The mods are cracking down!

[Doer]

Dude, they built friggin pyramids as big as the great pyramid in Egypt.

They made a calendar as accurate as the one we use today.

They did not develop metal working, but neither did Africa, and their stone working was much better.

There is nothing I am aware of in black Africa that rivals, or even exists, that is anything like Machu Pichu, or Chichen Itza.

Africa was left alone by the world until the 1600's, and they never accomplished a fucking thing in Africa. And it is the worlds fault they never accomplished a fucking thing?

The Americas, South East Asia, and Africa were all largely colonized by the Europeans. While there the Europeans introduced them to sciences, built infrastructure, and generally developed the land, and offered a (one way) cultural exchange.

Then, after WW2, Europe couldn't afford its Empire. India and Pakistan are both doing OK, particularly India. Fucking Asia is rocking, they took what Europe left behind and went with it. Why is Africa different?

Did you know the average IQ of blacks in Africa is 70? Average Jewish is 112, Most Asians 108, European whites is 100, African Americans is mid 80s.

But 70 for the people native to Africa who are still there. That is almost officially retarded, and since it is the average it means half the people are below it!

I know a pastor of a church here locally, said God called him to go dig wells in Africa. Had one of the best well digging machines imported to Angola where he traveled around digging wells for the locals there and Botswana.

You know what happened, they started shitting in the wells. Pretty much every where he went, he went back by a week or two later, they were all sick, because they were drinking out of the shit hole.

You would not even have made a decent house boy. Too dull and un-coprehending, even for a cow crane.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/African_empires
Benin Empire (1440–1897)

Sahelian Kingdoms (1400 - 1591)

Jolof Empire (1350–1889)

Vansina (1962) discusses the classification of Sub-Saharan African kingdoms, mostly of Central, South and East Africa, with some additional data on West African (Sahelian) kingdoms distinguishing five types, by decreasing centralization of power:

1. despotic kingdoms: kingdoms where the king controls the internal and external affairs directly. Examples are Ruanda, Nkore, Soga and Kongo in the 16th century
2. regal kingdoms: kingdoms where the king controls the external affairs directly, and the internal affairs via a system of overseers. The king and his chiefs belong to the same clans or lineages.
3. incorporative kingdoms: kingdoms where the king only controls only the external affairs with no permanent administrative links between him and the chiefs of the provinces. The hereditary chiefdoms of the provinces were left undisturbed after conquest. Examples are the Bamileke, Lunda, Luba, Lozi.
4. aristocratic kingdoms: the only link between central authority and the provinces is payment of tribute. These kingdoms are morphologically intermediate between regal kingdoms and federations. This type is rather common in Africa, examples including the Kongo of the 17th century, the Cazembe, Luapula, Kuba, Ngonde, Mlanje, Ha, Zinza and Chagga states of the 18th century
5. federations such as the Ashanti Union. kingdoms where the external affairs are regulated by a council of elders headed by the king, who is simply primus inter pares.

Get back in the hot box, boy, it's gonna be a nice sunny day. If you want water at noon, ya better keep yo yap, shut,

 

[Doer]

And you know monument builders are not the heros of history. They are the ones with head firmly up ass,

Dedicated to deceit of the populace and self serving opulence. They were practitioners of slavery, sacrifice and mutilation, white stank.

All mounument builders including Rome and the USA are propping up their war cult with those wastes of time.

The observatory is the seat of power. Now we observe from Space. But, don't bend your brain. Salem! Let him out, for tonight.

Your history sucks, boy,

 

[BigNBushy]

You would not even have made a decent house boy. Too dull and un-coprehending, even for a cow crane.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/African_empires
Benin Empire (1440–1897)

Sahelian Kingdoms (1400 - 1591)


Jolof Empire (1350–1889)

Vansina (1962) discusses the classification of Sub-Saharan African kingdoms, mostly of Central, South and East Africa, with some additional data on West African (Sahelian) kingdoms distinguishing five types, by decreasing centralization of power:

1. despotic kingdoms: kingdoms where the king controls the internal and external affairs directly. Examples are Ruanda, Nkore, Soga and Kongo in the 16th century
2. regal kingdoms: kingdoms where the king controls the external affairs directly, and the internal affairs via a system of overseers. The king and his chiefs belong to the same clans or lineages.
3. incorporative kingdoms: kingdoms where the king only controls only the external affairs with no permanent administrative links between him and the chiefs of the provinces. The hereditary chiefdoms of the provinces were left undisturbed after conquest. Examples are the Bamileke, Lunda, Luba, Lozi.
4. aristocratic kingdoms: the only link between central authority and the provinces is payment of tribute. These kingdoms are morphologically intermediate between regal kingdoms and federations. This type is rather common in Africa, examples including the Kongo of the 17th century, the Cazembe, Luapula, Kuba, Ngonde, Mlanje, Ha, Zinza and Chagga states of the 18th century
5. federations such as the Ashanti Union. kingdoms where the external affairs are regulated by a council of elders headed by the king, who is simply primus inter pares.

Get back in the hot box, boy, it's gonna be a nice sunny day. If you want water at noon, ya better keep yo yap, shut,

West African kingdoms from the 14th to 18th century...

Well, I read a lot of the wikipedia there. What it says is basically they had a system there that was showing decent political sophistication. Where everyone except the ruling class were fucked. Though there were a couple skilled trades, it hardly qualifies as a middle class.

Then they met the Portugese. They started a system of perpetual warfare to feed the slave trade. So basically the kings started saying, "fuck i can get rich by selling my people to those people." so they did.

So what you presented as evidence to me of African enlightenment and advanced societies were states that willingly sold their own people into slavery.

Not far off from what I expected.

I didn't present a challenge to show me an African kingdom that got wealth by selling slaves to the white people.

No, there needs to evidence of an African kingdom that was capable of self government, not examples of places that had a king that got rich by exploiting his people. That is basically what Africa is doing today. So same then as now? And all that is before European contact.

You might say Europe of the time wasn't much better, King Henry VIII just could cut anyone's head off he wished. And that is true. But the society he led there is far ahead of any African contemporary.

Here is one major difference... Those "African Empires" you showed me last a pathetically short time. So even if a couple did actually do some positive thing, it was for an exceedingly short period of time.

Meanwhile, the crown of England is the oldest, continually held political entity in the world. Older than the papacy even in Rome.

That political stability, maybe more than any other one thing, might be the biggest difference. If a people are generally incapable of self governance, their societies will be in a perpetual state of flux and social advancement is impossible.

 

[Doer]

West African kingdoms from the 14th to 18th century...

Well, I read a lot of the wikipedia there. What it says is basically they had a system there that was showing decent political sophistication. Where everyone except the ruling class were fucked. Though there were a couple skilled trades, it hardly qualifies as a middle class.

Then they met the Portugese. They started a system of perpetual warfare to feed the slave trade. So basically the kings started saying, "fuck i can get rich by selling my people to those people." so they did.

So what you presented as evidence to me of African enlightenment and advanced societies were states that willingly sold their own people into slavery.

Not far off from what I expected.

I didn't present a challenge to show me an African kingdom that got wealth by selling slaves to the white people.

No, there needs to evidence of an African kingdom that was capable of self government, not examples of places that had a king that got rich by exploiting his people. That is basically what Africa is doing today. So same then as now? And all that is before European contact.

You might say Europe of the time wasn't much better, King Henry VIII just could cut anyone's head off he wished. And that is true. But the society he led there is far ahead of any African contemporary.

Here is one major difference... Those "African Empires" you showed me last a pathetically short time. So even if a couple did actually do some positive thing, it was for an exceedingly short period of time.

Meanwhile, the crown of England is the oldest, continually held political entity in the world. Older than the papacy even in Rome.

That political stability, maybe more than any other one thing, might be the biggest difference. If a people are generally incapable of self governance, their societies will be in a perpetual state of flux and social advancement is impossible.

Back in the hot box, boy. Just too dumb.

 

[JohnnySocko]

Here is one major difference... Those "African Empires" you showed me last a pathetically short time. So even if a couple did actually do some positive thing, it was for an exceedingly short period of time.

The Incas, Aztecs and other Tropical empires never lasted that long either....
Kudos for showing at least a willingness to read other stuff even if you remain unconvinced....

Let me say this BNB, a LOT of our core values are shaped by exposures and experiences...

I've witnessed a sad amount of blind racism and I've gone to school with blacks, Jews, Asians and whites...Aside from a few obviously brilliant Jews (not saying Jews are smarter, just the few blatant gifted people I knew were Jewish), I saw absolutely no distinction in learning ability that I could trend, or ANY trends other than you saw more blacks and less Asians after school or on the play ground, et (that's not a racist statement, that's the truth)_...

I'm not calling you stupid, stubborn or overtly narrow, but I am convinced had you shared my life, your conclusions would absolutley be different

 

[Doer]

I'm not calling you stupid, stubborn or overtly narrow, but I am convinced had you shared my life, your conclusions would absolutley be different

No. He was born inferior. Can't jump, or dance. Can't run. A pale ugly bag of mostly water.

 

[BigNBushy]

No. He was born inferior. Can't jump, or dance. Can't run. A pale ugly bag of mostly water.

I saw that episode of star trek also.

 

[Doer]

I knew that!

 

[BigNBushy]

The Incas, Aztecs and other Tropical empires never lasted that long either....
Kudos for showing at least a willingness to read other stuff even if you remain unconvinced....

Let me say this BNB, a LOT of our core values are shaped by exposures and experiences...

I've witnessed a sad amount of blind racism and I've gone to school with blacks, Jews, Asians and whites...Aside from a few obviously brilliant Jews (not saying Jews are smarter, just the few blatant gifted people I knew were Jewish), I saw absolutely no distinction in learning ability that I could trend, or ANY trends other than you saw more blacks and less Asians after school or on the play ground, et (that's not a racist statement, that's the truth)_...

I'm not calling you stupid, stubborn or overtly narrow, but I am convinced had you shared my life, your conclusions would absolutley be different

Well, as for the inca and Aztec, it is somewhat hard to tell, they didn't really meet a natural demise did they?

In my opinion, they were the Rome of the new world in many senses. They were originally a small kingdom, that through politics, trade and warfare subdued their neighbors into the largest of any pre columbian empires. It was fucking huge! But like Rome, they didn't conquer a people and subjugate them, they let them be for the most part. The inca called themselves "land of the four kingdoms" or something like that. They tolerated other religions and ways of life.

The Aztecs also met a premature demise. They were expanding greatly when Cortez landed. They existed for less than 100 years.

But let's take a look at the Mayan civilization. If I'm not mistaken, what we call their classical period lasted from about 200 to almost 1000 ad. That's a pretty good stretch of time.

Then they spent a couple hundred years in a dark age, before being revived again for another couple hundred years. Then they collapsed into independent city states, some doing better than others.

But as a cohesive political unit, they lasted 6-800 years depending on who you listen to in terms of when it started and when that dark age ended the classical period.

But there are also the Olmec, the first major civilization in Mexico. They thrived for about a thousand years or longer in central Mexico. They think they started about 1500bc and lasted until about 400bc.

So you see, you cannot say that tropical civilizations cannot last long. sure the inca and aztec only put a century or two up, but then the evil white man came and ended it.

Speaking of that...

The black man don't have shit on the red man as far as being oppressed and subjugated is concerned. They think about 90% of the indigenous population of the new world was wiped out after European contact. Indians that don't live on the corrupt reservations today do quite well in America. Those reservations I speak of are hell holes, some of them. But there are native people all across America that have blended into American culture that do quite well. Granted, as a race their purity has been almost extinguished, but there are a lot of them that prosper.


Edit... Forgot to make that point.... In south America there are many countries that a predominantly native populations. They do fairly well for themselves. They are relatively politically stable. Not constantly fighting with each other and neighbors. Sure some do. But look at Peru and chile, they are decent places to live. As are most of the countries in the interior. Bolivia, uraguay, Paraguay, and several others.

 

[Doer]

"All Kingdoms may last until we get there." Ancient Klingon saying.

Gun Powder, white boy. And you would not last past the Klingon Slave Rays. It is simple conquest and you are still badly dancing.

Had the Chinese introduced gun powder to Africa before Europe, we would all be speaking Swahili. If Marco Polo was black, you would be the slave.

 

[BigNBushy]

"All Kingdoms may last until we get there." Ancient Klingon saying.

Gun Powder, white boy. And you would not last past the Klingon Slave Rays. It is simple conquest and you are still badly dancing.

Had the Chinese introduced gun powder to Africa before Europe, we would all be speaking Swahili. If Marco Polo was black, you would be the slave.

Negative.

You can't do to white people (or any other people) what has been done to black people, at least not for very long.

The closest was probably what the west did to China. The opium wars.

China eventually said fuck this shit, and kicked us out. It took a couple of attempts, but they succeeded all by themselves. And now look at them.

Recovered much more nicely than Africa, wouldnt you say?

If not for Japan and Mao, where would they be now?

 

[Doer]

So blacks just roll over and take it?

 

[BigNBushy]

So blacks just roll over and take it?

Pretty much. Sounds bad, but history bears this out.

Ever ask yourself why when the Europeans colonized the new word they went to the trouble of buying slaves in Africa and shipping them all the way here when there was a potential source of slave labor here in the new world?

Well they tried that, it didn't take.

 

[JohnnySocko]

Pretty much. Sounds bad, but history bears this out.

Ever ask yourself why when the Europeans colonized the new word they went to the trouble of buying slaves in Africa and shipping them all the way here when there was a potential source of slave labor here in the new world?

Well they tried that, it didn't take.

Say what!!! yeah more shit you don't know about ...

They Tried like all hell to enslave the Natives, but living in the forest and not immune to old world diseases, the native Americans dropped like flies in the heat and exposure to colds, small pox, et et....

A lil more history reading...few educated people esp scientist EVER have racist/supremacist ideologies...

 

[JohnnySocko]

Pretty much. Sounds bad, but history bears this out.

Ever ask yourself why when the Europeans colonized the new word they went to the trouble of buying slaves in Africa and shipping them all the way here when there was a potential source of slave labor here in the new world?

Well they tried that, it didn't take.

Yeah again unlike most people, I usualywon't argue with things I've struggled with myself... So I'll agree Africa was a easy mark but OTOH you can hardly use race as a criteria for dumb docility; so compare the war like responses to invasion et between people of the same races:

Had Japan been invaded like China one wonders the assorted outcome
likewise compare Apache to Navaho
German to Dutch
Zulu to Bantu
et et et...

 

[UncleBuck]

few educated people esp scientist EVER have racist/supremacist ideologies...

you have yet to visit the enchanting world of rushton and tanton and taylor, i see.

there's a whole movement of academic racism.

 

[JohnnySocko]

you have yet to visit the enchanting world of rushton and tanton and taylor, i see.

there's a whole movement of academic racism.

well I sometimes F'ck up with misplaced blanket statements
Oh and you forgot Koon (I think)...his famous book....a must read for the hood wearing crowd

 

[BigNBushy]

Say what!!! yeah more shit you don't know about ...

They Tried like all hell to enslave the Natives, but living in the forest and not immune to old world diseases, the native Americans dropped like flies in the heat and exposure to colds, small pox, et et....

A lil more history reading...few educated people esp scientist EVER have racist/supremacist ideologies...

I said in my last line they tried to enslave them, and it didn't take.

One thing above all else, the native people refused to reproduce under slavery.

You realize that at the time of the civil war that there were practically zero slaves, or any blacks for that matter, that were not born in the united states. Reproduction was the key to maintaining a successful slave population, and more slaves were born into it than brought into it.

Indians down right refused to work, and would not breed. Yeah a lot of them died from disease, but every source from the time said the natives made terrible slaves.

 

[GreatwhiteNorth]

but every source from the time said the natives made terrible slaves.

You are aware that most Native American tribes regularly enslaved other Native Americans ?

If they were such terrible slaves, why would they do that ?

 

[twostrokenut]

Its the grand illusion.....get yourself a motor car and still wonder who the hell you are.