How Advance were African Civilizations before European Colonialism??

[null]

a million different ways to say the og's fukked up

that still supports what i said

euros never deebo'd nothing

it was the already present fukkery that allowed all this

*

All this?

 

[Skooby]

In the initial stages, the ones sold were p.o.w.s though. The leaders weren't selling their own people. I descend from enslaved people.
I think too often people look at this subject with 21 century clarity/hindsight and knowing today's realities, and don't view it from the perspective of the ones making these decisions in the 17th and 18th centuries. I do agree that the decisions were made with complete disregard for people. The original chiefs/merchants who agreed to sell people set into motion something that the future chiefs of the region would have to deal with. Your rivals to the east ,are selling people and growing stronger than your group...with more (European supplied) weapons. At some point they will become strong enough to subjugate you and your people. What do you do?

Good distinction, which often goes overlooked

Maybe not the best comparison but, similar to how the Aztecs had always dominated their enemies.

When the Spanish came along it didn't take much to recruit them to go into battle to defeat the Aztecs. Little did they know, that the Spanish never considered them 'allies' and that they were planning to wipe them out along with the Aztecs.

 

[Dr. Hibbert's Revenge]

Africa has been home to plenty of powerful cosmopolitan civilizations (Egypt, Swahili trading towns, and Mali empire being standouts imo) but it's wrong to measure the worth of African societies by standards of "civilization" and "advancement" that originate outside of the continent.

 

[010101]

I didn’t quote your first post to dispute they fukked up that’s facts
My issue was with you saying they did so out of greed
Mfs gotta dispel this idea that Africans caused their own demise because of greedy and corrupt leaders
Like I said they fukked up terribly but it was out of naïveté not greed

are there not aspects of greed & corruption present in governing yourself in a way that slavery of any form is cosigned¿

the disputes between tribes where motivated largely by greed & corruption or whatever other character flaw

all the ills are related

*

 

[010101]

All this?

the history of all those whose pedigree traces back to the motherland*

 

[null]

the history of all those whose pedigree traces back to the motherland*

Up until now?
What specifically? Colonialism? TA Slavery? Racial Hierarchy? Something else...?

 

[Drip Bayless]

are there not aspects of greed & corruption present in governing yourself in a way that slavery of any form is cosigned¿

the disputes between tribes where motivated largely by greed & corruption or whatever other character flaw

all the ills are related

*

Of course but that was the standard back then, most advanced civilizations practiced slavery in some form
There was no exceptional amount of greed that caused the suffering of Africans, our ancestors were conquered despite operating by the same standards as the rest of the civilized world

 

[010101]

Up until now?
What specifically? Colonialism? TA Slavery? Racial Hierarchy? Something else...?

it's a chain of cause & effect falling like domino

the story of man began where¿

so yeah the beginning of all things concerning humanity start there both positive & negative

*

 

[Samori Toure]

I mean once the great empires fell into smaller ones? I think it goes mali Empire then Songhai then various others? anyway i dont have a degree in this but i do know the lack of large scale trade with the east stunted development past the iron age

There was no lack of large scale trade with the East. There was actually a large scale trade network in Africa that people never seem to talk about. Kanem-Bornu was a large empire in the east, which controlled trade between Central Africa up to Libya and Egypt. So that kingdom traded goods between the people of Egypt and the Bantu people to the South and Southeast. The Hausa people were long distance traders that took goods from Kanem-Bornu to places like the Empire of Mali and back from the Empire of Mali to Kanem-Bornu.

 

[010101]

Of course but that was the standard back then, most advanced civilizations practiced slavery in some form
There was no exceptional amount of greed that caused the suffering of Africans, our ancestors were conquered despite operating by the same standards as the rest of the civilized world

the dispute is not over the prevalence of slavery it's over the idea that euro.folk jugged the world by force

in the case of africa it ain't go like that

*

 

[Drip Bayless]

the dispute is not over the prevalence of slavery it's over the idea that euro.folk jugged the world by force

in the case of africa it ain't go like that

*

That’s exactly what they did, the examples of how they did so in my first response to you
The fact that they initially made contact under the guise of trade doesn’t make Africans complicit in their own conquest
And the slave trade wasn’t even when they first made contact like others in here said they tried to conquer Africa but failed prior to the TransAtlantic slave trade
You speaking in sweeping generalizations breh

 

[Apollo Creed]

That’s exactly what they did, the examples of how they did so in my first response to you
The fact that they initially made contact under the guise of trade doesn’t make Africans complicit in their own conquest
And the slave trade wasn’t even when they first made contact like others in here said they tried to conquer Africa but failed prior to the TransAtlantic slave trade
You speaking in sweeping generalizations breh

He hates the continent of africa and anything that has to do with it. Not sure why you still engage at this point lol

 

[Cobalt Sire]

Yes, Africans had guns and gunpowder in the 1400s. Sold to them by Euros to exploit the natural rivalries between ethnic groups.
Between the 1400s and the late 1800s, Euros made scientific and military advancements made possible partly because of slave trade profits.

=================================================================

What's interesting is that...it's documented that when whites first made contact with Japan, after their isolation ,this scenario played out differently. Euros showed the "emperor" guns/rifles for the first time. The NEXT DAY, the emperor's engineers had drawn up diagrams of, and made working replicas of the firearms.

And you know that Euro was a scout trying to judge whether they should send an army to oppress/pillage etc. By the time they made it back, Japan was like "what's good?" Meanwhile we were being sold guns for years, trading our people for those guns, yet somehow we didn't have any when they came to colonize. I don't get it.

 

[010101]

That’s exactly what they did, the examples of how they did so in my first response to you
The fact that they initially made contact under the guise of trade doesn’t make Africans complicit in their own conquest
And the slave trade wasn’t even when they first made contact like others in here said they tried to conquer Africa but failed prior to the TransAtlantic slave trade
You speaking in sweeping generalizations breh

at every turn i see that some cooperation was needed always leveraging whatever turncoat they could find

on some straight up military shyte they have always struggled with africa

they were most successful in finessing the situation in terms of politics & trade

you give the euros more credit than i do

He hates the continent of africa and anything that has to do with it. Not sure why you still engage at this point lol

how the fukk did you come to that conclusion¿*

 

[Ineedmoney504]

Subs