The Odum of Ala Igbo
Hail Biafra!
Whites didn't cause the Sokoto Caliphate to invade the Oyo Empire, contributing to a civil war in Yorubaland and the flooding of slave markets with Yoruba speakers
Africans and Inherited Behaviors
- Thread starter Poitier
- Start date
Whites didn't cause the Sokoto Caliphate to invade the Oyo Empire, contributing to a civil war in Yorubaland and the flooding of slave markets with Yoruba speakers
Thighmaster B
Banned
Ah, another "X people don't hate cacs as much as they should" topic.
Carry on.
Carry on.
I just look at the reactions of most Arabs, East Asians and Native Americans to European arrival and compare
That can be said about any group that has been impacted by White Supremacy.
What Africans idolizes whites? I know prior to the Atlantic slave trade pale skin was looked at as inferior even by non-Africans such Arabs, Chinese and others.
http://www.thecoli.com/threads/white-supremacy-is-a-recent-phenomenon.434398/
More importantly I read somewhere that Western Sudanic kings from Mali did not allow white travelers into certain cities and some of those whites were attacked/killed. Then we have the fact that Northern African Moors looked down on Europeans and saw them as "filthy." Northeast Africans like Ethiopians and Somalis have fought against Europeans and still to this day(Somalis vs West).
So if this idealizing of whites have always been embedded in Africans, then why wasn't this the case before the Atlantic Slave trade? Like I said it is certain Africans like Coastal and inner Africans who were mostly isolated from Europeans until the coming of the Atlantic slave trade.
No, I don't see anywhere near the same fetishism or downright stupidity when it comes to business.
Did the Moors look down on Europeans? I mean they built infrastructure and imparted beneficial ideology to the Europeans. Now contrast that to colonialism.
And Ethiopians fought against ONE TYPE of European while being partners with many more. Even to this day, they are partner states with America.
Somalis are a different breed but in their case you simply replace Europeans with White Arabs and its the same shyt.
Meso-Americans? Northern Native Americans? Indigenous Tainos? Indigenous people of the pacific? Being isolated and naive does that. And Africans who encountered Europeans were no way as naive as the groups I mentioned.
Iberia was considered part of the Caliphate, so of course there was going to be infrastructure development. Why limit this to the Moors? Other groups in human history have also done this. The Romans when they conquered/colonized Briton created London and gave them their ideology.
This was all for their benefit. I don't see how that means "worshiping" whites. Point is Ethiopia has always had contact with non-Africans unlike coastal West Africa.
And lets not forget that they also fought the British, while they did lose, they fought them nonetheless.
British Expedition to Abyssinia - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
So now we're including Arabs now? That just makes it more complex, when Ethiopians themselves not only conquered Southern Arabia, but in Al Jahiz Supremacy of Blacks over White he mentions that the people of modern day Ethiopia not only saw themselves as more superior than Arabs, but that their land belonged to them.
Or, how about Muslim West African children back in Timbuktu being said to be more educated than Arab professors to a point that those Arab professors were not needed and instead shipped to Egypt or Morocco.
Like I said this worship of whites has to do with naiveness/isolation mainly from coastal West Africans and inner Africans.
These groups were far more hostile to Europeans than the typical African tribes.
[/QUOTE]
Tons of African countries were colonies and yet no infrastructure was built. Not sure how Whites civilizing Whites is relevant in this instance?
And lets not forget that they also fought the British, while they did lose, they fought them nonetheless.
British Expedition to Abyssinia - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
[/QUOTE]
They had a little skirmish because they were begging the British to help them...kind of fits into my larger point
Just now replying due to getting my computer fixed.
Second, I remember watching how a Mayan king just willingly let Herman Cortez into his palace, and there that was when Herman and his men easily betrayed the king.
Thirdly, northern Native American tribes let the settlers play divide and conquer. The Thanksgiving story anyone? It was only until very late around the industrial revolution when we start to see Native Americans really trying to fight against settlers expanding west, but by that time it was far to late. Not even that you had Native American groups like the Cherokee who willingly tried to assimilate, and they were called the "civilized tribes" by whites.
We can also go on with the indigenous people of Australia and the whole of the Pacific who had this same problem. In reality Africans faired much better than the indigenous people of the Americas.
Like I said it has more to do with naiveness. Which again was more noted with coastal West Africans and Africans of the interior. EVEN SO you still have Africans of the interior like Queen Nzinga who fought heavily against the Portuguese. Then you had the Zulus who were said to be brutal against Europeans. I remember reading or watching a Zulu king where there was a meeting of peace between the Zulus and British. Instead of doing what the British wanted, the Zulu king had them executed. Like I said my memory of it isn't to fond, but I remember something of that nature.
First off the Romans viewed Northern Europeans as inferior(same way the colonizer viewed Africans). More so than the blacks of the South. And the concept of "white" we know today did not exist back then. This is what the Romans thought of the Britons...
And yet the Romans tried to develop Briton, the same way the Moors developed Iberia. Even so Iberia was apart of the Caliphate and then the Almoravid Kingdom.
Another case is the non-European Ottoman Empire developing Greece and the Balkans. Or better yet how about Rome rebuilding Carthage? Who were one of their biggest enemies. See we're I'm getting at?
As for Europe hardly building infrastructure in Africa? That is true, but Europe at that time mostly viewed Africa as just a treasure chest for resources and not an extension of their empires like the different ones I mentioned.
Didn't they want help against the Italians?
Wait? What? The Tainos were noted to be some of the friendliest people when Columbus first encountered them. They were willingly to share everything with him and his group of men until it was too late. Unlike Africans, they didn't put up much of a fight and was wiped out. Even today there are hardly any traces of Taino DNA in modern Caribbean populations.
Second, I remember watching how a Mayan king just willingly let Herman Cortez into his palace, and there that was when Herman and his men easily betrayed the king.
Thirdly, northern Native American tribes let the settlers play divide and conquer. The Thanksgiving story anyone? It was only until very late around the industrial revolution when we start to see Native Americans really trying to fight against settlers expanding west, but by that time it was far to late. Not even that you had Native American groups like the Cherokee who willingly tried to assimilate, and they were called the "civilized tribes" by whites.
We can also go on with the indigenous people of Australia and the whole of the Pacific who had this same problem. In reality Africans faired much better than the indigenous people of the Americas.
Like I said it has more to do with naiveness. Which again was more noted with coastal West Africans and Africans of the interior. EVEN SO you still have Africans of the interior like Queen Nzinga who fought heavily against the Portuguese. Then you had the Zulus who were said to be brutal against Europeans. I remember reading or watching a Zulu king where there was a meeting of peace between the Zulus and British. Instead of doing what the British wanted, the Zulu king had them executed. Like I said my memory of it isn't to fond, but I remember something of that nature.
First off the Romans viewed Northern Europeans as inferior(same way the colonizer viewed Africans). More so than the blacks of the South. And the concept of "white" we know today did not exist back then. This is what the Romans thought of the Britons...
Cicero: The Britons Are too Stupid to Make Good Slaves
And yet the Romans tried to develop Briton, the same way the Moors developed Iberia. Even so Iberia was apart of the Caliphate and then the Almoravid Kingdom.
Another case is the non-European Ottoman Empire developing Greece and the Balkans. Or better yet how about Rome rebuilding Carthage? Who were one of their biggest enemies. See we're I'm getting at?
As for Europe hardly building infrastructure in Africa? That is true, but Europe at that time mostly viewed Africa as just a treasure chest for resources and not an extension of their empires like the different ones I mentioned.
They had a little skirmish because they were begging the British to help them...kind of fits into my larger point
Didn't they want help against the Italians?
You need to read again.
Nigeria is a colonial creation. To be honest; I don't think that Ethiopia is.
I am just saying that to say that if Nigeria were 3 or more separate nations aligned along their ethnic lines then it would definitely be further along and on par with Ethiopia. An example would be the Yoruba people, who historically were incredible and very advandced. The Europeans colonialism is what has hampered the Yoruba.
But the ethnic groups in Nigeria didn't mix like they are right now in a nation state until forced to do so by colonialism. So the Whites did cause the problem, because Nigeria is their creation. I just don't think the Hausa-Fulani, Igbo and Yoruba people were around each other like that; before the White man came. I think that it was the Whites that favored the Hausa-Fulani to lead the Nigeria government at independence.
Ghana and the Ivory Coast seem to be a little different than Nigeria, because the Akan and Mande people who form the majorities of the Ivory Coast and Ghana had been living around each other since the ancient Kingdom of Ghana.
Because of behavioral dispositions.
Misreeya
Pro
He is right you actually see this behavior among many groups, as i have witness. The issue between Indian and Pakistan, and between Arabs especially pretty much put a dent on your theory. Question, have you traveled anywhere outside North America?