We wuz kangz VS legitimate history

book?
>no book

The kings of Ethiopia were still able to amass absurd, irresponsible amounts of wealth from their trade with the merchants of the Arabian Peninsula though

OP HERE

>okay, i forgot to post this in the op so i'll just put it here

how should i feel about the we was kangz stuff? on one hand if it's true than that means that troll anons who use the ''we wuz kangz me'' are just insecure that maybe history wasn't utterly dominated by white people. on the other hand if we wuz kangz is false then that means that black people are just grasping at anything for self validation (which is sad to think about) i know that edgyt wasn't just a bunch of white dudes, but how much was the color ratio exactly?

We wuz kingz is parodied by insecure white trolls and believed by stupid black Americans who think, like all Americans, that all of Africa is west Africa.

What did they do with all that wealth though? I'm genuinely asking since I have no idea.

They were indeed kangz but almost every population in this planet was kang of something in some form at some point in time so that really doesn't mean shit by itself.

Read up on the Kingdom of Mali.

What the fuck are you asking, yes there were kings in Africa, yes most people in Africa were presumably as content with their lives as European peasants, yes there are spergy racists on Veeky Forums who don't bother researching what they spout

According to pic related, African people pre-contact lived in a sort of pseudo-capitalist society wherein class divides existed but the rich were thought of as owing a sort of symbolic debt to the poor. So the lower economic class equalled the more-respect social class, in a sense, and this resulted in a totally docile social structure where people had no motivation to move forward. Calling it a "tribal" society is a little bit misleading; it was only tribal in the sense that european society was tribal after the collapse of the roman empire and before the formation of the european states.

Their wealth made them so far removed from the world around them that these kings were often naive and oblivious to how things operated, and would often destroy the economies of lands they wiuld visit and bring their stupid amounts of wealth into

yeah your right, tribal and prmitive was just the best words i could think of

why was the reception bad? whats wrong with the book?

>Mansa Musa

He was not Etheopian, he was from West Africa

Yes, there were indeed black men who were Kings in Africa throughout history, most prominently in Ethiopia, which in the ancient world comprised a much larger region of land than modern Ethiopia. The Kingdom of Ethiopia is a frequently visited location within the tapestry of the Greek Mythological canon, with Ethiopia being the southern most Kingdom of the wider Trojan Empire. There is a lost epic of the Trojan theater of myths called the Aethiopis which features the deeds of a mythical Demigod King of Ethiopia named Memnon.

While the original poem is lost, there is a descent retelling of it done by the 4th century poet Quintus Smyrnaeus as a part of his "Posthomerica" additions to the narrative of the Trojan War.

Many Kings throughout history destabilized economies with irresponsible wealth. It was actually a fairly common occurrence

>afro-centrism this hard

SHIEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEET

>can't name anyone outside of Mansa Musa

lel

How is acknowledging on single Kingdom in the expansive tapestry of the world painted in the Greek Mythological canon afro centrist? It's Greek centrist if anything, as Ethiopia and its Kings would have been practicing Greek religious rites and would have had adopted Greek culture after Perseus married the Ethiopian princess Andromeda and delivered them from Poseidons wrath

Nice try nigger.

There were hundreds of warring states in and around the Aegean peninsula at the time. The Illyrians and Minoans had more influence on the Greeks and Greek Mythological canon than some backwater mountainous shithole that far South of them.

Meant for
Also it wasn't called Ethiopia back then. Come correct ro don't come at all, darkie.

Yes, it was Aethiopia in the ancient world, which at times encompassed the entirety of the eastern coast of Africa to the northern coast. Modern Ethiopia in only a small fraction of southern Aethiopia

It was Kush in the ancient world, son.

Aithops was used to describe the people that lived there.

Well, apparently not very good evidence and even attacking existing evidence.
The criticism of the was, that most of what historians have gathered about those times and those areas were around late 19./early 20. century and much of the evidence supporting Black-African influence (or even racial denomination of cultures like the Egyptians) were ignored as "impossible" or straight up destroyed.
I haven't read the book, so I don't know how valid the point is. But among the criticism I have read, there wasn't really any argument apart form name calling and a lot of "no u".
But I have also read that it was a hype theory from a couple decades ago, which isn't relevant anymore. Still. I understand if it would strike someone as strange, that the Greeks would open their cultural door for everyone and their mom in travel distance, EXCEPT they were a slighter darker tinge of black than the rest of em.

The Greek Mythological canon encompasses so much more than just the Aegean Peninsula, and integrates a vast swarth of ancient cultures and people into it's tapestry, including ancient Aethiopia.

Yes, Kingdoms of the ancient world all had many names for themselves, their people and their land that they used depending on the circumstances

are you german? You seem to write like a german.

No, there was a legitimate effort to erase traces of African influence throughout history at one time. This is why we still have people who have such deep rooted misconceptions in regards to the ancient history of Africa

Yup. Sorry about the weird grammar and errors and all. I'm tired as fuck.

>The Greek Mythological canon encompasses so much more than just the Aegean Peninsula, and integrates a vast swarth of ancient cultures and people into it's tapestry, including ancient Aethiopia

>Mentioned 3 times in all of Greek Canon
>Influential

Just stop, you're not fooling anyone.

But wouldn't there still me at least SOME archeological findings or at least genealogic genetic testing to support any of it? Or historians from other cultures, who could back it up?

Perseus saving Aethiopia from Cetus and bringing Andromeda back to Argos as his Queen is the myth that ushered in the Heroic Age of the Greek Mythological canon. Andromeda, the princess of Aethiopia was the Matriarch of the dynasty of Kings progenerated by Perseus that would rule most of Mycenaean civilization.

OP HERE

to be fair some things are just buried under the ''accepted narrative''

example;if you said Thomas Edison invented the light bulb no one would ever question you

if you research the light bulb you will find the Edison technical just improved it, not created it(not to take away from tom, light bulbs are freaking awesome)

if you dig deeper you find that Edison wouldn't have been able to make it without the help without 2 other people, one of which happened to be a black man who wrote an entire book about the subject.

despite all of this if you said ''Edison invented the light bulb'' no one would ever challenge you, some people might even consider you a prick if you do challenge the narrative

depends on who you're talking though

t. philosopher

What wasn't destroyed from time and the shifting of civilizations was actively erased and pushed into obscurity. There are still traces that we can see, but you have to deep dig and have the right mind to discern the truth from the lies of both African and European historical revisionists who are both attempting to twist history for their own agenda.

>Perseus saving Aethiopia from Cetus and bringing Andromeda back to Argos as his Queen is the myth that ushered in the Heroic Age of the Greek Mythological canon. Andromeda, the princess of Aethiopia was the Matriarch of the dynasty of Kings progenerated by Perseus that would rule most of Mycenaean civilization.

[CITATION NEEDED]

But that is just the difference between historians and common sense history.
We are talking about actual historians doing basic research, with a bias that we know of. I think it's a valid point to raise the question if that bias may have significantly influenced this basic research, establishing a normative understanding which hasn't been (or couldn't have been) seriously challenged in nearly a century.
One might assume that Arabic or Persian historians would have mentioned the big black dudes at their dionysian parties with the Greeks. And what interesting things they brought to the table.

Even with only the most basic study of the Greek mythological canon you would know that Perseus is the first great champion of the Olympians, the grandfather of Herakles and the founder of the Danaan dynasty of Kings in Argos with his Queen Andromeda, whom he rescued from the Cetus in Aethiopia

>a sort of pseudo-capitalist society wherein class divides existed but the rich were thought of as owing a sort of symbolic debt to the poor. So the lower economic class equalled the more-respect social class, in a sense, and this resulted in a totally docile social structure where people had no motivation to move forward.
Why does this sound so familiar?

why are we always having these huge "my ancient ancestors are better than your ancient ancestors" shitstorms.

1. Africa is too goddamn big to compare against continents a fraction of the size. That's not a fair assessment. Egypt or Ethiopia would be more mathematically sound.
2. All ancient civilizations had kingdoms of varying technological advancement. Just watch the fuckin history channel.
3. Aryans can only pull the "superiority" card when they lasso in the accomplishments of Mediterranean countries under the blanket term "white".
4. No matter what race you are, having ancestors that were relatively more advanced than their neighbors doesn't justify your existence. You're still just a shut-in neckbeard.

Stop posting

...

There are tons of material and textual evidence for advanced civilisation in West Africa. Kingdoms, empires, trading networks, even sophisticated metalworking and sculpture... It isn't even controversial. You can't deny it without resorting to elaborate conspiracy theories. Basing your self-esteem on your membership of 'muh glorious white race' is pathetic AF

Arabic and Persian historians engage in ethnocentric historical revisionism themselves, so it would take extensive sifting through historical records with a sharp sense of discernment to find such accounts.

Funny that you should mention black men at Dionysian parties though, as it brought to mind this Roman mosaic that depicts Herakles as a black man in a drinking contest with Dionysus, part of a collection of Roman art in a museum in Syria

It's insane to me how people still don't realize that the narrative of Aryan racial supremacy is among the most severe examples of historical revisionism the modern world has seen

I'd disagree about their technology bring primitive. West Africans had iron tools, agriculture, boats, and a pretty developed mining economy.

What they lacked was connection to the Mediterranean and Silk Road networks of technological (and ideological!) exchange

Did you read the Silk Roads history book?

What are Aryans anyway? Northern Europeans? They only had a fraction of the relevance Southern Europeans had for most of history. Caucasians? That, weirdly enough, also includes North Africa. Are we simply considering them Europeans as in the descendants of Germanic and Norse tribes? If so, they had little to no relevance until the fall of the Roman Empire.

According to Nazi ideology, in a purely human and historical context, Aryans are people of strictly northern European bloodlines and the untainted bloodlines of German royalty. In an occult context, the Aryans were an ancient Atlantean super race that once ruled the earth, centered around Northern Europe, but now lives in caverns deep beneath the earth

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Proto-Indo-Europeans

Though the real answer is no one fucking knows.

well they still managed to start both of our only World Wars. That's an accomplishment.

>people really think Europeans are some master race
>Alexander the Great invades straight the fuck away from it, for the actual riches of the Middle East and India
>Rome take Britannia, and promptly fucking leaves because it's poor as fuck
>Angry ass Germanic tribes ransack the last bastion of civilisation on that dreary grey continent
>Proceed to then act as if they're the lineage of Hellenistic culture, when Greeks and Romans thought them violent barbarians
>Only cited accomplishment is to prove the Greeks and Romans absolutely right, and out violence the entire world in a stunning build up of aggressive nation states and military technology that culminates in a slave trade, the genocide of America and two global wars
>"muh white is right"

I've said this before, I'll say it again to the /pol/ebs. Every country I've been to thinks they're the best. I've had North Indian call South Indians dirty niggers. I've had homosexual friends call my shoes fucking gay. I've heard a Jewish Muslim call someone his brother a kike. We all think ourselves superior and that's why we're all equally wrong, equally empty, and equally human.

>unironically believes in "legitimate history"

Nice spook, kiddo.

>a Jewish Muslim
A whatnow?

kek
what shoes were these?

All history is understood through the lens of one's own nation. All civilizations engaged in ethnocentric revisionism. That's why you have to look outside of these perceptions to glean the truth from history

I disagree with your assertion that we're all equally wrong and empty. There is genuine merit in having a cultural identity, especially understanding it in relation to other cultures

>he doesn't know of the Ahriman
Pleb

>The winner writes history.
What else is new?

Do a genealogical genetic test, m8.
We're all mutts.
And that's a good thing.

Say what you want but Europe was always anything but dreary and grey, that's just being geographically ignorant. One of the biggest difficulties the Romans had dealing with European tribes was that it was nothing but forests upon forests, while they were used to plains and generally more arid terrain.

>tfw ur cultural identity is mostly memes, post-ironic dissociation and accumulated detritus of globalized anglophone pop-culture

Do you really think the nazis even knew anything about Zoroastrianism?

...

This also applies to you:
Your cultural identity is all spooks and games.

...Of course they did. All German scholars knew of them. (Just not all of them cared.)

Case in point: Nietzsche

Europe's right next to Africa. They noticed each other quite a bit, which is why there's black Roman Emperors and all that talk about Catharage in Roman times.
Fucking Americans think they discovered black people one day in the watermelon patch, gets me everytime.

i think this book might be of value to someone here

Aithiopia is greek for "burnt faces".

youtu.be/fDER4JgWX3g

It's shit.

>it's shit

[citation needed]
i'm not memein, i've never read it, i just heard it was superb

your post made me kek

The richest person in history was the W African king Mansa Musa.

Whenever anything goes well for a country people attempt to rationalise, e.g. and this is not a joke, Britain was really great and had an empire because of really great weather. 18th and 19th century argument there.

When you attempt to legitimise, you exclude any country unlike your own. So protestant work ethic = all non Christian protestant nations are not as hard working and less successful.

It's this sort of argument that causes western peeps to just write off the entire continent of Africa for whatever reason even tho Nigeria right now is almost like another Saudi Arabia or Bahrain. Sum o dem in stoopid reach.

Why does this thread exist?

It is a blatant /pol/ thread.

>those trips
it's like when you put your enemy's head on a spear and leave it outside your gates for all to see.
/pol/ comes, gets BTFO'd, and we keep the thread on the first page as a warning to stay off our board

Anyone who wants to remain sane will accept some spook or another, even if he "knows better".

i made it because i was honestly curious if the ''lol, YOU WUZ KANGS'' argument had any substantial weight to it, otherwise why would so many anons push it forward so often? i guess my mistake was taking Veeky Forums trolls seriously for any fraction of time

i goofed in those regards

You are aware this is a board for discussing books?

>getting memed this hard
lad. this is Veeky Forums. We are so many layers deep in irony nobody knows what anyone is saying. racism is a tumblrina and redditor filter. we aren't actually racist. we aren't anything. we are memes shrouded in irony trying to hide an irreparable loneliness. don't take anything seriously. especially this post.

Weird facts: in Russia, all throughout my childhood I was taught(and other children) that Egyptians were really dark-skinned. It was in books and everything, the image is etched within my mind. I was really confused about the whole WE WUZ KANGS meme, and even after the recent findings, I can't picture Egyptians as anything but negroids, even though I know it's false.

Wasn't the case with my history classes, also in Russia.

sorry, i goofed

not to be a ''we wuz kangz'' example but wasn't edgypt mixed? i mean, you can find hieroglyphs of brown,black,and white peoplle standing together and just chillin.

It's basically pop history, the author isn't actually a historian, and it's at a ludicrously broad level of generalisation. Also he tilts at the mighty windmill that is the idea that history is determined by the colour of people's skin, which is an idea that since at least WW2 has been held by absolutely nobody except /pol/.

For these reasons actual historians hate it.

Do you honestly think you'd find an answer to that here?

It depends, I guess. It's not like we were indocrinated or something - everybody just assumed that egyptians are negroes. Which is dumb, because we were also taught about their descendants, Copts, who are clearly white.

He's just baitin'.

If I'm am not mistaken, they were once conquered by nubians and had nubian dinasty ruling them for hundred or so years before they got buttfucked by assyrians. Nubian mercenaries were also often employed as archers and horsemen, when Egyt wasn't at war with Nubia at least.

>do you honestly think you'd find that answer here

if your question was talking about how i posted a Veeky Forums question on Veeky Forums; yeah i know, i goofed, wont happen again

if your question was sarcasm that was pointing to the vast amounts of retardation on Veeky Forums; there are enough unstupid people on this site to warrant a question like this

This is why we must understand the spiritual Traditions of our ancient cultures first and foremost

The lands of the Nile drew people from across the entire Mediterranean world, from Europe, Arabia, and lands deeper into Africa