Comments by "Ikenga Spirit" (@ikengaspirit3063) on "What happened to the many African Kingdoms? History of Africa 1500-1800 Documentary 1/6" video.

27:23 Madagascar isn't "wholely different" from the rest of Africa they are half austronesian and half bantu and the Malagasy Austronesians weren't the first there, we have evidence of hunter-gatherers before them in tools and their own origin stories but where those came from is unknown. Similarly with the Ethiopians that you mentioned before this, those might have spoken a Semitic langauge but it is more related to other North-East African Semitic langauges and the people(with some exceptions) are ethnically Kushitic, same meta-ethnicity as Oromo and Somali. 28:30 Malagsy people are only 1 race with several ethnicities, the Bantu and Austronesian elements of the Malagasy had already completely mixed and homogenous and near homogenous societies had castes. The Noble-Commer distinction in Europe is already a kind of caste system, tho not the most strict one. edit :- All I see here is a class distinction no more caste than slavery era USA had.
22
@Yawnymcsnore Tell that to a modern day Magrebi.
21
The Bantu expansion was 1. Not really as you describe and and 2. Contemporaneous with the Indo-European expansion. Does anyone treat the Indo-European expansion like proto later European colonization? So why should the Bantu expansion be treated out of its historical context just to make @Honorable 11 feel better about the history of recent European brutal colonization?.
18
@G1ennbeckismyher0 Sigma Grindset Rule 600ish:- Lie about your crimes against humanity
14
tell that to the Germanics and Mongols when they conquered more "developed" people
5
@yourtrappedinmygenjutsu yeah, as if Barbarian peoples conquering civilized peoples hasn't as much been the norm in most of history. Turks ruled Persia for centuries, Turks and Mongols ruled much of China for centuries, Aztecs were the Northern Barbarians of MesoAmerica till they conquered the place, Fulani herders conquered the Hausa states. Its so easy to come up with examples of Barbarians conquering civilized peoples that what OC said is obviously wrong.
4
@nestortorrech4741 we shouldn't start playing around with alternate definitions of terms. Barbarian people do conquer civilized peoples and that is fact.
4
@christaylor7709 Caucasoid meant more of a bone structure then. Other Black skin ethnicities like Fulani or Tutsi were included half or wholey in there.
4
I more see Euros coping with "WE WUZ KINGS" which is something that astounds me as to why Euro identity is so tied to Africans being lesser than them?. Anyway, its one of the characteristic of dying civilizations to be obsessed over race and past glories so whatever.
3
Stop with this pseudo history.
3
I am pretty sure most of those slaves were mostly Kushitic people as Oromo and Omotic people come up more often as people sold by slaves from Muslim Ethiopian merchants. Kushitic is the same meta-ethnic grouping as Ethiopians. And Ethiopians had mixed ancestry and claimed a different one according to the politics of the day, Bulgarians did similarly and externally others have claimed similarly for the Russians. It isn't an unusual thing. And modern ethiopians might use the word slave pejoratively but modern Ethiopians accept a strongly African identity
3
@christianweibrecht6555 You might want to be more exact. Brits were involved on both sides of the debate as to restore or destroy Zimbabwean history. So you would want to specify out the Rhodesian government.
2
My best advice would be the volume of the UNESCO history of Africa that deals with it.
2
I doubt. Wasn't the first time Ethiopia lost significantly to a foreign power and they didn't go Jewish when Gudit conquered it. I bet some 300 year later they'll be pushed out and probably way earlier.
2
@Daniel The Jolof joke doesn't exactly match in this context as both names do have connected origins. A better might be Japanese Edo city and Edo ethnicity in Japan or Moon both Korean and English word.
2
YEAH WE WERE, PROBLEM? BLEACHED SKINS?
2
@RealAugustusAutumn spamming "Africa had no history" or "Africans have no Cro Magnon" on every Jabzy video that focuses on Africa isn't an interest, its an obsession. The very fact that the people spamming this barely know anything on Africa is more than enough evidence that its isn't some interest in Africa but some obsession where they have tied their identity to Africans being lesser. Well, good luck to all those people.
1
@RealAugustusAutumn Eh, whatever. I've lost interest in this.
1
@abdurrahmanqureshi3030 Debatable. The Austronesians were first but enmass? debatable. It is said that its only like 36 females that started the settlement and something like 500 years later at most the Swahili or preceding Bantu coastal culture began their settlement. With pre-modern death rates and the lack of opposition to Bantu/Swahili inhabitation of the West it is unlikely that there was some Austronesian settlement that had completely penetrated the Islam. This is without getting to the fact that when everything is averaged out, they are genetically more Bantu than Austronesian which makes sense for soon after Bantu migration.
1
Based Advanced Germans conquering Romans, Advanced Mongols conquering Persians and Chinese. Like they are correlated to some extent like most things are but Military supremacy/victory doesn't equal advancement. Or else the Huns were more advanced than rome for some decades and suddenly became less advanced.
1
@magaboy4life89machin2 Yeah the racism argument is bunk.
1
Well, duh. A White European will do history with a White European lense.
1
Fine. Then will you love your several ancestors that stopped slavery to the extent that they could like Nri, Ife and Bini(for a century). Among others.
1
@orboakin8074 As for Benin for a century at the height of their Empire, they did not sell slaves to the Europeans.
1