Lol...Wow...I just started reading through this thread and the self hate is OFF the chain. I am going to get a lot of hate for saying this, but sometimes I think our Somali resident AKA Ajuran is right about non horner blacks inferiority complex and black horners having more pride. I don't know...For some reason Horners, Elongated and Muslim Africans have more pride than non Muslim/Horner Africans...I guess because:
1. They were not isolated from non blacks for a long time. So they are not naive like non Horner/Muslim Africans.
2. They enslaved whites/Europeans before. So they don't see them as Gods or superior.

This goes for Somalis, Ethiopians, Northern Sudanese, Tuaregs, Fulanis, Hausa's,Berbers, Mandinka's, Beja's and other Muslim Africans. I am going to get EVEN MORE HATE for this, but I think Christian Africans have been FAR more brainwashed than Muslim Africans and have more of an inferiority complex than Christian Africans. I mean just look at these comments. Christianity in Africa is recent Africa(please don't bring up Ethiopia, because the Christianity brought to most of Africa was brought by Europeans) and is mostly a European type one.

Colonization must have did some huge brainwashing for Africans to consider Europeans Gods. Again like I always say, Europeans and Europe were nothing until the Industrial revolution. Europeans weren't even responsible for most of the worlds inventions. Most were already invented by Asians and Middle Easterners. Do Africans not release that Europe during the dark ages was no different from the Democratic Republic of Congo?? White people are not the worlds saving grace. If anything its the Chinese, Persians, Ancient Egyptians, Indians and Middle Easterners who innovated many things. For crying out loud whites prior to the industrial revolution didn't really know how to utilize hygiene.

Again only non horners/Muslim Africans see whites as Gods due to their nativity. The only ones that don't are Angolans and Zimbabweans because they learned THE HARD WAY....Especially Zimbabweans.

HA! This is exactly what I'm talking about!

The ignorance...Simple research on Africa would till you that Africa DID have most of these things and DID do these things. Africans never sailed Somalis? Swahili states?

See what I mean with the brainwashed self hate?

Sehnsucht: Since the dawn of history the negro has owned the continent of Africa--rich beyond the dream of poet's fancy, crunching acres of diamonds beneath his bare black feet. Yet he never picked one up from the dust until a white man showed to him its glittering light. His land swarmed with powerful and docile animals, yet he never dreamed a harness, cart, or sled. A hunter by necessity, he never made an axe, spear, or arrowhead worth preserving beyond the moment of its use. He lived as an ox, content to graze for an hour. In a land of stone and timber he never sawed a foot of lumber, carved a block, or built a house save of broken sticks and mud. With league on league of ocean strand and miles of inland seas, for four thousand years he watched their surface ripple under the wind, heard the thunder of the surf on his beach, the howl of the storm over his head, gazed on the dim blue horizon calling him to worlds that lie beyond, and yet he never dreamed a sail! He lived as his fathers lived--stole his food, worked his wife, sold his children, ate his brother, content to drink, sing, dance, and sport as the ape!

KidStranglehold: HA! This is exactly what I'm talking about!

The ignorance...Simple research on Africa would till you that Africa DID have most of these things and DID do these things. Africans never sailed Somalis? Swahili states?

See what I mean with the brainwashed self hate?

he's from 4chan.

KidStranglehold: Lol...Wow...I just started reading through this thread and the self hate is OFF the chain. I am going to get a lot of hate for saying this, but sometimes I think our Somali resident AKA Ajuran is right about non horner blacks inferiority complex and black horners having more pride. I don't know...For some reason Horners, Elongated and Muslim Africans have more pride than non Muslim/Horner Africans...I guess because:
1. They were not isolated from non blacks for a long time. So they are not naive like non Horner/Muslim Africans.
2. They enslaved whites/Europeans before. So they don't see them as Gods or superior.

This goes for Somalis, Ethiopians, Northern Sudanese, Tuaregs, Fulanis, Hausa's,Berbers, Mandinka's, Beja's and other Muslim Africans. I am going to get EVEN MORE HATE for this, but I think Christian Africans have been FAR more brainwashed than Muslim Africans and have more of an inferiority complex than Christian Africans. I mean just look at these comments. Christianity in Africa is recent Africa(please don't bring up Ethiopia, because the Christianity brought to most of Africa was brought by Europeans) and is mostly a European type one.

Colonization must have did some huge brainwashing for Africans to consider Europeans Gods. Again like I always say, Europeans and Europe were nothing until the Industrial revolution. Europeans weren't even responsible for most of the worlds inventions. Most were already invented by Asians and Middle Easterners. Do Africans not release that Europe during the dark ages was no different from the Democratic Republic of Congo?? White people are not the worlds saving grace. If anything its the Chinese, Persians, Ancient Egyptians, Indians and Middle Easterners who innovated many things. For crying out loud whites prior to the industrial revolution didn't really know how to utilize hygiene.

Again only non horners/Muslim Africans see whites as Gods due to their nativity. The only ones that don't are Angolans and Zimbabweans because they learned THE HARD WAY....Especially Zimbabweans.

You're lying to yourself bub.

Sure looks like these people from early Timbuktu needed their white Gods to build the city which was bigger than London at the time...
[img]http://www.thenational.ae/storyimage/AB/20130130/ARTICLE/301309963/AR/0/AR-301309963.jpg&MaxW=460&imageVersion=default[/img]

Meanwhile those same Africans from Timbuktu were enslaving their white gods in the masses.

And where was white people until the Industrial Revolution AKA the modern world?

Neolithic Revolution
9000 BC Asia
8000 BC Africa
7000 BC Europe

Bronze Age
3300 BC Asia
3200 BC Europe
3150 BC Africa

Civilization
3100 BC Africa
3000 BC Asia
1900 BC Europe

Iron Age
1300 Asia
1300 Africa
1200 Europe

Industrial Revolution
1750 Europe
1870 Asia
Africa has yet to ''Industrialize'' with South Africa being the first and only one which doesn't count as it was the British who did it.

PAPA AFRICA: he's from 4chan.

Yes, I can confirm that renowned evolutionary biologist Charles Darwin is from 4chan. He simply does not use a tripcode because he understands that people will know him by his words alone.

PAPA AFRICA: he's from 4chan.

Just found out that he is.

Don't feed it strangle, its a white guy from 4chan.

PAPA AFRICA: Don't feed it strangle, its a white guy from 4chan.

Nah...I'll debate.

bertholdt:
Yes, I can confirm that renowned evolutionary biologist Charles Darwin is from 4chan. He simply does not use a tripcode because he understands that people will know him by his words alone.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Charles_Darwin
12 February 1809 – 19 April 1882
"Charles Darwin is from 4chan"

LOL

Lel

Sehnsucht:



You're lying to yourself bub.

Nonsense...How can you measure accomplishments throughout the world? That is clearly a Eurocentric chart claiming that 97% of accomplishments came from Europe??

No one is lying here. Sorry.

KidStranglehold: Sure looks like these people from early Timbuktu needed their white Gods to build the city which was bigger than London at the time...
[img]http://www.thenational.ae/storyimage/AB/20130130/ARTICLE/301309963/AR/0/AR-301309963.jpg&MaxW=460&imageVersion=default[/img]

Meanwhile those same Africans from Timbuktu were enslaving their white gods in the masses.

And where was white people until the Industrial Revolution AKA the modern world?

Neolithic Revolution
9000 BC Asia
8000 BC Africa
7000 BC Europe

Bronze Age
3300 BC Asia
3200 BC Europe
3150 BC Africa

Civilization
3100 BC Africa
3000 BC Asia
1900 BC Europe

Iron Age
1300 Asia
1300 Africa
1200 Europe

Industrial Revolution
1750 Europe
1870 Asia
Africa has yet to ''Industrialize'' with South Africa being the first and only one which doesn't count as it was the British who did it.

You make a lot of implications that are both irrelevant and unhistorical. The civilizations of Arabia that settled the Northern Coast of Africa were not African, they were Arabs. It is no different in regards to Ancient Egypt. Modern day "black activists" like to appropriate the civilizational achievements of the Mediterraneans and Arabs.

The fact that you ignore European history in the space between the Agricultural Revolution and the Industrial one is also amusing. It reveals you as someone with no knowledge of antiquity.

The Iron age occurred in the period of 1300BC-700AD, and saw the rise and fall of white Greek city states - the conquests of Alexander and the development of the Roman Empire.

White people prior to industrialization were colonizing the Americas, developing the concepts of the rights of man, driving back the Muslims from Iberia, developing codes of chivalry and some of the most famous art the world has ever known.

Where were blacks during this period? Fucking goats and still wiping their asses with their bare hands.

Another is coming.

If whites were so advanced and were the Earths saving grace. Why was Europe such a non factor until after the dark ages Especially Britain which is always said to be the highest level of civilization.



".. there was no English commercial revolution, no development of banks and credit facilities that can be claimed for thirteenth-century Italy. One consequence of this relative backwardness was that in the thirteenth century, an increasing proportion of England's foreign trade came to be in Italian hands.. In a very real sense late thirteenth-century England was being treated as a partially developed economy. Much of its import-export business was handled by foreigners (Gascons and Flemings as well as Italians. Its main exports were aw materials - wool and grain- rather than manufactured goods, There had been, in other words, no industrial revolution."

.. Moreover, despite the claims sometimes made for the cloth-fulling mill, there were no significant advances in industrial technology. Nor was there anything to compare with the highly capitalized development of the Flemish cloth industry in the twelfth and thirteenth centuries."

"..Above all, there was no agricultural revolution.. the technical limitations under which they worked meant no significant increase in yields was possible, neither from sheep in terms of weight of fleece, nor from seed in terms of yield of grain. Though the use of the horse as a draught animal was spreading, this was of marginal importance. ."

".. Thus in many respect England remained a stagnant economy. It can indeed be argued that by comparison with some of its neighbors, especially Flanders and Italy, England was less advanced in the thirteenth century than it had been in the eleventh.. In twelfth and thirteenth-century England, people felt they lived in a country which was economically advanced by comparison with the lands of their Celtic neighbours."

--John Gillingham, Ralph Alan Griffiths. 2002. Medieval Britain: a very short introduction.

Now compare this to Mali during its day.


Mali in the same 1200-1300 time period most likely
exceed numerous kingdoms in contemporary Europe
in terms of wealth, extent of territorial dominion,
and size of its armed forces. And this is before the
Black Death was to begin to ravage Europe. For example,
by the beginning of the 14th century,
Mali was the source of almost half the Old
World's gold exported from mines in Bambuk, Boure and Galam.
(--Stride, G.T & C. Ifeka. Peoples and Empires of
West Africa: West Africa in History 1000-1800".
Nelson, 1971)

But it gets better!!!!

The most important foundation of Malian power,
however, was control of gold, and it is as a man
of gold that Mansa Musa is still remembered. His story
is quite important to world economic history, since
the supply of gold he commanded played a crucial role
in the economic growth of the Mediterranean."
--Merry E. Wiesner 2002. Discovering the Global Past


So....Mali>>>>>>>>>Italy>>>Rest of Europe.

So the white gods should actually thank Africans for getting them out of the dark ages and into the Renaissance.

KidStranglehold:

Nonsense...How can you measure accomplishments throughout the world? That is clearly a Eurocentric chart claiming that 97% of accomplishments came from Europe??

No one is lying here. Sorry.

It should be obvious that you take some basic preset metric. Whether it is proven historical discoveries, developments in certain fields, number of patented inventions, ect. And then add them up.

KidStranglehold: If whites were so advanced and were the Earths saving grace. Why was Europe such a non factor until after the dark ages Especially Britain which is always said to be the highest level of civilization.



".. there was no English commercial revolution, no development of banks and credit facilities that can be claimed for thirteenth-century Italy. One consequence of this relative backwardness was that in the thirteenth century, an increasing proportion of England's foreign trade came to be in Italian hands.. In a very real sense late thirteenth-century England was being treated as a partially developed economy. Much of its import-export business was handled by foreigners (Gascons and Flemings as well as Italians. Its main exports were aw materials - wool and grain- rather than manufactured goods, There had been, in other words, no industrial revolution."

.. Moreover, despite the claims sometimes made for the cloth-fulling mill, there were no significant advances in industrial technology. Nor was there anything to compare with the highly capitalized development of the Flemish cloth industry in the twelfth and thirteenth centuries."

"..Above all, there was no agricultural revolution.. the technical limitations under which they worked meant no significant increase in yields was possible, neither from sheep in terms of weight of fleece, nor from seed in terms of yield of grain. Though the use of the horse as a draught animal was spreading, this was of marginal importance. ."

".. Thus in many respect England remained a stagnant economy. It can indeed be argued that by comparison with some of its neighbors, especially Flanders and Italy, England was less advanced in the thirteenth century than it had been in the eleventh.. In twelfth and thirteenth-century England, people felt they lived in a country which was economically advanced by comparison with the lands of their Celtic neighbours."

--John Gillingham, Ralph Alan Griffiths. 2002. Medieval Britain: a very short introduction.

Now compare this to Mali during its day.


Mali in the same 1200-1300 time period most likely
exceed numerous kingdoms in contemporary Europe
in terms of wealth, extent of territorial dominion,
and size of its armed forces. And this is before the
Black Death was to begin to ravage Europe. For example,
by the beginning of the 14th century,
Mali was the source of almost half the Old
World's gold exported from mines in Bambuk, Boure and Galam.
(--Stride, G.T & C. Ifeka. Peoples and Empires of
West Africa: West Africa in History 1000-1800".
Nelson, 1971)

But it gets better!!!!

The most important foundation of Malian power,
however, was control of gold, and it is as a man
of gold that Mansa Musa is still remembered. His story
is quite important to world economic history, since
the supply of gold he commanded played a crucial role
in the economic growth of the Mediterranean."
--Merry E. Wiesner 2002. Discovering the Global Past


So....Mali>>>>>>>>>Italy>>>Rest of Europe.

So the white gods should actually thank Africans for getting them out of the dark ages and into the Renaissance.

The first half of your post is basically irrelevant since it concerns the hinterlands of Europe being developed as such by the richer and better developed center. This is called a resource based economy is and is a phase most developing nations go though.

"Oh no, Mali managed to create a state based on exploiting it's resources? Oh no ;-;"

Is that what you expected me to say? I'm sorry, but it doesn't mean anything. Despite apparently being one of the richest states at the time no ruler of Mali was ever able to create a state with enduring institutions. It lasted for a couple hundred years until the gold ran out and then collapsed. We do not have any create cultural or scientific achievements to attribute to the state - so it remains a glorified resource ghetto.

Greetings brave Nigerian forum goers
I am from the Anglo-American board of /pol/, 4chan

I am also certain that the cultural exchange between Nairaland and 4chan will be a very fruitful with both sides learning many valuable things.
You may ask me anything about the Juden, the state of Western nations in this present day or the glory of National Socialism and the wonders it can do for you.

anyways we here at /pol/ hope to learn more about you Nigerians, we have already discovered you're scientific inquiries into midgets and we are also wishing you good luck with your space program/soccer games.

I shall conclude this message with a traditional reaction image depicting the average American.
best wishes Zyklon Ben

Aye...I've been waiting for a white racist to enter this forum and now one finally has. To tell you the truth, I am quite excited.

Sehnsucht:

You make a lot of implications that are both irrelevant and unhistorical.

Actually my claims are backed up by historians.

Just cited sources right now.

Sehnsucht:
The civilizations of Arabia that settled the Northern Coast of Africa were not African, they were Arabs. It is no different in regards to Ancient Egypt. Modern day "black activists" like to appropriate the civilizational achievements of the Mediterraneans and Arabs.

This is hilarious. Sorry but indignous population of Northern coast of Africa were AFRICANS. Even before the Carthaginians. This is how the Romans THEMSELVES depicted the native North Africans.


But anyways lets get back to the Carthaginians. Yes Carthage was of Phoenician origins, but Carthage soon became much different from Phoenicia and became more and more of African/Eurasian mix. But even still Carthage culture was primary African and the indigenous population was AFRICAN. And the African population soon became more numerous as evident by this...

To what extent Carthaginians employed Negro slaves is doubtful. Punic cemeteries have yielded numerous skulls of a negroid character, and there were some very dark-skinned Africans, perhaps negroes, in the Carthaginian army which invaded Sicily early in the fifth century B.C. Frontinus tells us that as prisoners they were paraded naked before the Greeks soldiery in order to bring the Carthaginians into contempt. On the other hand, as the Carthaginians customarily enslved prisoners of war and the victims of their piracy, two sources of supply which they must have found very fruiful, they were far from being dependent on Africa for slave labour. It is unlikely that they hesitated to enslaved as many Berbers as they required, nor were so brutal a people likely to have drawn the line at doing the same to their own peasantry. The evidence of negro blood, is, however, significant and it seems probable that they imported slaves from the Fezzan. It was a likely source, for the Garamantes cannot have hunted the Troglodyte Ethiopians except to enslave them. The slave trade with the Fezzan may have been important tot he Carthaginians, but there are no grounds for assuming that it was.

The golden trade of the Moors: West African kingdoms in the fourteenth century
By E. W. Bovill, Robin Hallet
pp. 21-22


In the Punic burial grounds, negroid remains were not rare and there were black auxiliaries in the Carthaginian army who were certainly not Nilotics. Furthermore, if we are to believe Diodorus(XX, 57.5), a lieutenant of Agathocles in northern Tuninisa at the close of the fourth century before our era overcame a people who skin was similar to the Ethiopian'. There is much evidence of the presence of 'Ethiopians' on the southern borders of Africa Minor. Throughout the classical period, mention is also made of peoples belonging to intermediate races, the Melano-Getules, or Leuco-Ethiopians in particular in Ptolemy.


General History of Africa: Ancient civilizations of Africa By G. Mokhtar, Unesco. International Scientific Committee for the Drafting of a General History of Africa
p. 427

Not only that lets not forget the Riff pirates who were enslaving Europeans in the masses...



As for the Ancient Egyptians, sorry but modern anthropology disagrees with you...

Source:
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/19215865

Incidentally, many of the STRs used in this study are the same ones that tied ancient Egyptians to sub-Saharan Africans in the DNA Tribes analysis.

Mind you, I'm not saying darker skin and other African physical traits in modern Upper Egyptians weren't inherited from the ancient populations. However they are still far removed from the ancients even if it's to a lesser degree than the modern northerners.

HA! Its not us who are stealing other peoples history but you Eurocentris who are obsessed with African civilizations.

KidStranglehold: Aye...I've been waiting for a white racist to enter this forum and now one finally has. To tell you the truth, I am quite excited.


Actually my claims are backed up by historians.

Just cited sources right now.


This is hilarious. Sorry but indignous population of Northern coast of Africa were AFRICANS. Even before the Carthaginians. This is how the Romans THEMSELVES depicted the native North Africans.


But anyways lets get back to the Carthaginians. Yes Carthage was of Phoenician origins, but Carthage soon became much different from Phoenicia and became more and more of African/Eurasian mix. But even still Carthage culture was primary African and the indigenous population was AFRICAN. And the African population soon became more numerous as evident by this...


To what extent Carthaginians employed Negro slaves is doubtful. Punic cemeteries have yielded numerous skulls of a negroid character, and there were some very dark-skinned Africans, perhaps negroes, in the Carthaginian army which invaded Sicily early in the fifth century B.C. Frontinus tells us that as prisoners they were paraded naked before the Greeks soldiery in order to bring the Carthaginians into contempt. On the other hand, as the Carthaginians customarily enslved prisoners of war and the victims of their piracy, two sources of supply which they must have found very fruiful, they were far from being dependent on Africa for slave labour. It is unlikely that they hesitated to enslaved as many Berbers as they required, nor were so brutal a people likely to have drawn the line at doing the same to their own peasantry. The evidence of negro blood, is, however, significant and it seems probable that they imported slaves from the Fezzan. It was a likely source, for the Garamantes cannot have hunted the Troglodyte Ethiopians except to enslave them. The slave trade with the Fezzan may have been important tot he Carthaginians, but there are no grounds for assuming that it was.

The golden trade of the Moors: West African kingdoms in the fourteenth century
By E. W. Bovill, Robin Hallet
pp. 21-22


In the Punic burial grounds, negroid remains were not rare and there were black auxiliaries in the Carthaginian army who were certainly not Nilotics. Furthermore, if we are to believe Diodorus(XX, 57.5), a lieutenant of Agathocles in northern Tuninisa at the close of the fourth century before our era overcame a people who skin was similar to the Ethiopian'. There is much evidence of the presence of 'Ethiopians' on the southern borders of Africa Minor. Throughout the classical period, mention is also made of peoples belonging to intermediate races, the Melano-Getules, or Leuco-Ethiopians in particular in Ptolemy.


General History of Africa: Ancient civilizations of Africa By G. Mokhtar, Unesco. International Scientific Committee for the Drafting of a General History of Africa
p. 427

Carthage was founded by Semetic Phoenicians that constructed an aparthied state that simultaneously conflicted with the Roman Republic and the native Berbers. The high presence of Berbers in graveyards and their eventual accommodation with their conquerors is no different than other documented imperialist states. To claim Carthage was an African civilization would be to claim the Ummayid Caliphate as being black despite the government being almost entirely composed of Arab overlords. Catharge was a proto-colonialist civilization.

Further;

>claims Berbers as sub-Saharans
>proceeds to post art of Mediterraneans

Not only that lets not forget the Riff pirates who were enslaving Europeans in the masses...

I wasn't aware this was a competition in barbarism.

As for the Ancient Egyptians, sorry but modern anthropology disagrees with you...

Source:
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/19215865

Incidentally, many of the STRs used in this study are the same ones that tied ancient Egyptians to sub-Saharan Africans in the DNA Tribes analysis.

Mind you, I'm not saying darker skin and other African physical traits in modern Upper Egyptians weren't inherited from the ancient populations. However they are still far removed from the ancients even if it's to a lesser degree than the modern northerners.

HA! Its not us who are stealing other peoples history but you Eurocentris who are obsessed with African civilizations.

The findings from the UNESCO conference debated the points of agreement and disagreement concerning the Black hypothesis and other theories, and concluded that the ancient Egyptians were not black. The current position of modern scholarship is that the Egyptian civilization was an indigenous Nile Valley development. Try harder rather than posting old debunked theories from black power activists in the 1980s.

http://www.worldcat.org/title/ancient-civilizations-of-africa-abridged-ed/oclc/466173067&referer=brief_results

Sehnsucht:
The fact that you ignore European history in the space between the Agricultural Revolution and the Industrial one is also amusing. It reveals you as someone with no knowledge of antiquity.

Um...No. I didn't ignore swat. The point is that Europeans were late to must things. Yes I obviously know about antiquity and the Romans and Greeks. But again most were late comers. The Greeks were greatly influenced by Asians. Hell why do you think theres comething called a Orientalizing period in Greece. HA!
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Orientalizing_period

As for the Romans they were just conquers and took much of their ideas from the Greeks. The Romans were also intolerant of science. Remember they killed Archimedes and started the process of destroying the great libraries of Alexandria. Once Christianity became the Religion of the empire , temples which housed pagan knowledge were closed down all over the empire . The Christianized Romans banned the Olympic games and closed down the Philosophy school of Athens.

However, Technological and scientific advancement shifted to the middle east and Byzantium. The Arab conquerors sought to preserve ancient knowledge and translated the ancient Greek, Roman, Indian, Persian and Egyptian books into Arabic. This period is known as the Islamic golden age. The middle east became the center of learning , preserving Greek philosophy ( incidentally Averroes from Muslim Spain is considered the father of western secularism ). Advances in mathematics, astronomy, medicine, chemistry and engineering was transmitted to the west after the crusades and through Byzantium. It is not surprising that the renaissance started in Italy as they controlled the monopoly of trade to the east. China ,like other posts have answered was the most advanced state ( even Arabs and Europeans recognized that). However , its system of government prevented it from achieving its true potential.

The reason why China and the Middle east is as it is today is for the same reason as Rome fell, The barbarians. The Mongols annihilated China and central Asia. This trauma turned the Chinese into centuries of isolation and stagnation.

Compared to Persia, Greece, China, and Mesopotamia, Rome made few technological and scientific advances in it's long and tyrannical rule of the Mediterranean and western Europe.

The principle of my post is that Europeans were NOT the worlds saving grace like they want everyone to believe. I give them credit for the Industrial Revolution and defining the modern world. But before that...

Sehnsucht:
The Iron age occurred in the period of 1300BC-700AD, and saw the rise and fall of white Greek city states - the conquests of Alexander and the development of the Roman Empire.

Your point? Yes the Iron age occurred 1300BC, but it reached Europe later. Europeans did not develop Iron independently. Where as Africans especially West Africans did all of it on their own and in isolation.

Sehnsucht:
White people prior to industrialization were colonizing the Americas, developing the concepts of the rights of man, driving back the Muslims from Iberia, developing codes of chivalry and some of the most famous art the world has ever known.

1. Colonization the Americas? Okay. They only knew about the Americas by Columbus accidentally fining due to him originally wanting to find a different route to India due to the Ottomans blocking them from that route which they always known. Which shows that Europeans were not always on top, that they had to find a different route to India. Also the people of the Americas were living in the stone age so it was easy for Europeans to conquer them, lets now forget old world diseases. Yet many so claim Africans were savages living in the stone age, when they were way past.
2. Yeah the same African Muslims that colonized Iberia for 700 years and contributed much to Iberia.
3. Um...Yeah all cultures and groups had famous art. Moot point.

Sehnsucht:
Where were blacks during this period? Fucking goats and still wiping their asses with their bare hands.

Oh! Oh! I can play that game too! Where was your Northwest European ancestors during the time of the Romans. Getting conquered, not exactly because...

Caesar, in writing home, said of the Britons, “They are the most ignorant people I have ever conquered. They cannot be taught music.” Cicero, in writing to his friend Atticus, advised him not to buy slaves in England, “because,” said he, “they cannot be taught to read, and are the ugliest and most stupid race I ever saw.”
http://delong.typepad.com/sdj/2009/06/cicero-the-britons-are-too-stupid-to-make-good-slaves.html

See I can play that game too. Meanwhile West Africans during this time were building this.




Between 4000 BC and 1000 BC: At Tichitt-Walata—"Before 2000 BC, what is today the southern Sahara was inhabited by[b] significant numbers of herders and farmers[/b]. On the rocky promontories of the Tichitt-Walata (Birou) and Tagant Plateaus in modern day Mauritania, they built what are considered among the earliest known civilizations in western Africa. Composed of more than 400 stone masonry settlements, with clear street layouts, some settlements had massive surrounding walls while others were less fortified. In a deteriorating environment, where arable land and pasturage were at a premium, the population grew and relatively large-scale political organizations emerged - factors which no doubt explain the homogeneity of architecture, settlement patterns, and material culture (e.g., lithic and ceramic traditions). This agro-pastoral society traded in jewelry and semi-precious stones from distant parts of the Sahara and Sahel, while crafts, hunting, and fishing were also important economic pursuits...Their elites built funerary monuments for themselves over a period extending from 4000 to 1000 BC." [sources: see Ray A. Kea, and Mauny, R.(1971),“The Western Sudan” in Shinnie: 66-87. Monteil, Charles (1953),“La Légende du Ouagadou et l’Origine des Soninke” in Mélanges Ethnologiques (Dakar: Bulletin del’Institut Francais del’Afrique Noir)]

Sehnsucht:

The first half of your post is basically irrelevant since it concerns the hinterlands of Europe being developed as such by the richer and better developed center. This is called a resource based economy is and is a phase most developing nations go though.

Your point? Most of Europe was still underdeveloped. The only reason why Southern Europe was more developed was because:
1. Italy had more trade with the Near East than most of Europe and most of Mali's gold entered that part of Europe.
2. The Moors and Arabs contributed A LOT to Iberia and Sicily. Heck this Sicilian women ADMITS repeats ADMITS the African contribution to Sicily.
http://siciliangodmother./2013/05/20/what-have-the-africans-done-for-sicily/
^^^Again a Sicilian women.

Sehnsucht:
"Oh no, Mali managed to create a state based on exploiting it's resources? Oh no ;-;"

Where does it say exploiting?

Sehnsucht:
Is that what you expected me to say? I'm sorry, but it doesn't mean anything. Despite apparently being one of the richest states at the time no ruler of Mali was ever able to create a state with enduring institutions. It lasted for a couple hundred years until the gold ran out and then collapsed. We do not have any create cultural or scientific achievements to attribute to the state - so it remains a glorified resource ghetto.

Actually the Mali Empire lasted from 1230-1600's...And then the Songhai Empire took over and continued. No institutions or scientific achievements Is that why students from Europe and the Middle East came to study in Timbuktu because it had the best universities during its time as evident by this:

"The scholars of Timbuctoo yielded in nothing, to the saints in the sojourns in the foreign universities of Fez, Tunis, and Cairo. They astounded the most learned men of Islam by their erudition. That these Negroes were on a level with the Arabian savants is proved by the fact that they were installed as professors in Morocco and Egypt. In contrast to this, we find that Arabs were not always equal to the requirements of Sankore." 2 As a center of intellectual achievement, Timbuktu earned a place next to Cairo and other leading North African cities.

As for scientific achievements..
http://www.scribesoftimbuktu.com/promo-video.php

Yeah some gloried ghetto. *Sarcasm*

When Mali was more advanced than most of Europe at the time. LMAO!

Zyklon Ben: Greetings brave Nigerian forum goers
I am from the Anglo-American board of /pol/, 4chan

I am also certain that the cultural exchange between Nairaland and 4chan will be a very fruitful with both sides learning many valuable things.
You may ask me anything about the Juden, the state of Western nations in this present day or the glory of National Socialism and the wonders it can do for you.

anyways we here at /pol/ hope to learn more about you Nigerians, we have already discovered you're scientific inquiries into midgets and we are also wishing you good luck with your space program/soccer games.

I shall conclude this message with a traditional reaction image depicting the average American.
best wishes Zyklon Ben

I, too, wish for peace between our boards. Attached is a work of art by renowned American political cartoonist, Ben Garrison. Many of us look up to him as an ideological leader, due to his revolutionary efforts in exposing the hebrew menace.

KidStranglehold:

Um...No. I didn't ignore swat. The point is that Europeans were late to must things. Yes I obviously know about antiquity and the Romans and Greeks. But again most were late comers. The Greeks were greatly influenced by Asians. Hell why do you think theres comething called a Orientalizing period in Greece. HA!
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Orientalizing_period

This isn't really a discussion about Asians - who have shown that they do well when you actually take them away from the current Asian cultures of suppressing ingenuity.

"Asians" is a misnomer, considering we're talking about near Middle Eastern populations in modern day Iraq and the Levant - an area known as the "Fertile Crescent" because the climate was extremely well suited for civilization development.

As for the Romans they were just conquers and took much of their ideas from the Greeks. The Romans were also intolerant of science. Remember they killed Archimedes and started the process of destroying the great libraries of Alexandria. Once Christianity became the Religion of the empire , temples which housed pagan knowledge were closed down all over the empire . The Christianized Romans banned the Olympic games and closed down the Philosophy school of Athens.

You wot m8?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Roman_technology

The Romans achieved feats of engineering we are still surprised they reached today considering the times they lived in.

However, Technological and scientific advancement shifted to the middle east and Byzantium. The Arab conquerors sought to preserve ancient knowledge and translated the ancient Greek, Roman, Indian, Persian and Egyptian books into Arabic. This period is known as the Islamic golden age. The middle east became the center of learning , preserving Greek philosophy ( incidentally Averroes from Muslim Spain is considered the father of western secularism ). Advances in mathematics, astronomy, medicine, chemistry and engineering was transmitted to the west after the crusades and through Byzantium. It is not surprising that the renaissance started in Italy as they controlled the monopoly of trade to the east. China ,like other posts have answered was the most advanced state ( even Arabs and Europeans recognized that). However , its system of government prevented it from achieving its true potential.

Byzantium is a scholarly term that refers to the Eastern Roman Empire.

And again, this is not a discussion about the achievements of Arabs or the ability of their four hundred year lasting civilization to take advantage of it's position on the Silk Road and synthesize eastern and western achievements.

The reason why China and the Middle east is as it is today is for the same reason as Rome fell, The barbarians. The Mongols annihilated China and central Asia. This trauma turned the Chinese into centuries of isolation and stagnation.

The Mongols invaded Europe, and so did the Huns. However look at Europe today.

Compared to Persia, Greece, China, and Mesopotamia, Rome made few technological and scientific advances in it's long and tyrannical rule of the Mediterranean and western Europe.

Romans did not merely adapt other's achievements - though that was a great strength of their's. Any two minute internet search can reveal the hundreds of things they developed.

The principle of my post is that Europeans were NOT the worlds saving grace like they want everyone to believe. I give them credit for the Industrial Revolution and defining the modern world. But before that...

Even if we say Europe was an absolute shithole prior to that - which I dispute - the developments since then have been so impacting that it weighs more than almost anything that's gone before. European civilizations are the first civilizations to ever have the ability to project power on a global scale - even into space. Many Asian countries (especially China) still persist in a feudal peasant system.

Your point? Yes the Iron age occurred 1300BC, but it reached Europe later. Europeans did not develop Iron independently. Where as Africans especially West Africans did all of it on their own and in isolation.

Yes a whole hundred years. And I would not consider trade and conquest by Arabians as "did it all on their own".

1. Colonization the Americas? Okay. They only knew about the Americas by Columbus accidentally fining due to him originally wanting to find a different route to India due to the Ottomans blocking them from that route which they always known. Which shows that Europeans were not always on top, that they had to find a different route to India. Also the people of the Americas were living in the stone age so it was easy for Europeans to conquer them, lets now forget old world diseases. Yet many so claim Africans were savages living in the stone age, when they were way past.

Yet only a European was apparently brave enough to try to prove the world was round.

2. Yeah the same African Muslims that colonized Iberia for 700 years and contributed much to Iberia.

Arab Muslims conquered Iberia. And were driven out in the Reconquista and eventually ended up as a group of feuding tribes still living in the feudal age.

3. Um...Yeah all cultures and groups had famous art. Moot point.

Famous art are well known samples like Mona Lisa and The Dream of The Fisherman's Wife. Care to name some Zambian pieces of such fame?

Oh! Oh! I can play that game too! Where was your Northwest European ancestors during the time of the Romans. Getting conquered, not exactly because...

Caesar, in writing home, said of the Britons, “They are the most ignorant people I have ever conquered. They cannot be taught music.” Cicero, in writing to his friend Atticus, advised him not to buy slaves in England, “because,” said he, “they cannot be taught to read, and are the ugliest and most stupid race I ever saw.”
http://delong.typepad.com/sdj/2009/06/cicero-the-britons-are-too-stupid-to-make-good-slaves.html

My ancestors built Rome, not Britannia. Pointless ad hominem though, because even the British became civilized. Something Africa never achieved on any lasting scale.

See I can play that game too. Meanwhile West Africans during this time were building this.




Between 4000 BC and 1000 BC: At Tichitt-Walata—"Before 2000 BC, what is today the southern Sahara was inhabited by[b] significant numbers of herders and farmers[/b]. On the rocky promontories of the Tichitt-Walata (Birou) and Tagant Plateaus in modern day Mauritania, they built what are considered among the earliest known civilizations in western Africa. Composed of more than 400 stone masonry settlements, with clear street layouts, some settlements had massive surrounding walls while others were less fortified. In a deteriorating environment, where arable land and pasturage were at a premium, the population grew and relatively large-scale political organizations emerged - factors which no doubt explain the homogeneity of architecture, settlement patterns, and material culture (e.g., lithic and ceramic traditions). This agro-pastoral society traded in jewelry and semi-precious stones from distant parts of the Sahara and Sahel, while crafts, hunting, and fishing were also important economic pursuits...Their elites built funerary monuments for themselves over a period extending from 4000 to 1000 BC." [sources: see Ray A. Kea, and Mauny, R.(1971),“The Western Sudan” in Shinnie: 66-87. Monteil, Charles (1953),“La Légende du Ouagadou et l’Origine des Soninke” in Mélanges Ethnologiques (Dakar: Bulletin del’Institut Francais del’Afrique Noir)]

That's nice.

So why exactly then if they were and are able to achieve so much is all that's left is ruins and old AK-47s as they slaughter each other because "wherever I am, I must also rape"?

Sehnsucht:

Carthage was founded by Semetic Phoenicians that constructed an aparthied state that simultaneously conflicted with the Roman Republic and the native Berbers. The high presence of Berbers in graveyards and their eventual accommodation with their conquerors is no different than other documented imperialist states. To claim Carthage was an African civilization would be to claim the Ummayid Caliphate as being black despite the government being almost entirely composed of Arab overlords. Catharge was a proto-colonialist civilization.

Now when did I say Carthage was of African origins?? Didn't I not say it was founded by the Phoenicians Reading...Try it. I said the INDIGENOUS population REPEAT INDIGENOUS population was African and that they became MORE NUMEROUS throughout time. Carthage was clearly mixed, and the Phoenicians clearly had an African culture due to being greatly influenced by the Ancient Egyptians. Not saying that the Phoenicians were African. Do you not know that the AFRICAN Namibian Kingdom succeeded Carthage?

Bringing up the Ummayid Caliphate is another moot point.

Sehnsucht:
Further;

>claims Berbers as sub-Saharans
>proceeds to post art of Mediterraneans

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/21082907

Our objective is to highlight the age of sub-Saharan gene flows in North Africa and particularly in Tunisia. Therefore we analyzed in a broad phylogeographic context sub-Saharan mtDNA haplogroups of Tunisian Berber populations considered representative of ancient settlement. More than 2,000 sequences were collected from the literature, and networks were constructed. The results show that the most ancient haplogroup is L3*, which would have been introduced to North Africa from eastern sub-Saharan populations around 20,000 years ago. Our results also point to a less ancient western sub-Saharan gene flow to Tunisia, including haplogroups L2a and L3b. This conclusion points to an ancient African gene flow to Tunisia before 20,000 BP. These findings parallel the more recent findings of both archaeology and linguistics on the prehistory of Africa. The present work suggests that sub-Saharan contributions to North Africa have experienced several complex population processes after the occupation of the region by anatomically modern humans. Our results reveal that Berber speakers have a foundational biogeographic root in Africa and that deep African lineages have continued to evolve in supra-Saharan Africa.

[img]http://3.bp..com/-tNSFOhb_cGM/TxiojlPkBvI/AAAAAAAAAKQ/1nhGEbGkNpQ/s1600/Fig.3.PNG[/img]

Berber is just a language group and its language originated in East Africa.
[img]http://desmond.imageshack.us/Himg444/scaled.php?server=444&filename=cartevu8.jpg&res=landing[/img]

And please show me a white looking Berber tribe PRIOR to the 15/16th century...I DARE you.

And Sub Saharan is a moot term based off this.

"Individuals with the same morphology do not necessarily cluster with each other by lineage, and a given lineage does not include only individuals with the same trait complex (or 'racial type'). Y-chromosome DNA from Africa alone suffices to make this point. Africa contains populations whose members have a range of external phenotypes. This variation has usually been described in terms of 'race' (Caucasoids, Pygmoids, Congoids, Khoisanoids). But the Y-chromosome clade defined by the PN2 transition (PN2/M35, PN2/M2) shatters the boundaries of phenotypically defined races and true breeding populations across a great geographical expanse. African peoples with a range of skin colors, hair forms and physiognomies have substantial percentages of males whose Y chromosomes form closely related clades with each other, but not with others who are phenotypically similar. The individuals in the morphologically or geographically defined 'races' are not characterized by 'private' distinct lineages restricted to each of them." (S O Y Keita, R A Kittles, et al. "Conceptualizing human variation," Nature Genetics 36, S17 - S20 (2004)

Sehnsucht:
I wasn't aware this was a competition in barbarism.

Oh so now the so called superior North Africans become barbarians?

lol...

Sehnsucht:
The findings from the UNESCO conference debated the points of agreement and disagreement concerning the Black hypothesis and other theories, and concluded that the ancient Egyptians were not black. The current position of modern scholarship is that the Egyptian civilization was an indigenous Nile Valley development. Try harder rather than posting old debunked theories from black power activists in the 1980s.

http://www.worldcat.org/title/ancient-civilizations-of-africa-abridged-ed/oclc/466173067&referer=brief_results

Please tell me you're joking about this...Please...You can't be serious!?

So that PEER REVIEWED STUDY by your European bretherns was old debunked theories and by black power people

My source clearly shows that Ancient Egyptians group with other Africans. Why don't you actually try to debunk(which you cant).

What does that debate from UNESCO have to do with anything? And when have they dismissed the African origins of Ancient Egypt? Matter a fact ever since then the African origins of Ancient Egypt has become MORE ACCEPTED you loon! Yes they were INDIGENOUS Nile Valley people like the NUBIANS, who were far older than the Ancient Egyptians and more related to them....

NUCLEAR DNA
__________
Nubians cluster closest to Egyptians than Arab cluster to Egyptians. So Nubians are more related to Egyptians than Arabs are:
http://www.investigativegenetics.com/content/2/1/12/figure/F6?highres=y
 
Ancient Egyptians & Nubians were the closest related peoples to each other. River Nile civilizations, a river that flows northwards.

Today modern North Sudanese are closest related to Egyptians which is said to correlate with historic close relations between the two who share the longest border.
__________
Quote:
''Individuals from northern Sudan clustered together with those from Egypt, and individuals from southern Sudan clustered with those from the Karamoja population (Uganda). The similarity of the Nubian and Egyptian populations suggest that migration, potentially bidirectional, occurred along the Nile river Valley, which is consistent with the historical evidence for long-term interactions between Egypt and Nubia.''
Source (Result; 5th sentence):
http://www.investigativegenetics.com/content/2/1/12#abs
 
Quote:
''The patterns of population structure we found in northeast Africa, in particular the similarity of Nubian (a northern Sudanese group that speak Nilo-Saharan languages) and the Egyptian population. is consistent with the historical evidence for long-term interactions between Egypt and Nubia, probably resulting in genetic flow between the two regions.''

Stronger evidence points to the relation between Ancient Egypt & Nubia to of occurred before the establishment of those civilizations in the ''late Pleistocene to mid-Holocene'' periods. As opposed to Egyptians & Nubian civilizations conquering each other later.
__________
Quote:
''However, a synthesis of evidence from archaeology, historical linguistics, texts, distribution of haplotypes outside Egypt, and some demographic considerations lends greater support to the establishment, before the Middle Kingdom, of the observed distributions of the most prevalent haplotypes V, XI, and IV. It is suggested that the pattern of diversity for these variants in the Egyptian NILE VALLEY was largely the product of population events that occurred in the late Pleistocene to mid-Holocene through the First Dynasty, and was sustained by continuous smaller-scale bidirectional migrations/interactions. The higher frequency of V in Ethiopia than in Nubia or upper (southern) Egypt has to be taken into account in any discussion of variation in the NILE VALLEY.''
Source:
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/16136533
 
 
Cradle of medicine was in Ancient Egypt and Nubia.. You know those ''Nile Valley'' civilizations not Mediterranean or Arab.
__________
Quote:
''The Cradle of the history of medicine in the Old World is to be found in Ancient Egypt and Nubia.''
Source:
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1034196/?page=1
 
First written clinical records came from Ancient Egypt & Nubia
__________
Quote:
''The earliest written clinical record was produced in Ancient Egypt and Nubia as two medical documents or papyri which were discovered in 1862''
Source (2nd paragraph):
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1034196/?page=3
 

Quote:
''Egypt and Nubia have low and similar amounts of divergence for both mtDNA types, which is consistent with historical evidence for long-term interactions between Egypt and Nubia.''
Source:
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/10090902

^^^Let me guess those PEER REVIEWED SCIENTIFIC are by radical black supremacist?

The only thing the UNSECO conference debunked is that black(including white) has no real meaning in anthropology since they are only social terms. Thats where Diop messed up, because he subscribed to the true negro a bit. But other than that MOST studies after 60's list the Ancient Egyptians as AFRICANS and related to other Africans.

I swear this is too easy.

KidStranglehold:
Your point? Most of Europe was still underdeveloped. The only reason why Southern Europe was more developed was because:
1. Italy had more trade with the Near East than most of Europe and most of Mali's gold entered that part of Europe.
2. The Moors and Arabs contributed A LOT to Iberia and Sicily. Heck this Sicilian women ADMITS repeats ADMITS the African contribution to Sicily.
http://siciliangodmother./2013/05/20/what-have-the-africans-done-for-sicily/
^^^Again a Sicilian women.

^Using anecdotes.

Ya blew it.

Where does it say exploiting?

That's what we call it when the state says "If any of y'all find a spec of gold, IT'S THE KING NOW GIMME SUMMADAT"

Actually the Mali Empire lasted from 1230-1600's...And then the Songhai Empire took over and continued. No institutions or scientific achievements Is that why students from Europe and the Middle East came to study in Timbuktu because it had the best universities during its time as evident by this:

So you got Mali 2.0. Which is the same model in a newer version with just the same dependence on gold fields. Although of course it's not different enough from Mali for it's existence to mark an end to the actual Mali state. Though when I said a "couple hundred" I didn't literally mean 200.

As for scientific achievements..
http://www.scribesoftimbuktu.com/promo-video.php

Becoming a point of trade of Arab and Italian merchants to come and teach as they trade for gold doesn't make you an independent center of research and culture.

Yeah some gloried ghetto. *Sarcasm*

We call it a "resource ghetto" - which is a term for that kind of economy and can be applied to Canada and Australia today.

When Mali was more advanced than most of Europe at the time. LMAO!

>not having indoor plumbing
>still living in stone huts with dirt floor
>having a caste system
>more advanced

Yeah okay

KidStranglehold:
Now when did I say Carthage was of African origins?? Didn't I not say it was founded by the Phoenicians Reading...Try it. I said the INDIGENOUS population REPEAT INDIGENOUS population was African and that they became MORE NUMEROUS throughout time. Carthage was clearly mixed, and the Phoenicians clearly had an African culture due to being greatly influenced by the Ancient Egyptians. Not saying that the Phoenicians were African. Do you not know that the AFRICAN Namibian Kingdom succeeded Carthage?

Bringing up the Ummayid Caliphate is another moot point.

Mediterraneans were not African. "African" refers to dark-skinned and typically sub-Saharan populations.

That other point I'll address later down.

Oh so now the so called superior North Africans become barbarians?

Dark skinned West Africans are not North Africans.

Please tell me you're joking about this...Please...You can't be serious!?

So that PEER REVIEWED STUDY by your European bretherns was old debunked theories and by black power people

My source clearly shows that Ancient Egyptians group with other Africans. Why don't you actually try to debunk(which you cant).

"DNA studies proving Egyptians/North Africans/ect. were black" don't do that. It's just a few alleles (over many thousands) that are found in black populations BUT also in modern Egyptian populations.

It's pretty much an accepted fact that modern Egyptian population is the same now as it was back then. There's no way they were black, as no major changes ever happened that would turn them into what they are now. There's also those ancient drawings where Egyptians distinguished themselves from blacks.

What does that debate from UNESCO have to do with anything? And when have they dismissed the African origins of Ancient Egypt? Matter a fact ever since then the African origins of Ancient Egypt has become MORE ACCEPTED you loon! Yes they were INDIGENOUS Nile Valley people like the NUBIANS, who were far older than the Ancient Egyptians and more related to them....

When people refer to "Africans" we're really talking about "blacks"

The only thing the UNSECO conference debunked is that black(including white) has no real meaning in anthropology since they are only social terms. Thats where Diop messed up, because he subscribed to the true negro a bit. But other than that MOST studies after 60's list the Ancient Egyptians as AFRICANS and related to other Africans.

"African" is a geographical term that is probably creating some confusion in this debate. Dismissal of race as a social construct without anthropological meaning is a recent liberal phenomena. In any other species the amount of genetic distance between blacks and whites would be enough to classify as being separate sub-species. Yet only in humans do we bleat about race being a social construct.

When I say "African" I am exclusively referring to the dark-skinned typically sub-Saharan populations. Only someone interested in cultural appropriation would refer to the light-skinned epi-Saharan populations as being black. It's likely they can be considered a part of the Arab group or even their own group.

It's amazing to read this thread and realize that people actually think of themselves as inferior. Truly astounding and it goes to show that the colonial powers succeeded. It is beyond my ability of comprehension how anyone can think like that.

Benin city in its prime was compared to Europe's biggest and most accomplished cities, no one could deny its brilliance. Edo art and craftmanship was compared to Europe's most accomplished pieces of art (it was even ignorantly claimed that it could not possibly be African, of course we know better today). Does that not tell you something? Why do you think they sought to destroy Benin and other areas in Africa? Because they posed a threat - they were scared of the future.

When you feel inferior, you'll act inferior. That's why Africa is where it is today.

Without colonization and the destruction of Africa's growing trade and cities, it would be a whole different reality today. Africa is rich is natural resources. The only thing keeping Africa from being a paradise (moreso than anything western) is ourselves. The only question is if Africa will ever let go of the past and move on to a brighter future.

The day you wake up and you're proud to be where you are, when you're proud to speak your language, that's the day we will see progress.

Sehnsucht:

This isn't really a discussion about Asians - who have shown that they do well when you actually take them away from the current Asian cultures of suppressing ingenuity.

No this discussion is about Europeans NOT being the worlds saving grace like they think are. Sorry but YOU were the one who replied to my post.

Sehnsucht:
"Asians" is a misnomer, considering we're talking about near Middle Eastern populations in modern day Iraq and the Levant - an area known as the "Fertile Crescent" because the climate was extremely well suited for civilization development.

I use Asia which includes everyone from Asia.

Sehnsucht:
You wot m8?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Roman_technology

The Romans achieved feats of engineering we are still surprised they reached today considering the times they lived in.

You're point? What innovations did they make? The African people like the Nubians and Garamantes prioneed skull surgery which is still used to today.
http://io9.com/5905871/the-lost-civilizations-that-pioneered-skull-surgery

The Nubians were also one of the first to use Anti-Biotics.
http://news.discovery.com/history/ancient-egypt/antibiotic-beer-nubia.htm

As for engineering...The Persians had grand engineering feats before the Romans and after.

Sehnsucht:
Byzantium is a scholarly term that refers to the Eastern Roman Empire.

And again, this is not a discussion about the achievements of Arabs or the ability of their four hundred year lasting civilization to take advantage of it's position on the Silk Road and synthesize eastern and western achievements.

You're missing the point again. This is about EUROPE repeat EUROPE NOT being the saving grace of this world like so many people think. Which is the main theme of this thread.

Sehnsucht:
The Mongols invaded Europe, and so did the Huns. However look at Europe today.

No...They only invaded Eastern Europe, and barely even that.

Sehnsucht:
Romans did not merely adapt other's achievements - though that was a great strength of their's. Any two minute internet search can reveal the hundreds of things they developed.

No I said the Romans took many IDEAS from the Greece which is why Historians now focus on Ancient Greece for the origin of Western Civilization. Because found out that Rome took MANY IDEAS from Greece. The Romans were not innovators, like I said they were intolerant of science. They mostly cared about expanding and gaining more wealth.

Sehnsucht:
Even if we say Europe was an absolute shithole prior to that - which I dispute - the developments since then have been so impacting that it weighs more than almost anything that's gone before. European civilizations are the first civilizations to ever have the ability to project power on a global scale - even into space. Many Asian countries (especially China) still persist in a feudal peasant system.

Again I give Europe credit for the Industrial Revilution. Ever since then Europe had been a power. But the main point is that EUROPEANS WERE NOT WORLDS SAVING GRACE.

Sehnsucht:
Yes a whole hundred years. And I would not consider trade and conquest by Arabians as "did it all on their own".

Sorry but West Africans developed iron on there own, way before contact between Arabs. There was no Arab conquest into Africa.

Sehnsucht:
Yet only a European was apparently brave enough to try to prove the world was round.

What!? You have got to be kidding me...Middle Easterners and Africans like those from the Western Sudan(medieval West Africa) already KNEW the world round. It was Europeans that were new comers to the idea.

Sehnsucht:
Arab Muslims conquered Iberia. And were driven out in the Reconquista and eventually ended up as a group of feuding tribes still living in the feudal age.

It was the Almoravid and Almohads which was an African dynasty that was driven out.

Almoravid general.


The original invading army of Iberia were the Moors who were Africans and were numerous. Though in the begining Arabs led them.

Sehnsucht:
Famous art are well known samples like Mona Lisa and The Dream of The Fisherman's Wife. Care to name some Zambian pieces of such fame?

Nope...But I have these, which was praised so much by Europeans that they stole them and are now in British museums.

They were even compared to art of Ancient Rome and Greece by your EUROPEAN BRITISH BRETHERNS!

Sehnsucht:
My ancestors built Rome, not Britannia. Pointless ad hominem though, because even the British became civilized. Something Africa never achieved on any lasting scale.

Prove it. I already showed you a couple of African states being more advanced than Britain and Europe as a whole.

Sehnsucht:
That's nice.

So why exactly then if they were and are able to achieve so much is all that's left is ruins and old AK-47s as they slaughter each other because "wherever I am, I must also rape"?

Worthless argument.

Sehnsucht:

^Using anecdotes.

Ya blew it.

No you blew when you tried to invade this forum.

Sehnsucht:
That's what we call it when the state says "If any of y'all find a spec of gold, IT'S THE KING NOW GIMME SUMMADAT"

lol...Its clear you have no argument.

Sehnsucht:

So you got Mali 2.0. Which is the same model in a newer version with just the same dependence on gold fields. Although of course it's not different enough from Mali for it's existence to mark an end to the actual Mali state. Though when I said a "couple hundred" I didn't literally mean 200.

No it was never dependent on gold. Actually it had A MONOPOLY on gold...Mali 2.0? Songhai was Africa's largest empire, it was actually larger than western Europe and expanded on what Mali already had which was a lot. Actually gold which you state those Western Sudanic states were dependent on, Europeans were more dependent on it...

Sehnsucht:
Becoming a point of trade of Arab and Italian merchants to come and teach as they trade for gold doesn't make you an independent center of research and culture.

Lol...Prove that they taught the locals. Again you clearly have no argument now that you are making up stuff. The educational development of Timbuktu and Mali in general came when Mansa Musa started invested more into it after his pilgrimages from Mecca.

Timbuktu is thought to have been founded towards the end of the 5th century of the Hegira by a group of Imakcharen Tuaregs who, having wandered 250 km south of their base, established a temporary camp guarded by an old woman, Buktu. Gradually, Tim-Buktu (the place of Buktu) became a small sedentary village at the crossroads of several trade routes. Quickly converted to Islam (the two great mosques of Djingareyber and Sankore appeared during the Mandingue period), the market city of Timbuktu reached its apex under the reign of the Askia (1493-1591). It then became an important centre of Koranic culture with the University of Sankore and numerous schools attended, it is said, by some 25,000 students. Scholars, engineers and architects from various regions in Africa rubbed shoulders with wise men and marabouts in this intellectual and religious centre. Early on, Timbuktu attracted travellers from far-away countries.

http://whc.unesco.org/en/list/119/

Sehnsucht:
We call it a "resource ghetto" - which is a term for that kind of economy and can be applied to Canada and Australia today.

No one cares.

Sehnsucht:
>not having indoor plumbing
>still living in stone huts with dirt floor
>having a caste system
>more advanced

Yeah okay

Does this look like stone hunts with dirt floors??
[img]http://www.thenational.ae/storyimage/AB/20130130/ARTICLE/301309963/AR/0/AR-301309963.jpg&MaxW=460&imageVersion=default[/img]

And Europe during that time didn't have plumbing and was not more advanced than any African state like Mali, the Swahili states, Somali empire, Eithiopian Empire, Kanem Empire or Christian Nubia. Most of Europe was literate compared to Mali!

And why should Mali have a caste system? Most of the people of the Mali Empire were wealthy and educated. The emperors were usually fair especially Mansa Musa.

This is getting tiring and isn't going any where and I'm about to go to bed. DEBUNK my PEER REVIEWED SOURCES with your own PEER REVIEWED SOURCES which you have not done as of yet.

Sehnsucht:

Mediterraneans were not African. "African" refers to dark-skinned and typically sub-Saharan populations.

That other point I'll address later down.



Dark skinned West Africans are not North Africans.


"DNA studies proving Egyptians/North Africans/ect. were black" don't do that. It's just a few alleles (over many thousands) that are found in black populations BUT also in modern Egyptian populations.

It's pretty much an accepted fact that modern Egyptian population is the same now as it was back then. There's no way they were black, as no major changes ever happened that would turn them into what they are now. There's also those ancient drawings where Egyptians distinguished themselves from blacks.



When people refer to "Africans" we're really talking about "blacks"



"African" is a geographical term that is probably creating some confusion in this debate. Dismissal of race as a social construct without anthropological meaning is a recent liberal phenomena. In any other species the amount of genetic distance between blacks and whites would be enough to classify as being separate sub-species. Yet only in humans do we bleat about race being a social construct.

When I say "African" I am exclusively referring to the dark-skinned typically sub-Saharan populations. Only someone interested in cultural appropriation would refer to the light-skinned epi-Saharan populations as being black. It's likely they can be considered a part of the Arab group or even their own group.

KidStranglehold:

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/21082907

Our objective is to highlight the age of sub-Saharan gene flows in North Africa and particularly in Tunisia. Therefore we analyzed in a broad phylogeographic context sub-Saharan mtDNA haplogroups of Tunisian Berber populations considered representative of ancient settlement. More than 2,000 sequences were collected from the literature, and networks were constructed. The results show that the most ancient haplogroup is L3*, which would have been introduced to North Africa from eastern sub-Saharan populations around 20,000 years ago. Our results also point to a less ancient western sub-Saharan gene flow to Tunisia, including haplogroups L2a and L3b. This conclusion points to an ancient African gene flow to Tunisia before 20,000 BP. These findings parallel the more recent findings of both archaeology and linguistics on the prehistory of Africa. The present work suggests that sub-Saharan contributions to North Africa have experienced several complex population processes after the occupation of the region by anatomically modern humans. Our results reveal that Berber speakers have a foundational biogeographic root in Africa and that deep African lineages have continued to evolve in supra-Saharan Africa.



[img]http://3.bp..com/-tNSFOhb_cGM/TxiojlPkBvI/AAAAAAAAAKQ/1nhGEbGkNpQ/s1600/Fig.3.PNG[/img]

Berber is just a language group and its language originated in East Africa.
[img]http://desmond.imageshack.us/Himg444/scaled.php?server=444&filename=cartevu8.jpg&res=landing[/img]



And Sub Saharan is a moot term based off this.

"Individuals with the same morphology do not necessarily cluster with each other by lineage, and a given lineage does not include only individuals with the same trait complex (or 'racial type'). Y-chromosome DNA from Africa alone suffices to make this point. Africa contains populations whose members have a range of external phenotypes. This variation has usually been described in terms of 'race' (Caucasoids, Pygmoids, Congoids, Khoisanoids). But the Y-chromosome clade defined by the PN2 transition (PN2/M35, PN2/M2) shatters the boundaries of phenotypically defined races and true breeding populations across a great geographical expanse. African peoples with a range of skin colors, hair forms and physiognomies have substantial percentages of males whose Y chromosomes form closely related clades with each other, but not with others who are phenotypically similar. The individuals in the morphologically or geographically defined 'races' are not characterized by 'private' distinct lineages restricted to each of them." (S O Y Keita, R A Kittles, et al. "Conceptualizing human variation," Nature Genetics 36, S17 - S20 (2004)


My source clearly shows that Ancient Egyptians group with other Africans.

NUCLEAR DNA
__________
Nubians cluster closest to Egyptians than Arab cluster to Egyptians. So Nubians are more related to Egyptians than Arabs are:
http://www.investigativegenetics.com/content/2/1/12/figure/F6?highres=y
 
Ancient Egyptians & Nubians were the closest related peoples to each other. River Nile civilizations, a river that flows northwards.

Today modern North Sudanese are closest related to Egyptians which is said to correlate with historic close relations between the two who share the longest border.
__________
Quote:
''Individuals from northern Sudan clustered together with those from Egypt, and individuals from southern Sudan clustered with those from the Karamoja population (Uganda). The similarity of the Nubian and Egyptian populations suggest that migration, potentially bidirectional, occurred along the Nile river Valley, which is consistent with the historical evidence for long-term interactions between Egypt and Nubia.''
Source (Result; 5th sentence):
http://www.investigativegenetics.com/content/2/1/12#abs
 
Quote:
''The patterns of population structure we found in northeast Africa, in particular the similarity of Nubian (a northern Sudanese group that speak Nilo-Saharan languages) and the Egyptian population. is consistent with the historical evidence for long-term interactions between Egypt and Nubia, probably resulting in genetic flow between the two regions.''

Stronger evidence points to the relation between Ancient Egypt & Nubia to of occurred before the establishment of those civilizations in the ''late Pleistocene to mid-Holocene'' periods. As opposed to Egyptians & Nubian civilizations conquering each other later.
__________
Quote:
''However, a synthesis of evidence from archaeology, historical linguistics, texts, distribution of haplotypes outside Egypt, and some demographic considerations lends greater support to the establishment, before the Middle Kingdom, of the observed distributions of the most prevalent haplotypes V, XI, and IV. It is suggested that the pattern of diversity for these variants in the Egyptian NILE VALLEY was largely the product of population events that occurred in the late Pleistocene to mid-Holocene through the First Dynasty, and was sustained by continuous smaller-scale bidirectional migrations/interactions. The higher frequency of V in Ethiopia than in Nubia or upper (southern) Egypt has to be taken into account in any discussion of variation in the NILE VALLEY.''
Source:
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/16136533
 
 
Cradle of medicine was in Ancient Egypt and Nubia.. You know those ''Nile Valley'' civilizations not Mediterranean or Arab.
__________
Quote:
''The Cradle of the history of medicine in the Old World is to be found in Ancient Egypt and Nubia.''
Source:
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1034196/?page=1
 
First written clinical records came from Ancient Egypt & Nubia
__________
Quote:
''The earliest written clinical record was produced in Ancient Egypt and Nubia as two medical documents or papyri which were discovered in 1862''
Source (2nd paragraph):
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1034196/?page=3
 

Quote:
''Egypt and Nubia have low and similar amounts of divergence for both mtDNA types, which is consistent with historical evidence for long-term interactions between Egypt and Nubia.''
Source:
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/10090902