Youtube comments of Ikenga Spirit (@ikengaspirit3063).
-
1000
-
721
-
252
-
214
-
183
-
153
-
144
-
I see some issues with the history part.
1. Most of the Southern states weren't really Empires, definately Aro wasn't an Empire and they weren't all slave trading, tho all mentioned here were slave trading.(another caveat is that some of these weren't slave trading throughout their whole existence, Benin famously stopped slave trading for a century during its most stable period).
2. Sokoto also had the world's most literate population.
3. Nigeria didn't get Christianity to any significant extent from the Portuguese, Christianity really came with the English colonization.
4. The South isn't more Western Educated because it was on the coast, it was more Western educated because it was colonized in a harsher manner that more subjugated the existing power structure. The North's colonization however still left alot of the entrenched powers in place, just submitting them to British power. The British colonial government for the most part wasn't what brought colonial era education but the autonomous Christian missions that did. So when these Christian schools tried to get started up in the North, Northern Muslim Leaders rejected them and petitioned the British government to barr them but when some Southern leaders tried to stop Christian schools being opened in their area, they were suppressed. Also, the South being less unified than the North which had just been unified under the Caliphate meant that there was no unified resistance against the Christian schools in the South and many actively embraced them for either the opportunity, prestige or religion or some combination of factors.
5. Also, preferably explain the North-East-West differences in a way that acknowledges the dominant Hausa-Fulani, Igbo and Yoruba groups but doesn't Ignore the minor groups like the Tiv rebellion in the North or 12 day revolution by Isaac Boro in the East.
6. The justification for the first coup was anti-corruption not anti-North, Yoruba leaders were killed too and Igbo leader fled.
7. Biafra isn't an Igbo republic, it is an Eastern republic. Most of the minorities of the Eastern region joined in as well.
8. As for China, Kinda. The Chinese Empires have always been Han but have progressively converted more ethnicities into Han as they expanded.
9. As you said, China adopted a more Capitalist system, but aren't like your poster boy for Capitalism, initially being a Socialist state. For Nigeria to adopt a similar system to China they would have to go the other way and adopt more socialist and planned economy stuff.
140
-
132
-
132
-
107
-
101
-
99
-
98
-
87
-
73
-
73
-
71
-
71
-
64
-
61
-
60
-
59
-
49
-
48
-
47
-
46
-
44
-
44
-
44
-
44
-
43
-
43
-
42
-
41
-
41
-
41
-
38
-
37
-
37
-
36
-
35
-
35
-
34
-
34
-
34
-
34
-
I agree that Cleopatra wasn't white tho she would have had significant (maybe over a quarter) Persian genes from dynastic marriages.
6:24 I'll counter to this by saying but do we tho? Do we really know what we mean when we say "he Ancient Egyptians were Black". Like Ignore the crazies on twitter for a second, what is Black?. Because while some people might be picturing Robert Mugabe as the stereotypical Black, the Skin tones and Facial structures of what is considered Black can differ alot.
For example the people in https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DGofahvHDSg and https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hlqECzsvwVU (from 1:03) would be both considered black but both have fairly bright skin tones and the later is 100% SSA. So if the ancient Egyptians looked like the later, would they not still be Black?
6:52 As I said before, you don't have to look like that handsome man to be Black, you can look like either of the people I gave examples of from in the links and still be considered Black. This might be a weird concept for Europeans(I don't know) but is the norm for Americans whose racial categories are to be used as they are the origin of this debate.
7:57 True, they did consider themselves lighter than the southerners but also significantly darker than the Northerners who were in the Levant and a Mediterranean skin tone people. So at least they were darker than Mediterraneans.
10:35 I disagree on this Tan hypothesis. Being brighter skin is generally considered a favourable characteristic among women from modern Nigeria to Ancient Japan to early modern Europe; Its isn't like Egyptians uniquely worked the field everybody did so why the the Libyans and Asiatics not share similar Tans; Why was similar darker and lighter tans used for ALL women and men respectively.
I am pretty sure Tanning played a role but it seems to me to be minor to Egyptians conceptualization to women being lighter and men being darker that got exaggerated in art, after all, their work is highly stylized and the Asiatics and Libyans that would have been in the Sun similarly as long were shown even fairer than the women.
10:58 A Nubian's skin colour is gonna be "Black", yes, in looking like your example for the average black skin tone but even black people Tan. I work in a hospital and you can see the clear difference between Black people's faces being much more darker than their chest that is always covered in modern dressing during a physical. Same between the palm and upper arm.
14:11 Fine, no perfect continuity but Egypt's history is very well documented. We can do an analysis that Identifies the DNA admixed from Romans, Greeks, Persians, Berbers, Arabs etc. exclude that from the final Analysis, find the oldest genetic component which I assume would be 99%+ the same as Ancient Egypt and analyse that to show where they land in SSA and West Eurasian admixture.
14:44 This video by Christopher Ehret https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=S_DD4nmyoss argues against this study or a similar one by the location of the samples being from places that from the historical record we should expect that the recorded migrants from the Levant would have settled. Also such a study could just validate the many out of Egypt origin story myth that exists for many peoples from the Scots to the Bamun to the Jews, neither of which have been disproved beyond a reasonable doubt.
15:50 Which is every likely given you yourself accept the highly multi-ethnic nature of ancient Egypt.
16:15 The problem is that the North was where the vast majority of Egyptians lived so if the South was majority Black, they could just be treated as insignificant.
The stuff about how after a few generations only langauge could tell apart can be resolved by miscegenation occurring, not Greeks getting Tanned to looking like Ancient Egyptians.
34
-
33
-
32
-
32
-
32
-
30
-
28
-
28
-
28
-
@magister343 While the Bantu occupied just a small area, they are quite pheonotypically similar to other Niger-Congo speaking people like the Yoruba so what Americans take as the "Black" stereotypical look is a general Guinean Niger-Congo look not a Bantu look.
Most definately, the Khoi-San and other similar people like Pygmy and Hazda would have been considered Black. The Khoi-San usually used in pictures are from Namibia and South Africa, Temperate regions that like the Near East, its radiation levels produce people with fairer skin but Khoi-san groups in Tanzania, the linguistically even older Hazda, Sadwe and the Pygmy, the other group who with Khoi-San make up the main genetic group called African Hunter Gatherers are ALL very dark skinned, thus they would all have been considered Black.
As for those Sudanese people, their facial features are also very different from the Niger-Congo, so different that the often claimed to be Caucasoid looking Nephratiti's facial features actually aligns pretty well with the general Kushitic and Nilo-Saharan facial features, groups that would be considers BLACK by Americans.
When people stop acting like only a Bantu from Zimbabwe is Black, they'll start seeing how more reasonable the claims of the Blackness of the whole Nile Valley is.
28
-
28
-
27
-
27
-
34:43 Okay, no power wasn't given to the southern Igbo it was given to the Northern Emirs. What happened with the Southern Igbos was that cuz the British gave power to the Northern Emirs, they used that power to keep out missionaries to maintain their religious hold.
However this came back to bite them as those missionaries brought western education with them and now the more western educated southerners, could get jobs in the Western style government and dominated the civil service and military officies, Igbos chief among them. This ofcourse also leaked into private enterprise as they were better adapted to the western economic system as well.
This wasn't the Igbos being given power, this was the Igbos taking better advantage of the system presented to them.
30:51 Continuing with your errors on Igbos, no, the Women's war was only peaceful on the side of the women who tried to emulate traditional peaceful protests on the British to drop taxes, guess what, the British sent in colonial soldiers to shoot at them, killing at least, over 50 women but even that didn't crush their spirits and in the end they got their concessions
27
-
26
-
26
-
26
-
26
-
26
-
25
-
25
-
25
-
"The Dutch, English and French colonizers did not place much emphasis on religion" Did not place any emphasis on religion, especially during the second era of colonization.
If anything, they directly tried to stiffle the spread of Christianity. Let me start with the Dutch, they made it illegal to learn to read Dutch, that's is why Afrikaans was first written by coloureds not in the Latin alphabeth but in an Ajami, while the British spread Muslim instutitions throughout the middle belt region of their colony of Northern Nigeria. This is because they considered Muslims more civilized(in the words of lord lugard, more like the english) than Pagans and Recent Christians, the Dutch similarly used Islamic Malay elite as a secondary colonizing class, similarly with the french with some Muslim Lebanese in West African colonies like the Ivory coast, and I have already mentioned the British doing that with Northern Nigerian Muslims(they did it with Indians in East Africa, part of the reason for the hate for Indians there during decolonization).
Now, both states still had churches within and those tried to spread their missions, which they did allow but also tended to resist or at least give no greater support. For example, the Brits only allowed 1 mission to enter northern Nigeria.
24
-
23
-
23
-
22
-
22
-
22
-
22
-
22
-
21
-
21
-
21
-
21
-
20
-
20
-
20
-
20
-
19
-
19
-
19
-
19
-
18
-
18
-
18
-
18
-
18
-
18
-
17
-
17
-
17
-
17
-
17
-
17
-
17
-
17
-
16
-
16
-
16
-
15
-
15
-
15
-
15
-
15
-
15
-
15
-
15
-
14
-
14
-
14
-
14
-
14
-
14
-
14
-
14
-
13
-
13
-
13
-
13
-
13
-
13
-
13
-
13
-
13
-
13
-
13
-
13
-
12
-
12
-
12
-
12
-
12
-
12
-
12
-
12
-
12
-
12
-
12
-
11
-
11
-
11
-
11
-
11
-
11
-
11
-
11
-
11
-
11
-
11
-
11
-
11
-
11
-
11
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
@alexanderphilip1809
1. Why is the transformation from Hunter-Gatherer and autonomous agriculture to states seen as evolution or "moving forward". many Anarchists, Ancient Historians and Anthropologists would disagree. States can be very oppressive, that's why Akan migrated from Wagadu/Mali and non-state actors can be very innovative that's why our first wheel is found in the Carpathians and our first iron working in Eurasia in the Caucasus.
2. Why is the fact that some regions developed stimulated by trade or some other external factor used to present their development as inauthentic? The Japan and Korea that you mentioned had strong Chinese influences in their state formation. Korean agriculturalists and artisans migrated into and stimulated early Japanese culture/civilization and trade with China for Bronze stamps(of approval) and Bronze mirrors justified and manifested early Japanese polities and as for Korea their semi-legendary first state of Gojoseon was conquered by China before historial Korean states start to appear.
3. Who said there were no huge architectural advancements or advanced states or advanced cultures(what may be called civilizations) in SSA?
What of the walls of Benin where when stretched out are longer than that of China, Kerma culture ruins are comparable to those of New and Mid Kingdoms Egypt. There is an entire thread of 150ish pages on African architecture on Historum just search "The Diversity Of Early African Architecture/Ruins Thread" and "Historum" on google and it would show up. (won't post a link here cuz Youtube will delete the whole comment over it).
400 BC to 500 AD Congo-Gabon rainforest was advanced enough to support a population higher than the modern stretch of land without utterly destroying the forest. "Population collapse in Congo rainforest from 400 CE urges reassessment of the Bantu Expansion", "Egypt Search :- Lost Civilization in the Congo Basin by Mike Fay and Richard Oslisly" "Archaeologists Have Uncovered Ancient Tools in Gabon That May Rewrite Our Understanding of Humankind’s History in Central Africa".
Pre-Oduduwa Ile-Ife, Ogiso Bini and Igbo Ukwu are forest region Nigerian states at least as old as the BC/AD turn, the Punt peoples that Egypt traded with/vassalized were part of a cultural continuum that stretched all the way to Uganda, Engaruka was a terraced and planned agricultural complex that spanned the entire modern day Engaruka valley(https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Engaruka), the Kitara capital was as large as Kilwa and Zimbabwe larger, Leopard Kopje stone works are just a few centuries later than Bantu arrival in Southern Africa (so Leopard Kopje starts 400-500). And these are just the ones I could remember off the head, in part because I read of them recently or am still reading on them.
Just because you don't know about any of these doesn't mean there weren't monumental architectural and advanced cultures(Civilizations) works in Africa
8
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
6:00 Dude, stop. You yourself know that most people treat the invasion and migration theory as interchangeable and the main difference being how much emphasis is placed on whatever violence may or may not have happened.
8:48 Some dude had to write a paper sometime ago arguing against a historical theory that got popular that the Indus Valley Civilization was proto-Communist (AKA the ideal by many people today)
8:53 Unknown but when a langauge is proposed, it is almost always proto-dravidian. Several Papers support this.
9:30 Like fine, Indo-Aryans are said to be Central Asian but the current theory that isn't "We don't know" Is Proto-Indo-Europeans from Ukraine(Europe) the culture before Sintasha from Eastern Europe's Corded Ware(Due to not only Proto-Indo-European steppe DNA but also Eastern European Hunter Gatherer DNA in Northern India), so yeah, the theory that these people were basically Proto-European(Not exactly the same as European but close enough) is the main one. But fine, the theory now is that yes, it collapsed not invaded but... soon after its collapse Indo-Aryans took over.
10:09 it being based on profession doesn't completely remove that it correlated with skin colour, after all, if the Indo-Aryans were disproportionately warriors like many later steppe peoples then the warriors would be disproportionately the skin colour of the Indo Aryans not of the Dravidians.
11:12 They only really differ in degrees not in essential qualities. Well, except for how Indus Valley Civilization ended.
21:28 While the Genocide claim might be easy to argued against from that, the invasion/conquest argument cannot really be argued against from that alone. Because "Peaceful with only periodic violence" argument could be made for the Malian, Mongol, Roman and Chinese conquests and more.
Also, From what I know the other people that say there was a genocide or something close enough to that more look to Britain, France and Germany for the area it occurred, tho large scale killing in the East isn't entirely ruled out.
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
Speaking of African civ or the lack of it in ur opinion, while Zimbabwe is the largest stone structure, stone building has been in Trans-Saharan Africa since the 2000 BC in the Tichitt culture, ending sometime around say, the first 500 yrs of the Christian era after they were pushed into finally, over the slow over 2000 yrs, south of the Sahaea by Berbers. Not Roman size but they were cities.
Following this, they transitioned into building in earth.
On ur second point of saying, no Roman scale stuff. I am surprised u didn't bring up the Ife, Benin and Igbo Ukwu bronzes(actually brass) that are as realistic as anything in the Renaissance that they either slightly preceded or are contemporary with. So that is an equal level accomplishment (but in brass, not stone) to Equal post-Roman civilization.
Edit
Something that I didn't catch initially is u saying great Zimbabwe was all they had. Now, I hope I am just misinterpreting it but it seems to me like ur saying that was their only structure. This is wrong, there's over 600 known of such stone structures. And thousands more of other structures that used stone in construction but are not of this type.
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
@kolawaleojomo6817
"If y'all are so united, why was your land the only place where the Brits had to employ individuals to be local rulers over your towns? In the north and west, there were already established monarchies"
I was referring to ethnic Identity not political Identity. For example then HRE, Napoleonic and Prussian conquest in Germany dealt with a people that by their own and their neighbours own admission were the same ethnic group. But until the Prussian came along they were ruled by a multitude of Kings and dukes that each successive overlord had to negotiate individually with.
Or what about the Arab? Texts from the early and just before the Islamic conquests show clear signs that they saw themselves as a single people divided into 2 broad lineages ultimately originating in Yemen. Even when some Northern Arabs dominated over the very early Caliphate we see Southern Arab tribes complain about it in language acknowleding that common heritage.
An this wasn't something fueled by the new religion, Christian tribes like the Tayy, Ghassan or Salirids were quickly incorporated fully into the Arab armies without having to convert while when berbers mass converted, they were still treated differently from Arabs.
Until the Islamic Caliphate there was no Political unity among Arabs, but their ethnic unity existed far before that and the same applies to the Igbo.
"Was it not your vaunted democracy-like system y'all were operating? Do you think democracies make good empires? Look at the Greeks and see. You may say that the US is such an example, however it's circumstances and unique in history."
Fine, I won't call the greeks but what about the Romans? All their greatest conquest like against Pontus or Carthage was during the Roman Republic Phase.
Or the British that from the Killing of the Tyrant King Charles only of more and more powerful until WWII.
Or the Rashidun Caliphate that did most of the conquering of Rome and Persia selected the Caliph through a process that translates from the Arabic as "Deliberation", so like the respected men of the Islamic community voting for a leader.
Anyway, from my perspective Empires are highly overrated and I don't care for them.
"Was it not the terrible civil war that instilled some semblance of unity amongst your people? "
The civil war certainly helped but it was the work of Igbo anthropologists and historians in the 40s that cemented the fluid and fuzzy boundaries of Igbo Identity.
"I have Igbo friends, and they tell me y'all have rivalries amongst yourselves. You have towns not considered Igbo because of variations in dialect and customs."
And vice versa with Yoruba. I hear it is even so strong there that people identify primarily as Ijebu or Oyo rather than Yoruba while in O'odua. At least, Igbos still identify primarily as Igbos in the East. Hell, my pastor in North always identifies as Ijebu first not Yoruba, so are Yorubas now a manufactured ethnicity?.
And it is more the civil war that caused both a Fragmentation and transformation of Igbo Identity from an ethnic one to a nationalistic one.
"forest and swamp and more forest. Do you think that is land capable of sustaining an empire?" Let me see, Portuguese Brazil, Southern China, Sirivijaya, Majapahit, Khmer Empire etc all Empires formed in similar climate so that argument doesn't hold.
"How would fast communication be possible?"
Rivers.
"What about the tropical diseases that still plague our peoples? "
Natives medicines like Kola.
And upon all that, Eastern region from population estimates by whites had a population comparable to Egypt of the time so we managed.
"do you think that an empire could have arisen in such an environment?"
With the right organizational changes yes. Aro has its network of influence all over the place, with enough time and some culture change it was workable.
Also the main issue with forging Empires is population, Alaigbo definately had the required population and population density.
But even if the answer is no, the argument of the video is "an Igbo Empire" this doesn't necessarily mean an Empire from Alaigb but as we have seen with the Diodochi greek Empires could mean elites of the Igbo ethnicity relocating to the Imperial core and ruling there with there ethnic and non-ethnic similar loyals.
"Even the Oyo empire I talk about so much wasn't an empire in the western idea of the word"
And? Same applies to the later Iranian Empires like the Sassanids.
"And I'm also saying that as no one could conquer such land at the time"
I actually agree on this. The Sahelian and Northern Nigerian Empires wouldn't have been able to conquer it but I view Nigeria kinda like India. The Sokoto were the first but after some trial and error of learning and especially if with a dynasty origination further south and thus with godd knowledge of the terrian's warfare it could have happened and thank God it didn't.
"Do you think we Yoruba would sit and let you rule us? Or do you think we'd try such without rebellions popping up like mushrooms?"
Stop talking like nationalism and current Nigerian Ethnic rivalries existed centuries ago.
Ibadan didn't fall to the Sokoto Caliphate they welcomed them in and Benin conquered Yoruba borderland.
As long as some hypothetical Igbo rulers aren't a tyrannts, nobody would complain.
4
-
4
-
I would say there are like 4 sub branches of Christianity that is kinda recovering/getting cool.
The more traditionalist Christianity is just getting easier access to people. This probably has the least conversion rate but is no longer bleeding followers like before. It has the allure of being "authentic".
There is there sort of "rebellious" super evangelical type Christianity. These could be the Charismatic Christians and they are growing really fast in non-traditionally Christian countries. And they would be rebelling against modernity and thus taking in all these aspects of Christianity that might be considered superstitious, antiquated or even anti-intellectual.
There is progressive Christianity as you mentioned, but this will most likely fail in being a Christian movement. Previous more progressive versions of Christianity just became more secularized till they lost their identify/force to secular movements.
Finally I would put what I call Meme Christianity and Cultural Christianity together. In a sort of way they are like more right wing versions of progressive Christianity and on the Cultural Christianity side, some might be believing Christians or what is being called "Christian Atheists", but they are unified in a call for personally strong Christina values but not using Christianity in politics/law and on the other end, somewhat of a subsection of these is like Meme Christianity, even more divorced from necessarily believing or acting Christian, they are far more interested in Christian Aesthetics, especially the portion of it not commonly advertised, the trippy, extreme and marcarbe portions of Christian aesthetics like Seraphim, Crusades or Skeleton Churches.
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
What if the actually United the Empires
I think you should have used the version where it is Charlemagne's daughter and Irene's son that got married instead, with her sending him away to the west for sometime to avoid him. Then again I think she would be too paranoid to send him to another powerful Kingdom.
Fuck it let me try something.
Irene sends Constantine VI to Charlemagne to Marry his first daughter and keep him busy. In his years there he goes on Campaign with Charlemagne and gains some backbone, Charlemagne wanting to Impress the future Emperor campaigns too hard and gets his only legitimate son (Louis the Pious) killed (He still crushes the Franks and sends some of that as Gifts to Constantinople under himself and Constantine VI). He still wants to be Emperor and later gets Constantine VI to crown him Augustus of the Franks and Western Romans. Emperor of the West and Co-Emperor of Constantine VI in doing this he avoids giving the Church any position over him.
Constantine IV not only has a backbone but has now gotten a loyal following of Franks with whom he retakes Constantinople after Irene is removed from power by her ministers.
In recognition of his Grandson Theophilus (alt hist Constantine VI son) he wills his Empire over to Constantine VI and Theophilus.
His illegitimate sons and some other Franks and Slavs rebel and Constantine VI leaves his son under the care of a Frankish general in Constantinople and goes to squash the rebellions and conquer Slavs and Avar remnants to the West. He is forced to stay in the Frankish portion of the Empire throughout while is son is raised in a mix of Frankish war traditions and Roman scholarly Tradition. Leading him in battle against the Arabs and the Bulgars. The East serves as a dumping ground for excess sons from West Frankia, fighting the Arabs.
When Constantine VI dies, his Son succeeds him by going to the West. While leaving his own son in East, beginning an ad hoc succession Tradition.
Theophilus would dream to connect the two halves of the Empire via land and Campaign against the Slavs of the Balkans relentlessly.
Unlike his father however, Theophilus would birth several Children in the West who would war with him and gain favour and during his father's old age already planning on how to depose his brother. As soon as he got the Chance, he Campaigned against the Balkan Slavs and Bulgars, passifying them and from there sieging Constantinople, managing to get in through intrigue.
Three generations of single successions has removed the idea of Gravel kind from the Imperial throne, while Gravelkind among the Nobels keeps them weak.
The Roman resettling of the Balkans has started an the new Emperor, Paul now stays in the East to protect it from the Arabs.
He would send a Greek general to put down Frankish revolts and he would succeed. ( As the Franks would be balknaized by Gravel Kind).
Under overwhelming Roman superiority, the Bulgarians convert and focus mostly North. Paul would die in battle and be succeeded by a Son from the West who will kill all his brothers called Olaf the Bloody. He would go to the Eastern Empire with his body guard but later e assassinated by the Armenian general that was governing the East while he was killing his brothers. The East and West the almost simultaneously break into civil war. They only saved as the West reunified under the son of the Greek general that Paul sent to pacify the West. He sends his brother East to take the East, doing so again through intrigue as Paul still had supporters.
A new dynasty is in now.
The brothers rule and mostly don't disturb the other as they are fighting other wars and the brother in the East (under pressure) takes no wives. After the brother in the East goes the brother in the West goes East, leaving his son and family to secure the West.
Generations of Franks ruling in the East has created a distinct Franko-Greek Population who are the Army around Constantinople. Who preserving some feudal view on power would eventually see themselves overthrow this second dynasty for their general, a role that had become semi-hereditary. The West however would see this family grow as Gravelkind became institutionalized in law for Franks, while the Imperial family was allowed to grow their lands.
The Empire would manage another by keeping Junior (usually the son) and Senior Emperors at different sides of the Empire and using generals and armies from the other side of the Empire to control the other.
After the reign of the brothers, the Western brother's son Porphyrogenitus would take over and he was the only legitimate son. He would use his cousin to take care of revolts by his bastard brothers while he started the process of reconquering the East. He would notice that the Frankish soldiers not around Constantinople had created a Feudal like organization in the borderlands. He would conquer a far as the upper Euphrates settling more Franks and Greeks in this pseudo Feudal system with a Feudal inheritance system beneath and a theme over them. The Franko-Greeks have begun adopting Roman inheritance systems, allowing them to grow power with the generations.
Porphyrogenitus would be succeeded by Dikephorus who finally conquered the Bulgurs after they had been weakened by a joint force of Rus and Magyars who now began attacking around the Black Sea.
Unfortunately as the power of the Western Greeks grew they would be able to amass centres of power while in the East the Franks there would be able to ally with Each other. The East Eventually goes into the hands of a Frankish dynasty and the West to a Greek dynasty
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
45:25 In most African Cultures, there is something of a unified God that is of a higher class of being as other supernatural beings but that God is quite distant and doesn't interfare.
43:50 Okay, this, I don't get at all. Cuz its not like according to ur maps Africa is unique in this(also that Red area would extended further) Much of Asia(Siberia, the Steppe, etc), the Americas, Aborigonies, S.E.A and Nusantara also lacked states so why would only Africa be having this style of organization linked to lack of states?.
46:30 I mean, I have worked there and read an early colonial book that touched on that. Its more that your workers have to respect you first and won't just follow u due to an abstract ideal that they should follow their bosses. In Other words, those people probably don't do the culture shift in working with different cultures, the Chinese and Koreans setting up manufactores in USA seem be be ware that yeah, you need to have a culture shift.
46:34 I also dispute this. My knowledge on this is mostly the Kwa Speaking Guinea sub-region but Women there more commonly had a more local level control over the markets and in some had official women's councils as the institution of the micro-state/tribe, whatever you want to call it. Such official recognition of power is a fact of respect not condensation.
46:48 No, reject modernity. And tribes cool. Much of the world is still tribe and clan based from Korea and China to Qatar and Arabia, I see no reason for a force move to "nation level".
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
This isn't a clear picture. For one, Igbos do have Oil, Anioma in Delta, Abia, Imo also have Oil. What Igbo doesn't have is Sea access.
Another is that Igbo have central location in the Niger-Delta. If they want to have an easy time uniting and/or controlling all the Niger-Delta, then the would need Igbo included.
Also, all these complains are even worse under Nigeria, at least the first Biafran republic had to make compromises with Efik, Egaham and Ijaw to work because those are the larger tribes following Igbo. The same thing happens in Nigeria as upon Hausa is the biggest they still have to work with Kanuri, Igbo and Yoruba but can Ignore the rest.
So a Biafran state can't just Ignore Ijaw, Efik and Egaham will at least get the same compromises that Yoruba and the other big tribes get from Hausa.
But again, that is assuming Biafra works like Nigeria, which it won't as the restructurimg ideals is strongest there so it is most likely to operate as a Federation not the current unitary Nigerian system.
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
@ashokafulcrum4795 Well, yeah slaves that were taken into jobs with actual social mobility got to experience social mobility. Your average non-slave miner or farmer in the middle ages is going to live and die a farmer or miner, same applied to laves taken for those roles.
Search up Malik Ambar, he and other African slaves in the Ahmadmahgar sultanate reached the highest military position and he eventually basically took it over. There are other examples that I can't remember now but yeah, Blacks can and were often used in the Army not as Plantation workers in the Islamic world because for most Islamic states, Plantation Farming was unfeasable or simply unused. Like the example you gace with the Zanj revolt, after the revolt the plantation system in Southern Iraq died off with it.
So yes, while there was d distinctly anti-black racism in the Islamic world it didn't stop them from using black soliders in Egypt, Morocco, Spain and India being the ones I am sure of. The main distincter of what slaves were used for were still their past expertise not their race.
As for the Zanj rebellion, a large part of why they were mostly black slaves there much like the trans-atlantic was for convenience reasons. The Northern trade route passed through difficult mountainous terrain and dangerous turkish tribes while for the experienced sailors that brought slaves from East Africa, the Ocean was a high way and they could immediately drop on the flat ground of Iran.
3
-
3
-
@pixelsabre The Middle East was far, far safer than the Eastern Roman Empire during the 3 main caliphates. The Qaramatians, Berbers and Zanj(the later of which aren't even raiders) were only an issue at the END and collapse of one of those 3 main caliphates to be replaced by the next, if that was all the Romans had to deal with it would be like if the only raids Eastern Anatolia suffered were starting from 1204. The Romans on the other hand had to deal with yearly Arab attacks, often with armies larger than anything they could muster, this was so bad that an Arab writer that made their way into Eastern Anatolia said there were no cities only forts and bunker houses, this has literally no comparison in the 3 main caliphates. Nowhere in them was there a previously urbanized region so devastated as to lose all distinctive urbanism and we know Europe Eastern Rome was no better.
It was only during the Islamic civil wars that Eastern Anatolia was safe from raids that given how far and few between that was those civil wars were far from "endless", just significant when they happened.
By the rise of Italian merchant cities, the Caliphates were no longer a political power and thus out of the scope of my argument.
Rich Estates to whom? Not to the majority of the workers on those estates that got on that estate in the first place because their constantly raided lands were too poor to produce anything and so basically sold themselves off to a land holder. This would be like calling the Late Roman Empire rich because large land holder when the only reason those land holder could be so large is because they were less affected by the economic ruin than small land holders that basically enserfed themselves to larger land holders.
The breaking of the back of the established dukes and nobility was done by the constant loses to the Arabs not any special development on the part of the Eastern Roman Bureaucracy or Emperor. Evidence to that being the moment that Abbasids began to collapse with the anarchy at samara, those ducal families re-asserted themselves, ending with the failure at Manzikert.
Also, the Byzantines never really lost their currency driven bureaucracy, the extent to which it was currency drive constantly reduced but that never reduced to zero. Palace employees were still paid in currency (and supplies) and taxes were still calculated in terms of currency, the share of supplies in the bureaucracy just increased constantly as the Eastern and Western extremedies of the Empire couldn't support monetary economies for a while.
The Abbasid had such a huge slave economy in Iraq that the Zanj rebellion is the largest slave revolt ever. However, after that and the other rebellions of that time period they lost the ability to do that. So yeah, didn't reach the later Indian Ocean slave trade.
There were several slave routes to the Abbasid Empire, with the East African Ocean one probably the most important one as the name of the "Zanj" rebellion suggests. There were the Trans-Saharan slave routes but also through the Nile, through the Volga and Ural rivers, through the horn of Africa to Arabia and through the East African coast to the Persian Gulf
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3:27 I know you know that most Northern European houses of that same era were wadle and doub or just a fancy way of saying tatched roofs, wood and earth, similar to the mud huts with roofs made of straw which is just a derugutory way to say tatched roof, wood and earth houses. 3:35 "The concept of just building out did not occur to the ancestor of the English or to any of the other Europeans" and several people in Africa did build storey buildings, Akan, Hausa even the Igbo that you have mentioned specifically before but what should I expect from you, ur work on this topic is essentially just to find new excuses to prove what you already "know"about Black Africans. 3:53 So, according to you they could build in stone but decided to build in earth have you tried to check why they built in earth? maybe earth's better thermal properties compared to stone? but that'll be too much to ask from you, clearly they just forgot how to use stone between building their foundations and walls. 3:57 More accurately it was waddle and doub not mud huts.
4:04 Okay, mention one building made in stone by Aksum that survives to this day, name one. And it better not be the stone carved church of Lalibela as that was built by the Cushitic Zagwe dynasty. So you know of one? Anyone? if not by ur own logic Bantu Zimbabwe wasn't just equal to (if Lalibela church wasn't Cushite built it might have been equal) but instead it was more advanced than "Arab" Aksum. This time around, you own ur own argument. I don't even need to get to the Cushitic(so black African) origin of South Arabia or the fact that the migrations were both ways or the lack of much Arabian genetic input(which affect ur genetic arguments against africans), that would clearly be too much.
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
"Igbo society is very much based in the tribal chieftains and local communities with very little sense of a greater igbo identity beyond linguistic until the Colonial era, In fact a lot of Slaves came from the frequent infighting within and between Igbo communities. This led to them having the lowest population of the Big 3 in Nigeria (Hausa, Yoruba and Igbo respectively)"
The Igbo people didn't really have tribal Chieftains. It was mostly imported from their neighbours or due to stress and the Chieftaincy system there now is mostly a British thing, imported by the Europeans theories on how societies formed.
There was a sense of a greater Igbo identity just wasn't solid. Literate Igbo writers several times over showed this, Olaudah Equiano called his people part of the Igbo in his late 1700s book, so did later converted Igbo missionaries. Yes the identity was much softer than it is today but it was there and the same thing applied to the Igbo as well.
"In contrast to that the Yoruba and Hausa operated highly urban traditional iron age kingdoms with warrior aristocracies and complex institutions of state power. The Hausa however after becoming muslim and gaining access to european firearms became very expansionist and swallowed many smaller communities. As the Sooto Caliphate, They had 2 major wars with the Yoruba in the 17th Century and almost conquered the Oyo Empire."
And? You say this like the Igbos weren't Iron age as well. Lejja the first Iron work site in Nigeria is literally in core Igbo country. Igbo communities also specialized, like the Onitsha and Abam were as warlike as anyone else and the Igbo village-group structure and laws were as complex as anything their neighbours to the West had (The groups that say they descend from O'odua).
You over estimate Sokoto. Oyo was already an old Empire that was further fucked over by Afonja to such an extent that Ibadan rebelled and joined Sokoto of their own accord. When sokoto tried to expand further south the Yoruba warlords clipped their cheeks. Sokoto couldn't even conquer Bornu which was in flatland territory.
Also, the most advanced firearms in Nigeria were either imported from the South or created by Southern blacksmiths. If the south had the population, horses and geography they would have been conquering the North. (Nkwerre made the best of those local guns, creating percussion locks).
"In fact a lot of Slaves came from the frequent infighting within and between Igbo communities. This led to them having the lowest population of the Big 3 in Nigeria (Hausa, Yoruba and Igbo respectively)"
The slave trade wasn't really the reason for their low population, all forest populations had relatively low populations like compare the Akan who occupy a region where the Savannah reaches the coasts vs their forest neighbours to the left and right like the Kwa and you will see the massive differences in population and population density, or even the Igbo their forest neighbours like the Ijaw for example. If anything they having such a population density in their region is amazing.
The argument that the Igbo don't have the institutions doesn't hold water because the Author assumes those institutions would be absorbed along with Islamization like occurred with the Fulani and Hausa.
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
I think you should have used the version where it is Charlemagne's daughter and Irene's son that got married instead, with her sending him away to the west for sometime to avoid him. Then again I think she would be too paranoid to send him to another powerful Kingdom.
Fuck it let me try something.
Irene sends Constantine VI to Charlemagne to Marry his first daughter and keep him busy. In his years there he goes on Campaign with Charlemagne and gains some backbone, Charlemagne wanting to Impress the future Emperor campaigns too hard and gets his only legitimate son (Louis the Pious) killed (He still crushes the Franks and sends some of that as Gifts to Constantinople under himself and Constantine VI). He still wants to be Emperor and later gets Constantine VI to crown him Augustus of the Franks and Western Romans. Emperor of the West and Co-Emperor of Constantine VI in doing this he avoids giving the Church any position over him.
Constantine IV not only has a backbone but has now gotten a loyal following of Franks with whom he retakes Constantinople after Irene is removed from power by her ministers.
In recognition of his Grandson Theophilus (alt hist Constantine VI son) he wills his Empire over to Constantine VI and Theophilus.
His illegitimate sons and some other Franks and Slavs rebel and Constantine VI leaves his son under the care of a Frankish general in Constantinople and goes to squash the rebellions and conquer Slavs and Avar remnants to the West. He is forced to stay in the Frankish portion of the Empire throughout while is son is raised in a mix of Frankish war traditions and Roman scholarly Tradition. Leading him in battle against the Arabs and the Bulgars. The East serves as a dumping ground for excess sons from West Frankia, fighting the Arabs.
When Constantine VI dies, his Son succeeds him by going to the West. While leaving his own son in East, beginning an ad hoc succession Tradition.
Theophilus would dream to connect the two halves of the Empire via land and Campaign against the Slavs of the Balkans relentlessly.
Unlike his father however, Theophilus would birth several Children in the West who would war with him and gain favour and during his father's old age already planning on how to depose his brother. As soon as he got the Chance, he Campaigned against the Balkan Slavs and Bulgars, passifying them and from there sieging Constantinople, managing to get in through intrigue.
Three generations of single successions has removed the idea of Gravel kind from the Imperial throne, while Gravelkind among the Nobels keeps them weak.
The Roman resettling of the Balkans has started an the new Emperor, Paul now stays in the East to protect it from the Arabs.
He would send a Greek general to put down Frankish revolts and he would succeed. ( As the Franks would be balknaized by Gravel Kind).
Under overwhelming Roman superiority, the Bulgarians convert and focus mostly North. Paul would die in battle and be succeeded by a Son from the West who will kill all his brothers called Olaf the Bloody. He would go to the Eastern Empire with his body guard but later e assassinated by the Armenian general that was governing the East while he was killing his brothers. The East and West the almost simultaneously break into civil war. They only saved as the West reunified under the son of the Greek general that Paul sent to pacify the West. He sends his brother East to take the East, doing so again through intrigue as Paul still had supporters.
A new dynasty is in now.
The brothers rule and mostly don't disturb the other as they are fighting other wars and the brother in the East (under pressure) takes no wives. After the brother in the East goes the brother in the West goes East, leaving his son and family to secure the West.
Generations of Franks ruling in the East has created a distinct Franko-Greek Population who are the Army around Constantinople. Who preserving some feudal view on power would eventually see themselves overthrow this second dynasty for their general, a role that had become semi-hereditary. The West however would see this family grow as Gravelkind became institutionalized in law for Franks, while the Imperial family was allowed to grow their lands.
The Empire would manage another by keeping Junior (usually the son) and Senior Emperors at different sides of the Empire and using generals and armies from the other side of the Empire to control the other.
After the reign of the brothers, the Western brother's son Porphyrogenitus would take over and he was the only legitimate son. He would use his cousin to take care of revolts by his bastard brothers while he started the process of reconquering the East. He would notice that the Frankish soldiers not around Constantinople had created a Feudal like organization in the borderlands. He would conquer a far as the upper Euphrates settling more Franks and Greeks in this pseudo Feudal system with a Feudal inheritance system beneath and a theme over them. The Franko-Greeks have begun adopting Roman inheritance systems, allowing them to grow power with the generations.
Porphyrogenitus would be succeeded by Dikephorus who finally conquered the Bulgurs after they had been weakened by a joint force of Rus and Magyars who now began attacking around the Black Sea.
Unfortunately as the power of the Western Greeks grew they would be able to amass centres of power while in the East the Franks there would be able to ally with Each other. The East Eventually goes into the hands of a Frankish dynasty and the West to a Greek dynasty
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
@galadrielwoods2332 and who says we have the full context of DNA or other evidence. To make a statistically okay argument from just one time period and sub-region, you need 200+ samples. I don't think we even have up to 200 samples of DNA from individuals from Ancient Egypt.
Now, I know you can reduce this with support from other evidence but do we have the "full context" there either. I highly doubt given that Africa is understudied to we have excessive data to draw connections to the levant but far less to draw connections to Africa.
Also, we keep discovering new fossils tht instead of purely supporting the current narrative tend to fuck them up a bit, so fossil evidence isn't "complete" yet,as for linguistics Indo-european is over studied while for Afro-Asiatic we still don't even know if it's from lake Chad, Ethiopia or levant, we don't know if Omotic is even really Afro-Asiatic so muchore studies needed there as well, as for mummies Afrocentrists will point to research for the earliest mummies from pre-dynastic tested being Black that and a population in the transition area between Egypt and Nubia being Black as for myths, I don't really know shit about that but for cultural practices, the one I know is circumcision was originally from Egypt to the Levant but other Afro-Asiatic and Bantu peoples do it as well.
I don't know about the past record of the guy that runs this channel but I am still not convinced that the data is conclusive.
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
@anasmuhd3843 Also I forgot to address an earlier claim that you made, that Nigeria was ever united in identity. Last time youtube deleted it because of the link so I am taking the time to write down this whole paragraph detailing 1950s from Nigeria: Background to Nationalism.
"NCNC, whose raison d'etre had been agitation for constitutional revision. Because the new constitution would establish the power structure of the Nigerian future, internal tensions between the leaders of different ethnic or cultural groups were exacerbated in the open competitive struggle over such issues as representation, regional powers, and revemue allocation. During the two years less was heard about "British autocracy" and "rapacious colonial exploitation" and more about Fulani threats either to continue their uninterrupted march to the sea or to withdraw to the western sudan, about Yoruba allegations of threatened Igbo domination, and about the NCNC and unitarian nationalists accusing the British of divide and rule".
This not only applies to argue against you claim that Nigeria was united before the coup, but also against the claim that "Foreign or external forces" are needed to explain Nigeria's woes. You do not need foreign forces to explain why a region as neglected as Bornu would produce Boko Haram or why separatism ideas would be making rounds all around a country that is considered largely a failure by Nigerians themselves.
I am yet to see any Igbo leader, even the ones based in Britain say "The British used and abandoned them" so unless you give me a source I don't believe it.
"the minority tribes of the south south never join the Biafra cause" , yes they joined Biafra in large part because you remember those anti-Igbo progroms in the North always also targetted Southerners in general and Easterners in specific as detailed in this paper "Violence in metropolitan Kano: A Historical Perspective" and according to Ijaw posts on Quora even to this day Northerners find it difficult to distinguish between different Eastern ethnicities so it wasn't just Igbos that were driven out in those expulsions but also many of people of those minor ethnicities, that is why they joined.
"they were drag into it , the killings of some community leaders and other kings in the south south region is evident up to today , they were threatened , either they join the cause or pay with their lives" Yeah, after the Nigerian army had taken much of Biafran land and created forces out of those minorities like Isaac Boro's Ijaw troops.
"While for the British is a perfect opportunity to curb the area as their new center , because of its proximity to sea and easy movement of natural resources" The every fact that the british still got shell and every other natural resources they wanted out of Nigeria is evidence of this, if your "Igbo-British" alliance was supposedly well known at the time, why didn't the Nigerians just ally with the French, Canadian, American or several other countries to use the natural resources in retaliation to the British like the Nigerian government has done after in other situations, you see why am not convinced?.
"Foreign or external forces
Unpatriotic politicians
Economic saboteurs "
I say the problem of Nigeria in summary are Nigerians not foreigners nor traitors. How many coups and changes of government has Nigerian gone through since 1966 and upon that all the politicians are still somehow the same "Unpatriotic politicians"and "Econmic saboteurs" and let us not get to starting to blame external forces, Nigeria is in the similar position to Indonesia in its importance/regional power and lack of confirmed USSR or USA psychop so I am still not convinced.
"and also this is not the civil way of breaking away from any marriage you don't want "
Thanks to idiots like Zik (may his bones be crushed) and the Zikists, no there is no civil way MASSOB has been protesting for a civil way it didn't work, the IPOB tried the same in more bombastic fashion and it didn't work and other less influential groups like the YYF, the predecssors to Boko Haram(before it go violent and weird) etc, etc and the government doesn't even pay lip service it is always the same "Nigeria is non-negotiable".
And similar response to the rest of that comment. If MASSOB or any other group had been considered in their proposals none of those would be issues.
And no even "change the way and integrate with the other tribes for a united prosperous Nigeria" isn't enough to convince someone that has read of the same bullshit promise in the 50s, 60s, 70s, 2000s and it always went to where. "Insanity is trying the same thing several times and expecting a different result" and I don't think these people are insane.
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
@Jupiter__001_ Marx and Marxists aren't the only ones that say that religion is anti-thetical to communism, till this day anarcho-communists, communists, anarcho-primitivists(in this case, especially Abrahamic religions) say it and they are correct.
Proto-Communism/Ancient Communism is a theory that started out as Communists trying to interprete history according to their theory, for example the Marxist like Engels with no field research made up a theory that mankind was matriachal and with free love and no private property before Patriarchy, Paternality, Nuclear families and Inheritance took over as a packaged bunch. This became part of the core of the Marxist theory of pre-history and was arrived in basically in the same way Ancient Greek philosophers concluded that heavier objects fall faster than lighter objects.
So from that history of the term, I am confident that like with how many historians now treat the terms Feudalism and Tribe, Proto-Communism is another abstraction of modernist thought claimed to apply to people that it never applied to.
I don't really know of the Hussites in detail so I'm not going to argue that but the same way that I'm am not going to date Capitalism any earlier than the British Industrial revolution, I am not gonna date Communism/Socialism any earlier than the reaction period to that Industrial and Capitalist frame work.
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
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
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
Bceause nobody cares about Christians in the Middle East the persecution is almost completed.
In the year 1900 about 18-20% of the Middle East was christian. Now the Middle East is only 2-3% christian.
Lebanon was 80-90% christian. In the year 2000 Lebanon was 55% christian, now ? It`s around 30%, a christian majority country for almost 2000 years turned into a minority in just 2 decades. There are about 10 million Lebanese worldwide, 85% of them are christian, but only 5 million live in Lebanon, as the other 5 million of which most are christian live in exile in North & South America + Europe.
Even when they were a slight majority christians were discriminated by the Hezbollah-controlled state.
Assyrians are an ancient people with their own Christian Church, there were 1.5 million Assyrians in Iraq in the year 2000 ( about 5% of Iraq ), now it`s 150.000 ( 0.2% ). The Kurds and Arabs completely destroyed that culture and religion. There are between 3.5 - 5 million Assyrians worldwide, but only 150.000 in Iraq and nobody knows how few are left in Syria ( in 2011 there were 600.000 Assyrians in Syria ) due to the ongoing civil war, but many Christians fled and became refugees. People know about the Armenian genocide, but in the same timespan by the same people the Assyrian genocide ( Sayfo) happend, nobody knows about it, Assyrians were a majority in southeast modern-Turkey in 1919, but the Turks and Kurds massacred them all and now barely any Assyrians are left in that region. And nobody cared when ISIS killed tens of thousands Assyrians ( and Yezidis ), the Assyrians were disarmed and forbidden from carrying weapons by Kurds and Arabs and the Kurdish military literally let ISIS kill Assyrians + Yezidis in order to settle Kurdish people in those regions.
By 2030 at best only 5000 Assyrians will be left in Iraq.
Armenians are likewise an ancient people and fulfilled the same role as Jews in the Middle East. Namely as a minority that was forced into financial professions as they were considered impure ( + in Islam artisans were also considered impure, so Armenians were also in manufacturing )... In the Ottoman Empire 18 out of 19 banks were owned by Armenians, Armenians made up 30-40% of the economy and were very well educated. Naturally the Arabs, Kurds and Turks had similar conspiracy theories about the Armenians as they + Europeans had about Jews. However the Armenian genocide is still denied and Armenians are still persecuted in the Middle East. A country like Azerbaijan can invade them multiple times, ethnically cleanse 150.000 people and it only makes international news for a single day.
I really want to emphasize something : The Murder_of_Gurgen_Margaryan by Ramil_Safarov really shows the modern mindset. Safarov was an Azerbaijani who went to NATO english-language training in Hungary, where he met 2 Armenians. And no, Safarov didn`t even talk to any Armenians, nor was there any interaction between them whatsoever... Safarov just killed one Armenian, Gurgen in his sleep, and failed to kill the other. Naturally he was caught and on trial, but his defence attorney claimed "It is not illegal to kill an Armenian in Azerbaijan so my client didn`t know any better" ------ How can you fix that mindset, that this is somehow considered a reasonable argument ?????? Also during his initial interrogation, he confessed to the murder and claimed he regretted not having killed Armenians before this murder..... Anyway he was sentenced to life imprisonment with possibility of parole after 30 years. He was imprisoned for 8 years in Hungary before the country made a deal with Azerbaijan and he was transfered to Azerbaijan, where he was supposed to continue his sentence... However the President of Azerbaijan personally welcomed him as a hero, pardoned him and honored him. The minister of defence promoted him, gave him a free apartment and 8-years worth of salary. Members of parliament claimed "Any honorable Azerbaijani would have done the same" and all of Azerbaijan celebrated this coldblooded murderer as a hero.
And the genocide of the Armenians is still ongoing. For example, when the recent forced migration of Armenians out of Arktash, proving the Armenian fear of 3 decades that the Azerbaijanis would ethnically cleanse them if they got the chance, correct.
This is the reality of Christians in the Middle East. An ever shrinking population, being driven out of their countries, persecuted and discriminated and in the worst cases just killed and nobody cares. An ongoing ethnic cleansing that is almost finished.
[ This topic is about Christians, but just for information, it isn`t much different for any other minority in the Middle East. The Druze for example, Yezidis, or Bahai, or Shabaak and so on. The Middle East gets more Muslim and Arab/Kurd/Turk over time... These minorities survived ~1400 years under islamic Caliphates, but the modern era discrimination is the most successful one. ]
Ironically, Iran is probably the best treatment of Christians but really, only Armenians, today.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
Ur 3 routes for explaining Noah's flood, I explain it as historical and cultural context. Akkadians conquered mesopotamia and syria and claimed to rule the world, clearly "the world" in that time was very lose, the duration of the flood as well is subject to this context, the people of the era seemed to have thought 40 of a thing is very much of a thing, so if something lasts around 40 units or is considered to have lasted a long time its just approximated to 40. I postulate a flood that coverted much of Mesopotamia and Arabia and the animals saved were native, maybe specifically endemic animals. The animals didn't sin to deserve it, God punishing the earth over the sins of man is seen in the story of the fall.
I really think the solution to this is learning the early church fathers, again. Because my historical context explanation doesn't necessarily conflict with ur explanation that is built on the limited understanding of the people, like Origen already said scripture has 3 layers of meaning and we could have just opened up one layer each and the last layer, is the moral of the story. But I still think ur explanation should be guarded from opening up the way to progressive theology.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@someone_7233 "and to justify your uneducated take by "they only controlled the levant" is some of the most brain dead arguments ever, muslims view each others as brothers, even in our darkest moments when weak rulers devide us, as long as we are muslims, then we are one, no matter where you are, its part of the faith btw, this existed before and still exist today, when the news of other muslim cities where coming people wept and prayed and called for war. They went for war but the rulers were weak and devided"
Okay, then if this is true why is the early Ming persecution of Muslims not a dark moment for Muslims given that affected way, way more Muslims.
Why is the conquest of Al-Andalus and the Conquests of the Mediterranean Islands not a dark moment for Muslims given again, way, way more Muslims were affected.
Why is the conquest by the Kara Khanids not dark moment for Muslims given again, way, way more Muslims were affected.
Why is the Viking raids and conquests in the Caspian Sea not included in Muslim dark moments given it is probably the only thing here as tame as the Crusades in numbers dead.
You have no answer, the only Answer that makes sense is cuz modern Muslims heavily associate modern Westerners with the Crusaders, the Americans are even called Crusaders.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
I agree that Cleopatra wasn't white tho she would have had significant (maybe over a quarter) Persian genes from dynastic marriages.
6:24 I'll counter to this by saying but do we tho? Do we really know what we mean when we say "he Ancient Egyptians were Black". Like Ignore the crazies on twitter for a second, what is Black?. Because while some people might be picturing Robert Mugabe as the stereotypical Black, the Skin tones and Facial structures of what is considered Black can differ alot.
For example the people in https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DGofahvHDSg and https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hlqECzsvwVU (from 1:03) would be both considered black but both have fairly bright skin tones and the later is 100% SSA. So if the ancient Egyptians looked like the later, would they not still be Black?
6:52 As I said before, you don't have to look like that handsome man to be Black, you can look like either of the people I gave examples of from in the links and still be considered Black. This might be a weird concept for Europeans(I don't know) but is the norm for Americans whose racial categories are to be used as they are the origin of this debate.
7:57 True, they did consider themselves lighter than the southerners but also significantly darker than the Northerners who were in the Levant and a Mediterranean skin tone people. So at least they were darker than Mediterraneans.
10:35 I disagree on this Tan hypothesis. Being brighter skin is generally considered a favourable characteristic among women from modern Nigeria to Ancient Japan to early modern Europe; Its isn't like Egyptians uniquely worked the field everybody did so why the the Libyans and Asiatics not share similar Tans; Why was similar darker and lighter tans used for ALL women and men respectively.
I am pretty sure Tanning played a role but it seems to me to be minor to Egyptians conceptualization to women being lighter and men being darker that got exaggerated in art, after all, their work is highly stylized and the Asiatics and Libyans that would have been in the Sun similarly as long were shown even fairer than the women.
10:58 A Nubian's skin colour is gonna be "Black", yes, in looking like your example for the average black skin tone but even black people Tan. I work in a hospital and you can see the clear difference between Black people's faces being much more darker than their chest that is always covered in modern dressing during a physical. Same between the palm and upper arm.
14:11 Fine, no perfect continuity but Egypt's history is very well documented. We can do an analysis that Identifies the DNA admixed from Romans, Greeks, Persians, Berbers, Arabs etc. exclude that from the final Analysis, find the oldest genetic component which I assume would be 99%+ the same as Ancient Egypt and analyse that to show where they land in SSA and West Eurasian admixture.
14:44 This video by Christopher Ehret https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=S_DD4nmyoss argues against this study or a similar one by the location of the samples being from places that from the historical record we should expect that the recorded migrants from the Levant would have settled. Also such a study could just validate the many out of Egypt origin story myth that exists for many peoples from the Scots to the Bamun to the Jews, neither of which have been disproved beyond a reasonable doubt.
15:50 Which is every likely given you yourself accept the highly multi-ethnic nature of ancient Egypt.
16:15 The problem is that the North was where the vast majority of Egyptians lived so if the South was majority Black, they could just be treated as insignificant.
The stuff about how after a few generations only langauge could tell apart can be resolved by miscegenation occurring, not Greeks getting Tanned to looking like Ancient Egyptians.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
But commies did hold several African states. Ethiopia, Somalia, Tanzania, Mozambique, Angola, Burkina Faso, Ghana(kinda), Sudan etc.
Edit
But no state ever was just left to consolidate. The Romans in history were practically always at war, still succeeded, America was also very frequently at war after the revolutionary war first North Africa then Britain invaded just a few decades after their independence in 1812, or look at China. States never consolidate in Peace and none of these communist countries had conflict bounds above that that their more successful capitalist neighbours had.
1
-
1
-
1
-
I say from the story, Slavic state formation was clearly already established before Rurik and that from ibn fadlan's account these were more than even the 3 metioned by the account of the primary chronicle. I think initially, the external influence was steppe, first Iranian then Turko-Mongol, that's why there's one mention of a Rus Khan. Where was this Rus Khanate tho is another question. And Rurik came after all of that and largely re-enegized the slavic tradition than increase the Turko-Mongol or introduce a Norman influence.
Also, the whole it is fake cuz it kinda resembles Genesis is very weak. Books have a structure and need a structure, especially when you can't backspace. Someone selecting a popular book to be their structure is the norm not the exception, like every academic stuff follows the structure of a previous book. Secondly, it doesn't even parallel, how is ham, shem and japeth scattering around the world to found new peoples in away way mirror the varag being expulled and 3 of their sons returning to rule the slavs and then one inheriting the whole thing?. Because there were 2 brothers?. What next? any story with a single son as the leading character is therefore a copy of the rise of Taizong?. Maybe its just a meme that developed some indeterminate time in Christian Europe.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
I agree that Cleopatra wasn't white tho she would have had significant (maybe over a quarter) Persian genes from dynastic marriages.
6:24 I'll counter to this by saying but do we tho? Do we really know what we mean when we say "he Ancient Egyptians were Black". Like Ignore the crazies on twitter for a second, what is Black?. Because while some people might be picturing Robert Mugabe as the stereotypical Black, the Skin tones and Facial structures of what is considered Black can differ alot.
For example the people in https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DGofahvHDSg and https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hlqECzsvwVU (from 1:03) would be both considered black but both have fairly bright skin tones and the later is 100% SSA. So if the ancient Egyptians looked like the later, would they not still be Black?
6:52 As I said before, you don't have to look like that handsome man to be Black, you can look like either of the people I gave examples of from in the links and still be considered Black. This might be a weird concept for Europeans(I don't know) but is the norm for Americans whose racial categories are to be used as they are the origin of this debate.
7:57 True, they did consider themselves lighter than the southerners but also significantly darker than the Northerners who were in the Levant and a Mediterranean skin tone people. So at least they were darker than Mediterraneans.
10:35 I disagree on this Tan hypothesis. Being brighter skin is generally considered a favourable characteristic among women from modern Nigeria to Ancient Japan to early modern Europe; Its isn't like Egyptians uniquely worked the field everybody did so why the the Libyans and Asiatics not share similar Tans; Why was similar darker and lighter tans used for ALL women and men respectively.
I am pretty sure Tanning played a role but it seems to me to be minor to Egyptians conceptualization to women being lighter and men being darker that got exaggerated in art, after all, their work is highly stylized and the Asiatics and Libyans that would have been in the Sun similarly as long were shown even fairer than the women.
10:58 A Nubian's skin colour is gonna be "Black", yes, in looking like your example for the average black skin tone but even black people Tan. I work in a hospital and you can see the clear difference between Black people's faces being much more darker than their chest that is always covered in modern dressing during a physical. Same between the palm and upper arm.
14:11 Fine, no perfect continuity but Egypt's history is very well documented. We can do an analysis that Identifies the DNA admixed from Romans, Greeks, Persians, Berbers, Arabs etc. exclude that from the final Analysis, find the oldest genetic component which I assume would be 99%+ the same as Ancient Egypt and analyse that to show where they land in SSA and West Eurasian admixture.
14:44 This video by Christopher Ehret https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=S_DD4nmyoss argues against this study or a similar one by the location of the samples being from places that from the historical record we should expect that the recorded migrants from the Levant would have settled. Also such a study could just validate the many out of Egypt origin story myth that exists for many peoples from the Scots to the Bamun to the Jews, neither of which have been disproved beyond a reasonable doubt.
15:50 Which is every likely given you yourself accept the highly multi-ethnic nature of ancient Egypt.
16:15 The problem is that the North was where the vast majority of Egyptians lived so if the South was majority Black, they could just be treated as insignificant.
The stuff about how after a few generations only langauge could tell apart can be resolved by miscegenation occurring, not Greeks getting Tanned to looking like Ancient Egyptians.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@greenpill9567 now I personally don't buy the IO argument, especially given the video gives 2 indirect arguments against it (Basketball and Bleached Americas born in overseas military camps outside any other cultural influence having similar IO and Coast of Biafra/Coast of Benin Americans earning more than Bleached Americans) but let's got with it.
1. WhatIfAltHist's argument is that Cuktore matters most, not that IO matters most, so relative to his argument the IO evidence doesn't matter, cuktore evidence matters.
2. There are other groups outside Alkebulan with similarly lower IO to Whites that are running countries (Oceania and Paraguay etc) should they too be grouped in with Alkebulan in analysis?. Honest Question.
3. IO varies between Alkebulan groups as shown by tables of Hottentots, Twa etc variated between each other and testimony on that data by Mary H. Kingsley, Alkebulan Average IO is only universally below Bleached IO but it still varies between groups, (according to Mary for example, South West coasters were on average duller than West coasters) so you would still expect a variation between Alkebulan macro groups(By this I mean, West Alkebulan countries will have a closer average Per Capita than a random individual West Alkebulan county's Per Capita is to a random individual East Alkebulan country)
4. Continuing from the previous one, the part of Alkebulan that has historically recieved the most Eurasian admixture is East Alkebulan and the Horn. Are they are on average on richer than the rest of SSA. I think Kenyatta the country there looking best to Per-capita.
Now you would expect Eurasian admixture to raise the average IO and thus the Average income by your theory but that doesn't hold true here.
Similarly, the Khoi-San have higher World Island admixture from Kushitic migration and Ancient East Alkebulan trade but have lower Per Capita and lower IO than the others.
5. The macrogrouping between Alkebulans that seems to matter is who colonies them, with former British colonies richer than former French ones, giving support to the idea that their similarities lies more in the institutions established during colonization.
6. We see more variation in income between countries of very closely related peoples that were ran under different institutions than more far related peoples that were run by similar institutions. For the same reason why this reply has weird wordings, I can't give examples here.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@ario2264 "The Nubians probably didn't draw them, they look like they were made by Byzantine artists"
You know, there's such a thing as cultural influence and the Nubian examples still look identifiably different from the Byzantine ones. By this logic, the American Capitol and all post-renaisance statues were actually built by Ancient Greeks.
I will admit that Kanem, Songhai and the Hausa states have tales that claim origin from Arabia but modern historians don't just discount these tales for no reason, because counter tales from the same people claim a local origin, which is even reflected in the Arabia claims story. I'll give an example with the Hausa, the version of the bayajidda chronicle from Daura claims Daura already existed before the bayajidda arrived and all Hausa states are from a union of bayajidda and the daura queen, a daura slave and a borno princess while Kano's specific chronicle claims origin from an autochitnous hunter whose kingdom was later conquered by a dynasty from Borno. Just from internal evidence alone, the Daura arabia story largely acknowledges the Kano story(pre-existing hausa states, current dynasty originating from Borno) while the Kano story is completely unaware of the Daura story, implying the Daura story is the recent innovation. The Songhai story is similar in relation to the Za dynasty, while the Kanem story also associates the founder with the Zagawha(Beira) people so what was he, Arab or Beira?. And that, is just the literary evidence, we haven't even gotten to the lack of linguistic or archeological evidence of Arabian origin, I doubt the ancient DNA would change anything, given all the modern DNA we have access to also doesn't really support it and the only serious schoolars I have read that buy into the foreign origin hypothesid tie it to Egypt, Canaan and Northern Mesopotamia rather than Arabia or the Berbers, which is a different thing I don't want to get into now.
With that out of the way, the most important Sahelian states, Ghana and Mali have no claim of Arabian origin. So we have disputed claims unsupported by other evidence and straight up, no claim of Arabian origins. A few towns like Gao's twin town, Timbuktu and some Hausa towns may have been founded by Berbers tho or at least were built to house "foreign" traders like Berbers.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@paveantelic7876 Honestly it depends on the cut of for archeological evidence. The main cut off I have come across is if the site has clear evidence of stratification while while makes sense would arguably exclude cities like in Sao, Tlaxcallan and the Indus Valley civilization, so I personally think a cut off based on size and a focus on production of finished and semi-finished goods is best(as a site being fairly large already implies it passing the organization treshhold, to me at least). On a size basis, Cucuteni–Trypillia culture that btw like around 5500 BC to 2750 BC would definitely take the cake as the first cities as their sites were larger than even Mesopotamian cities. And for a settlement to get that large it did have to be organized, even if not as organized as the Indus Valley cities but it was probably agriculturally focused, tho.
However, some of these cites and sub-sections of a site were specialized in creating finished goods, so those specific sites that produced finished goods have a strong basis to be called the first cities.
Also, I might be simplifying things as while sites like Indus Valley doesn't have the super clear evidence of stratification they are super organized, which Cucuteni–Trypillia doesn't have to the same extent.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@francogiobbimontesanti3826
Okay, I was able to track down the Atheist school shooting case. From the Wiki
"Cassie René Bernall (November 6, 1981 – April 20, 1999) was a student killed in the Columbine High School massacre, where 11 more students and a teacher were killed by Eric Harris and Dylan Klebold, who then committed suicide. It was reported that Bernall had been asked whether or not she believed in God, and she said "Yes", before being shot during the massacre. However, investigators concluded the person asked about their belief in God was Valeen Schnurr, who survived the shooting."
I am pretty sure I read of a church burning case like that a few years ago but again, these are mostly isolated incidents and not part of like some underground terrorist cell or something.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
I think this misses a little small thing, that it is part of how they play to insert their politics into it. As in, these rules of play don't apply to leftists cuz the logic of their politics needs them to insert it everywhere, so like how apolitical gamers just enjoy the game, leftists need the game to be leftist political to enjoy it. So, the ending of the vid that treats them like a minority may be wrong, because if half or a significant amount of the players are leftists, in the same way that apolitical gamers like the game for being self consistent, leftist gamers only like the game if it is leftist.
I think SFO video on the subversiveness of play is another showing of this, how leftists want the ideology inserted into every play cuz that's how the ideology has been constructed to operate, to allow no space of apolitics.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@aAS-wi9ks Horn Africans are mixed?, Okay mixed when? When in history did they become mixed?. The genes Kushitics share with West Eurasian are with Ancestral West Eurasian a and the rest is from being a continuum but that doesn't make them half West Eurasian, same applies with Ainu and Negritos who too share genes with some of the Ancestral West Eurasian population but aren't mixed.
"Ancient Egyptians were African not Black, they did not look like people from Senegal to Sudan, or Chad to Africa. They were closer to North Africans ad Horn Africans."
And East Africans don't look like Pygmies nor Bantu and they are still Black, and since when were Horn Africans not Black?, Lol. Let me simply the definitions, of they will be considered Black by a Customs officier in USA(as that is the origin of the "were the Egyptians black" argument; they are Black.
And yes, DNA results are kinda be fabricated, at least their interpretation relies enough on interpretation to be made to say a range of things.
Dude, nobody in the 11th century would have referred to themselves as French nor Norwegian Nationals, does that somehow invalidate the modern identities, no early Germanic would have called themselves that, they were called that by Romans, does that then invalidate the modern identity of German?.
Also, Black peoples with greater contact with whites were well aware of their Ethiopianess or Zenjness, the same way the vice versa was aware of their fairness.
1
-
@VetruvianFebio a century is nothing to human evolution, even the fruit fly evolution that we can follow in Labs takes thousands of generations but somehow we should expect that 30something generations of humans every thousand years or so makes drastic difference, talkless of the much greater genetic load and the huge effects of cultural memes on what is expressed in real life.
And let me return to the original, no the most impressive things that Egypt did weren't the Pyramids, tho I agree with you that they and other ancient civilizations are generally overrated.
Like seriously? Bashing African history when you know nothing about it is like those people that would say the world was in dark ages until the enlightenment like the High Middle Ages and the rest of the world didn't exist. But hey, I'm no expert in all African history either but at least I won't talk about it like I know all of it.
Our oldest Mummy from Egypt is shares much SSA genes.
And "Muslim invasion replaced the original population" isn't less bullshit because it isn't an Afrocentrist using them, after all why aren't you bringing up the genetic input of the Greek and other periods but only Arabs?.
No, Afrocentrists have more than enough in SSA to be proud of but the ideological frame work of Africa = Black would not be dropped, not even over Egypt.
Also, good for you bringing but the very most deranged fringe as your evidence, I would use the people that claim that the Chinese were originally Western European to dismiss European understanding of history as well by that logic.
1
-
1
-
@VetruvianFebio Let's start, European increase in height is due to better food not genetics, we see even more ridiculous height increases in Africa. Like for example Biafra region has experienced something like a foot or more increase in average height from the 1950s to the 1990s generation.
Wild Foxes have a shorter lifespan, the experiment was being doing with Human intelligent selection not natural selection and they still haven't been domesticated, just display SOME traits of domestication.
An ability like "plan or forsee the future" is a complex attribute not something simple like height. Even if somehow that actually happens, the survivors will
#1 have that ability to widely differing degrees and to widely differing specificity. (You could end up with stuff as ridiculous as only being able to accurately plan sorting nuts like squirrels).
#2 Such an ability would definitely be coded by alot of genes and you'll get difficulty in remanifesting it in an entire population. That is if it is almost entirely genetically determined and is a 0% or 100% kind thing like you mentioned
#3 Population collapse from bad associated genes, a trait that requires many genes to express has a high chance of having shitty associated genes like with Azkenzi Jews and their genetic diseases.
And this is without bringing up that yeah, North Hemisphere has it's winter issues but everywhere else also have their issues. Like the entire South Hemisphere has issues with wind systems that can move from 10°North to 20° South on the average year, how can that unpredictable wind system causing frequent droughts not be compared with shitty Winters in the North?.
My view in general is that Memetic changes matter far more than Genetic changes.
While I'll agree that the Woke Mafia exists and is powerful, even canceling the discoveror of DNA with people like Dutton still holding tenors and co-authoring with many, that Woke Power only reaches so far.
Anyways, "Mud Huts" are based. Why the Fuck would someone in the West African Guinea be building with Stone when as recorded by Mary Kingsley's testimony the Mud/Terracotta built houses had better temperature regulation for the climate and still prove superior in that(and other) advantages related to the climate as modern travellers to the region would say.
And every where is f' influenced by everywhere else. Some mild Islamic influence doesn't somehow make Sahelian civilization any less Sahelian, it isn't even like their architecture style was imported so I don't get how bringing up them being Muslim matters to an discussion about buildings.
And they had walls, cuz everybody had walls.
But seriously, arguing about this same topic for 10 years uh. I better take the warning.
1
-
1
-
@s66s46 "this is so embarassing, greeks are and have always been white, you guys are europeans, you are just darker than most other europeans, you share the same 3 ancestors as all other europeans and definitely do not look middle eastern, the average greek looks more like the average european (other europeans) than the average middle eastern"
Given that one of the top 3 suggestions on google for "Are Greeks" is "Are Greeks White?", they certainly don't look like so and aren't considered so by most Europeans today.
And for thousands of years, their main genetic influence has been European, Romans, Slavs etc further increasing their whiteness, yet they still look more non-White to Europeans, proving that they, especially the ancient ones are not white.
1
-
@aAS-wi9ks "It is not a myth. Horn africans are mixed. This have been genetically proven"
Two things, the mixture is by Haplogroup E migrants, what was their origin?. They came from Ethiopia-Sudan and after tens of thousands of years made it to Egypt but in a couple of dozens of years made it back to Ethiopia but through Arabia, hitting Haplogroup R groups and absorbing them along the way, bringing the West Eurasian DNA and pastoralism back with them. These were just African tribes that spent a few years in Arabia.
As for the Issue of their common origin, it is that it far, far exaggerates the Eurasian genetic material cuz we have proved some genes with Eurasian origin with them but the % are sent off by genes that East Africans always shared with Eurasians.
"But African people don’t refer themselves as black traditionnally. If you go back in 11th century, no african man will tell he’s black. He’ll refer himself by the name of his ethnicity. It’s the white man that came in Africa and called subsaharans, black people. And they adopted this designation. If there wasn’t slavery, colonization or any contact with Europeans, black people wouldn’t call themselves black and wouldn’t claim Ancient Egypt as their own in 2022."
None sequetor, just because a ant doesn't know its an ant doesn't mean I can't refer to it as an ant. Identities and definitions are not dependant what you think but on reality and more importantly, the definer, not the defined and the definers of "Black" as used in this debate ;White Americans in the 1700s - 1800s; would consider that hypothetical African, Black.
And once again, SSAs has alot of shades and shapes, one of which was the dominant one in Ancient Egypt.
1
-
1
-
@nerychristian Okay if it is lighter skin where is the evidence of that?. Light Skin correlates with being closer to the poles and dark skin to the equator. Which Major migration came from the poles and which from further south into the Near East?.
Iranians, Armenians, Greeks, Turks, Mongols, Elamo-Dravidians, Hurrians, Hittites, BMACs, Kassites, Gutians all came from the North.
Arabs are really the only ones to come from the South
And the rest are east and west. Like Aramians.
The reasons is quite clear, the Near East is literally as south as you can get in Western Asia minus going into the Arabian desert. There is literally no more south for some darker group to come out of, in fact given this Near Easterners are probably the darkest group minus the original Yemenis before the Islamic expansion homogenized the peninsula.
So I don't buy this at all.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
4:10 I disagree here a bit, Christianity isn't a pure "true world" view, even if arguably dominated by true worldism. The reason for this is simple, Heaven is not the end goal, the end goal is the New Heaven and THE NEW EARTH, its not just your soul that'll be rescued and go into the true world, that's gnosticism. Christianity on the other hand then continues this story from there and says in the end your earthly body and the earth itself will also be rescued.
5:48 But I gues if this post-Christian ideologies that basically have the rescuing of the earth as central are still considered true worlds, then Christianity is a true world ideology in full.
The true world in Christianity is but an important mid-way point.
5:00 Here again it is limited because ye there is this division but that isn't where it ends, Heaven and Earth are united under God. They are both part of the Paradise. Afterall, the whole world heaven and earth is created good.
10:27 This is where I would say again, that from this definition of "true world" ideology, Christianity doesn't exactly fit the bill and is more of a synthesis between true world and the opposite. Because the world in Christianity, while flawed is still good, the good things in life aren't conceptualized as just distractions from the true world but actual good things in life(tho, yes they could also act as distractions but that's synthesis of the two opposing views). Maybe this synthesis is considered in sufficient by Nietzche but that's still what it is.
I think you see this in Tolkien a bit where the eventual decline of middle earth is bitter sweet and the will of Elinor isn't just for everyone to evacuate from Middle Earth to Valanor, i.e. basically heaven on earth but for Middle Earth to thrive for the time it has and only a small stream of people to go to Valanor until Middle Earth declines to nothing.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
6:48 And circle jerking to oppressive states isn't "development" it is cultural change.
11:10 Mono Linguals in a Lingua-Franka unable to understand that Multi-Lingulaism and Lingua Frankas solve most of that.
13:44 What is the comparison here?. Did the Somalis that you guys like complaining about come there as an invading and conquering Empire?.
14:09 If it is an insurgency against an imperialist and genocidal empire(remember Indonesia has attempted genocide on West Papuans before), it is fine as we see in the news against Russia(well, more culturally genocidal here) and if it is against migrants it is not fine to use war like language against them.
14:18 No, it is the recognition of self determination as a moral principle.
14:48 But there are better and worse guys and the Indonesian genocidal colonizers are the worse guys.
15:35 No, to placate the international community that's been monitoring this conflict since forever.
16:01 Fine, the gold miners are "innocent" as "innocent" as any settler colonist i.e. still stealing land and destroying the eco-system of the natives.
17:00 None of these strained comparisons to Britain you're trying to bring up. This is just modern day settler colonization. Simple as and it must be stopped.
23:10 Okay, now they're saying something better but you know, Indonesia got West Papua in part through moral posturing that appealed to Westerners and as such, to undo that some lack lustre moral posturing isn't the answer. But yes, being aware of it is probably the most important aspect of this whole thing and the only Western approach that makes sense is to lay the ground work a a South Sudan type of separation to occur. Even South Sudan anarchy is better than extinction, also the West Papuan liberation front should be as defanged as possible(tho, probably not complete) post West Papuan independence.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@carlomariaromano4320 The Bantu speakers from East and West Africa resemble each although they don't look identical.
"Yes, Nilotes look different from Bantus. However, they have Afro-textured hair and dark skin in common with other SSAs" Neither Dark Skin nor Afro-Textured Hair are anything special, Melanesians have both but Bantu and Europeans are more closely related to each other than Melanesians. These are just general adaptations to the Sun that many tropical peoples have.
As for the bone structure evidence you brought for Somali being Caucasoid, well unfortunately I am not super interested in genetic/physiometrics but from time to time stuff like this overlap with narrative history. Nilotes can be skeletally differentiated from Bantu, they have longer legs and a more slender build and this actually shows themselves in effect in races with Kenyan Kalenjin runners most often breaking marathon levels and south sudanese nilotes height. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5Tsj9-aV70w
You can also tell apart a Sahelian West African from a Guinean one by build. Of course none of these are 100% but are far better than random, so works.
Well, with this rant over, I maintain the alternative explanation for the Caucasoid features of the Kushitics being that they are related to the ancestral population of Eurasians(Which would explain some weird things like Greece having E Haplogroup on the same level as Blue men Berbers and Ethiopian highlanders), so that like with the now debunked proposed theory of genetic mixture with Sabeans explaining Ethiopians, the genes from back migrations are mostly minimal.
"Therefore you find Somalis with wavy/moderately curly hair but very dark skin" Moderately curly hair occur throughout the Mediterranean as well, can be explained without mixture with Bantu, same with the very dark skin, their altitude and lack of tree cover.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1