Blacks Had No History Before Slavery?

[Caesarmagnus]

I also don't like the thread title.

That said, people do need to be objective in assessing the state of development in sub-Saharan Africa pre-colonisation, which hadn't even reached the levels of development Europe had over 2000 years earlier (during, say, the Roman Empire). That is not a racial point though, I don't doubt it's due to various environmental and circumstantial factors. We had another thread on this point though.

A lot of people underrate Africa's development pre-colonisation, but a lot of people here really overrate it too. It was way behind Europe's developmental curb (and the development curve of the middle east, large chunks of Asia, and to a lesser extent South America).

 

[johnincornwall]

I ought to point out that, due to the way education fell in the 1970s in the UK - I had hardly any formal history education at all beyond the basics at junior school. One has to go and find out!

 

[Ighayere]

Most Western blacks are taught nothing of their history before slavery. Our public school system drowns us with knowledge of European history and American history (in the US) but no history about Africa. Most people (regardless of race) give little care about Africa and have very little knowledge of it other than the poverty stricken mess full of wild animals and primitive tribes that is Africa today. These videos tackle the issues head on and show an entirely different perspective of where we came from.

I understand your point, but I don't really see all of modern (black) Africa as being a "poverty stricken mess full of wild animals and primitive tribes" today. Some of that (primitiveness and poverty) is the reality for some groups, but at the same time some of that is media exaggeration.

Also, I think that black peoples having basically "no history" before slavery may be a uniquely American or Western idea but I don't think it has much currency elsewhere. America and other Western countries would naturally tend to focus on Western history just as other societies in the world focus on their histories so some bias is inevitable and unavoidable.

 

[Saviour]

I also don't like the thread title.

That said, people do need to be objective in assessing the state of development in sub-Saharan Africa pre-colonisation, which hadn't even reached the levels of development Europe had over 2000 years earlier (during, say, the Roman Empire). That is not a racial point though, I don't doubt it's due to various environmental and circumstantial factors. We had another thread on this point though.

A lot of people underrate Africa's development pre-colonisation, but a lot of people here really overrate it too. It was way behind Europe's developmental curb (and the development curve of the middle east, large chunks of Asia, and to a lesser extent South America).

Come on man. Civilization simply did not exist outside Europe, India(subcontinent), China and Middle East . In two Americas, all you had was a small land in Andes and then in Mesoamerica while some 40 million sqkm was just barren land full of tribals of stone age many of whom relished human meat. And Australia, Pacific Islands , Borneo were same.

Case of Sub Saharan Africa is different. I agree that Sub Saharans were better than guys listed above but most of them were too primitive.

1. List a single book written in Sub Saharan Africa before 1500 ADs. Note that by this time, all great regions like ME, India, China and Europe had produced thousands of texts. 1000 vs 0.

2. List a single Sub Saharan language having any literature (in written form) before 1700s.

3. List a single SS African kingdom issuing coins with even a bit of standardisation.

4. List a single Sub Saharan 'philosopher' who wrote in contexts not Islamic or Christian.

5. List a single SS religion that exists today in any SS nation and is powerful than Islam or Christianity.


I do not even know how people even think of comparing Romans with Sub Saharans, a tiny nation like Sri Lanka has far greater heritage in literature, philosophy, arts and kingdoms than entire SS Africa put together.

 

[dreamregent]

Yea another big problem however is that though Nubia was a very impressive African Kingdom, most advocates of our history seem to crutch too hard on Nubia even though there is an entire land mass south of there that was packed with many other impressive kingdoms. Not to mention that gentically, most Western Blacks aren't even genetically related to Nubians, we are related to west and central Africans. I don't know if you watched the videos but I go over my entire genome thoroughly. I'm actually working on the 3rd (and possibly) final installment to the series.

It also depends on one's exact interests. There are a number of medieval kingdoms such as Mali and Great Zimbabwe. However, for someone (like myself) who's more interested in the ancient period, there's very little outside of northeast Africa (Egypt/Nubia/Axum/etc.) to examine...if one is looking for an extensive extant material record in terms of things like megalithic architecture. For myself, a very interesting place is the Tichitt-Oulata area of Mauritania because there's an extensive extant record there long predating (on the order of a millennium or two) the later medieval kingdoms and empires of the region. I also find the history of ancient metals production in sub-saharan Africa quite interesting. If one is looking for ancient rock art, there's quite a bit of that all over the place as well. I just wish a lot more archaeology could be done on these areas and topics.

 

[Saviour]

Dominance of Left Wing in Universities means that people are even afraid to do any objective assessment of such things. Another factor is that most ideologies justify 'survival of fittest' except Buddhism and Brahamnism. This in turn means that no people's history can be called inferior as that would put entire peoples subject to downgrading in eyes of dominant western intelligentsia and since West justifies eliminating not so fit groups, 1940s may return. So I agree that Left Wing glorifies Africa or Mexican history with good intentions in mind but let us be objective and for this, dump this 'survival of fittest' theory. Let us have compassion to all human beings regardless of their level of advancement.

 

[dreamregent]

I do not even know how people even think of comparing Romans with Sub Saharans, a tiny nation like Sri Lanka has far greater heritage in literature, philosophy, arts and kingdoms than entire SS Africa put together.

If one is using literature as the measure, it's true the record isn't as extensive or ancient as other areas of the world (except for northeast Africa). However, I disagree completely when it comes to philosophy and the arts. Philosophical matters don't require writing in order to exist so there's little reason to suggest it didn't. And as for art, that's well-attested by the extant record. There's no shortage of ancient rock art and other artifacts going back thousands of years conclusively demonstrating this on the African continent.

 

[Caesarmagnus]

If one is using literature as the measure, it's true the record isn't as extensive or ancient as other areas of the world (except for northeast Africa). However, I disagree completely when it comes to philosophy and the arts. Philosophical matters don't require writing in order to exist so there's little reason to suggest it didn't. And as for art, that's well-attested by the extant record. There's no shortage of ancient rock art and other artifacts going back thousands of years conclusively demonstrating this on the African continent.

While I'm cautious in seeming to defend the more radical views espoused by Savior, I have to balk at this. You can't argue stuff might have existed by lack of evidence to the contrary. Nobody can prove a negative. If you want to prove stuff existed, you need to prove it.

 

[HusKatten]

While I'm cautious in seeming to defend the more radical views espoused by Savior, I have to balk at this. You can't argue stuff might have existed by lack of evidence to the contrary. Nobody can prove a negative. If you want to prove stuff existed, you need to prove it.

To add on to this. Historians rarely know the truth, but most of the time just have to assume probabilities and likelyhood. And it's very likely that every civilization, be it advanced or not, to have philosophers who didn't write down their work or had it destroyed. So assuming these things says very little.

What makes historical philosophy interesting is not that it was contucted, but its content. If there is no content to find, then there is little value to be had. Such is the early history of SS Africa. Unless you interpret rock paintings a philosophy in any way. This is just general things to have in mind, i don't know african history very well, so i don't know if there was or wasn't 'early' litterary work.

 

[Saviour]

While I'm cautious in seeming to defend the more radical views espoused by Savior, I have to balk at this. You can't argue stuff might have existed by lack of evidence to the contrary. Nobody can prove a negative. If you want to prove stuff existed, you need to prove it.

That's it. Also, experience of other Eurasian societies tell us that this 'philosophy might have existed' thing is incorrect. Philosophy only exists when there is a great elite class that has time and resources to ponder over deep questions-metaphysical and material alike. Greece did not have philosophy in 2000 BC, Sri Lanka did not have it till 300 BCs and Sub Saharan Africa did not have this till 1500 ADs. We have a Buddhist philosopher Buddhaghosa in fifth century, the genius wrote extensive commentaries on Buddha discourses. I dare say that Sub Saharan Africa put together can not match him even in volume of his works( all philosophies are subjective) till 1500 AD.