How Advance were African Civilizations before European Colonialism??

[GrindtooFilthy]

Wayyy too many cacs pretending to be black in this thread right now to even try to discuss this rationally.

Bro these aren't cacs (hopefully not)

These sound like brehs with MASSIVE chips on their shoulders. I'm still waiting for the elephant itt to be pointed at. I don't wanna be the one to do it. Lest i'm called out for being 'divisive'

 

[blaccbeard]

Bro these aren't cacs (hopefully not)

These sound like brehs with MASSIVE chips on their shoulders. I'm still waiting for the elephant itt to be pointed at. I don't wanna be the one to do it. Lest i'm called out for being 'divisive'

No they are cacs, more than half this site is cacs pretending to be black.

 

[Samori Toure]

I believe the Portuguese had a monopoly on the slave trade at first.....and we use the word chief....but we're talking leaders of huge populations of people....so maybe king gives it the proper context.
Once Spain,Dutch,France, and England get involved decades later....they are competing against each other.....the same way the African kings are competing....
There are several competing middlemen. As long as one gang continues to fukk with any of the plugs....the rest of the gangs have to as well.

Nope. The Pope gave Portugal a franchise and the rights to deal with Africans in Africa. He gave Spain a franchise to establish colonies in the America, but Spain was required to purchase their slaves from the Portuguese. That is why Portugal was involved in slavery in Africa and Spain had the colonies in the Americas.

The Dutch, English and others did not arrive until later, but Spain and Portugal were always involved and there activities were sanctioned by the Pope; which is why the Catholic Church issues a bullshyt apology for slavery every few years.

Pope Nicolas V and the Portuguese Slave Trade · African Laborers for a New Empire: Iberia, Slavery, and the Atlantic World · Lowcountry Digital History Initiative
Spain's Slavery Contract | South America | The Places Involved | Slavery Routes | Bristol and Transatlantic Slavery | PortCities Bristol
US Slave: Spain’s Slavery Contract

 

[get these nets]

Alright, I hear you. So maybe an Englishman would buy slaves from one nation and a Frenchman would buy slaves from the opposing nation. Something tells me they were buying from whoever was selling, but it's possible they avoided that specifically to keep "good" relations with the people they were buying from. These African leaders still could have attacked one of the slave merchants taking their people, and the enemy/opposing African nation could have attacked their enemies' slave merchants. But they didn't, because they wanted these slave merchants to continue doing what they were doing, even at the expense of their own. It would be hypocritical to oppose slavery on your people but allow it on others.

These African leaders rationalized what they were doing because of tribal warfare. They were selling slaves from other tribes to their slave merchants, and they didn't bother opposing slave merchants, because that would drive their own slave merchants away. In essence, you have to allow your own people to become slaves. They might as well have been selling their own. They didn't care if their own people became enslaved by the same system they were supporting. Either way you look at this, it's despicable.

At some point, their own people were being captured by the merchants they did business with. I know i've read that somewhere. And the kings allowed it.

I agree with you that it was despicacble.

If you figure the Euro slave trade continued for over 400 years, it had to have evolved based on a bunch of factors...primary one being demand for enslaved people. I'm figuring that enough p.o.w.s/members of groups with less power existed initially to suplly the demand. The "raiding" and capturing people would have occured later as more European countries started colonies in the Americas and developed plantations..
By that time it was a full scale economy, both in Europe and along the Western coast of Africa....bringing revenue and resources to both parties.
I'm certain that whatever "etiquette" that existed between the rival African nation states quickly vanished when, as you pointed out....they would capture members of each other's groups in "slave raids" . Those disputes and how they were resolved is probably detailed in books that I've not read yet..... I clarified the size of their nation states earlier. That was meant to highlight that, while the ruler valued and protected this own group....that a few, or hundreds of his group captured would have been expendable in the grand scheme of things. He reacts when it makes political sense to do so.
I dont think the leaders rationalized it at all, we are the ones doing that centuries later. They were absolute rulers who didn't have to justify their decisions, but like I said once the ball was set in motion...leaders of those regions had to deal with political realities.
There are well documented stories of rulers and ethnic groups that refused to participate in the slave trade even in the same political reality.

 

[Cobalt Sire]

4 points to that especially the bolded

1.They weren't considered that particular nation. Eg ghana and nigeria are each literally made of 4-6 plus smaller nations

2. When the english enslaved the irish they didn't consider them as 'british' because the concept of Britain didn't exist then so same case here. Same goes with Russia and ukraine and china and zgharia (sp?)

3. its not that black and white you were either kidnapped by white sailors or literally a pow. Most were kidnapped as opposed to actually being sold. Seriously there was a whole thread on this 2 yrs ago that exposed this.

4. Your using 21st century western ideology to describe things that happen more than 5 centuries ago. You think a hardline concept of race thoroughly existed. We have whites here in this day and age that go their entire life without interacting physically with black people on any meaningful level. What makes you think back then with our limited scope and understanding of society that black people en masse would arrive to the same conclusion you just did. Most barely left what ever small village or town they were from

Let's talk about point 3. Why didn't African leaders kick those kidnappers out? From what I understand, there were white merchants buying and selling an assortment of goods, but they were also involved in kidnapping people. If you've got people in your country disappearing, and you know it's one of those merchants, you can either kick them all out, or keep eyes on them at all times and figure who's doing it (likely all of them). My point is, at best, Africans allowed the trans-atlantic slave trade and didn't do much to stop it. At worst, they contributed to it greatly. Whether it's kidnappers, or warfare between nations, a lot more could have been done to stop it from happening. It destroyed Africa, more than anything else, and it could have been prevented.

 

[Samori Toure]

I'm guilty as charged of using the word chief. I clarified in the last post only to illustrate the scope of power the African leaders had and the amount of territory they controlled. That the rival leaders were in relative close proximity, but not on top of each other.

With all due respect to everybody from the continent.....the word chief has been b*stardized now.. Which is why people equate it with "local leader". No lie, out of any 20 Africans I meet.....12 will say that their father/uncle is a chief. In my mind I used to think "how is that possible? Youre all from the same small country " THAT'S why people equate chief with alderman/councilman today....and not with "president". hehehehe

Naw man. You got that shyt all backwards.

Africans are from large empires. Their empires had trade; administrators; systems of taxation; diplomats; judges; universities; armies, etc., just like other empires around the World. These people that you are calling chiefs were nothing but little magistrates, tax collectors, mayors and shyt like that. They reported to the King. The Kings could put them to death or in slavery if the chiefs didn't carry out the edicts of the Kings. So it as the Kings that ran the empires.

Somehow people have confused the small communities that existed in the forest belts (the White man called them jungles) with African empires. Those people in the forest belt escaped to those areas to flee from the Kings and the armies in those larger empires. If they didn't escape there then they would have been forced to pay tribute (taxes) to those kings. One of the largests groups to escape to the jungles were the Akan people. The Akan people were actually from the Kingdom of Ghana (modern day Senegal, Mauritania and Mali), but sometime around the 1200s to the 1300s or so they fled Ghana because Islam was spreading there and in the Empire of Mali was rising to power. They moved into the forests of modern day countries of the Ivory Coast and Ghana, wherein they established Bonoman Empire. From the Akan people we get the Ashanti, Fante, Denkyira, Baoule, Brong and other ethnic groups known in Ivory coast and Ghana, but those people are actually from much further North, just like the Mande people (Mende, Mandingos, etc.).

Discover the Ivory Coast & Ghana Ethnicity - AncestryDNA

 

[Cobalt Sire]

Alright, I figure you guys are talking about me, because you guys are saying I have westernized opinions and you disagree with everything I'm saying. You can call me white all day, it won't change my criticism about how we sold each other out. It is what it is. I understand that whenever we bring up slavery to white people, they say we sold each other to excuse their role. I'm not excusing crackers for anything, or arabs for that matter. The truth is the truth. though. There are some things I don't fully understand about the Trans-atlantic slave trade, but I know enough to know we had to have aided or allowed it. White people couldn't go far into Africa without getting diseases. They didn't know the layout of the land. You add those two together, and it's easy to see that they had to have help, from those that could survive the climate, and could move through it without problems.

What do you guys think happened? White people came in with guns a-blazing, taking anything and everything they wanted? There weren't even that many of them. They didn't bring an army. They were merchants. You telling me they were able to take millions of people by themselves, without an army, and no help from black people, right? Documented history says otherwise.

 

[GrindtooFilthy]

Let's talk about point 3. Why didn't African leaders kick those kidnappers out? From what I understand, there were white merchants buying and selling an assortment of goods, but they were also involved in kidnapping people. If you've got people in your country disappearing, and you know it's one of those merchants, you can either kick them all out, or keep eyes on them at all times and figure who's doing it (likely all of them). My point is, at best, Africans allowed the trans-atlantic slave trade and didn't do much to stop it. At worst, they contributed to it greatly. Whether it's kidnappers, or warfare between nations, a lot more could have been done to stop it from happening. It destroyed Africa, more than anything else, and it could have been prevented.

in i posted before that they employed espionage. They actually paid some merchants to lead them to neighboring villages and states. And when might fell they raided. Some rulers were quick to notice this and cut them off but again too late once the ball was in motion.

You keep saying your 'country' they didn't do this it to themselves it was neighboring states. How can you kick a group of people out when they aren't even on your land to begin with during the day and disappear like a thief in the night. How can you going to stop something you partially have no knowledge of at its beginning stages. Again stop using western boundaries. Your whole post sounds the usa asking mexico to stop ms13 members from crossing over and coming in but those members aren't even Mexican they're Guatemala or Salvadorian. You're litetally painting a whole continent like a country. I sound like a parrot either you get it or you don't and it seems like you don't

You and @.number.(n)one.* stay using a white mans system to describe a non white society one that is archaic in nature no less.

Yo @Akan breh think we done here mfers literally can't even at this point.

 

[Swagnificent]

Bro these aren't cacs its just lost brothers here posting with no knowledge of self. :mygawd:

Forgive them they don't know any better :mygawd2:

I guess I ain't doing my job well then cause I got about 50 threads on this site trying to educate these nikkas on the TRUTH.

For the ignorant brothas on here who have been brainwashed by white supremacy and don't know the truth about OUR history, read these threads:

Everyday Life in an Early West African Empire
WHITE Slaves and BLACK Masters....the untold history of North Africa
Wakanda was REAL....a super advanced technological black civilization once existed!!!
The legendary city of Atlantis was located in West Africa
Faces of Ancient Egypt
Oldest Afro Pick ever found in Ancient Egypt over 5,000 years old
Is there a book that destroys White Supremacy more thoroughly than this???
Did you know that a 9th century Arab wrote a book entitled "The Superiority of Blacks over Whites"?
The original Arabs were described as BLACK PEOPLE
When We Ruled The World....Images of the Black Man throughout History
https://www.thecoli.com/threads/melanin-is-the-source-of-our-soul-and-intelligence.603798/
https://www.thecoli.com/threads/guess-where-these-beautiful-sistas-are-from.617556/
https://www.thecoli.com/threads/the...proves-the-ancient-hebrews-were-black.620852/

 

[010101]

in i posted before that they employed espionage. They actually paid some merchants to lead them to neighboring villages and states. And when might fell they raided. Some rulers were quick to notice this and cut them off but again too late once the ball was in motion.

You keep saying your 'country' they didn't do this it to themselves it was neighboring states. How can you kick a group of people out when they aren't even on your land to begin with during the day and disappear like a thief in the night. How can you going to stop something you partially have no knowledge of at its beginning stages. Again stop using western boundaries. Your whole post sounds the usa asking mexico to stop ms13 members from crossing over and coming in but those members aren't even Mexican they're Guatemala or Salvadorian. You're litetally painting a whole continent like a country. I sound like a parrot either you get it or you don't and it seems like you don't

You and @.number.(n)one.* stay using a white mans system to describe a non white society one that is archaic in nature no less.

Yo @Akan breh think we done here mfers literally can't even at this point.

iight so the euros came through made everyone laydown no help that's the story¿

ok cool

don't @ me again b

*

 

[get these nets]

Nope. The Pope gave Portugal a franchise and the rights to deal with Africans in Africa. He gave Spain a franchise to establish colonies in the America, but Spain was required to purchase their slaves from the Portuguese. That is why Portugal was involved in slavery in Africa and Spain had the colonies in the Americas.

The Dutch, English and others did not arrive until later, but Spain and Portugal were always involved and there activities were sanctioned by the Pope; which is why the Catholic Church issues a bullshyt apology for slavery every few years.

Pope Nicolas V and the Portuguese Slave Trade · African Laborers for a New Empire: Iberia, Slavery, and the Atlantic World · Lowcountry Digital History Initiative
Spain's Slavery Contract | South America | The Places Involved | Slavery Routes | Bristol and Transatlantic Slavery | PortCities Bristol
US Slave: Spain’s Slavery Contract

Wait, did you just disagree with the highlighted parts.....and then post evidence supporting exactly what I wrote?
The facts play out exactly as I wrote them...........
Portugal..............Spain later......Dutch later....French much later....England much later
Portugal pioneered the Euro slave trade in Africa before Europe knew that the Americas existed.DECADES earlier.
Lookup the dates of Portugal beginning the slave trade of Africans to Europe..

Then look up the dates of Spain establishing colonies in the Americas....stop using Native as slaves and began using enslaved Africans.Look up conflict between Spanish merchant and Portuguese merchants over acces to ports in Western Africa.

How far apart are the dates? If they are decades apart....Then how exactly was my post wrong?

Again..Portugal......Spain later.....Dutch later....French later....England later
Portugal got a foothold before the Atlantic had ever been crossed by the (future)Euro slavers.

 

[GrindtooFilthy]

iight so the euros came through made everyone laydown no help that's the story¿

ok cool

don't @ me again b

*

fail to understand key/critical historical points breh

History doesn't repeat it just rhymes nowadays . Either you're gonna get it or your gonna get got. Your choice breh

 

[Dzali OG]

Africans in general are not warring people. Look at mansa musa's kingdom. Power didnt have to be spread by the sword. We did ours through wealth and culture

Naw breh...

We've made excuses for too long. Africans been warring since before the Kemetians and Nubians. We're no stranger to war.

Again, where is the advanced weaponry which would match the tech involved in building the great pyramid? How would people capable of building such...be invaded and eventually conquered? That's like america being invaded and conquered by a present day nation which can't even build a sturdy 3 story office building.

 

[010101]

fail to understand key/critical historical points breh

History doesn't repeat it just rhymes nowadays . Either you're gonna get it or your gonna get got. Your choice breh

a case of the pot calling the kettle black

be blessed my nikka

*

 

[Samori Toure]

Wait, did you just disagree with the highlighted parts.....and then post evidence supporting exactly what I wrote?
The facts play out exactly as I wrote them...........
Portugal..............Spain later......Dutch later....French much later....England much later
Portugal pioneered the Euro slave trade in Africa before Europe knew that the Americas existed.DECADES earlier.
Lookup the dates of Portugal beginning the slave trade of Africans to Europe..

Then look up the dates of Spain establishing colonies in the Americas....stop using Native as slaves and began using enslaved Africans.Look up conflict between Spanish merchant and Portuguese merchants over acces to ports in Western Africa.

How far apart are the dates? If they are decades apart....Then how exactly was my post wrong?

Again..Portugal......Spain later.....Dutch later....French later....England later
Portugal got a foothold before the Atlantic had ever been crossed by the (future)Euro slavers.

I was pointing out to you that you were wrong about Spain. They were in it from the beginning with Portugal. They did not come later like the English, Dutch, etc. The Spanish were always involved, except they were partners with the Portuguese through a Papal edict.