That lady trying to list "African" castles, and is just defining it as and listing castles in Africa...that are built by the Spanish, the Portuguese, the Germans, the Arabs, and the like.
Heck, some of the "African" castles this person is trying to claim were built by literal Caucasians; people from Caucasus.
These people hurt my brain. Also, even if there were African castles, the fact that people have to reach so far, and miss so much, is a pretty stunning indictment. If the pro African castle side can't name any castles built by Africans, well...
If anyone was ever going to turn me into an actual white supremacist, it would be these clowns, not white supremacist arguments. Similar to how the pro abortion people are so evil they turned me from 'safe legal and rare' to 'fuck you, no baby murder for you, you obviously can't be trusted to be sane and responsible people.'
The people arguing that African castles exist have made a much more compelling and well documented argument that Africans never built castles than some self-described alt-right guy posting a funny meme of a mud hut.
Reality-denying leftists can't help but be self-defeating, because they're so wrapped up in their own ideology, and think they're the Good Guys.
If anyone was ever going to turn me into an actual white supremacist, it would be these clowns, not white supremacist arguments.
That's how most people end up in these "extremist" positions. Like I used to not have an opinion on Jews besides funny memes until I started getting screamed at by our Pro-Jew folks on KIA2. Their arguments were so bad, and often so aggressive, that it made me more suspicious of everything.
I'm in the exact same position. Just as an external spectator, it was almost always a case of "hmm these guys kind of have a point" while noting that the people screeching at them and calling them names were behaving like retarded leftists.
Even when they don't have a point beyond "look at this overrepresentation!" and just say that means evil, their opponents still can't even come up with a good counter to that other than "shut up, nu uh" and snarky quips to make themselves seem super smarter so therefore the right one.
If anyone was ever going to turn me into an actual white supremacist, it would be these clowns
Same for most people. Eventually it winds itself down to "Well if you REALLY want me to be the monster you imagine me to be..."
And then the shitshow starts.
In a time where we have to put up with black vikings in "historical" dramas and whatnot, this comes as no surprise to me. Almost like they have no real history beyond violence and slavery (of each other) so have to "colonize" other cultures' histories.
That blacks in Africa did so poorly is more than enough to debunk this "all races are equal" bull shit. If all races are equally capable, then blacks in Africa should be much better off. Instead they never developed agriculture, a written language or even got out of the stone age, as far as technology goes..
Third post here, but this thread cracks me up, and I find it fascinating just how wrong those people are. I've already discussed the castles themselves, but hadn't really looked into the community note. Here's a translation:
This is racism. [links to racism "definition," I'll get to that in a bit]
Furthermore, the example used is of a house belonging to an indigenous people, not representing real castles.
DEBONKED! Way to miss the whole point, community note. "To make your entire point, you called this thing that obviously isn't a castle, a castle, you liar!" Uh, that was the point.
Video demonstrating what the homes of African tribes are like:
Yeah, relevance? Everyone already knew it was a house/hut. The stupidity levels are off the charts here.
Thread showing African castles: [links to thread I've already discussed that lists a bunch of foreign-built castles built in Africa.]
Excellent source, community notes; a random Twitter retard being flat out wrong. Try harder. Do better.
Now, as to the "racism" link...oh, boy, what a doozy. Also translated:
Racism is an evil that, unfortunately, still affects our social relations.
...it's a form of prejudice and discrimination based on a controversial term, which is sociologically revised and from which genetics also begins a review: race.
The translation is a bit rough, but this seems to be the classic "race isn't even real, chud" argument. "Racism is stupid and ignorant because race isn't a thing!" *sigh*
In the XIX century, it was understood that the skin color and the geographical origin of individuals promoted a differentiation of races.
Correctly, yes. Call it "race" or something else, people from different places are obviously different.
By blending culture and physical aspects, the early anthropologists established a hierarchy of races, which sometimes reinforced the domination of European white peoples over populations of other non-European ethnicities.
Such circular logic. No, "hierarchy" (more like preference) was a mix of accomplishments, in-group preference (the good old days when whites were allowed such a thing), and the like. Not even saying racism itself is good or anything, but the idea that it was just some stupid bigots being bigoted is a huge dodge. White people didn't "invent" race so they could put their own race at the top and use it as an excuse to rule over others. For better or worse, it was kind of the opposite. They did some ruling over others, which often convinced them they were better. If race was every used as a justification of superiority (and it was), it was usually after the fact. No surprise, but they have everything backward.
In these people's view, it really is as simple as some monocle-wearing rich Hwite Man look at his hand and going, "oh, look, I have white skin, and that guy has black skin. Due to the fake shit I made up because I'm evil, I can clearly determine I'm a better human. It's OPPRESSION TIME!"
racism it is an evil that affects the lives of many people and, as a relationship of outdated and wrong understanding, must be overcome.
Good luck with that. You'll never get there all the way, but we might have gotten close, if everyone hadn't decided to disparage and try to eliminate all white people, while lying about each race's contributions and accomplishments, and generally promoting racial supremacism for any nonwhites.
Nice. He got Lichtenstein Castle wrong, though; there is a replica in South Africa, built in the late '90s by a German.
Speaking of, I love that they changed the community note on one of these threads to explicitly cite another German-built luxury villa with a swimming pool and stuff as an "African castle."
Even assuming that is truly some African castle, its obviously incredibly less impressive.
Its built on wide open flat ground, is many many times smaller (with a photo angle trying desperately to fluff it up), and looks closer to a sand castle.
Yes but as established in the rest of the thread, when a building is built by non-africans but just so happens to be in Africa, that doesn’t make it an “african castle”. These “castles” are as “african” as the Supreme Court building in Johannesburg
Oh that’s interesting, maybe I’ll make a post on the subject some time soon. It’s not exactly common these days, but it has some surprisingly strong historic cultural roots - for example, the Scottish “declaration of independence”, properly titled the Declaration of Arbroath ~1100 ad, included as a fundamental claim the direct descent of the Scots from the “lost tribes” of the Israelites, additionally there is so-called “british isrealism”, and so on. These cultural relics or beliefs being separate and distinct evidence from the migrational, geographic, genetic, linguistic, and broader historical evidence of which there is certainly quite a bit - enough such that I think our current paradigms can be demonstrated as incorrect, but not enough to propose a 100% wholistic, coherent, fleshed-out substitute, which is an unfortunate roadblock to really any paradigm shift.
Hey u/AlfredicEnglishRules, have you ever come across the claims of British Isrealism generally or Robert Sepehr specifically? What was your take on them?
The term is Lost Tribes of Israel. There has been tons of scholarly work on the subject. Basically, the Jews aren't the only tribes of Israel in the Bible. When Israel the country split, most of the tribes were led by Ephraim in the north, and then disappeared after the invasion of Babylon. The only real reference in the Bible is that they were pushed to the north or destroyed.
Middle Eastern cultures hold the Bible as a history as well as a religious text, so they trace their families back to the book. I've met people who can open the Bible and point out an ancestor in it. Usually it's a town that's been rebuilt several times over, but the locals say it's in the Bible.
Europeans wanted to be like this, so many referenced the lost tribes as possible ancestors. There were cultures pushed to the north, but hardly any knowledge on who. Tons of people have written, went on digs, and proclaimed to be descended from a lost tribe.
Mormons believe the main people in the Book of Mormon are a lost tribe, and that the English and western European people are from the tribe of Ephraim. They have a special blessing that tells you what tribe you are from.
Any works since about the 1930's has said that the Lost Tribes is a myth, and anyone who believes it should be openly mocked. People have tried to find connections, or written books about the subject, but they aren't accepted as scholarly works. It's actually hard to find them if you go looking.
Yeah nice primer - can you clarify this part though:
Any works since about the 1930's has said that the Lost Tribes is a myth, and anyone who believes it should be openly mocked.
Are you saying the italicized part, or are you saying every mainstream scholarly work since the 30’s has put forward the air of mockery?
That Sepehr guy is a classically trained anthropologist with books “published” on the subject. I don’t deny that theorists have been pushed out of the mainstream of anthropology (honestly anthropology seems to me to be a quite totally subverted field of study, but that’s another subject)
Also, tangent but, how many generations ago do you think you were a sub-Saharan African? Isn’t it funny that anthropologists don’t question the notion that we wuz africanz but if you say we wuz jooz they lose their damn minds? Not you necessarily but the mainstream of the field
There was an extensive trade group in Northern Africa. We only know it existed. There are travel paths from Egypt to Morocco and Nigeria. Plenty of towns could be used as small ports. The ber ber and other Sudanese had references to it.
However, the trade group died during the 14th century crunch. This is when several cultures stop trading and close down. This one was so powerful every culture in the world seemed to do it or be effected by it. That's right when European groups began to expand, looking for new trade routes. This changed several trade groups, so it's hard to figure out the previous one.
The ottoman empire likely knew about it, but I don't know if they had anything written. The concepts like the trade group and crunch are very new, and being talked over by SJW majors.
These people are too retarded to exist.
That lady trying to list "African" castles, and is just defining it as and listing castles in Africa...that are built by the Spanish, the Portuguese, the Germans, the Arabs, and the like.
Heck, some of the "African" castles this person is trying to claim were built by literal Caucasians; people from Caucasus.
These people hurt my brain. Also, even if there were African castles, the fact that people have to reach so far, and miss so much, is a pretty stunning indictment. If the pro African castle side can't name any castles built by Africans, well...
I grew up thinking everyone was equally capable, but now I know better.
The amount of effort these people exert to deny reality would be impressive if it weren't so destructive.
We no longer celebrate or strive for excellence. Deep down they know certain groups cannot compete but they'll never admit it.
They are set on dragging everyone down to cover for the groups who aren't capable of being part of moving society forward.
If anyone was ever going to turn me into an actual white supremacist, it would be these clowns, not white supremacist arguments. Similar to how the pro abortion people are so evil they turned me from 'safe legal and rare' to 'fuck you, no baby murder for you, you obviously can't be trusted to be sane and responsible people.'
The people arguing that African castles exist have made a much more compelling and well documented argument that Africans never built castles than some self-described alt-right guy posting a funny meme of a mud hut.
Reality-denying leftists can't help but be self-defeating, because they're so wrapped up in their own ideology, and think they're the Good Guys.
That's how most people end up in these "extremist" positions. Like I used to not have an opinion on Jews besides funny memes until I started getting screamed at by our Pro-Jew folks on KIA2. Their arguments were so bad, and often so aggressive, that it made me more suspicious of everything.
I'm in the exact same position. Just as an external spectator, it was almost always a case of "hmm these guys kind of have a point" while noting that the people screeching at them and calling them names were behaving like retarded leftists.
Even when they don't have a point beyond "look at this overrepresentation!" and just say that means evil, their opponents still can't even come up with a good counter to that other than "shut up, nu uh" and snarky quips to make themselves seem super smarter so therefore the right one.
Revevant Perry Bible Fellowship comic.
That IS the white supremacist argument lol.
No, that's the progressive argu...oh.
Same for most people. Eventually it winds itself down to "Well if you REALLY want me to be the monster you imagine me to be..."
And then the shitshow starts.
Ah, yes, the ancient and famous African castle, Lichtenstein Castle, built by the revered African Reynier Fritz...in the 1990's.
Fuuuuuck, these people are retarded. This thread is frying my brain.
In a time where we have to put up with black vikings in "historical" dramas and whatnot, this comes as no surprise to me. Almost like they have no real history beyond violence and slavery (of each other) so have to "colonize" other cultures' histories.
That blacks in Africa did so poorly is more than enough to debunk this "all races are equal" bull shit. If all races are equally capable, then blacks in Africa should be much better off. Instead they never developed agriculture, a written language or even got out of the stone age, as far as technology goes..
Third post here, but this thread cracks me up, and I find it fascinating just how wrong those people are. I've already discussed the castles themselves, but hadn't really looked into the community note. Here's a translation:
DEBONKED! Way to miss the whole point, community note. "To make your entire point, you called this thing that obviously isn't a castle, a castle, you liar!" Uh, that was the point.
Yeah, relevance? Everyone already knew it was a house/hut. The stupidity levels are off the charts here.
Excellent source, community notes; a random Twitter retard being flat out wrong. Try harder. Do better.
Now, as to the "racism" link...oh, boy, what a doozy. Also translated:
The translation is a bit rough, but this seems to be the classic "race isn't even real, chud" argument. "Racism is stupid and ignorant because race isn't a thing!" *sigh*
Correctly, yes. Call it "race" or something else, people from different places are obviously different.
Such circular logic. No, "hierarchy" (more like preference) was a mix of accomplishments, in-group preference (the good old days when whites were allowed such a thing), and the like. Not even saying racism itself is good or anything, but the idea that it was just some stupid bigots being bigoted is a huge dodge. White people didn't "invent" race so they could put their own race at the top and use it as an excuse to rule over others. For better or worse, it was kind of the opposite. They did some ruling over others, which often convinced them they were better. If race was every used as a justification of superiority (and it was), it was usually after the fact. No surprise, but they have everything backward.
In these people's view, it really is as simple as some monocle-wearing rich Hwite Man look at his hand and going, "oh, look, I have white skin, and that guy has black skin. Due to the fake shit I made up because I'm evil, I can clearly determine I'm a better human. It's OPPRESSION TIME!"
Good luck with that. You'll never get there all the way, but we might have gotten close, if everyone hadn't decided to disparage and try to eliminate all white people, while lying about each race's contributions and accomplishments, and generally promoting racial supremacism for any nonwhites.
Nice. He got Lichtenstein Castle wrong, though; there is a replica in South Africa, built in the late '90s by a German.
Speaking of, I love that they changed the community note on one of these threads to explicitly cite another German-built luxury villa with a swimming pool and stuff as an "African castle."
Why would hunter-gatherers near the equator need castles?
Even assuming that is truly some African castle, its obviously incredibly less impressive.
Its built on wide open flat ground, is many many times smaller (with a photo angle trying desperately to fluff it up), and looks closer to a sand castle.
To their defense, theoretically you do have Egyptian and Moroccan as Africans and they have some nice structures.
I also think there was this great mosques built by Arabs and some castles built by Europeans.
There was also a palace in Somalia? that was built by them once they drove away the foreigners (apparently that is a good thing)
At the height of their civilization Egyptians were literally white.
It just says African castles, not sub-Saharan castles - even then they do have Nubia
Yes but as established in the rest of the thread, when a building is built by non-africans but just so happens to be in Africa, that doesn’t make it an “african castle”. These “castles” are as “african” as the Supreme Court building in Johannesburg
Supposedly Great Zimbabwe . Was something of a fortress, I think.
Mostly a really high wall with perhaps a turret.
Obviously what is and isn't a "castle" can get bogged down in semantics.
But calling the Great Zimbabwe a castle is kind of like calling all the North American colonial forts castles as well.
"racism" is a fake and gay cope
There appears to be a lack of monumental architecture in Africa but appearances can be deceiving.
If you see any validity to the “white israelite” argument, Phoenicians easily fit into that paradigm.
https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=8tOsG2QHvrE
One of many videos on the subject by this guy (check his profile if it piques your interest)
Has he posted on the subject or am I just wooshing myself on something?
Oh that’s interesting, maybe I’ll make a post on the subject some time soon. It’s not exactly common these days, but it has some surprisingly strong historic cultural roots - for example, the Scottish “declaration of independence”, properly titled the Declaration of Arbroath ~1100 ad, included as a fundamental claim the direct descent of the Scots from the “lost tribes” of the Israelites, additionally there is so-called “british isrealism”, and so on. These cultural relics or beliefs being separate and distinct evidence from the migrational, geographic, genetic, linguistic, and broader historical evidence of which there is certainly quite a bit - enough such that I think our current paradigms can be demonstrated as incorrect, but not enough to propose a 100% wholistic, coherent, fleshed-out substitute, which is an unfortunate roadblock to really any paradigm shift.
Hey u/AlfredicEnglishRules, have you ever come across the claims of British Isrealism generally or Robert Sepehr specifically? What was your take on them?
The term is Lost Tribes of Israel. There has been tons of scholarly work on the subject. Basically, the Jews aren't the only tribes of Israel in the Bible. When Israel the country split, most of the tribes were led by Ephraim in the north, and then disappeared after the invasion of Babylon. The only real reference in the Bible is that they were pushed to the north or destroyed.
Middle Eastern cultures hold the Bible as a history as well as a religious text, so they trace their families back to the book. I've met people who can open the Bible and point out an ancestor in it. Usually it's a town that's been rebuilt several times over, but the locals say it's in the Bible.
Europeans wanted to be like this, so many referenced the lost tribes as possible ancestors. There were cultures pushed to the north, but hardly any knowledge on who. Tons of people have written, went on digs, and proclaimed to be descended from a lost tribe.
Mormons believe the main people in the Book of Mormon are a lost tribe, and that the English and western European people are from the tribe of Ephraim. They have a special blessing that tells you what tribe you are from.
Any works since about the 1930's has said that the Lost Tribes is a myth, and anyone who believes it should be openly mocked. People have tried to find connections, or written books about the subject, but they aren't accepted as scholarly works. It's actually hard to find them if you go looking.
Does that help?
Yeah nice primer - can you clarify this part though:
Are you saying the italicized part, or are you saying every mainstream scholarly work since the 30’s has put forward the air of mockery?
That Sepehr guy is a classically trained anthropologist with books “published” on the subject. I don’t deny that theorists have been pushed out of the mainstream of anthropology (honestly anthropology seems to me to be a quite totally subverted field of study, but that’s another subject)
Also, tangent but, how many generations ago do you think you were a sub-Saharan African? Isn’t it funny that anthropologists don’t question the notion that we wuz africanz but if you say we wuz jooz they lose their damn minds? Not you necessarily but the mainstream of the field
There was an extensive trade group in Northern Africa. We only know it existed. There are travel paths from Egypt to Morocco and Nigeria. Plenty of towns could be used as small ports. The ber ber and other Sudanese had references to it.
However, the trade group died during the 14th century crunch. This is when several cultures stop trading and close down. This one was so powerful every culture in the world seemed to do it or be effected by it. That's right when European groups began to expand, looking for new trade routes. This changed several trade groups, so it's hard to figure out the previous one.
The ottoman empire likely knew about it, but I don't know if they had anything written. The concepts like the trade group and crunch are very new, and being talked over by SJW majors.