Why was sub-saharan africa incapable of creating any literature or poetry of great value?

>he's never read The Palm Wine Drinkard

anyways its pretty unreasonable to expect a creative culture which is centred on orality to produce masterpieces of the written word. that said, while its a bastardisation of authentic dialect, there's a lot of amazing creole fiction writers but Veeky Forums is obvs too busy jerking off old white men to pay attention

why are self-obsessed white boys so eager to commit genetic suicide? do you all just know your genes are innately inferior?

Malinese manuscripts are not just from Mali or solely from Malinese writers.

Monkies

Probably because of the white man.

Why?

>It is pathetic
Not really. Who speaks Occitan or Welsh? Who'd want to?

I'm sure they have folk lore and poetic sayings like "Ogga baga where the white women at?"
Who is the African Confucius? Can it be DMX?

Given the vast and vastly rich empires they had, I'm sure they had a lot more than that.

But who here can name a great work of Phoenician literature off the top of their head? Or Hittite? Fuck, I bet a lot of people'd have trouble with the fucking Persians.

And that's literally just talking about how works might be obscure, rather than lost forever.

>vast rich empires

Name one that wasn't on the Mediterranean, the Nile or entirely dependant on the slave trade.

Because there's literally no benefit to having a high iq in Sub-Saharan Africa. There's nothing you can do with it there

>do you all just know your genes are innately inferior?

Right that's why you were conquered and that's why you're in this board writing in the language of your anglo masters

Wait why does it matter whether the empire's dependant on the slave trade? It's still a big rich empire, it's gonna make art no matter where its money comes from.

Anyway, Benin is the obvious one (the empire, not the modern country), along with Mali. They obviously dealt in slaves, but it wasn't the root of their empire-ness.

>if you don't conform to my arbitrary restraints you are wrong!

>names two empires almost entirely dependant on the slave trade

It matters because the empires dependant on the slave trade didn't develop naturally on their own course.
They sprang up when Europeans came to buy manflesh and sell guns and education.

They're not arbitrary since the go to prove that no black nation developed on its own but instead relied entirely on outside help.

>It matters because the empires dependant on the slave trade didn't develop naturally on their own course.
But why does that matter.

Anyway, both of those empires are way older than European contact you dumb fuck. You're thinking of places like Dahomey (modern Benin).

>Strindberg
>berg
>BERG

They existed before European contact as petty kingdoms, not vast rich empires, is the point being made.

Except that's wrong you dumb nigger.

Even if it were true...so what? Do you think the Eternal Yuro is such a bad influence they'd actively prevent rich empires from making art? If anything they'd make them richer, thereby letting them make even more art.

The eternal excuse.

Name one good Rhodesian piece of literature. Don't give me any of that nigger crap, I want good white shit.

I don't understand what you're saying.
That's the way it's spelled on all my books.

Except it's not wrong you vile racist.
Don't think I mentioned art at all.

It's a subtle way to say "jew". But it seems that Strindberg was against jews so, good.

They propably created a shit ton of poetry and a shit ton of stories with great value. The problem is just that they really never wrote them down, so they went lost. Thier stories were propably told next to a fireplace to entertain each other or get over the misery of a fallen village member or something and were shared from mouth to mouth. Since they lived rather isolated, they didn't need to establish a common language or a writing system as there was really no reason to develop one. And since there was next to no contact with societies which had one, they were never written down by outsiders. The stuff was there, but it went lost

>it's not wrong
Mansa Munsa was born in 1280.
>Don't think I mentioned art at all.
No I don't think you have. Have you read the OP of this thread you slavering memer?

>They're not arbitrary since the go to prove that no black nation developed on its own but instead relied entirely on outside help.

>if a black nation is on the Nile or the Mediterranean it means that it florished only because Europe existed
>this does not apply to Europe, even if its first up to 2 thousands years ago it had only 2 major civilizations (who were on par with its North-African and Middle Eastern counterparts, if not inferior)

Nice polemic, my friend

He's probably American. Americans don't realise what they think of as Jewish names are just German words.

Mansa Munsa was white.

Life is too easy, there is no need to invent shit in Africa. It's always warm. Water is either there or your die and food can be hunted with sticks.

>tfw someone else looked up his wikipedia page and ctrl-fd "jew"

You're thinking of Australia.

I'd hug you.

WE
WUZ

NIGGERS

>mali empire
>dependant almost entirely on slave trade with rest of muslim world

Dude, stop kidding yourself.
Why would I mention art when i'm only taking issue with one part of the post?

>if a black nation is on the Nile or the Mediterranean it means that it florished only because Europe existed

I literally said nothing of the sort.
There were no black nations on the Mediterranean coast for most of history and only one worth mentioning on the Nile, which was just a pale imitation of Egypt.
Besides, none of those would be sub-saharan.

>Why would I mention art when i'm only taking issue with one part of the post?
But you're not taking issue with any part of the post.

Big nig-nog empires existed, as I said. You admit this. Do you identify anywhere within that "and they were strong independent empires who didn't need no Mussies"?

>I literally said nothing of the sort.

You did.

>Besides, none of those would be sub-saharan.

You're the one who mentioned civilizations that lived alongside the Mediterranean and the Nile: of course we're not talking about sub-saharian civilizations.

POL BTFO !!!

Eh, I lost track of my shitposting.

>You did.
Quote me then.

> IQdifferencesworldwide.jpg

>Name one that wasn't on the Mediterranean, the Nile or entirely dependant on the slave trade.

You've implied that, before you no one did mention the words ''Mediterranean'' and ''Nile''.

Are you being purposefully obtuse?
I don't see how that translates into.
>if a black nation is on the Nile or the Mediterranean it means that it florished only because Europe existed

Oh fuck we better discard Rome and Greece from the list of great empires then

Not really lost, there are lots of tribes and groups with a living oral tradition, and even a lot of tribes who got westernized were registered by anthropologists and mythologists in the XVIIIth century

You've then said

>They're not arbitrary since the go to prove that no black nation developed on its own but instead relied entirely on outside help.

>greece was a thing
kek

Rome wasn't very dependant on the slave trade.
Slaves just enhanced what was already there.
You should've said Sparta, then you'd have had a point.

>greece was a thing
>Rome wasn't very dependant on the slave trade.

Europe isn't the only thing outside of black Africa you silly billy.

>Greece was not a thing
Jesus fucking Christ someone please make /pol/ go away, I can't stand this retardation anymore. Even if we ignore that slavery was a huge part of roman society, you can't possibly claim Greece isn't the cradle of any dumb notions of "Europe" or "West" you might have, Rome itself was the biggest greekaboo in history.

They don't need to.

From the same post you mention Europeans as the main drive of the North-African and Middle Eastern civilizations:
>It matters because the empires dependant on the slave trade didn't develop naturally on their own course.
>They sprang up when Europeans came to buy manflesh and sell guns and education.

Also, in relationship to the part of their history which was not related in any sort of way to European civilizations, you say:
>They existed before European contact as petty kingdoms, not vast rich empires, is the point being made.

You faggots complain about black people making shit up about the history but I've never met any black rights activist who would go to the lenghts of intellectual malabarism your average /pol/tard goes on a hourly basis.

Don't be so harsh, they've just discovered that Greek people were not white, and that, until the second half of the first millenium a.C, white people were basically barbars.

Of course in a few months from now the Greeks will be seen as a sign of degeneration and the le Gaul heritage meme will intensify.

As long as they keep my nigga out of their retardation, I'm fine.

The Roman economy was not dependant on the slave trade, unless you consider plebs to be slaves.

Greece wasn't unified you buffoons.
The city states, which varied in their forms of government and economies, occasionally allied but that didn't make Greece a thing.

>From the same post you mention Europeans as the main drive of the North-African and Middle Eastern civilizations

LITERALLY, said nothing of the sort.
If you learned to read you'd know I was talking about the west African empires with those quotes.

What even are you?

>he doesn't know about the black israelites

>The Roman economy was not dependant on the slave trade, unless you consider plebs to be slaves.

>he actually thinks free labour was not a influential factor in Rome's rise

I'm actually laughing at you

youtube.com/watch?v=bfL1UzreWQY

>LITERALLY, said nothing of the sort.
>If you learned to read you'd know I was talking about the west African empires with those quotes.

I've quoted in succession all of your posts.
Stop lying, maybe re-read them and just admit that you were making shit up as you were writing these posts.
We already know it, by the way: your confession is not really needed.

Being as historically accurate than black israelites is nothing to be proud of. Their ''WE WUZ KANGZ'' is costantly parroted by pathetic pol/hacks/ here on Veeky Forums (and Veeky Forums too, dunno about the other boards).

Yes I do, but I happen to have travelled a little bit and that sort of retardation is mostly american. It's not that they're black, it's that they had the bad luck to have their ancestors sent to the worst cesspit of moral degradation and intellectual erosion in the history of mankind.
You know that kind of annoying nouveau-riche who keeps a instagram profile solely to exibit new trinkets and brand-of-the-month champagne? This is how the US sounds to the rest of the world, only extremely armed and frequently governed by unstable degenerates with access to the capacity to blow planet Earth five times over.

>unless you consider plebs to be slaves
You should, yeah. Roman peasants were utterly shat on.
>Greece wasn't unified you buffoons.
It was at various points in history. In any case, Greece doesn't have to be unified to exist as a cultural concept. The Greeks thought of themselves as Greek, even if they also thought of themselves as, say, Theban, or Spartan.

Anyway you're confusing yourself. By your own argument, you presumably DON'T think it's slavery itself which prevents an empire from growing by itself, but instead contact with...other peoples? Your whole idea of "natural course" is shot anyway, seeing as whatever happens IS the natural course. You don't think the Romans encountered Greek colonists? You don't think the Germanic empires were precipitated by the Romans?

>be wrong
>MUH AMERICA
>MUH /pol/!

>THE HOLOCAUST IS A JOKE
>HEIL HITLER
>YOU WUZ ROBBIN THE GERMANZ
>YOU WUZ OPPRESSIN THE GERMANZ

AHAHAHAHAH

>j-just let me believe that Mansa Musa was white, p-please

uuuu

>he thinks the roman empire was built by slave trading
I'm actually laughing at you

>Name one that wasn't on the Mediterranean, the Nile or entirely dependant on the slave trade.

My first post very clearly differentiates between those that only exist by trading slaves and those near the Mediterranean and Nile.
It's not my problem if you only read each post in a vacuum.

>peasants are the same as slaves

Wew lad.

>greece doesn't have to be unified to exist as a cultural concept

We're were not talking culture though, we were talking about economies and government.
That's why I pointed out that you can't lump all of Greece together.

>but instead contact with...other peoples
No, your entire empire being dependant on external help is unnatural.

shit meme book

I can't believe the stupidity of a board dedicated to reading. Without primary sources then you can't make any claim to certainty about how or why African empires developed. historiography about africa comes from outside secondary sources. wtf do they teach in American high school history lol.

great contribution - i am blown away by the waves of superior intelligence radiating off of your post

Oh sorry. Africa was built off of the slave trade! Except early contact empires on the nile and med where we can't deny the primary sources!

Why do gentiles always fall so easily for jewish pseudo-history?

>this explains their lack of literature

Besides the thousands of books in mali you mean. Guess thats just a jewish conspiracy

mali is half-saharan half sub-saharan

Mali was a multicultural empire. Sub saharans also studied in timbuktu

Gentiles are daft as a brick of shit and believe whatever's touted as the next great thing on social media. Every fucking time.

People like Tai Lopez feed the gentiles all the jewish pseudo-shite that hits the markets to maintain a certain level of internet guru fagdom.

Prime example: homo deus.

Serfs are the same as slaves, yes.

Trade is not external help you dolt.

It neatly explains absolutely everything, which is what people want to hear.

I hope you're not being serious. They're are several African languages that have written forms: Igbo for example.

There are lots that don't, too.

Why would tribal people "write" literature. They only need to have an oral tradition of story telling.

If you live in a small, primitive community, you don't have a need for writing. You can tell stories through dance and hear them from skilled story tellers in your tribe.

People tend to look down on tribal societies, but we have to remember that feudalism and agricultural societies were pretty fucked up, really.

I'd much rather live in a nice tribe without literature than be some peasant farmer with literature (which I wouldn't be likely to understand anyway).

It took centuries of feudalism for Eurasian civilisation to reach a point where most people could write and read books.

Most of sub-Saharan Afirca is either still tribally based, or are dirt poor and still feeling the fuck-uppery of colonial intervention and subsequent desertion. There aren't enough educated, literate blacks in sub-saharan Africa to have any wealth of literature.

But there ARE works of literature from sub-saharan Africa, so the initial premise is wrong anyway.

Africa's pretty similar, honestly.

The tribal people in African live pretty well. It's the agricultural and city people who tend to die, suffer from aids and be victim of famine.

Sure but what I mean is that Africa's had loads of agricultural and city people for ages, while Australia didn't.

>2017
>white people still think that they are superior

Try to think, or go back to pol you retards.

No one man has any right to be this handsome.

Try reading some actual African poems and epics, plebs

Is this any good?

it's fucken epic

Is this the shit Marlon James is basing his new novel on?