Subsaharan Africans never built any-

>Subsaharan Africans never built any-

Other urls found in this thread:

remmm.revues.org/4723
twitter.com/NSFWRedditVideo

...

...

Let me guess white people made this and we're going to have another circle jerk about lol eggs d niggers.

Nords built it

>"X and Y aren't true Sub-Saharans"

Looks like anglo saxon architecture my brother and as well all know they were nordic

The societies that built both those things were heavily influenced by outside cultures (Arab and Portuguese), to say they are examples of "indigenous" Bantu innovation is historically inaccurate.

The best example of what you are looking for is the "Great Zimbabwe" and even that is not totally credited to Bantu/Negroid peoples

fuck off nigger lover

>The societies that built both those things were heavily influenced by outside cultures (Arab and Portuguese), to say they are examples of "indigenous" Bantu innovation is historically inaccurate
And you can say that about literally anything. Germanics were illiterate prior to outside influence. Do their later achievements not count because they absorbed influence?

>The best example of what you are looking for is the "Great Zimbabwe" and even that is not totally credited to Bantu/Negroid peoples
No, the consensus is that it was built by the ancestors of the Showa. All the other external-origin theories fell flat.

*shona

>ethiopians
>bantu

"great" zimbabwe is not even an impressive structure in terms of its masonry. it was poorly made

Why are these so effective? And why does seem to be a strict black/white dichotomy here? You got blacks trying to convince others that their history is worth looking into, you've got whites pissed at the mere suggestion that Africans maybe have done a little more than wallow in feces, in the middle you've got the occasional thread not pertaining to either demographic.

Elaborate?

>great Zimbabwe was made by outsiders
>no, it wasn't as the evidence shows
>well it sucked anyway
/pol/, ladies and gentlemen

Pics are not great zimbabwe

Deniers gonna be dumb dumb

>to say they are examples of "indigenous" Bantu innovation is historically inaccurate.

>all Sub-Saharan's are Bantu
>Ethiopians aren't Sub-Saharan
Wew.

The stones are not joined with any precision or any thought given to their shape. There are holes and gaps between the stones and parts of it collapsed repeatedly and had to be constantly rebuilt. Compare it to the Andean stonework at places like Tiwanaku (which is also much older) and you can see how poorly made it is.

If it wasnt for the fact it is located in Sub Saharan Africa it would not be a note worthy site of any historical value

you miss the point, the ethiopians had contact with outside influences that inspired those structures.

Not really. Obelisk-building is a native practice that Cushitic speakers have been practicing since prehistoric times. Its actually the opposite in some ways; the practice traveled to Arabia from the Horn: remmm.revues.org/4723

Yes, Ethiopians absorbed Arabian influence few centuries prior to Aksum's genesis. But Aksum itself was a native development.

Dark-skinned people are not allowed to receive influence from anybody lest their achievements be invalidated.