Comments by "Ikenga Spirit" (@ikengaspirit3063) on "Understanding Indian Civilization" video.

There is no such thing as "African Civilization" really, what Civilization ties are there between the Luo and Kongo?. At best you get a cultural area description as blurry as that between the various civilizations that descended from West Eurasian Hunter-Gatherers. Also, WFAT shouldn't touch Africa, while some of his videos shows surprising insight, his SEA video shows he clearly doesn't know enough.
4
@RealLifeIronMan Uh? "Islamic vassal states" are you referring to just North Africa or the entire Sahel, cuz you'll have to tell me who Mali, Bornu or Tubu were vassal to. These Islamic states stretched as far as the Sahel and had a strong intellectual traditions as early as 1500 and a weaker but very, very present one at 1000(I am excluding Mali here cuz their's is earlier). Only issue here is that most of these are untranslated cuz you'll have to know arabic to read them and I have to depend on local biased Islamic schoolars. Aside from that, what's with the dismissal of Oral Chronicles? Actual historians of the area (Like Jan Vanisa) don't dismiss them cuz a tradition of professional oral chroniclers existed unbroken(Mali's Jellos the stereotypical example) so why should you?.
3
@kosatk120 Dude, don't waste your time too much responding to people like this.
2
@ultraman_99 He'll probably say Ethiopia is part of Mesopotamian civilization.
2
5:30 The Harappans declined like Centuries before the Aryans arrived. This isn't Germans conquering Rome, its Arameans moving into completely collapsed Mesopotamia. 5:49 And Mitanni are Indo-Aryan, not the "Southern Group" I also don't get why you're calling the Dravidians "native" and by reference the Aryans foreign even after stating yourself that the Dravidians similarly migrated in. By the Harappan you started calling the Dravidians natives, how is that any less native than the Aryans?. 8:15 You're missing the influence of the BMAC culture that occupied Central Asia before the Aryans. They mixed with the Aryans for millennia and by the time the Aryans got into India they had acquired farming and irrigation from the BMAC, they had also acquired something like proto-Zoroastrianism from the BMAC. As for Caste, Yeah it was a thing but it wasn't exactly the same as the Job you could ever do like Shudras and Brahmins have been warriors and ruler(Rai and Chach dynasties of Sindh) so as you said, its like an ethnicity expected to do job X but often also did other stuff.
2
@Forbidden_Word Yeah, cuz, civilization gae. Imagine being proud of being the first group subjugated by foreigners and forced to slave under them pushing giant rocks for their own aggrandizement.
1
Dude, What if Alt Hist doesn't know enough to do a good Africa video. The continent isn't as unified by past Empires as the Middle East or Europe. And What if Alt Hist previous video and this video shows he doesn't keep up to date with recent research in these regions(he'll probably still say shit like iron diffused from Meroe in 600 BC) so it'll be a bad video and he shouldn't do it.
1
@RealLifeIronMan I would generally use more broad term like state or polities than Empire. And I disagree. I think Oral Chronicles are reliable, especially when read in context of other historical sciences like anthropology. And in cultures with a distinct caste or Oral Chroniclers like the Jello in Mali, Griots in Jollof, Dibia in Igbo, Babalawo in Yoruba, they are reliable by themselves(obviously reading out the supernatural stuff but that is present even if Indian written sources so it doesn't affect it much).
1
@Forbidden_Word "There are five civilizations. Indian, Chinese, European, Mayan, and Mesopotamian." Wait, does this mean that Europe doesn't have a civilization.
1
@ultraman_99 And he'll probably say Egyptian, Arabic and Jewish civilizations are just mesopotamian civilization's branches. I am assuming this from the divisions he gave(mesopotamian, sinic, indic, mesoamerican and maya)
1
@makeytgreatagain6256 I mean, like Europe I think if enough time passed most of these would have melded, like all the East African ones into 1 east African civilization.
1
@Forbidden_Word Yes, Europe is an Iraqi colony. Explains all the slave built megaliths.
1
@makeytgreatagain6256 Yeah, no. The Phenotypes don't matter. The different forms of subsistence might so maybe Cushitic and Nilotic Pastoralists togther and Niger-Congo and Cushitic Farmers together.
1
@cosmos8037 all I hear is free people.
1
@makeytgreatagain6256 The Somalis didn't get along with the Oromo and they were both Cushitic while the Bantu Lacustrine Cultural Area included to the East and North, Nilotic farmers Kingdoms. Why it looks like some supra-ethnic union or something is cuz they shared different modes of subsistence so its more like nomads vs dense sedentary populations. And again, Phenotype didn't really matter. There, I am yet to read anything that indicates Phenotype actually matters to them, genealogy did but that isn't the same exactly as phenotype.
1
@sniedendepoes Stop embarrassing yourself with your lack of basic knowledge about African History.
1
@makeytgreatagain6256 "the Somalis specifically enslaved Nilotes, Habesha and Bantu based on them looking different" Its the Muslim Influence. Muslim writers in Arabia and Persia specifically wrote that Basketball Africans had the curse of Ham(or Cain) or were late in adopting Islam, thus could be enslaved. And as your list demonstrates, that often included other Cushitic peoples(Habasha) as well as Oromo. And other Cushitic people like the Galla and Oromo that weren't Muslim, didn't have such practices. "Certain other groups had the same thing going on just on a smaller scale" Yeah, based on state, ethnic, national, clan and tribal differences not pseduo-ricial differencies like you claim. "but the greater nilo Saharan group is more likely to bunch with south Sudanese" And that would be more a factor of having more geneological bonds than any pseudo-racail unity. "the Ethiopians didn’t even see themsleves as related to any other people at the time" Which further breaks down the idea of some distinction based on "we're all Cushitic", given the people they sometimes sold into slavery in southern Ethiopia were Cushitic while it was illegal to enslave Ethiopians. What's the difference if not state identity? If Rome could merge Greek and Latin state identities in a few centuries(as well as several others like Illyrian and Celtic) and Ethiopian Identity was built around the state, why can some unifying state have done the same in East Africa?.
1