Another lie debunked-Africans did nothing before the white man

[francoHFW]

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....

 

[Godboy]

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!

 

[francoHFW]

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...

 

[IM2]

View attachment 288316

 

[IM2]

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!

That's just not true.

 

[harmonica]

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....

..they were behind the whites---plain and simple--you can't dispute it
...one reason was a lot of them didn't even have a written language--which is conducive to learning/producing technology/improving technology/etc
...you need blueprints to build 100 gun ships--not memories

 

[IM2]

This is Africa before the Europeans.



You are ignorant of world history.

 

[harmonica]

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!

That's just not true.

....they still don't know basic farming/etc
Technology Could Soon Revolutionize Agriculture In Africa

 

[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 ?

what's the point?

 

[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.

Absolute baloney. Look at all these damn racists all of a sudden! LOL.

yes-IM2 is one of the biggest racist

 

[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

 

[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.

Ok. If, as you agree that it's correct to call America "sub Canada" and Italy and greece "sub nordic" then why is not known as such ?

Why isn't the term sub Canada reffering to America known as much as sub saharan africa is to most people ?

 

[harmonica]

Sub-Saharan Africa - Wikipedia

Nothing in this article suggests that South Africa is excluded from the designation.

How is a geographical designation racist? Sub-Saharan literally means below the Sahara Desert.

The UN uses the term to designate the region for statistical purposes. Is the UN racist?

Words like “sub-Saharan Africa” are GOOD words to use if you are talking about white power and the world it has created (colonialism, racism, racialized identities, etc)

But they are TERRIBLE terms to use, as tools of thought.

It draws a big fat line across Africa based on race. It makes the most diverse part of the world into undifferentiated blob.

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

Who the hell thinks up this shit?

Black folks are on both sides of the Sahara as well. There are millions of blacks who live all across the Sahara, as their ancestors have lived for thousands of years.

When whites use the terms “Sub Saharan” Africa they are mostly referring to stereotypical phenotypes associated with Black people. The fault with this reasoning is that there is no single Black phenotype in Africa.

Even within certain African ethnic groups there is genetic diversity which dictates hair textures and types, eye color, nose shape, skin tone, yet it's still Blackness.

.....your post proves your mind is warped and lost because of your racism/obsession with race
...sub-Saharan is a geographical term--like Latin America....or Scandinavia --which happens to be mostly WHITE---OMG!!!!!!!!!--so by your reasoning, anyone that uses the term Scandinavia is RACIST!!!!!!!!!!!...............??????!! hahahahah
and Scandinavia is not a shithole like sub-Saharan Africa is --as I've proven many times on USMB

 

[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

Sub-Saharan Africa - Wikipedia

Nothing in this article suggests that South Africa is excluded from the designation.

How is a geographical designation racist? Sub-Saharan literally means below the Sahara Desert.

The UN uses the term to designate the region for statistical purposes. Is the UN racist?

Words like “sub-Saharan Africa” are GOOD words to use if you are talking about white power and the world it has created (colonialism, racism, racialized identities, etc)

But they are TERRIBLE terms to use, as tools of thought.

It draws a big fat line across Africa based on race. It makes the most diverse part of the world into undifferentiated blob.

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

Who the hell thinks up this shit?

Black folks are on both sides of the Sahara as well. There are millions of blacks who live all across the Sahara, as their ancestors have lived for thousands of years.

When whites use the terms “Sub Saharan” Africa they are mostly referring to stereotypical phenotypes associated with Black people. The fault with this reasoning is that there is no single Black phenotype in Africa.

Even within certain African ethnic groups there is genetic diversity which dictates hair textures and types, eye color, nose shape, skin tone, yet it's still Blackness.

.....your post proves your mind is warped and lost because of your racism/obsession with race
...sub-Saharan is a geographical term--like Latin America....or Scandinavia --which happens to be mostly WHITE---OMG!!!!!!!!!--so by your reasoning, anyone that uses the term Scandinavia is RACIST!!!!!!!!!!!...............??????!! hahahahah
and Scandinavia is not a shithole like sub-Saharan Africa is --as I've proven many times on USMB

Ok. So if africa is a shithole then why did they have to fight wars against whites to get them to leave ?

 

[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

Sub-Saharan Africa - Wikipedia

Nothing in this article suggests that South Africa is excluded from the designation.

How is a geographical designation racist? Sub-Saharan literally means below the Sahara Desert.

The UN uses the term to designate the region for statistical purposes. Is the UN racist?

Words like “sub-Saharan Africa” are GOOD words to use if you are talking about white power and the world it has created (colonialism, racism, racialized identities, etc)

But they are TERRIBLE terms to use, as tools of thought.

It draws a big fat line across Africa based on race. It makes the most diverse part of the world into undifferentiated blob.

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

Who the hell thinks up this shit?

Black folks are on both sides of the Sahara as well. There are millions of blacks who live all across the Sahara, as their ancestors have lived for thousands of years.

When whites use the terms “Sub Saharan” Africa they are mostly referring to stereotypical phenotypes associated with Black people. The fault with this reasoning is that there is no single Black phenotype in Africa.

Even within certain African ethnic groups there is genetic diversity which dictates hair textures and types, eye color, nose shape, skin tone, yet it's still Blackness.

.....your post proves your mind is warped and lost because of your racism/obsession with race
...sub-Saharan is a geographical term--like Latin America....or Scandinavia --which happens to be mostly WHITE---OMG!!!!!!!!!--so by your reasoning, anyone that uses the term Scandinavia is RACIST!!!!!!!!!!!...............??????!! hahahahah
and Scandinavia is not a shithole like sub-Saharan Africa is --as I've proven many times on USMB

Ok. So if africa is a shithole then why did they have to fight wars against whites to get them to leave ?

...it's a shithole--plain and simple ..why are you people mad that it's a shithole?

 

[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.

 

[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

Sub-Saharan Africa - Wikipedia

Nothing in this article suggests that South Africa is excluded from the designation.

How is a geographical designation racist? Sub-Saharan literally means below the Sahara Desert.

The UN uses the term to designate the region for statistical purposes. Is the UN racist?

Words like “sub-Saharan Africa” are GOOD words to use if you are talking about white power and the world it has created (colonialism, racism, racialized identities, etc)

But they are TERRIBLE terms to use, as tools of thought.

It draws a big fat line across Africa based on race. It makes the most diverse part of the world into undifferentiated blob.

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

Who the hell thinks up this shit?

Black folks are on both sides of the Sahara as well. There are millions of blacks who live all across the Sahara, as their ancestors have lived for thousands of years.

When whites use the terms “Sub Saharan” Africa they are mostly referring to stereotypical phenotypes associated with Black people. The fault with this reasoning is that there is no single Black phenotype in Africa.

Even within certain African ethnic groups there is genetic diversity which dictates hair textures and types, eye color, nose shape, skin tone, yet it's still Blackness.

.....your post proves your mind is warped and lost because of your racism/obsession with race
...sub-Saharan is a geographical term--like Latin America....or Scandinavia --which happens to be mostly WHITE---OMG!!!!!!!!!--so by your reasoning, anyone that uses the term Scandinavia is RACIST!!!!!!!!!!!...............??????!! hahahahah
and Scandinavia is not a shithole like sub-Saharan Africa is --as I've proven many times on USMB

Ok. So if africa is a shithole then why did they have to fight wars against whites to get them to leave ?

...it's a shithole--plain and simple ..why are you people mad that it's a shithole?

Ok. Let's say your right. Ok?

So once again - Why did they have to fight whites to get them to leave ?

Or do you think white ppl prefer to live in a shithole?

 

[fncceo]

There is not shame in being technologically behind other civilizations and it doesn't infer intellectual inferiority.

Technological advancement requires several things to come together in order to occur. Technological innovation is fluid. Civilizations advance technologically by building upon the discoveries of those who came before, sometimes completely different civilizations.

Technology from Egyptians and Mesopotamians came to Greece and Rome through trading and conquest.The Greeks and Romans improved upon that technology and reintroduced it into Hellenized Egypt. For a few centuries, Arab North Africa and the Middle East surpassed Medieval Europe in technology. Greek and Roman maths and sciences lost to Europe after the fall of Roman Civilization in the West remained with the the Turk and Arab cultures. Eventually, technological innovation came back to Medieval Europe through trade with the Turkish and Arab States.

For a civilization to advance technologically, there has to be incentive for an inventor to innovate. Many things such as printing with moveable type and gunpowder were originally invented in China but they never changed society in the way those same technologies did when introduced to Europe. Mainly because of a rigid bureaucratic government that kept all technological innovations under strict control.

Geographically isolated cultures below the Sahara in Africa, or on the Australian continent, or in the Islands of the Pacific were not trading states, they weren't connected to other civilizations through trade or through conquest.

 

[fncceo]

• 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.

Ok. If, as you agree that it's correct to call America "sub Canada" and Italy and greece "sub nordic" then why is not known as such ?

Why isn't the term sub Canada reffering to America known as much as sub saharan africa is to most people ?

Mainly because of History. Sub-Saharan Africa was a generalization for that part of Africa relatively unknown and unexplored by Europeans when the term came into usage. Unlike that part of Africa that was well known to Europeans. Remember, humans didn't even start to actively explore our planet until the 16th Century.

I believe it remains in use today because for thousands of years, the part of Africa that included the Sahara and above has been culturally, geographically, and climate-wise, very different from the part of Africa below the Sahara. It makes sense to make a geographical distinction. Canada and the US are virtually identical in culture and geography, the border is strictly a political one. There is no reason to make a distinction when referring to the entire region as North America.

To this day, we still refer to Canada and the US collectively as North America. (Fun fact, all of North America has a single telephone country code 01).

 

[fncceo]

So once again - Why did they have to fight whites to get them to leave ?

Or do you think white ppl prefer to live in a shithole?

Just for my own education, when did native African fight a war to European Colonists from Africa? The end of colonialism in Africa was largely a political process.

Even the Zulus, who put up the best fight against colonialist than anywhere else in the continent still had to wait over 100 years for political independence from European colonialism.