Another lie debunked-Africans did nothing before the white man

[harmonica]

That has nothing to do with what I said.

I'm asking questions.

• Are Italy and Greece “sub-Nordic” ?
• Are the U.S. and Mexico “sub-Canadian”?
• Is Latin America sub-Anglo-America ?

• Are Italy and Greece “sub-Nordic” ? -- Yes
• Are the U.S. and Mexico “sub-Canadian”? -- Yes
• Is Latin America sub-Anglo-America ? -- No, it would be sub-North American.

Anglo, would be a geographic designation if it were referring to the British Isles (Angla being Latin for England). But, if you're using it to describe North America, then you're implying that North America is wholly or mostly peopled with persons of British ancestory (a false implication).

The Sahara is a geographical location and in no ways implies ethnicity.

everything is racist to them--that's their problem

The pot and kettle. Dude. We black ppl burn you up. Dont we ? Because no matter what is thrown at blk men. We still walk with our heads held high.

Secondly I don't waste time talking about how screwed up many white countries r. There's nothing going on with your white buddies in Bulgaria in greece or kosovo. I've been all over europe. I dont waste my time trying to prove how stupid white ppl are or how violent they are unless I have to.

Your obsessed with black ppl. I'm pro black. Not anti white.

tsktsktsk
1. Kosovo/Bulgaria/Greece/etc are not regions like sub-Sahara
2. the black countries of the sub-Sahara are the WORST in everything--so the ''white'' countries are nowhere close to being as ''screwed'' up as the ''black'' countries
3. we didn't start the thread--a BLACK did..the MSM/blacks/etc INITIATE the crap--not the whites--hahahhahaha
ok, please be patient--here is the evidence:
LITERALLY a shithole--poor sanitation/poor water/not enough:

worst for literacy:

starvation:

disease:

etc etc

 

[Paul Essien]

That has nothing to do with what I said.

I'm asking questions.

• Are Italy and Greece “sub-Nordic” ?
• Are the U.S. and Mexico “sub-Canadian”?
• Is Latin America sub-Anglo-America ?

• Are Italy and Greece “sub-Nordic” ? -- Yes
• Are the U.S. and Mexico “sub-Canadian”? -- Yes
• Is Latin America sub-Anglo-America ? -- No, it would be sub-North American.

Anglo, would be a geographic designation if it were referring to the British Isles (Angla being Latin for England). But, if you're using it to describe North America, then you're implying that North America is wholly or mostly peopled with persons of British ancestory (a false implication).

The Sahara is a geographical location and in no ways implies ethnicity.

everything is racist to them--that's their problem

The pot and kettle. Dude. We black ppl burn you up. Dont we ? Because no matter what is thrown at blk men. We still walk with our heads held high.

Secondly I don't waste time talking about how screwed up many white countries r. There's nothing going on with your white buddies in Bulgaria in greece or kosovo. I've been all over europe. I dont waste my time trying to prove how stupid white ppl are or how violent they are unless I have to.

Your obsessed with black ppl. I'm pro black. Not anti white.

tsktsktsk
1. Kosovo/Bulgaria/Greece/etc are not regions like sub-Sahara
2. the black countries of the sub-Sahara are the WORST in everything--so the ''white'' countries are nowhere close to being as ''screwed'' up as the ''black'' countries
3. we didn't start the thread--a BLACK did..the MSM/blacks/etc INITIATE the crap--not the whites--hahahhahaha
ok, please be patient--here is the evidence:
LITERALLY a shithole--poor sanitation/poor water/not enough:

worst for literacy:

starvation:

disease:

etc etc

If its what you say it is then why did they have to fight white ppl to get of out there ?

 

[AveryJarhman]

It's 2019 and in 2 months it will be 2020. It's time to end beliefs from the 1700's.This is from Henry Louis Gates. You know, the guy you racists love to quote in order to talk about black slaveowners.

Is this the same Professor Henry Louis Gates who revealed >>>>

"Africans started slavery - how it REALLY happened" Published on Jul 14, 2008 by kaminari750



African American Lives 2 . Profiles . Tom Joyner | PBS

Slavery: What They Didn't Teach in My High School

Peace.

 

[justoffal]

It's 2019 and in 2 months it will be 2020. It's time to end beliefs from the 1700's.This is from Henry Louis Gates. You know, the guy you racists love to quote in order to talk about black slaveowners.

Almost all of the sub-Saharan continent was in the paleolithic age before colonization.

The designation sub Saharan is racist, therefore insignificant. Perhaps you would like to show evidence that refutes what Gates is going to show. Your racist opinion has no merit.

Did dip shit skinpimp....

Sub-Saharan is a geographical term.
If it makes you feel any better the Australian tribes that fall into the general Aboriginal Gene pools were just a slow to develop.

Now if you want to deny the gene pool identity of people who lived for the past one thousand years below the latitude of the Sahara go right ahead.

Other than that why don't you stop wasting people's time with childish semantics that have more to do with puke politics and I do with real historical fact.

Jo

 

[Godboy]

I'm asking questions.

• Are Italy and Greece “sub-Nordic” ?
• Are the U.S. and Mexico “sub-Canadian”?
• Is Latin America sub-Anglo-America ?

• Are Italy and Greece “sub-Nordic” ? -- Yes
• Are the U.S. and Mexico “sub-Canadian”? -- Yes
• Is Latin America sub-Anglo-America ? -- No, it would be sub-North American.

Anglo, would be a geographic designation if it were referring to the British Isles (Angla being Latin for England). But, if you're using it to describe North America, then you're implying that North America is wholly or mostly peopled with persons of British ancestory (a false implication).

The Sahara is a geographical location and in no ways implies ethnicity.

everything is racist to them--that's their problem

The pot and kettle. Dude. We black ppl burn you up. Dont we ? Because no matter what is thrown at blk men. We still walk with our heads held high.

Secondly I don't waste time talking about how screwed up many white countries r. There's nothing going on with your white buddies in Bulgaria in greece or kosovo. I've been all over europe. I dont waste my time trying to prove how stupid white ppl are or how violent they are unless I have to.

Your obsessed with black ppl. I'm pro black. Not anti white.

tsktsktsk
1. Kosovo/Bulgaria/Greece/etc are not regions like sub-Sahara
2. the black countries of the sub-Sahara are the WORST in everything--so the ''white'' countries are nowhere close to being as ''screwed'' up as the ''black'' countries
3. we didn't start the thread--a BLACK did..the MSM/blacks/etc INITIATE the crap--not the whites--hahahhahaha
ok, please be patient--here is the evidence:
LITERALLY a shithole--poor sanitation/poor water/not enough:

worst for literacy:

starvation:

disease:

etc etc

If its what you say it is then why did they have to fight white ppl to get of out there ?

It wasnt because it was such a wonderful place, thats for fuck sure. Africa is a place of misery and death.

 

[Paul Essien]

• Are Italy and Greece “sub-Nordic” ? -- Yes
• Are the U.S. and Mexico “sub-Canadian”? -- Yes
• Is Latin America sub-Anglo-America ? -- No, it would be sub-North American.

Anglo, would be a geographic designation if it were referring to the British Isles (Angla being Latin for England). But, if you're using it to describe North America, then you're implying that North America is wholly or mostly peopled with persons of British ancestory (a false implication).

The Sahara is a geographical location and in no ways implies ethnicity.

everything is racist to them--that's their problem

The pot and kettle. Dude. We black ppl burn you up. Dont we ? Because no matter what is thrown at blk men. We still walk with our heads held high.

Secondly I don't waste time talking about how screwed up many white countries r. There's nothing going on with your white buddies in Bulgaria in greece or kosovo. I've been all over europe. I dont waste my time trying to prove how stupid white ppl are or how violent they are unless I have to.

Your obsessed with black ppl. I'm pro black. Not anti white.

tsktsktsk
1. Kosovo/Bulgaria/Greece/etc are not regions like sub-Sahara
2. the black countries of the sub-Sahara are the WORST in everything--so the ''white'' countries are nowhere close to being as ''screwed'' up as the ''black'' countries
3. we didn't start the thread--a BLACK did..the MSM/blacks/etc INITIATE the crap--not the whites--hahahhahaha
ok, please be patient--here is the evidence:
LITERALLY a shithole--poor sanitation/poor water/not enough:

worst for literacy:

starvation:

disease:

etc etc

If its what you say it is then why did they have to fight white ppl to get of out there ?

It wasnt because it was such a wonderful place, thats for fuck sure. Africa is a place of misery and death.

So if that the case then why did they have to fight whites to get them to leave ?

Why all the troubles in S Africa ? Why the Mandela's? The steve bikos? The kwame nkrumah ? Julius malema ?

Why does every African country have their own personal story about the fight they had n still having to liberate themselves from whites n the west ?

 

[francoHFW]

It's 2019 and in 2 months it will be 2020. It's time to end beliefs from the 1700's.This is from Henry Louis Gates. You know, the guy you racists love to quote in order to talk about black slaveowners.

Almost all of the sub-Saharan continent was in the paleolithic age before colonization.

The designation sub Saharan is racist, therefore insignificant. Perhaps you would like to show evidence that refutes what Gates is going to show. Your racist opinion has no merit.

Did dip shit skinpimp....

Sub-Saharan is a geographical term.
If it makes you feel any better the Australian tribes that fall into the general Aboriginal Gene pools were just a slow to develop.

Now if you want to deny the gene pool identity of people who lived for the past one thousand years below the latitude of the Sahara go right ahead.

Other than that why don't you stop wasting people's time with childish semantics that have more to do with puke politics and I do with real historical fact.

Jo

Yep conservatives have screwed over minorities forever. Slave traders, colonists, you name it-and the conservative politicians and monarchies behind them. They destroyed the culture and then complain about it. And they are still screwing them over....

 

[Godboy]

everything is racist to them--that's their problem

The pot and kettle. Dude. We black ppl burn you up. Dont we ? Because no matter what is thrown at blk men. We still walk with our heads held high.

Secondly I don't waste time talking about how screwed up many white countries r. There's nothing going on with your white buddies in Bulgaria in greece or kosovo. I've been all over europe. I dont waste my time trying to prove how stupid white ppl are or how violent they are unless I have to.

Your obsessed with black ppl. I'm pro black. Not anti white.

tsktsktsk
1. Kosovo/Bulgaria/Greece/etc are not regions like sub-Sahara
2. the black countries of the sub-Sahara are the WORST in everything--so the ''white'' countries are nowhere close to being as ''screwed'' up as the ''black'' countries
3. we didn't start the thread--a BLACK did..the MSM/blacks/etc INITIATE the crap--not the whites--hahahhahaha
ok, please be patient--here is the evidence:
LITERALLY a shithole--poor sanitation/poor water/not enough:

worst for literacy:

starvation:

disease:

etc etc

If its what you say it is then why did they have to fight white ppl to get of out there ?

It wasnt because it was such a wonderful place, thats for fuck sure. Africa is a place of misery and death.

So if that the case then why did they have to fight whites to get them to leave ?

Why all the troubles in S Africa ? Why the Mandela's? The steve bikos? The kwame nkrumah ? Julius malema ?

Why does every African country have their own personal story about the fight they had n still having to liberate themselves from whites n the west ?

Give me a specific person and maybe ill be able to tell you why he didnt leave. Everyone has their own reasons. If you own a gemstone or gold mine in Africa, thats a good reason to stick around, for example.

 

[Godboy]

It's 2019 and in 2 months it will be 2020. It's time to end beliefs from the 1700's.This is from Henry Louis Gates. You know, the guy you racists love to quote in order to talk about black slaveowners.

Almost all of the sub-Saharan continent was in the paleolithic age before colonization.

The designation sub Saharan is racist, therefore insignificant. Perhaps you would like to show evidence that refutes what Gates is going to show. Your racist opinion has no merit.

Did dip shit skinpimp....

Sub-Saharan is a geographical term.
If it makes you feel any better the Australian tribes that fall into the general Aboriginal Gene pools were just a slow to develop.

Now if you want to deny the gene pool identity of people who lived for the past one thousand years below the latitude of the Sahara go right ahead.

Other than that why don't you stop wasting people's time with childish semantics that have more to do with puke politics and I do with real historical fact.

Jo

Yep conservatives have screwed over minorities forever. Slave traders, colonists, you name it-and the conservative politicians and monarchies behind them. They destroyed the culture and then complain about it. And they are still screwing them over....

They are definitely not conservatives, but those Africans sure love to enslave people. I blame their inferior culture.

 

[francoHFW]

It's 2019 and in 2 months it will be 2020. It's time to end beliefs from the 1700's.This is from Henry Louis Gates. You know, the guy you racists love to quote in order to talk about black slaveowners.

Almost all of the sub-Saharan continent was in the paleolithic age before colonization.

The designation sub Saharan is racist, therefore insignificant. Perhaps you would like to show evidence that refutes what Gates is going to show. Your racist opinion has no merit.

Did dip shit skinpimp....

Sub-Saharan is a geographical term.
If it makes you feel any better the Australian tribes that fall into the general Aboriginal Gene pools were just a slow to develop.

Now if you want to deny the gene pool identity of people who lived for the past one thousand years below the latitude of the Sahara go right ahead.

Other than that why don't you stop wasting people's time with childish semantics that have more to do with puke politics and I do with real historical fact.

Jo

Yep conservatives have screwed over minorities forever. Slave traders, colonists, you name it-and the conservative politicians and monarchies behind them. They destroyed the culture and then complain about it. And they are still screwing them over....

They are definitely not conservatives, but those Africans sure love to enslave people. I blame their inferior culture.

if they have slaves they are conservatives dip s***. Actually the conservative black Africans love money so they sold slaves to the whites and their culture was destroyed then and by colonialism after....

 

[Godboy]

Almost all of the sub-Saharan continent was in the paleolithic age before colonization.

The designation sub Saharan is racist, therefore insignificant. Perhaps you would like to show evidence that refutes what Gates is going to show. Your racist opinion has no merit.

Did dip shit skinpimp....

Sub-Saharan is a geographical term.
If it makes you feel any better the Australian tribes that fall into the general Aboriginal Gene pools were just a slow to develop.

Now if you want to deny the gene pool identity of people who lived for the past one thousand years below the latitude of the Sahara go right ahead.

Other than that why don't you stop wasting people's time with childish semantics that have more to do with puke politics and I do with real historical fact.

Jo

Yep conservatives have screwed over minorities forever. Slave traders, colonists, you name it-and the conservative politicians and monarchies behind them. They destroyed the culture and then complain about it. And they are still screwing them over....

They are definitely not conservatives, but those Africans sure love to enslave people. I blame their inferior culture.

if they have slaves they are conservatives dip s***. Actually the conservative black Africans love money so they sold slaves to the whites and their culture was destroyed then and by colonialism after....

You arent defending your claim very well. Repeating "slave owners are conservatives" over and over again isnt going to cut it. Do you have a real argument or not?

 

[francoHFW]

It's 2019 and in 2 months it will be 2020. It's time to end beliefs from the 1700's.This is from Henry Louis Gates. You know, the guy you racists love to quote in order to talk about black slaveowners.

Is this the same Professor Henry Louis Gates who revealed >>>>

"Africans started slavery - how it REALLY happened" Published on Jul 14, 2008 by kaminari750



African American Lives 2 . Profiles . Tom Joyner | PBS

Slavery: What They Didn't Teach in My High School

Peace.

Everybody had slaves from Egypt to ancient Greece to anyone we have written records about. And guess what they were all conservatives LOL. Only the age of liberalism has ended it....

 

[Godboy]

It's 2019 and in 2 months it will be 2020. It's time to end beliefs from the 1700's.This is from Henry Louis Gates. You know, the guy you racists love to quote in order to talk about black slaveowners.

Is this the same Professor Henry Louis Gates who revealed >>>>

"Africans started slavery - how it REALLY happened" Published on Jul 14, 2008 by kaminari750



African American Lives 2 . Profiles . Tom Joyner | PBS

Slavery: What They Didn't Teach in My High School

Peace.

Everybody had slaves from Egypt to ancient Greece to anyone we have written records about. And guess what they were all conservatives LOL. Only the age of liberalism has ended it....

They werent conservatives. You say weird shit.

 

[harmonica]

Almost all of the sub-Saharan continent was in the paleolithic age before colonization.

The designation sub Saharan is racist, therefore insignificant. Perhaps you would like to show evidence that refutes what Gates is going to show. Your racist opinion has no merit.

Did dip shit skinpimp....

Sub-Saharan is a geographical term.
If it makes you feel any better the Australian tribes that fall into the general Aboriginal Gene pools were just a slow to develop.

Now if you want to deny the gene pool identity of people who lived for the past one thousand years below the latitude of the Sahara go right ahead.

Other than that why don't you stop wasting people's time with childish semantics that have more to do with puke politics and I do with real historical fact.

Jo

Yep conservatives have screwed over minorities forever. Slave traders, colonists, you name it-and the conservative politicians and monarchies behind them. They destroyed the culture and then complain about it. And they are still screwing them over....

They are definitely not conservatives, but those Africans sure love to enslave people. I blame their inferior culture.

if they have slaves they are conservatives dip s***. Actually the conservative black Africans love money so they sold slaves to the whites and their culture was destroyed then and by colonialism after....

...again--the blacks were in the stone age when the whites/colonialism came...they were far behind the whites...so you can't say colonialism destroyed their culture--it was already crap/etc

 

[harmonica]

It's 2019 and in 2 months it will be 2020. It's time to end beliefs from the 1700's.This is from Henry Louis Gates. You know, the guy you racists love to quote in order to talk about black slaveowners.

Almost all of the sub-Saharan continent was in the paleolithic age before colonization.

The designation sub Saharan is racist, therefore insignificant. Perhaps you would like to show evidence that refutes what Gates is going to show. Your racist opinion has no merit.

Did dip shit skinpimp....

Sub-Saharan is a geographical term.
If it makes you feel any better the Australian tribes that fall into the general Aboriginal Gene pools were just a slow to develop.

Now if you want to deny the gene pool identity of people who lived for the past one thousand years below the latitude of the Sahara go right ahead.

Other than that why don't you stop wasting people's time with childish semantics that have more to do with puke politics and I do with real historical fact.

Jo

Yep conservatives have screwed over minorities forever. Slave traders, colonists, you name it-and the conservative politicians and monarchies behind them. They destroyed the culture and then complain about it. And they are still screwing them over....

I guess the Hutus did the Tutsis a favor???!!
...blacks were murdering/warring on /decimating/etc other blacks long before the whites came..Shaka Zulu for one
..just like the Native Americans in North America

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

OK. "Sub-Saharan Africa" can mean a region populated overwhelmingly by blacks which to today has never reached any rudimentary form of civilization or accomplishment if you wish.

OK. Just a question. So how do you explain all the books written by European and African scholars that say the opposite ? And that Africa was the birth place of civilization.

Given all we know of Africa, id say youre reading books that are clearly wrong. Africa has always been behind the rest of the world, technologically speaking. Its simply a fact.

Just since about the time they started running into Europeans and slavers....

Yeah, because the Europeans were technologically superior. When the Europeans sailed to Africa, they found tribes using primitive stone tools. Of course they steamrolled them!

The steamroller came hundreds of years later in the 1800s. The slave trade started wrecking the place in the 13 hundreds...

The slave trade started wrecking the place in the 13 hundreds...

Muslims were taking slaves hundreds of years before that.

 

[francoHFW]

The designation sub Saharan is racist, therefore insignificant. Perhaps you would like to show evidence that refutes what Gates is going to show. Your racist opinion has no merit.

Did dip shit skinpimp....

Sub-Saharan is a geographical term.
If it makes you feel any better the Australian tribes that fall into the general Aboriginal Gene pools were just a slow to develop.

Now if you want to deny the gene pool identity of people who lived for the past one thousand years below the latitude of the Sahara go right ahead.

Other than that why don't you stop wasting people's time with childish semantics that have more to do with puke politics and I do with real historical fact.

Jo

Yep conservatives have screwed over minorities forever. Slave traders, colonists, you name it-and the conservative politicians and monarchies behind them. They destroyed the culture and then complain about it. And they are still screwing them over....

They are definitely not conservatives, but those Africans sure love to enslave people. I blame their inferior culture.

if they have slaves they are conservatives dip s***. Actually the conservative black Africans love money so they sold slaves to the whites and their culture was destroyed then and by colonialism after....

...again--the blacks were in the stone age when the whites/colonialism came...they were far behind the whites...so you can't say colonialism destroyed their culture--it was already crap/etc

Again, you have no idea what you're talkin about. Google African empires dumbass....

 

[francoHFW]

OK. Just a question. So how do you explain all the books written by European and African scholars that say the opposite ? And that Africa was the birth place of civilization.

Given all we know of Africa, id say youre reading books that are clearly wrong. Africa has always been behind the rest of the world, technologically speaking. Its simply a fact.

Just since about the time they started running into Europeans and slavers....

Yeah, because the Europeans were technologically superior. When the Europeans sailed to Africa, they found tribes using primitive stone tools. Of course they steamrolled them!

The steamroller came hundreds of years later in the 1800s. The slave trade started wrecking the place in the 13 hundreds...

The slave trade started wrecking the place in the 13 hundreds...

Muslims were taking slaves hundreds of years before that.

And the Romans were doing it a thousand years before that LOL. And none of the above were liberals LOL.... And then there was the black empire south of Egypt which took over Egypt and made a lot of them into slaves... The fact remains the slave traders in the 1300's started wrecking sub-Saharan Africa and the colonists finished it... Up to that point black empires were just as advanced as white empires....

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

Given all we know of Africa, id say youre reading books that are clearly wrong. Africa has always been behind the rest of the world, technologically speaking. Its simply a fact.

Just since about the time they started running into Europeans and slavers....

Yeah, because the Europeans were technologically superior. When the Europeans sailed to Africa, they found tribes using primitive stone tools. Of course they steamrolled them!

The steamroller came hundreds of years later in the 1800s. The slave trade started wrecking the place in the 13 hundreds...

The slave trade started wrecking the place in the 13 hundreds...

Muslims were taking slaves hundreds of years before that.

And the Romans were doing it a thousand years before that LOL. And none of the above were liberals LOL.... And then there was the black empire south of Egypt which took over Egypt and made a lot of them into slaves... The fact remains the slave traders in the 1300's started wrecking sub-Saharan Africa and the colonists finished it... Up to that point black empires were just as advanced as white empires....

Up to that point black empires were just as advanced as white empires....

Which black empire(s) was as advanced as white empires in the 1200s?

 

[francoHFW]

It's 2019 and in 2 months it will be 2020. It's time to end beliefs from the 1700's.This is from Henry Louis Gates. You know, the guy you racists love to quote in order to talk about black slaveowners.

Almost all of the sub-Saharan continent was in the paleolithic age before colonization.

The designation sub Saharan is racist, therefore insignificant. Perhaps you would like to show evidence that refutes what Gates is going to show. Your racist opinion has no merit.

Did dip shit skinpimp....

Sub-Saharan is a geographical term.
If it makes you feel any better the Australian tribes that fall into the general Aboriginal Gene pools were just a slow to develop.

Now if you want to deny the gene pool identity of people who lived for the past one thousand years below the latitude of the Sahara go right ahead.

Other than that why don't you stop wasting people's time with childish semantics that have more to do with puke politics and I do with real historical fact.

Jo

Yep conservatives have screwed over minorities forever. Slave traders, colonists, you name it-and the conservative politicians and monarchies behind them. They destroyed the culture and then complain about it. And they are still screwing them over....

I guess the Hutus did the Tutsis a favor???!!
...blacks were murdering/warring on /decimating/etc other blacks long before the whites came..Shaka Zulu for one
..just like the Native Americans in North America

And the Europeans in Europe and the Asians in Asia and the South Americans in South America etcetera etcetera... what the f*** are you talkin about dumbass?