Put it in a more historical perspective, when the Europeans began work on their empire's, there were only 4 continents where there was mass capitulation and/or submission:
North and South America, Oceania and Africa
The middle east managed to largely hold out, Asia only really suffered thanks to the technological superiority of the Europeans and even then a lot of areas remained under local rule while places like India only were taken thanks to different people siding with the Europeans.
Africa had centuries of contact with both the Arabs and Europeans and yet did not build and develop in a way to resist them, except if I'm remembering Ethiopia but they suffered later thanks to Italy and chemical weapons...
Resist? Ghana begged the UK to administrate their country. The local king could see the advantages of being an English colony.
The UK initially refused, because they didn't want to make the investment.
Africans would much rather have been subjects of the crown, with all the rights and privileges that conferred, than being conquered by the neighboring tribes and sold as slaves; which was very much a reality for many.
The quality of life of the colonial subjects shot up immediately after the colonial power moved in. They plummeted the minute the colony was abandoned. Ask Cambodia how that turned out for them.
where there was mass capitulation and/or submission:
I don't think you can count any of those continents as places were mass capitulation or submission took place. Even in North America, which was one of the most peaceful continents, Indian Wars were perpetual.
Africa had centuries of contact with both the Arabs and Europeans and yet did not build and develop in a way to resist them
Not really. North Africa not only resisted but occasionally conquered into Europe. Europeans knew of Central and Southern Africa, but it was functionally impenetrable due to Malaria. Despite knowing that Africa was there, Europeans couldn't push more than 50 miles inland. It was called the "Dark Continent" because of exploration, not skin color. Contact with central or southern Africa was minimal at best for centuries, because there was no hope of colonizing it until after Malaria treatments were possible.
except if I'm remembering Ethiopia but they suffered later thanks to Italy and chemical weapons...
Ethiopia didn't have regular contact with Europeans prior to the Age of Sail. They had regular contact with Indian Ocean bordering civilizations: Arabia, Persia, Indus Valley, Orient, and Indonesia. Due to the weather patterns of Monsoon season making international trade only possible at certain times of the year, and given the distances involved, most of these civilizations neglected to have significant naval wars, or attempt to colonize one another unless there were land borders.
The first people to change that dynamic were the Portuguese who made aggressive efforts to set up colonies and vassals among each region or civilization; and also made an effort to annex or vassalize them. The Ethiopians on the coast had more regular civilizations, but they were typically as advanced as any Arab or Persian middle age civilization. As you went further inland (and as the geography became less passable), civilization became far more primitive. Portuguese contact with the Ethiopians was only around the 1600's. Prior to that Ethiopia (Abyssinia) was largely unknown to Europeans. Indians would have been more familiar with them than the European peoples.
And yes, they were hit with Chemical weapons in their war with Italy.
The only one of these that was authentically built by sub-saharan Africans was #3 (Top right). That's the Conical Tower at the Great Zimbabwe site, built in the 11th or 12th century. Impressive masonry, to keep it all standing for as long as it did when they didn't use mortar. But the rest is all in North Africa, and I'm pretty sure #4 and #9 are modern.
Jewish/Arabic y-chromosome was found coincidentally all over the one area that any actual structure was built, Jewish oral tradition surviving to today, but according to wikipedia "recent research" says it super-definitely was built by the natives.
At least this is, visually, slightly more believable than when they tried to claim German replica castles made in the 80's and 90's as "African castles" just because some rich German built them in Africa. That was one of my favorite threads of all time; shit was hilarious.
They're still wrong, though. They've just managed to make a more believable lie this time around.
Also, even if these were all built by Africans, plenty of these aren't castles to begin with. Just because a building is blocky, doesn't mean it's a castle. I know this one didn't specifically mention castles, but still. Also, I wonder if not mentioning castles was intentional goalpost shifting; is this a reaction to that other hilarious thread, still arguing the point?
It's so stupid how these people have to reach to try to defend their incorrect argument. Most noteworthy monuments in Africa are not built by Africans. That's pretty dang clear. Unlike Europe, Asia, or the Middle East, who all built their own stuff. But the leftists have a deep need to try to refute the point, even though it's obviously correct.
Also, even if these were all built by Africans, plenty of these aren't castles to begin with. Just because a building is blocky, doesn't mean it's a castle. I know this one didn't specifically mention castles, but still. Also, I wonder if not mentioning castles was intentional goalpost shifting; is this a reaction to that other hilarious thread, still arguing the point?
Castles are a bad yardstick to use because they were in many ways a product of European weakness and not strength: lords and nobles started fortifying their homes after the fall of the Carolingian Empire. A fortified city or military stronghold could be a more impressive feat of engineering yet not be a castle because it existed to protect a community or an army and not a household.
The lines on the map are completely arbitrary, and more often than not, are drawn by horrible colonizers who have no care in the world for the many peoples that live in those places and have their ancestral homelands divided up by someone that couldn't care less about such things...
...until reality needs to 180 again, and the line on the map says "AFRICA," therefore a tribe of giga-niggers all spontaneously organized to build massive and awe-inspiring structures and their similarity to other cultures in physical or historical proximity are irrelevant and also dogwhistles.
If it's less than 5 stories, it's probably built by native Africans as they did not have the metallurgy to build much higher, and typically built their buildings out of clay bricks, rather than try to mine a lot of difficult to get ore.
North Africa was built by North Africans and Mediterranean peoples. Aryans were entirely in the wrong part of a different continent, and spread towards India, not Africa, before their language died out.
The unfortunate part about modern politics is that people forget that words did and do have real meanings before Current Year connotations where its all just "the whites and the not whites."
The Nazis latched onto Aryans long before we had much information on them, and the more we found, the more wrong they were. Suddenly, Aryan as a concept had to change to just mean 'white guy with blonde hair and blue eyes'; despite the fact that the NSDAP didn't even agree. Because they believed in Aryanism, a complete wakanda-yakub level psuedo-science; they accepted that Aryans were a long dead hyperborean race, and that blond-haired blue-eyed Caucasians were simply the closest decedents to Aryans.
That shit is so retarded that no one takes it seriously anymore, even Neo-Nazis, but they like to still wield parts of the narrative.
In reality, the Aryans are a cool ethnic group, that we know only a little about because they didn't really build any city-states that we can find. It is interesting that the Celts and Aryans went in completely different directions though...
Again, the Aryans didn't settle or even cross into North Africa or the Mediterranean, nor did any of their descendants.
You are talking about genetics, culture, and geography.
I'm telling you that Aryan genetics do not exist in North Africa. Aryan culture never appeared in North Africa.
As for Egypt, Africans built Egypt. Specifically, North Eastern Africans. Sub-Saharan Africans did not build Egypt. (Although, "Upper Nile" Ethiopian-like peoples may have build a substantial civilization there around the earliest times of the Old Kingdom). The Arabs did not build Egypt, neither did the Persians.
A couple of those were even built by the English as a laugh. #9 in particular.
Put it in a more historical perspective, when the Europeans began work on their empire's, there were only 4 continents where there was mass capitulation and/or submission:
North and South America, Oceania and Africa
The middle east managed to largely hold out, Asia only really suffered thanks to the technological superiority of the Europeans and even then a lot of areas remained under local rule while places like India only were taken thanks to different people siding with the Europeans.
Africa had centuries of contact with both the Arabs and Europeans and yet did not build and develop in a way to resist them, except if I'm remembering Ethiopia but they suffered later thanks to Italy and chemical weapons...
Resist? Ghana begged the UK to administrate their country. The local king could see the advantages of being an English colony.
The UK initially refused, because they didn't want to make the investment.
Africans would much rather have been subjects of the crown, with all the rights and privileges that conferred, than being conquered by the neighboring tribes and sold as slaves; which was very much a reality for many.
The quality of life of the colonial subjects shot up immediately after the colonial power moved in. They plummeted the minute the colony was abandoned. Ask Cambodia how that turned out for them.
I don't think you can count any of those continents as places were mass capitulation or submission took place. Even in North America, which was one of the most peaceful continents, Indian Wars were perpetual.
Not really. North Africa not only resisted but occasionally conquered into Europe. Europeans knew of Central and Southern Africa, but it was functionally impenetrable due to Malaria. Despite knowing that Africa was there, Europeans couldn't push more than 50 miles inland. It was called the "Dark Continent" because of exploration, not skin color. Contact with central or southern Africa was minimal at best for centuries, because there was no hope of colonizing it until after Malaria treatments were possible.
Ethiopia didn't have regular contact with Europeans prior to the Age of Sail. They had regular contact with Indian Ocean bordering civilizations: Arabia, Persia, Indus Valley, Orient, and Indonesia. Due to the weather patterns of Monsoon season making international trade only possible at certain times of the year, and given the distances involved, most of these civilizations neglected to have significant naval wars, or attempt to colonize one another unless there were land borders.
The first people to change that dynamic were the Portuguese who made aggressive efforts to set up colonies and vassals among each region or civilization; and also made an effort to annex or vassalize them. The Ethiopians on the coast had more regular civilizations, but they were typically as advanced as any Arab or Persian middle age civilization. As you went further inland (and as the geography became less passable), civilization became far more primitive. Portuguese contact with the Ethiopians was only around the 1600's. Prior to that Ethiopia (Abyssinia) was largely unknown to Europeans. Indians would have been more familiar with them than the European peoples.
And yes, they were hit with Chemical weapons in their war with Italy.
Breaking footage of Gizortnik emerging from his tunnel to write an UMMM AKSHUALLY post
You're welcome, faggot.
Oh, Gizortnik big mad now!
I'm assuming most of those are like north africa? Also, gothic archways and greek columns don't scream non-colonialism.
Can someone tell e what those structures are?
The only one of these that was authentically built by sub-saharan Africans was #3 (Top right). That's the Conical Tower at the Great Zimbabwe site, built in the 11th or 12th century. Impressive masonry, to keep it all standing for as long as it did when they didn't use mortar. But the rest is all in North Africa, and I'm pretty sure #4 and #9 are modern.
Jewish/Arabic y-chromosome was found coincidentally all over the one area that any actual structure was built, Jewish oral tradition surviving to today, but according to wikipedia "recent research" says it super-definitely was built by the natives.
Yeah, sure... the Jews built it.
At least this is, visually, slightly more believable than when they tried to claim German replica castles made in the 80's and 90's as "African castles" just because some rich German built them in Africa. That was one of my favorite threads of all time; shit was hilarious.
They're still wrong, though. They've just managed to make a more believable lie this time around.
Also, even if these were all built by Africans, plenty of these aren't castles to begin with. Just because a building is blocky, doesn't mean it's a castle. I know this one didn't specifically mention castles, but still. Also, I wonder if not mentioning castles was intentional goalpost shifting; is this a reaction to that other hilarious thread, still arguing the point?
It's so stupid how these people have to reach to try to defend their incorrect argument. Most noteworthy monuments in Africa are not built by Africans. That's pretty dang clear. Unlike Europe, Asia, or the Middle East, who all built their own stuff. But the leftists have a deep need to try to refute the point, even though it's obviously correct.
Castles are a bad yardstick to use because they were in many ways a product of European weakness and not strength: lords and nobles started fortifying their homes after the fall of the Carolingian Empire. A fortified city or military stronghold could be a more impressive feat of engineering yet not be a castle because it existed to protect a community or an army and not a household.
Amazing how they have to make history up to appease their black fragility.
The lines on the map are completely arbitrary, and more often than not, are drawn by horrible colonizers who have no care in the world for the many peoples that live in those places and have their ancestral homelands divided up by someone that couldn't care less about such things...
...until reality needs to 180 again, and the line on the map says "AFRICA," therefore a tribe of giga-niggers all spontaneously organized to build massive and awe-inspiring structures and their similarity to other cultures in physical or historical proximity are irrelevant and also dogwhistles.
Stealing another culture's castles is really on the nose, though.
You forgot one!
https://wallpaperaccess.com/full/5550740.jpg
Several of those are clearly not built by Arabs.
If it's less than 5 stories, it's probably built by native Africans as they did not have the metallurgy to build much higher, and typically built their buildings out of clay bricks, rather than try to mine a lot of difficult to get ore.
I mean, if you really want to argue hard for ancient jewish colonies in Africa, you can. But, I'd argue it's disputed.
North Africa was built by North Africans and Mediterranean peoples. Aryans were entirely in the wrong part of a different continent, and spread towards India, not Africa, before their language died out.
That's like saying the Celts built Siberia.
The unfortunate part about modern politics is that people forget that words did and do have real meanings before Current Year connotations where its all just "the whites and the not whites."
The Nazis latched onto Aryans long before we had much information on them, and the more we found, the more wrong they were. Suddenly, Aryan as a concept had to change to just mean 'white guy with blonde hair and blue eyes'; despite the fact that the NSDAP didn't even agree. Because they believed in Aryanism, a complete wakanda-yakub level psuedo-science; they accepted that Aryans were a long dead hyperborean race, and that blond-haired blue-eyed Caucasians were simply the closest decedents to Aryans.
That shit is so retarded that no one takes it seriously anymore, even Neo-Nazis, but they like to still wield parts of the narrative.
In reality, the Aryans are a cool ethnic group, that we know only a little about because they didn't really build any city-states that we can find. It is interesting that the Celts and Aryans went in completely different directions though...
Again, the Aryans didn't settle or even cross into North Africa or the Mediterranean, nor did any of their descendants.
You are talking about genetics, culture, and geography.
I'm telling you that Aryan genetics do not exist in North Africa. Aryan culture never appeared in North Africa.
As for Egypt, Africans built Egypt. Specifically, North Eastern Africans. Sub-Saharan Africans did not build Egypt. (Although, "Upper Nile" Ethiopian-like peoples may have build a substantial civilization there around the earliest times of the Old Kingdom). The Arabs did not build Egypt, neither did the Persians.