel North

Out of interest why is that an excuse?

>None of you have any interest in this topic, you just abuse it to back up your political and social views
>But me calling a mud brick fort a work of art is in no way influenced by my personal biases

The bare minimun to exist?

Cities are the bare minimum to exist?

You know that North Europe didn't have urban cities (cities) before the middle ages, right? And they were far less isolated

There are bazillion of material cultures of settled people that never reached the urban phase

kang spotted

>Why are there so many cynics here?
because it wasnt built by sub-saharian africans as OP claims

The intensity of winter and the difficulty in maintaining stone structures above that parallel is intense enough to diminish architectural achievements in Scandinavia. Shorter Summers and longer winter's combined with harsh travelling conditions does not a good environmental situation make.

Most people (except those in Europe) can't carve out very impressive feats due to winter, and the British, Germans and Danes had it far easier in comparison though because of how weather travels along the gulf stream

Backing this up, here's Ibn Battuta on the Swahili Coast.
>We came to Mambasa [Mombasa], a large island two days' journey by sea from the Sawihil country. It possesses no territory on the mainland. They have fruit trees on the island, but no cereals, which have to be brought to them from the Sawahil. Their food consists chiefly of bananas and fish.The inhabitants are pious, honourable, and upright, and they have well-built wooden mosques.
>We stayed one night in this island [Mombasa], and then pursued our journey to Kulwa, which is a large town on the coast. The majority of its inhabitants are Zanj, jet-black in colour, and with tattoo marks on their faces. I was told by a merchant that the town of Sufala lies a fortnight's journey [south] from Kulwa and that gold dust is brought to Sufala from Yufi in the country of the Limis, which is a month's journey distant from it. Kulwa is a very fine and substantially built town, and all its buildings are of wood. Its inhabitants are constantly engaged in military expeditions, for their country is contiguous to the heathen Zanj.

Because they're politically motivated. These same people would jack off to a small wooden Norse church, but would call it a piece of shit if it was built in Africa.

Fucking retard. The Norse had all the benefits derived from close contact with the rest of Eurasia, including the early transmission of agriculture. They would not have accomplished anything in isolation.

Yes, I always forget that one because unlike Mali, and Ghana, there is no corresponding contemporary country.

There were also smaller kingdoms, pre scramble for Africa, like the Ashanti.

>Because they're politically motivated
keep telling yourself that

then who built it?

>Sao developed spontaneously
No
>They had urban centers
They didn't collapse until the 16th century

obvioulsy not sub-saharian blacks

>They would not have accomplished anything in isolation
Neither did any Africans lol

Great argument, subhuman. Nice unsourced screenshot too. I assume you know exactly which piece of Egyptian art that is, and can confirm its authenticity.

Local African masons, commissioned by the French authorities.

>No

Yes

>Nowadays, archaeologists agree on a purely local process leading gradually to
social complexity. They suggest that the Sao-Kotoko towns were protected by
town walls in a middle phase only.5 According to most recent archaeological
studies, the first proto-urban settlements emerged at the western and
southern fringes of the firgi flood plains around 500 BC. Initially,
archaeologists explained this development with a climate model according to
which increasing desiccation led to urbanisation.6 Yet, further results showed
that the aquatic environment had not substantially changed by the middle of
the first millennium.7 Therefore it seems necessary to search for alternative
explanations for the emergence of social complexity in the Lake Chad area.

dierklange.com/pdf/recent_articles/Emergence_of_social_complexity.pdf

>Because they're politically motivated. These same people would jack off to a small wooden Norse church, but would call it a piece of shit if it was built in Africa.
>Small wooden Norse church would be called a piece of shit if it was made in Africa
No it's just that African Architecture is shit. If they made something akin to the churches their then it would be somewhat impressive.

Do you have any substantial evidence to back that up? It's in Mali, are you gonna say it was built by some wandering Arabs?

Pick your battles, user. You can get the gist of ones you can have actual historical discussions with when it comes to Africa, but these threads also attract the trolls baiting, and the actual super racist that refuse to acknowledge anything of significance ever happened in SSA. The former memes that all Africans still live in grass huts, the latter actually believes it. What's worse is these two are the ones who seem most obsessed with making threads about Africa.

>Yes
No, they traded with people. Not im isolation :D.

Nords on the other hand had complete isolation with surrounding people
>Inb4 you post how agriculture spread from the middle East

Then how did Africans develop in isolation oh Kang of egypt?

>Local African masons, commissioned by the French authorities.
why would the French authorities commission this?
btw this is me didn't see your reply

Not him, but no it was built by the french
In 1906, the French administration in the town arranged for the original mosque to be rebuilt and at the same time for a school to be constructed on the site of Seku Amadu's mosque. The rebuilding was completed in 1907 using forced labour under the direction of Ismaila Traoré, head of Djenné's guild of masons. From photographs taken at the time,[1] it appears the position of at least some of the outer walls follows those of the original mosque but it is unclear as to whether the columns supporting the roof kept to the previous arrangement. What was almost certainly novel in the rebuilt mosque was the symmetric arrangement of three large towers in the qibla wall. There has been debate as to what extent the design of the rebuilt mosque was subject to French influence.[1]
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Great_Mosque_of_Djenné

>small wooden church in Norway
>nobody gives a shit because there's a ton of stuff in Europe that's far more impressive

>a fucking mud mosque in Africa
>kangz acting like it's the equivalent of St. Peter's basilica

>Urban settlement of 6,500 people
HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAH

The Europeans' holding off from conquering Africa until the latter half of the 19th century was due to lack of ability, not lack of interest. Previously the power projection abilities of states were limited enough that the local African states could more or less exert control in their own backyard.The Gold Coast was a very profitable colony and had been known as a rich region for hundreds of years. The British traded for large quantities of gold, ivory, pepper, etc. It still was not conquered until the 19th century.

>Nords on the other hand had complete isolation with surrounding people
The baltic amber trade meant that you had artifacts from as far away as Egypt reaching Scandinavia as early as the Bronze age, you lying snownigger.

>It's in Mali, are you gonna say it was built by some wandering Arabs?
it looks like it
>Muslim architect al-Sahili who would later build the great mosques at Gao and Timbuktu as well as a royal palace.
dailykos.com/stories/2010/12/5/925755/-

*sigh* why is it biological determininism and race naturalism can never be discussed academically? Why do egalitarians have to dehumanize the dialectic of other people, is it because they are afraid of losing touch with their own views for personal reasons?

You do know that the city of Troy had 1,000 people in it according to most estimations, right?

Care to elaborate? Why exactly were they unable to do it?

Because those who want to "discuss" it generally have no interest in actual discussion, but rather just confirming their own racist biases.

>a shitty mud castle designed by an Arab and rebuilt by the French
So this is the ultimate pride of subsaharan Africa. Next we're going to glorify abandoned British warehouses in New Guinea as the glorious pinnacle of Papuan architecture.

>I'm Scandinavian
Nope
>I'm just going to ignore Carthage
K

I mean why this is so personal for you is beyond me, all cultures develop via trade.

>Missing that entire part about dehumanizing dialectic you don't like
Nice buzzword you have there

it doesn't say he was an Arab tho

Kek, nevermind. Found the unpainted original, from a relief at Saqarra. Stupid, dumb Stormnigger.

The French seemed to appreciate Sahelian architecture. They included an example of it in the 1931 Paris Expo: commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Expo_1931_Aof1.jpg

Nobody except retards pretends that Africa was as civilized as Medieval Europe. If you can't appreciate a piece of decent mudbrick architecture (or a Norse stave church, for that matter) because better stuff exists somewhere else, then you're just trash.

>*sigh*
Go back to tumblr.

He was Andalusian.

cerhas.uc.edu/troy/q412.html
Hmm... Also I think you are ignoring other civilizations that sustained far larger amounts of people that existed at the same time

I'm dead serious, blacks are treated like children. Like if you see a 4 year old able to read the Bible you will act like he's so clever but an adult doing the same is hardly anything worth mentioning. There are literal shithole towns in medieval Ukraine that are more impressive than anything in subsaharan Africa put together.

>Because those who want to "discuss" it generally have no interest in actual discussion, but rather just confirming their own racist biases.
>implying I'm even white
I don't want history to be smeared by WE WUZ KANGZ when there is little evidence to back this fact up

>as civilized as
Civilization isn't a progression with checkpoints and an end goal. You're generally right in that Sub-Saharan Africa lagged technologically, especially once Europe started to industrialize, but "civilization" as a progression is very arbitrary and subjective.

Most modern estimates said it didn't have more than 1,000 people in it, besides, not much difference between 3,000 and 1,000 still less and on the same scale of the Chad city states, though Troyan architecture looks more impressive

>Unpainted original
You realize that is was repainted based on chemical analysis of what pigment was still based on the piece, right? They do this for Greek and Roman statues whose colors have faded over time as well?

>Missing the point this hard
Stop dehumanizing dialectic you don't don't like and confront it instead.

Ackchually... if the name to go by, he was probably from Sri Lanka

Except the city overall could sustain 10,000 people outside of the city walls and you are still ignoring comparisons beyond Troy. Let's look at Babylon or Athens.

Troy was a pretty small "City", it's just portrayed as being grand from Greek legends

I'm telling you he was fucking Andalusian. Not "probably" but absolutely.

Wow, that sandcastle is almost 10% as impressive as random buildings you could find in major towns of other civilizations at that time.
'Racists' btfo!

>Because those who want to "discuss" it generally have no interest in actual discussion, but rather just confirming their own racist biases.

So true. I have noticed when you legit try to engage them in dialogue, and if they are hit with something that challenges that bias, they will either ignore that post completely, or respond with a straw man or ad hominem, if they respond at all.

I don't believe you.

>Care to elaborate? Why exactly were they unable to do it?
Because the disparity in military technology prior to that point wasn't big enough to compensate for the difficulty in sending any significant number of soldiers there, and the amount of soldiers they could send was even more limited. Also disease. It it took five years and tens of thousands of men with rifles and rifled artillery to conquer the Ashanti. The Zulus were able to repulse an invasion by 15,000 British regulars using Martini-Henry breach loading rifles and maxim machine guns, necessitating a large follow-up attack. It took nine wars and tens of thousands of soldiers to conquer the Xhosa.

>I'm dead serious, blacks are treated like children
Definitely, and you can see it in modern discussions of African politics which generally over-emphasize external factors and try to ignore African agency.

>There are literal shithole towns in medieval Ukraine that are more impressive than anything in subsaharan Africa put together.
Demonstrably false. Africa may have never reached the levels of Europe, but it did have cultures and polities that were interesting and unique in their own right. A lot of what you're seeing nowadays is a reaction to the traditional (and still lingering) depiction of pre-colonial Africa as a tribal jungle populated by savage spear-chuckers. Overstating achievements is still bad, but it's a major improvement from past depictions.

Not my problem retard.

>xcept the city overall could sustain 10,000 people outside of the city walls

Yes, outside of the city walls, the African city had 6,500 people INSIDE of the city walls, Troy had less than that inside of the citadel, the African citadels too were surrounded by settlements which they sustained

> Let's look at Babylon or Athens.

Yeah and?

Never said they were the biggest city on earth, just a regular city, not different from other urban sites like those of the bronze age and early iron ages, of course there were much bigger metropoleis around, but that was not my point, most Europeans apart from some exceptions were living in small villages without any urban planning consisting of a dozen huts at best

You're lying. If not, show me proof that there was chemical analysis done on that specific releif.

>Demonstrably false.
Demonstrably correct.

Ukraine recieved all its civilization from Byzantium.

Not relevant.