How did the European colonization of Africa take place?

[Bawon Samedi]

Its not like Shaka had the chance to use his military strategy with guns obtained for slaves.

But no one is talking about morality. Plus the guns the Ashanti's used were very dated muskets compared to the repeating rifles used by the British.

 

[Faneto]

Africa was the black guy who went to prison in Russia.

All the cacs looked at him like

Yeah 1 on 1 he could beat any of them. Even 2 on 1...but it was like 20 on one. Breh had no backup.

So they bent Africa over and ran a gay ass train. They're dikk still in our ass. Only Question Is When Are We Going To Get Tired Of Being sodomized and remove their phallus.

Wait, a black dude got sent to prison in Russia?

 

[Poitier]

But no one is talking about morality. Plus the guns the Ashanti's used were very dated muskets compared to the repeating rifles used by the British.

I just think its more admirable what the Zulus did. Same reason I dock Ethiopians for using their Christian ties to never be colonized.

 

[Bawon Samedi]

I just think its more admirable what the Zulus did. Same reason I dock Ethiopians for using their Christian ties to never be colonized.

All I'm just saying is that all people know about is the Zulu's and Ethiopians when it comes to resisting colonization.

 

[↓R↑LYB]

Jared Diamond explains how he believes Europeans came to conquer the New World.

Just watched the Nat Geo documentary and there was some bullshyt in it but its an interesting concept.

 

[Starman]

Just watched the Nat Geo documentary and there was some bullshyt in it but its an interesting concept.

I never watch the doc. What was bullshyt?

 

[↓R↑LYB]

I never watch the doc. What was bullshyt?

Their depiction of Africa of course. They barely mentioned it and when they did they made sure to create a distinction between North Africa and subsaharan Africa. Typical Egyptologist bullshyt.

And when he mentioned germs in the Americas, he said the Indians contracted small pox, but didn't mention that the Europeans actually spread it to the indigenous tribes.

 

[jeh]

Subs

 

[Starman]

Their depiction of Africa of course. They barely mentioned it and when they did they made sure to create a distinction between North Africa and subsaharan Africa. Typical Egyptologist bullshyt.

And when he mentioned germs in the Americas, he said the Indians contracted small pox, but didn't mention that the Europeans actually spread it to the indigenous tribes.

I might be missing something, but there are huge differences between north africa and sub saharan africa. Northern Africa had much more contact with the rest of the world, for instance. With that came trade, and exchange of ideas that improved technology. I don't know what you mean by "egyptologyst bullshyt"

Also, are you saying europeans spread small pox to native americans intentionally?

 

[Self_Born7]

 

[Thizz Khalifa.]

You guys are jumping too far ahead into islam africa. First it was Greece who invaded Egypt. Not totally colonized it because they still held onto egyptian culture.
Then the Roman Empire came in and expelled greece. Then there was the Punic wars. Then in the 7th century islam came in and conquered North Africa. Whites have been in Africa about 800 years before what you guys are talking about

The only reason why the Romans couldn't go into subsahara Africa and conquer it is because they couldn't cross the Sahara desert they were dying from the heat. There's roman armour from dead soldiers along that desert

 

[Thizz Khalifa.]

Never mind

 

[KravenMorehead™]

Copied excerpt from another board convo years back:

Note that the white man pointed out (understandably in a puzzled and bewildered manner considering that he's a white person and therefore incapable of even conceiving in his mind of such a reality) that there is no evidence for any warfare in these societies prior to the arrival of Islam.

Even those accounts that they say are unreliable due to racism against non-white people? You can still look at those accounts and find truth. You just gotta catch'em before cognitive dissonance begins to change their speech.

Homer referred to the Ancient Kemites/ Ethiopians as "the most just of men" and the "favorite of the gods".

Herodotus called them:

“Wisemen occupying the Upper Nile, men of long life, whose manners and customs pertain to the Golden Age, those virtuous mortals, whose feasts and banquets are honored by Jupiter himself.”

He dedicates great portions of his Histories to speaking about their manners and customs in admiration. Most of the peoples of the time that speak of Kemet described them in the like. As a matter of fact, according to Herodotus' writings, when Cambyses(Persians) decided he was going to attack, without provocation, 3 nations and he decided that for the Ethiopians he would first send spies, this is what occurred:

[3.21.1] When the Fish-eaters arrived among these men, they gave the gifts to their king and said: "Cambyses, the king of the Persians, wishing to become your friend and ally, sent us with orders to address ourselves to you; and he offers you as gifts these things which he enjoys using himself."

[3.21.2] But the Ethiopian, perceiving that they had come as spies, spoke thus to them: "It is not because he values my friendship that the Persian King sends you with gifts, nor do you speak the truth (for you have come to spy on my realm), nor is that man just; for were he just, he would not have coveted a land other than his own, nor would he try to lead into slavery men by whom he has not been injured. Now, give him this bow, and this message: [3.21.3] 'The King of the Ethiopians advises the King of the Persians to bring overwhelming odds to attack the long-lived Ethiopians when the Persians can draw a bow of this length as easily as I do; but until then, to thank the gods who do not incite the sons of the Ethiopians to add other land to their own.'"

The part I find interesting is the last part about thanking the gods who do not incite the son of the Ethiopians.... It's always reminded me of another quote:

"The god who created the sun which gives us light, who rouses the waves and rules the storm, though hidden in the clouds, he watches us. He sees all that the white man does. The god of the white man inspires him with crime, but our god calls upon us to do good works. Our god who is good to us orders us to revenge our wrongs. He will direct our arms and aid us. Throw away the symbol of the god of the whites who has so often caused us to weep, and listen to the voice of liberty, which speaks in the hearts of us all."

~Boukmon at the Bois Kayiman ceremony


Africans thinking and behaving like Africans. Thousands of miles AND years apart, telling us of the nature of these foreigners and of our own nature. There is no ancient civilization that has more of an extensive record than Ancient Kemet. Yet all you can come up with as proof of them committing genocides is the Narmer Pallete.

And I'll get to that later. Continuing on for now, however....

Ya'll remember the quote above about the Ethiopians being the most just of men? How about this one:

"The Negroes possess some admirable qualities. They are seldom unjust, and have a greater abhorrence of injustice than any other people. The sultan shows no mercy to anyone who is guilty of the least act of it. There is a complete security in their country. Neither traveler nor inhabitant in it has anything to fear from robbers or men of violence. they do not confiscate the property of any white man who dies in their country, even if it be uncounted wealth. On the contrary, they give it into the charge of some trustworthy person among the whites, until the rightful heir takes possession of it."

-Ibn Battuta in Ancient Mali in the year 1352 a.d.

The historical record that IS there and that is free of racism, testifies more to JUSTNESS on the part of our peoples than it does to any genocides at all. As a matter of fact, in another genocide thread where we were speaking in more general terms about other peoples as well, I presented even more this type of stuff:

The Inca Civilization
The magnificence and benevolence of the Inca Empire was corroborated by Mancio Serra de Leguicamo, one of the Spanish conquerors of Peru, who confessed to the King of Spain:

"...that we found these lands in such a state that there was not even a robber or a vicious or idle man, or adulterous or immoral woman: all such conduct was forbidden. Immoral persons could not exist and everyone had honest and profitable occupations....Everything from the most important to the least was ordered and harmonized with great wisdom. The Incas were feared, obeyed, respected, and venerated by their subjects, who considered them to be most capable lords....We have transformed the Indians who had such wisdom and committed so few crimes, excesses, or extravagances that the owner of 100,000 pesos of gold or silver would leave his door open placing a broom fixed to a bit of wood across the entrance to show that he was absent: this sign was enough to prevent anyone from entering or taking anything. Thus they scorned us when they saw among us thieves and men who incited their wives and daughters to sin....This kingdom has fallen into such disorder...it has passed from one extreme to another. There was no evil: now there is almost no good."


What did Columbus have to say about the indigenous people there upon their arrival?


"So tractable, so peaceable, are these people that I swear to your Majesties there is not in the world a better nation. They love their neighbors as themselves, and their discourse is ever sweet and gentle, and accompanied with a smile; and though it is true that they are naked, yet their manners are decorous and praiseworthy.

The King [the leader or chief"] observes such a wonderful estate in such a dignified manner that it is a pleasure to see. Neither better people nor land can there be. The houses and villages are so pretty. They love their neighbors as themselves and they have the sweetest speech in the world and they are gentle and they are always laughing."


~Christopher Columbus

 

[Birnin Zana]

Wow just read up on it, and basically the Berlin Conference was indeed called by Bismarck and Leopold II, but for the main reason of settling the potential conflict between Belgium, France and it seems Portugal in the Congo region. But quickly and due to various interests, alliances, etc the confernce was expanded to damn near 14 countries/empires (you had the US, the Ottoman Empire, Denmark, Spain, the Ottoman Empire...). Obviously no single African head of state/king was at the table.

Yea. African colonization happened more or less due to what @KidStranglehold has already mentioned in the thread, plus Bismark huddling up the European countries at the conference. They more or less had a united front when it came to Africa from that point till about World War I, unlike the various african kingdoms dealing with the euros back then.

 

[MeachTheMonster]

Because African tribes weren't really unified. They didn't see the continent of Africa as a thing to protect. Only their own land/tribe. So it wasn't difficult for a unified Europe to take over piece by piece.