LOL this thread. Glad there are real students of history in here.
History channel shows Hannibal as a Black man. Whites go crazy cry revisionism.
- Thread starter Dr. Truth
- Start date
Wow. I think you're SO wrong here, at least with the earlier part of your post. I think many Jews would even disagree with you. First of all, you're invoking Godwin's Law, which you know can derail a discussion. Second of all, the Holocaust wasn't simply a result of Hitler's delusions; it was a product of hundreds of years of European anti-Semitic thoughts and acts. From the "Christ-killer" accusations, to the ghettos of Europe, to being locked out of the economy (except money-lending and banking) to the Inquisition to the Protocols ... anti-Jewish sentiment ran deep throughout Europe.
So, if we go into anti-Black/anti-African sentiment, we can see a similar trajectory. We could start with the Hamitic Myth, which originally came from, ironically, the Jewish Talmud. From there we could review Catholic sources and Papal edicts that declared black people either did not have souls or were being "saved" by being enslaved and Christianized. In the Americas, anti-Black racism becomes more sophisticated, with "blanqueamiento" and "mejado la raza" and other beliefs in Latin America and Black Codes and Jim Crow here. I think Lattimore already mentioned Haiti. Just look at was done to it after its revolution.
We could go so deep into this shit, it's ridiculous. If nothing else, since you're a history buff, I'd strongly recommend that you read "Black Athena" by Martin Bernal. It's a controversial work, but far from being non-scholarly or the work of some kind of Afrocentric "quack," since he was a white British guy who taught at Cornell and Oxford. However, he breaks down the racism that existed in the Classics and other fields of historical study. He called it the "Aryan model" of history. I could tell you something else interesting about him as well, because I think you have the problem that he did.
Black Athena is interesting, but they are still doing DNA work in North Africa. Seems groups were coexisting up there more than people realized. With back-and-forth migration patterns, shit gets crazy.
What are you opinions on claiming Sumer either way? It seems like both Eurocentrics and Afrocentrics try to claim intermediate(mutt) populations. Given the location of Sumer, what would it have more than likely been?
Neither, imo. It wasn't a European or an African civilization. The intermediate, or "mutt" idea, makes the most sense to me. So, by today's standards, what would the people have been? That depends on how you classify modern-day people in the Middle East, especially in the "lower" Middle East. Are they people of color, as some people claim, or are they Mediterranean Caucasians, which is label applied to Middle Eastern and South Asian people? How would you classify the Arab men below? I generally think that is what the people of Sumer and much of the Bible looked like.
My general belief is that the most advanced, sophisticated civilizations rise either in areas where there is a lot of social contact, trade, and cultural diffusion amongst different people, usually due to a trade route or body of water, or where the culture has willfully decided to open itself up to other ideas and is able to adopt those ideas into its own culture. For example, Egypt grew out of the Nile River and Nile River Valley; Sumer grew out of the Tigris and Euphrates Rivers and the Fertile Crescent; Ancient India grew out of the Indus River and Valley; and Egypt, Greece, and Rome were all Mediterranean civilizations, probably even more so than being "African" or "European."
Geographic location has been more important than race, historically.
Neither, imo. It wasn't a European or an African civilization. The intermediate, or "mutt" idea, makes the most sense to me. So, by today's standards, what would the people have been? That depends on how you classify modern-day people in the Middle East, especially in the "lower" Middle East. Are they people of color, as some people claim, or are they Mediterranean Caucasians, which is label applied to Middle Eastern and South Asian people? How would you classify the Arab men below? I generally think that is what the people of Sumer and much of the Bible looked like.
My general belief is that the most advanced, sophisticated civilizations rise either in areas where there is a lot of social contact, trade, and cultural diffusion amongst different people, usually due to a trade route or body of water, or where the culture has willfully decided to open itself up to other ideas and is able to adopt those ideas into its own culture. For example, Egypt grew out of the Nile River and Nile River Valley; Sumer grew out of the Tigris and Euphrates Rivers and the Fertile Crescent; Ancient India grew out of the Indus River and Valley; and Egypt, Greece, and Rome were all Mediterranean civilizations, probably even more so than being "African" or "European."
Geographic location has been more important than race, historically.
I agree with what you are saying. There's a reason people aren't fighting to claim the history of the aboriginal Australians or other relatively isolated people. West Asia is where you would have people who deal with entirely different climates come together(across multiple migrations). We now think it's where the first neanderthal/human interbreeding was.
DNA evidence tends to back some of the opinions we share. Looking at maps, it's also a little bit of common sense.
so i was discussing this subject on another board, well it wasn't really a discussion, some dude posted the pic thats on the budweiser. So i asked, what proof did he have beside the pic, that this dude Hannibal Barca, was black. I wasn't calling him a liar, i just wanted to read up on it for myself. You know we have a tendency of claiming every one was black. So my question is, how can this shit even be proved? There is no skeleton, no DNA, no photographs, just some stories passed around by professors. Where did they get this information from, and how was it even documented? We talking BC here.
I read thru a couple of pages and some of you dudes sound well informed on this subject, so i'm not disputing what you are saying. i am just asking, how can any of this be proven?
I read thru a couple of pages and some of you dudes sound well informed on this subject, so i'm not disputing what you are saying. i am just asking, how can any of this be proven?
It can't. Some people hear the word AFRICAN and think that automatically means Black.
The same people think that making Hannibal Black will somehow make their own lives worth more than it is. Even right after slavery , people who didn't know shit about all that in America the Carribean and Brazil made some of the most important history in the world. Self determination is the most important factor. You don't have to come from a king to be a king.
No. Afrocentric bullshit artists got their shit from Eurocentric bullshit artists. It's the same dumb shit just repackaged. What has stood? Didn't cacs build stonehenge, or are you going to claim black people built it on some 'it's true, it's true (insert bullshit source)" shit.
You the cat running around talking about Africans were natives in North America and I shut that shit down with DNA evidence and showed the 'black' people were related to Aboriginal Australians. Stop reading that 'it's true, it's true' circle jerk history shit and look at shit for what it is. The books you quote are just as bad as the Eurocentric trash that says Nordics founded ancient Egypt.
Shit is sad.Seriously. Africa is huge, but the areas cats keep putting so much effort into have a history of migration that goes against the narrative folks trying to create.
dude black africans went into europe to teach them
everything they know, from taking baths to eating with forks..
its because of 700 years of mixing with the savage, caucasions have some resemblence of man..
let euros keep mixing with each other and watch how fast they all turn back to their hairy savage neanderthal
orgins..
its really not that complicated.....
europeans went into africa burning libraries and books...
and stealing many.
europeans invaded north africa and set up shop, well after africa was on its decline..
thats the only reason you see them sand crackers in such an abundance over there...
they are wannabe NUBIANS the Original African.
why is it the european countries closest to africa were the first to dominate
the world...?
its really simple baby shit logic son!!!
Last edited:
Where was the fork invented? And are you saying indoor plumbing was common in Africa? So they brought all this to cacs before the rest of Africa?
Part of the game is that? Where do you get your information from? West Asians been invading Africa for well over 3,000 years that we know of. You ask about why were the European countries closest to Africa the first to dominate, but why is Egypt right next to West Asia and across the sea from Europe?
Why isn't it in South Africa or below the Sahara Desert( a natural barrier that protected) far away from cacs, sand cacs, and Asians? You're right. Rome and Greece should be where Sweden is and Egypt should be where South Africa is. Then everyone could STFU.
Where was the fork invented? And are you saying indoor plumbing was common in Africa? So they brought all this to cacs before the rest of Africa?
Where do you get your information from? West Asians been invading Africa for well over 3,000 years that we know of. You ask about why were the European countries closest to Africa the first to dominate, but why is Egypt right next to West Asia and across the sea from Europe?
You're right. Rome and Greece should be where Sweden is and Egypt should be where South Africa is. Then everyone could STFU.
Im sayin aint no way cacs coming out of caves with their neanderthal dna and civilizing themselves..
its just retard logic to think thats even the slightest possibility...
I have no idea what your geographical jibber jabber is tryin to convey...
Knowledge flowed from Upper Nubia into Lower Nubia....
by the way Egypt was in Lower Nubia...
again, the only reason these savage europeans
resemble man, is because of all the civilizing (fuckin)
the african has done to bring them out of their savage
ways...
One of the greatest mistakes ever made in the history of the world!
Africa and Africans made europe great...
savage europeans like the goths, vandals
. ... Other Germanic tribes Gepids, Rugian
was the reason for its decline....
FACTS!!!
Lol this is complete bullshit
They went in there to teach them? Lmaooooo this doesn't even warrant a serious response
you are not capable of one..
I know the truth hurts..
youll get over it one day....
facts are just not your thingy.....
found this on Stormcloud of all placesWhere was the fork invented? And are you saying indoor plumbing was common in Africa? So they brought all this to cacs before the rest of Africa?
Where do you get your information from? West Asians been invading Africa for well over 3,000 years that we know of. You ask about why were the European countries closest to Africa the first to dominate, but why is Egypt right next to West Asia and across the sea from Europe?
You're right. Rome and Greece should be where Sweden is and Egypt should be where South Africa is. Then everyone could STFU.
The Swahili Civilization of East Africa
The East African Swahili coast was a wealthy and advanced region, which consisted of many autonomous merchant cities. Wealth flowed into the cities via the Africans' roles as intermediaries and facilitators of Indian, Persian, Arab, Indonesian, Malaysian, African, and Chinese merchants. All of these peoples enriched the Swahili culture to some degree.
The Swahili culture developed its own written language; the language incorporated elements from different civilizations, with Arabic as its strongest quality. Some Arab settlers were rich merchants who, because of their wealth, gained power--sometimes as rulers of coastal cities. Due to that, and personal prejudice, many past scholars tried to, whether they believed it or not, paint the Swahili culture as an Arab invention. What do the facts say? Was the Swahili culture made of predominantly Arab influence or was that just an idea invented by Eurocentric historians attempting to influence an unknowing public?
Between the 10th and 15th centuries the Muslim World was more advanced technically, scientifically, and philosophically than any place in the world. With that in mind the, the Arab settlers on the Swahili coast would have clearly added beneficial elements to the E. African coast and culture; yet what was the degree of their influence?
Architecture
Ibn Battuta, a medieval world traveler, recorded that the bustling trading city of Kilwa is, "one of the most beautiful and best-constructed towns, all elegantly built."2 By the 14th century stone houses were frequently built, many of which had two or three stories. The Chinese even recorded that there were five story buildings.
V.V. Matveiev, a historian of East African history, wrote, "The Portuguese were impressed by the towns, the appearance and architecture of which did not fall short of anything they had at home, and by the wealth of the inhabitants who came to meet them and were elegantly dressed in rich, gold-adorned clothes and in silk and cotton cloth. The woman wore chains and bangles of gold and silver of their arms and legs, and earrings set with precious stones."3 Arabs brought the use of stone construction to the East Coast, but were the designs Arab or African?
Twentieth Century archaeologist, Freeman-Grenville, pointed out that the stone buildings in the most famous Swahili city, Kilwa, were built in the same style as the African mud homes, which clearly suggests that the stone buildings were the work of African architects, not Arabs. Mark Horton of Bristol University (in the UK) agrees; he pieced together a clear evolution of mud, wood, and thatch structures to that of stone.4
Connah concluded that, "again, this sequence seems to emphasize the indigenous evolution of coastal culture, as also does the increasing number of sites that now appear to have an early origin."5
Oxford historian J.E.G. Sutton wrote, "In its plans and styles for both religious and domestic buildings, in its masonry techniques…in its dressed stone moldings and decorative motifs, the architect of the Swahili coast maintained over the centuries its own traditions distinguishing it from that of Arabia, Persia and any other Muslim land."6
East African historian Chittick concluded, "Materially, and especially in the architecture, the people of the coast evolved a civilization that was in many respects peculiar to themselves, a civilization which it is best to refer to as early Swahili."7
"By the 1970's," Connah wrote, "the emphasis was changing, as some archaeologists came to realize the basically indigenous character of the coastal culture and began to see the cities as part of an ongoing process of African social and economic change, rather than the result of alien colonization"8 Connah continued; "We…see the stone buildings as an integral part of an overall settlement pattern, rather than the major features of coast-clinging, trading cities of alien merchants, that some might once have thought them. Moreover, when that settlement pattern is analyses for location and date, it appears that this supposedly coast-clinging culture has 30 per cent of the southern Somalinan, Kenyan and Tanzanian sites located in places that have 'poor or no harbors' (including six that are actually inland, a clear indication that they were African not Arab)."9
The Swahili culture's foundations did not originate from the coast but inland; areas the Arab immigrants did not settle.10
"It is difficult to escape the conclusion," Connah wrote, "that mud, wood and thatch buildings, and the African peoples who built them, contributed greatly to the East African coastal settlements."11
Culture
As Chittick mentioned above, the Swahili civilization is one, "peculiar to themselves."12 Despite Muslim immigration, Islamic culture fused with, rather than eclipsed, the native culture. By 1150 we find poets writing in Swahili, which at the time had strong Arab qualities, but later changed into an entirely separate script. Many people had ceramic lamps, which, "suggest that the inhabitants probably engaged in reading, writing, keeping accounts and so forth."13 The Swahili legal system adopted some aspects of Muslim law, but the indigenous system essentially remained.14
Like other African regions it was an Islam shaped to fit the native culture. Furthermore, like other African regions it was mostly only the wealthy merchants and elites who adopted Islam. Furthermore, like other regions, the conversion was not always authentic; it was often used for political or trading purposes.15 Many common Africans converted in order to create common ground between them and the African aristocrats.16
"Swahili culture," A.I. Salim, of the University of Nairobi, explained, "represented a fusion, in an urban, "melting pot" context, of the values and customs of many people, both from the African continent and from other lands bordering the Indian Ocean."17
Rulers
In the past many people felt that Arabs ruled the Swahili cities, which that was sometimes the case. Yet even the Arabs who ruled quickly intermarried with local woman and learnt the African language and culture.
After a short period the ruling Arabs became indistinguishable from the black Zang, physically and culturally.18 Adding to the confusion is the fact that many black rulers changed their names to Arab/Islamic forms following their conversions to Islam; some even decided to trace their genealogy to Arab areas instead of African in order to claim relation to the Prophet Mohammad. We have written accounts from the Pate Chronicle and the Kilwa Chronicle of the Swahili Coast that show the real African genealogy of rulers, which shows a very different genealogy than they claimed. The chronicles also show that the system of rule remained African; Succession of power, after the name change, still came only through African clans and not anywhere else. A.H.J Prins has found several other examples of African groups tracing their roots to the mid east, despite having an, "indubitably African origin."20 The Heritage of World Civilization, a book compiled by Harvard and Yale historians, confirms that: "Today historians are recognizing that the ruling dynasties of the Swahili states were probably African in origin."21
Ibn Battuta recorded that; "the majority of its inhabitants are Zanj, jet black in color, and with tattoo-marks on their faces."22
"The population of these settlements," Salim confirms, "were predominately African, with initially a tiny minority of Arabs whose numbers increased substantially in the eighteenth and nineteenth centuries."23
At the end of the 19th century J. Strandes trumpeted a theory that there were passive and influential peoples in history; that notion often held precedence over archeological evidence. Pushed along by prejudice, the theory had a major impact on historians studying the Swahilli Coast.
Instead of consulting the written and archeological evidence many concluded that the advanced culture must be Arab because blacks were passive players in history. This erroneous idea felt good and consequently the myth gained some support. Elements of that ridiculous notion can still be seen in the works of several men in the 50's and 60's, such as J.S. Kirman and G.S.P Freeman-Greenville--who had even concluded that the stone buildings of the Swahili coast were African in origin. Other scholars of a more recent date, like archaeologist H.N. Chittick and the Soviet Union's V.M Miniugin and V.V. Matveiev, along with African historians like J. Ki-Zerbo and Cheikh Anta Diop, "affirms the basis of research that the ruling dynasties in the towns were dynasties of local African origin."24
Fall of the Swahili coast
There is a common theme throughout history; vulnerable small yet advanced groups who don't have the means to produce a strong army are eventually taken over by a smaller, yet rougher militant group, whether that group be nomadic in origin or coming from a sizable kingdom like Portugal. "The more civilized," Davidson wrote, "as on many occasions before and since, were ruined by the less. Nomads triumphed once again over peoples who were, 'soft and settled."26 The Mongolian--a small nomadic clan--conquests of China, the Mid-East, and Russia exemplify that point. That defines the fall of the Swahili coast.
The Portuguese, sailing around the coast, took advantage of the, "soft and settled," coastal cities. Davidson summarized, "Secure in their firearms they did as they pleased."27 Davidson wrote this of the destruction:
"They sacked and conquered the coastal cities and cut the trading links which had long bound the east coast--and its inland customers and suppliers--with the Persian Gulf and India and the Far East. They pushed into the interior and used their firearms on this side or on that of dynastic wars and rivalries, so as to weaken the whole and deliver the power of government into their ultimate control. Being too weak to hold this power, they left chaos in their wake."28
The Portuguese attempted to control the trade between interior Africa, the Swahili coast, and India. "The mistake" Davidson wrote, "…had been to try and seize not only the maritime monopoly but also the overland monopoly. The African coastal cities had learned better than to try to dominate their inland neighbors…. Their (the Portuguese) captains and commercial agents would do the same in India with the same destructive consequences."29 New wars in the interior and the Portuguese cupidity, "damned the flow of gold," as well as the other forms of trade. The Portuguese did the same in India, destroying that prosperous coastal civilization.
There were other factors: a decreased rainfall upset the water balance and hindered further development of the coastal towns. The Zimba invasion, an African clan, also hurt the East Coast. But like most scholars, Matveiev, born in Russia, believe, "The chief course…was the disruption of maritime trade by the Portuguese. Being well fitted out, equipped with artillery and built for the purpose of naval warfare, the Portuguese ships were an invincible force….the plundering and destruction of the coastal towns, particularly Kilwa, were all blows from which East African maritime trade never recovered, and the medieval Swahili civilization perished with it."30
1Africa from the sixteenth to the eighteenth century/ editor, B.A. Ogot. (London; Heinemann Educational Books; Berkeley; University of California Press; Paris: Unesco, 1992), 754
2Davidson, Basil. The Lost Cities of Africa. Boston: Little Brown, 1959, 209
3Africa from the twelfth to the sixteenth century/ editor, D.T. Niane (London; Heinemann Educational Books; Berkeley: University of California Press, 1984), 472
4Connah, Graham. African Civilizations. Armidale, N.S.W., Australia: University of New England, 1998, 169
5Ibid, 170
6Africa from the twelfth to the sixteenth century/ editor, D.T. Niane (London; Heinemann Educational Books; Berkeley: University of California Press, 1984), 472
7Ibid
8Connah, 160
9Ibid, 167
10Ibid
11Ibid, 167
12Africa from the twelfth to the sixteenth century/ editor, D.T. Niane (London; Heinemann Educational Books; Berkeley: University of California Press, 1984), 472
13Ibid
14Ibid, 469
15Ibid
16Ibid
17Africa from the sixteenth to the eighteenth century/ editor, B.A. Ogot. (London; Heinemann Educational Books; Berkeley; University of California Press; Paris: Unesco, 1992), 754
18Davidson, Basil. The Lost Cities of Africa. Boston: Little Brown, 1959, 206
19Africa from the twelfth to the sixteenth century/ editor, D.T. Niane (London; Heinemann Educational Books; Berkeley: University of California Press, 1984), 478
20Ibid, 479
21The Heritage of World Civilizations: Volume One: To 1650, 4th ed. Editor, Owen, Cralyce. Upper Saddle River, New Jersey: Prentice-Hall Simon & Shuster, 1997, 511
22Lost Cities, 209
23Africa from the sixteenth to the eighteenth century/ editor, B.A. Ogot. (London; Heinemann Educational Books; Berkeley; University of California Press; Paris: Unesco, 1992), 755
24Africa from the twelfth to the sixteenth century/ editor, D.T. Niane (London; Heinemann Educational Books; Berkeley: University of California Press, 1984), 476
25Lost Cities, 234
26Ibid
27Ibid, 329
28Ibid, 324
29Ibid, 326
30Africa from the twelfth to the sixteenth century/ editor, D.T. Niane (London; Heinemann Educational Books; Berkeley: University)
Swahili Civilization More Advanced Than Medieval Europe
Why doesn't anyone ever discuss the Islamic Swahili civilization of East Africa?
They were more advanced, scientifically and technologically, than the Europeans of the Middle Ages.
They had an elaborate architecture and built splendid mosques and fortifications; they also lived in palaces and houses of coral stone complete with indoor plumbing, when the Europeans of the same period wore cod pieces and lived in mud huts. Many of the massive stone ruins of the old Swahili civilization still litter the coast of East Africa from Somalia to Mozambique.
The Swahili were also one of the few Africans to have an extensive written literature, albeit in Arabic script, in their own indigenous tongue. This was at a time when European scholars regarded Latin as the international language of scholarship.
In addition, through the acquisition of muskets and cannon, they also defeated Portuguese invaders under Vasco da Gama, who tried to subjugate much of the East African coast in the name of the crown of Portugal.
Why is the Swahili civilization generally ignored today? Is it because of their connection with the East African Indian Ocean slave trade during the nineteenth century? Is it because they are predominantly Muslim in religion and culture?
The Local, Bantu Origins of the Swahili City-States
Although many European scholars have claimed that the Swahili city-states emerged during the period of Indian Ocean trade and Arab-Persian immigration to the region, the roots of Swahili civilization stretch back many thousands of years into the past.
One of the earliest documents concerning the existence of trade and civilization along the East African coast is the so-called "Periplus of the Erythrean Sea", which was composed by an anonymous Greek navigator in 110 AD. This ancient document clearly establishes the fact that the civilization of the East African coast was an integral part of classical antiquity.
The anthropologist Felix Chami has discovered various Neolithic sites on the East African coast, notably in such places as Zanzibar Island, Mafia and Juani, that can be dated from anywhere between 3000 - 100 BC, making Swahili civilization one of the oldest African cultures in existence, even predating the classical period in both Greece and Rome.
Many of the goods excavated at these pre-Islamic archeological sites in coastal East Africa included such things as potsherds and wares from ancient Egypt, early Iron Age India, and even various goods imported from the Romans, clearly demonstrating that the trans-oceanic trade of the East African coast is many thousands of years old and occurred long before Arab/Persian cultural penetration of the East African coast.
Not only is Swahili civilization more ancient than European civilization, but it was certainly more advanced and more cosmopolitan than the Europe of the Middle Ages. In the Swahili city-states, the people lived in houses and palaces made of stone hewn from coral rock; they lived in large, vibrant cosmopolitan urban centres, whereas European commoners lived in huts and small villages. The Swahili washed themselves daily, whereas the Europeans lived in their own filth and were almost completely ignorant of the art of basic personal hygiene. In the harbours of East Africa, could be found dhows and ships from all four corners of the Asian world, including Arabia, India, Persia, and China, whereas most Europeans knew nothing of the larger world outside of their villages.
Sources:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/africa/1924318.stm
I was just using Egypt as a reference since it's what most people talk about. Egypt this. Egypt that. I'm well aware of African history, as well as history of other areas of the world. That's why I just laugh at some of the shit people say. Below shows European's had two-story homes when some cats insist they were living in caves and too dumb to do shit.found this on Stormcloud of all places
The Swahili Civilization of East Africa
The East African Swahili coast was a wealthy and advanced region, which consisted of many autonomous merchant cities. Wealth flowed into the cities via the Africans' roles as intermediaries and facilitators of Indian, Persian, Arab, Indonesian, Malaysian, African, and Chinese merchants. All of these peoples enriched the Swahili culture to some degree.
The Swahili culture developed its own written language; the language incorporated elements from different civilizations, with Arabic as its strongest quality. Some Arab settlers were rich merchants who, because of their wealth, gained power--sometimes as rulers of coastal cities. Due to that, and personal prejudice, many past scholars tried to, whether they believed it or not, paint the Swahili culture as an Arab invention. What do the facts say? Was the Swahili culture made of predominantly Arab influence or was that just an idea invented by Eurocentric historians attempting to influence an unknowing public?
Between the 10th and 15th centuries the Muslim World was more advanced technically, scientifically, and philosophically than any place in the world. With that in mind the, the Arab settlers on the Swahili coast would have clearly added beneficial elements to the E. African coast and culture; yet what was the degree of their influence?
Architecture
Ibn Battuta, a medieval world traveler, recorded that the bustling trading city of Kilwa is, "one of the most beautiful and best-constructed towns, all elegantly built."2 By the 14th century stone houses were frequently built, many of which had two or three stories. The Chinese even recorded that there were five story buildings.
V.V. Matveiev, a historian of East African history, wrote, "The Portuguese were impressed by the towns, the appearance and architecture of which did not fall short of anything they had at home, and by the wealth of the inhabitants who came to meet them and were elegantly dressed in rich, gold-adorned clothes and in silk and cotton cloth. The woman wore chains and bangles of gold and silver of their arms and legs, and earrings set with precious stones."3 Arabs brought the use of stone construction to the East Coast, but were the designs Arab or African?
Twentieth Century archaeologist, Freeman-Grenville, pointed out that the stone buildings in the most famous Swahili city, Kilwa, were built in the same style as the African mud homes, which clearly suggests that the stone buildings were the work of African architects, not Arabs. Mark Horton of Bristol University (in the UK) agrees; he pieced together a clear evolution of mud, wood, and thatch structures to that of stone.4
Connah concluded that, "again, this sequence seems to emphasize the indigenous evolution of coastal culture, as also does the increasing number of sites that now appear to have an early origin."5
Oxford historian J.E.G. Sutton wrote, "In its plans and styles for both religious and domestic buildings, in its masonry techniques…in its dressed stone moldings and decorative motifs, the architect of the Swahili coast maintained over the centuries its own traditions distinguishing it from that of Arabia, Persia and any other Muslim land."6
East African historian Chittick concluded, "Materially, and especially in the architecture, the people of the coast evolved a civilization that was in many respects peculiar to themselves, a civilization which it is best to refer to as early Swahili."7
"By the 1970's," Connah wrote, "the emphasis was changing, as some archaeologists came to realize the basically indigenous character of the coastal culture and began to see the cities as part of an ongoing process of African social and economic change, rather than the result of alien colonization"8 Connah continued; "We…see the stone buildings as an integral part of an overall settlement pattern, rather than the major features of coast-clinging, trading cities of alien merchants, that some might once have thought them. Moreover, when that settlement pattern is analyses for location and date, it appears that this supposedly coast-clinging culture has 30 per cent of the southern Somalinan, Kenyan and Tanzanian sites located in places that have 'poor or no harbors' (including six that are actually inland, a clear indication that they were African not Arab)."9
The Swahili culture's foundations did not originate from the coast but inland; areas the Arab immigrants did not settle.10
"It is difficult to escape the conclusion," Connah wrote, "that mud, wood and thatch buildings, and the African peoples who built them, contributed greatly to the East African coastal settlements."11
Culture
As Chittick mentioned above, the Swahili civilization is one, "peculiar to themselves."12 Despite Muslim immigration, Islamic culture fused with, rather than eclipsed, the native culture. By 1150 we find poets writing in Swahili, which at the time had strong Arab qualities, but later changed into an entirely separate script. Many people had ceramic lamps, which, "suggest that the inhabitants probably engaged in reading, writing, keeping accounts and so forth."13 The Swahili legal system adopted some aspects of Muslim law, but the indigenous system essentially remained.14
Like other African regions it was an Islam shaped to fit the native culture. Furthermore, like other African regions it was mostly only the wealthy merchants and elites who adopted Islam. Furthermore, like other regions, the conversion was not always authentic; it was often used for political or trading purposes.15 Many common Africans converted in order to create common ground between them and the African aristocrats.16
"Swahili culture," A.I. Salim, of the University of Nairobi, explained, "represented a fusion, in an urban, "melting pot" context, of the values and customs of many people, both from the African continent and from other lands bordering the Indian Ocean."17
Rulers
In the past many people felt that Arabs ruled the Swahili cities, which that was sometimes the case. Yet even the Arabs who ruled quickly intermarried with local woman and learnt the African language and culture.
After a short period the ruling Arabs became indistinguishable from the black Zang, physically and culturally.18 Adding to the confusion is the fact that many black rulers changed their names to Arab/Islamic forms following their conversions to Islam; some even decided to trace their genealogy to Arab areas instead of African in order to claim relation to the Prophet Mohammad. We have written accounts from the Pate Chronicle and the Kilwa Chronicle of the Swahili Coast that show the real African genealogy of rulers, which shows a very different genealogy than they claimed. The chronicles also show that the system of rule remained African; Succession of power, after the name change, still came only through African clans and not anywhere else. A.H.J Prins has found several other examples of African groups tracing their roots to the mid east, despite having an, "indubitably African origin."20 The Heritage of World Civilization, a book compiled by Harvard and Yale historians, confirms that: "Today historians are recognizing that the ruling dynasties of the Swahili states were probably African in origin."21
Ibn Battuta recorded that; "the majority of its inhabitants are Zanj, jet black in color, and with tattoo-marks on their faces."22
"The population of these settlements," Salim confirms, "were predominately African, with initially a tiny minority of Arabs whose numbers increased substantially in the eighteenth and nineteenth centuries."23
At the end of the 19th century J. Strandes trumpeted a theory that there were passive and influential peoples in history; that notion often held precedence over archeological evidence. Pushed along by prejudice, the theory had a major impact on historians studying the Swahilli Coast.
Instead of consulting the written and archeological evidence many concluded that the advanced culture must be Arab because blacks were passive players in history. This erroneous idea felt good and consequently the myth gained some support. Elements of that ridiculous notion can still be seen in the works of several men in the 50's and 60's, such as J.S. Kirman and G.S.P Freeman-Greenville--who had even concluded that the stone buildings of the Swahili coast were African in origin. Other scholars of a more recent date, like archaeologist H.N. Chittick and the Soviet Union's V.M Miniugin and V.V. Matveiev, along with African historians like J. Ki-Zerbo and Cheikh Anta Diop, "affirms the basis of research that the ruling dynasties in the towns were dynasties of local African origin."24
Fall of the Swahili coast
There is a common theme throughout history; vulnerable small yet advanced groups who don't have the means to produce a strong army are eventually taken over by a smaller, yet rougher militant group, whether that group be nomadic in origin or coming from a sizable kingdom like Portugal. "The more civilized," Davidson wrote, "as on many occasions before and since, were ruined by the less. Nomads triumphed once again over peoples who were, 'soft and settled."26 The Mongolian--a small nomadic clan--conquests of China, the Mid-East, and Russia exemplify that point. That defines the fall of the Swahili coast.
The Portuguese, sailing around the coast, took advantage of the, "soft and settled," coastal cities. Davidson summarized, "Secure in their firearms they did as they pleased."27 Davidson wrote this of the destruction:
"They sacked and conquered the coastal cities and cut the trading links which had long bound the east coast--and its inland customers and suppliers--with the Persian Gulf and India and the Far East. They pushed into the interior and used their firearms on this side or on that of dynastic wars and rivalries, so as to weaken the whole and deliver the power of government into their ultimate control. Being too weak to hold this power, they left chaos in their wake."28
The Portuguese attempted to control the trade between interior Africa, the Swahili coast, and India. "The mistake" Davidson wrote, "…had been to try and seize not only the maritime monopoly but also the overland monopoly. The African coastal cities had learned better than to try to dominate their inland neighbors…. Their (the Portuguese) captains and commercial agents would do the same in India with the same destructive consequences."29 New wars in the interior and the Portuguese cupidity, "damned the flow of gold," as well as the other forms of trade. The Portuguese did the same in India, destroying that prosperous coastal civilization.
There were other factors: a decreased rainfall upset the water balance and hindered further development of the coastal towns. The Zimba invasion, an African clan, also hurt the East Coast. But like most scholars, Matveiev, born in Russia, believe, "The chief course…was the disruption of maritime trade by the Portuguese. Being well fitted out, equipped with artillery and built for the purpose of naval warfare, the Portuguese ships were an invincible force….the plundering and destruction of the coastal towns, particularly Kilwa, were all blows from which East African maritime trade never recovered, and the medieval Swahili civilization perished with it."30
1Africa from the sixteenth to the eighteenth century/ editor, B.A. Ogot. (London; Heinemann Educational Books; Berkeley; University of California Press; Paris: Unesco, 1992), 754
2Davidson, Basil. The Lost Cities of Africa. Boston: Little Brown, 1959, 209
3Africa from the twelfth to the sixteenth century/ editor, D.T. Niane (London; Heinemann Educational Books; Berkeley: University of California Press, 1984), 472
4Connah, Graham. African Civilizations. Armidale, N.S.W., Australia: University of New England, 1998, 169
5Ibid, 170
6Africa from the twelfth to the sixteenth century/ editor, D.T. Niane (London; Heinemann Educational Books; Berkeley: University of California Press, 1984), 472
7Ibid
8Connah, 160
9Ibid, 167
10Ibid
11Ibid, 167
12Africa from the twelfth to the sixteenth century/ editor, D.T. Niane (London; Heinemann Educational Books; Berkeley: University of California Press, 1984), 472
13Ibid
14Ibid, 469
15Ibid
16Ibid
17Africa from the sixteenth to the eighteenth century/ editor, B.A. Ogot. (London; Heinemann Educational Books; Berkeley; University of California Press; Paris: Unesco, 1992), 754
18Davidson, Basil. The Lost Cities of Africa. Boston: Little Brown, 1959, 206
19Africa from the twelfth to the sixteenth century/ editor, D.T. Niane (London; Heinemann Educational Books; Berkeley: University of California Press, 1984), 478
20Ibid, 479
21The Heritage of World Civilizations: Volume One: To 1650, 4th ed. Editor, Owen, Cralyce. Upper Saddle River, New Jersey: Prentice-Hall Simon & Shuster, 1997, 511
22Lost Cities, 209
23Africa from the sixteenth to the eighteenth century/ editor, B.A. Ogot. (London; Heinemann Educational Books; Berkeley; University of California Press; Paris: Unesco, 1992), 755
24Africa from the twelfth to the sixteenth century/ editor, D.T. Niane (London; Heinemann Educational Books; Berkeley: University of California Press, 1984), 476
25Lost Cities, 234
26Ibid
27Ibid, 329
28Ibid, 324
29Ibid, 326
30Africa from the twelfth to the sixteenth century/ editor, D.T. Niane (London; Heinemann Educational Books; Berkeley: University)
Swahili Civilization More Advanced Than Medieval Europe
Why doesn't anyone ever discuss the Islamic Swahili civilization of East Africa?
They were more advanced, scientifically and technologically, than the Europeans of the Middle Ages.
They had an elaborate architecture and built splendid mosques and fortifications; they also lived in palaces and houses of coral stone complete with indoor plumbing, when the Europeans of the same period wore cod pieces and lived in mud huts. Many of the massive stone ruins of the old Swahili civilization still litter the coast of East Africa from Somalia to Mozambique.
The Swahili were also one of the few Africans to have an extensive written literature, albeit in Arabic script, in their own indigenous tongue. This was at a time when European scholars regarded Latin as the international language of scholarship.
In addition, through the acquisition of muskets and cannon, they also defeated Portuguese invaders under Vasco da Gama, who tried to subjugate much of the East African coast in the name of the crown of Portugal.
Why is the Swahili civilization generally ignored today? Is it because of their connection with the East African Indian Ocean slave trade during the nineteenth century? Is it because they are predominantly Muslim in religion and culture?
The Local, Bantu Origins of the Swahili City-States
Although many European scholars have claimed that the Swahili city-states emerged during the period of Indian Ocean trade and Arab-Persian immigration to the region, the roots of Swahili civilization stretch back many thousands of years into the past.
One of the earliest documents concerning the existence of trade and civilization along the East African coast is the so-called "Periplus of the Erythrean Sea", which was composed by an anonymous Greek navigator in 110 AD. This ancient document clearly establishes the fact that the civilization of the East African coast was an integral part of classical antiquity.
The anthropologist Felix Chami has discovered various Neolithic sites on the East African coast, notably in such places as Zanzibar Island, Mafia and Juani, that can be dated from anywhere between 3000 - 100 BC, making Swahili civilization one of the oldest African cultures in existence, even predating the classical period in both Greece and Rome.
Many of the goods excavated at these pre-Islamic archeological sites in coastal East Africa included such things as potsherds and wares from ancient Egypt, early Iron Age India, and even various goods imported from the Romans, clearly demonstrating that the trans-oceanic trade of the East African coast is many thousands of years old and occurred long before Arab/Persian cultural penetration of the East African coast.
Not only is Swahili civilization more ancient than European civilization, but it was certainly more advanced and more cosmopolitan than the Europe of the Middle Ages. In the Swahili city-states, the people lived in houses and palaces made of stone hewn from coral rock; they lived in large, vibrant cosmopolitan urban centres, whereas European commoners lived in huts and small villages. The Swahili washed themselves daily, whereas the Europeans lived in their own filth and were almost completely ignorant of the art of basic personal hygiene. In the harbours of East Africa, could be found dhows and ships from all four corners of the Asian world, including Arabia, India, Persia, and China, whereas most Europeans knew nothing of the larger world outside of their villages.
Sources:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/africa/1924318.stm
I just don't get 'feel good' history. Like cats need to believe that Native Americans, Asians, and Europeans HAD to learn from Africans or they'd be in caves rubbing sticks together.
History and the modern world doesn't seem to show that. http://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-20156681
Archaeologists in Bulgaria say they have uncovered the oldest prehistoric town found to date in Europe.
The walled fortified settlement, near the modern town of Provadia, is thought to have been an important centre for salt production.
Its discovery in north-east Bulgaria may explain the huge gold hoard found nearby 40 years ago.
Archaeologists believe that the town was home to some 350 people and dates back to between 4700 and 4200 BC.
That is about 1,500 years before the start of ancient Greek civilisation.
The residents boiled water from a local spring and used it to create salt bricks, which were traded and used to preserve meat.
Salt was a hugely valuable commodity at the time, which experts say could help to explain the huge defensive stone walls which ringed the town.
Seems people everywhere outside of Australia were doing things, yet some try so hard to claim otherwise like their pride depends on it.
Again, you have no 'facts'. I just posted a city in Europe in 4000 b.c. There were other cities found too. Just give it up already. Arabs were the ones who invaded Africa PRIOR to Europe bringing the 'knowledge' you claim Black Africans brought to Europe. That's why so much of that shit in Timbuktu is written in their fucking language on shit they brought from Asia.
If anyone can claim anything, it's sand cacs. Shit's all over in their language. Their fucking religion. All that shit that came AFTER the invasion of Africa. This is during the time they enslaved MILLIONS of black Africans but you claiming black Africans were too busy 'dropping knowledge' in Europe to stop the enslavement and genocide going on in Africa.
Go back to the lab and get your story straight.
Again, you have no 'facts'. I just posted a city in Europe in 4000 b.c. There were other cities found too. Just give it up already. Arabs were the ones who invaded Africa PRIOR to Europe bringing the 'knowledge' you claim Black Africans brought to Europe. That's why so much of that shit in Timbuktu is written in their fucking language on shit they brought from Asia.
If anyone can claim anything, it's sand cacs. Shit's all over in their language. Their fucking religion. All that shit that came AFTER the invasion of Africa. This is during the time they enslaved MILLIONS of black Africans but you claiming black Africans were too busy 'dropping knowledge' in Europe to stop the enslavement and genocide going on in Africa.
Go back to the lab and get your story straight.
Sand cacs of today are a mixture of europeans and the Original blackamoors...
youre just mind raped by euro revisionist history...
The original Asians were black african people..
The original Arabs were black them sand cacs you see
now were because of the white slave trade..
Im gonna start charging you for this real education boy!
I'm going to keep it a buck, my time around 5 percenters was at first enlightening, then eventually depressing.
I've come to the point that I believe a lot of blacks cling so much to history, because they feel really pessimistic about their present and futures. So, they fight tooth and nail for everything in history that they feel belongs to them. FAR more emphasis placed on studying history than on planning and executing in the present for the future.
I'm all for learning about history, but I care infinitely more about creating new history.
Remind's me of Robert Glasper, the jazz pianist that said, he doesn't want to just play jazz standards. We deify and romanticize past legends to the point that we've been them bigger than we'll ever allow ourselves to be.
We were the Original, but that doesn't guarantee us anything.
What are we going to do with that distinction?
Its not about how you start. It comes down to the moves you make in the present that determine where you end up in the future.
Study history, but don't let your glory reside in a time that you didn't exist.
There are black people that get mad at me for saying that, but what should I see when I see people caring more about what another group of people did than what we're doing now? If the people who did the great things in the past cared more about their history than their present, they wouldn't have achieved the things they did.
Fuck that, man.
We got a major uphill battle to climb against motherfuckers who have amassed immense wealth and military power, and they don't play fair.
What are we going to do about that? Argue about history, protest, riot, and pray?
You can't call yourselves gods if you're going to just take what they devil dishes out.
I'm pretty damn sure the greats from the past would cringe at the sight of what we've settled for today.
I've come to the point that I believe a lot of blacks cling so much to history, because they feel really pessimistic about their present and futures. So, they fight tooth and nail for everything in history that they feel belongs to them. FAR more emphasis placed on studying history than on planning and executing in the present for the future.
I'm all for learning about history, but I care infinitely more about creating new history.
Remind's me of Robert Glasper, the jazz pianist that said, he doesn't want to just play jazz standards. We deify and romanticize past legends to the point that we've been them bigger than we'll ever allow ourselves to be.
We were the Original, but that doesn't guarantee us anything.
What are we going to do with that distinction?
Its not about how you start. It comes down to the moves you make in the present that determine where you end up in the future.
Study history, but don't let your glory reside in a time that you didn't exist.
There are black people that get mad at me for saying that, but what should I see when I see people caring more about what another group of people did than what we're doing now? If the people who did the great things in the past cared more about their history than their present, they wouldn't have achieved the things they did.
Fuck that, man.
We got a major uphill battle to climb against motherfuckers who have amassed immense wealth and military power, and they don't play fair.
What are we going to do about that? Argue about history, protest, riot, and pray?
You can't call yourselves gods if you're going to just take what they devil dishes out.
I'm pretty damn sure the greats from the past would cringe at the sight of what we've settled for today.
Sand cacs have been 'mixed' for thousands and thousands of years. Where do you think all the neanderthal DNA in North Africa and outside of Africa comes from? Why do the Ancient Egyptians make clear distinctions between themselves and others if sand cacs as we know them are 'new'?
Remember, the sand cacs castrated male slaves. They'd still let them serve in armies to fuck with Europeans and guard harems(with black female slaves).
And this the same time you claiming knowledge was dropped. Claiming the moors AFTER the Arab invasion is crazy. This is like claiming the U.S. is a black nation because of Obama being allowed to be the figurehead for the rich cacs running the show WHILE black people are getting murdered in the street by the police and make up the majority of the people being locked up in prison.
But a cat like you 500 years from now would post a picture of Obama, some black soldiers fighting a war in the desert cacs wanted, and say
"it's true. it's true. The U.S. was a black nation dropping knowledge on the world."Sand cacs have been 'mixed' for thousands and thousands of years. Where do you think all the neanderthal DNA in North Africa and outside of Africa comes from? Why do the Ancient Egyptians make clear distinctions between themselves and others if sand cacs as we know them are 'new'?
Remember, the sand cacs castrated male slaves. They'd still let them serve in armies to fuck with Europeans and guard harems(with black female slaves).
Claiming the moors AFTER the Arab invasion is crazy. This is like claiming the U.S. is a black nation because of Obama being allowed to be the figurehead for the rich cacs running the show WHILE black people are getting murdered in the street by the police and make up the majority of the people being locked up in prison.
But a cat like you 500 years from now would post a picture of Obama, some black soldiers fighting a war in the desert cacs wanted, and say
blah blah blah,
the bottom line the original arabs were african..
the original saudis were african...
and the mutt arabs learned everything from the originals, but their savage nature...
thats their own genetics.....
The Original Arabs/Moors and of course Nubians
were African aka super melanin rich people..
fuck the euro revisionist history....
Lol thats your argument. Mmmkay
you non reading sumabytch,
lets try it a little slower for you....
there is no fuckin way crackers are going to come out
of the caves of europe and civilize themselves,
creating a language and a culture, the only thing they did was create savage tribes, barbaric tribes and went on war paths...
in fact these savage germanic tribes invade europe and were the reason for its decline..
where as when the black moors invaded it was when europe prospered the most ever in its history, especially, greece, spain and italy.
our buddy loves to mention how it was arabs that invaded europe, so I had to remind him
the original arabs were black africans, he is tryin to imply they were mostly mutt arabs...
I had to remind him those mutt arabs came about due to white slavery, not savage barbaric chattel slavery.. b
but more humane white slavery... see these black africans, who were moors, hebrews, nubians..
were fuckin the shit out of those white savages for over seven hundred years, and it was their off spring that gave the savage barbaric european a more human appearance...
but never really rid these beast of their savage barbaric
ways..
eventually dude to their diseases, especially the black plague, that swept through europe. weakend
the original man, who was not use to all the diseases the savage european could endure...
in addition
it was only after the black plague, the europeans were able to get a strong hold on europe again and defeat the black moors, hebrews and nubians and kick them out of europe....
just check the time line of the the black plague then a century and a half later columbus invades, the americas,
then a little later that savage cortez came...
the black plague killed twenty five million people and they were mostly the black people that civilized europe...
the only history the savage barbaric european has is being that of a war monger...
that is all they know... even to this say, their whole existence is based on war.
since the savage started running things the whole fuckn globe has to deal with war or the threat of war....
europe has been on the decline since they kicked the "blacks" out moors, hebrews, nubians etc...
what would countries like france and portugal be if they werent suckin of the tits of MaMA Africa....like the lil savage babies they are..
Im going to start charging you eurocentric history revisionsit simps, for this real education....!!!
funny how whenever Im educating gene cisco, you always manage to pop up...
do you guys sleep together???
Last edited:
the way you write, and the things you write show you have no clue what you're talking about bruh.
Pay attention to Charlie Browns comments and replies. Look into his sources. He's left a lot for you, and your replies are so childlike. Really man, pick up a book sometimes. Not just the flea market ones, it's time to go further than that. Hannibal doesn't need to be Black for Black people to be great. You actually soud like a guy who's so dissatisfied with your own history, you wanna be someone else. It's sad. Love yourself and your own culture.
lol,
thats your reply, you cant debunk anything I said,
and you had to resort to another mans post..
and you want to talk about SAD!!!!
dont make me snicker!!!!
at the end of the day, I dont care who writes what,
caucazoid europeans are a savage people with neanderthal dna to prove it, they are part animal,
and only have a human like appearance due to the black moor fucking the shit out of them for over seven hundred years..
this mutt arab you see today are a result of all this fuckin...
facts..
deal with it!!!
I don't have to "debunk" it. It's already bunk. You never cite anything, you just rant on in completely uninformed child speak. I'm not even debating in this thread.
I'm simply reading and noticing who's making sense and who's not. You have ben completely outclassed, and I figured you should know so you can go and get your weight up. You've been given some good information. Stop arguing and learn. You're really way out of your league.
I don't mind the name calling
I just hope you at least learned from the ones in here who actually read
you cant debunk the message, so you lamely
attempt to debunk the messenger...
a lepor never changes his spots!!!
1 hannibal was a black african
2 the original arabs were black african
3 black africans civilized europe
get over it
Last edited:
you dont need proof just deductive reasoning,
how can crackers come out of the cave and just
create languages and culture...?
They have no historic existence past six thousand years...
when five thousand years ago, we were building pyramids from africa to brazil....
some say the sphinx is way older than five thousand years, because they found water markings on it, meaning at some point, being in the dessert, it was immersed in water.
our history is so hidden so they can shove eurocentric revisionist history down our throats....
they still teaching in schools christopher columbus discovered america..
when there were natives already here...
just simple deductive reasoning my friend, simple deductive reasoning....
but logic is not the friend of the eurocentric history revisionist..
I've never seen him cite anything that I can recall. If anything is cited, it will probably be from the same books people like to pass around. I've already shown Europeans had two-story homes and mining operations when they were supposed to be living in caves, and he won't shut up about caves, languages, and other silly shit.
This is what happens when people pass around the same texts full of pseudo and feel-good history. Study history to find out what it brings, not for some agenda.
I've never seen him cite anything that I can recall. If anything is cited, it will probably be from the same books people like to pass around. I've already shown Europeans had two-story homes and mining operations when they were supposed to be living in caves, and he won't shut up about caves, languages, and other silly shit.
This is what happens when people pass around the same texts full of pseudo and feel-good history. Study history to find out what it brings, not for some agenda.
are you denying the original arabs were black africans??
what is this caucazoind city you claimed was civilized four thousand years ago?
and you and exile king always seem to pop up in these discussions...
Im begininng to wonder about you two.....
if you are actually two seperate posters.... hmmm
anyway what is this so called cacafied european city that existed four thousand years ago...
help me out, Im in too much a lazy mood to read through all that psycho babble...
See post #225.
Also, West Asians been mutts since before they been invading Egypt almost 4,000 years ago(genetic evidence points to mixture in North Africa before Egypt existed). It's clear that the West Asians who invaded Africa with their religion of Islam weren't black(although they did use black soldiers in their armies). You never address the slave trade that they brought with them BEFORE you claim the black ones civilized Europe.
The TransSaharan slave trade cost millions and millions of black African lives, but you keep talking about bringing Europe out of the dark ages. While they were doing that favor for the Europeans, they were killing and castrating millions of Africans. You spinning shit more than Fox news.
africans always had a slave trade, nothing like the sick ass shit europeans had here.
and ancient rome was NOT dominated by savage euro crackers..
it was multi cultural society due to all the fuckin the black maurs were doing...
your point is pointless...
and again the original Arabs were black africans,
dont even get me started on the original asians...
you havent even admited the original Arabs were black africans yet..
you are just tryin to drown me with words and psycho babble...
and why everytime you attempt to debate me, exiled king comes out of left field...
avoiding the message and attackin the messenger...
Im talkin every fuckin time..
it never fails...
is he your alter ego??
Lol plus he claims the original arabs were Black Africans.
And that area was invaded BEFORE Islam. The Greeks ruled Egypt BEFORE islam. The Persians invaded BEFORE islam. The whole area was supposed stuffed full of Sand CACs BEFORE islam, if you even buy that story at all. This is all BC.
Yet when they invaded southern Spain (not so much of Europe like people love to claim)- this was 700AD. WAAAAAY after the so called invasion that flushed out this predominate Black population.
And as you keep mentioning, during the same time they "civilized" Europe, they also brought mosques and language, and somehow all the "civilization" in southern Europe is barely in the parts if west africa that they're in. Just mosques, not nearly as much of the architecture, water systems, roads, and the lovely slave trade. Somehow in subsaharan Africa people were still in thatched huts, but decided to pass all the modern civilization to Europe instead. Hmmm
And while they love to point out how the Europeans referred to them as Black- cuz you know somehow MOOR means Black in some language- oddly enough THEY have a word for Black on their language (ARABIC) as well. SUDAN.
and EVERYTHING south of the Sahara they referred to as BILAL AL SUDAN (land of the Blacks) which STILL means that. Don't even need some etymology tricks to get there . There's still a country called that but it used to be from East to west.
AND they called the Blacks in the east that they enslaved the ZANJ. Ya know, Zanzibar? Yeah that place. Somehow these Black Moors felt the need to designate the others as Black. The place that we still see dominated by Blacks to this very day. And the places the Oman arabs still enslaved people ( but you know, the cute slavery, not the barbaric one) to this day.
You're looking bad bro. All ya gotta do is really read. Just know- there is some really awesome BLACK African history. Ghana, Mali, Songhai, just to start. Not as many cool pyramids and shit but very dope nonetheless. That's OUR history. Don't be ashamed of being Black bro. Embrace it. I know you wanna be an Arab or a European so bad but you're not. Unlike me, they WILL ask you for a hand test and when you don't pass, they will laugh at you. Not for not having a history but for not knowing it. Embrace your Black Africaness. The grass ain't greener
Similar threads
