https://youtu.be/-nzafFycvJcwait wait wait Mali was a couple of villages?Wait that's the great mosque they prattle on about?They didn't even mine the gold, just picked it up?wait wait wait wait this was in the 1300's?!?! I thought it was like, 500's or something.oh the actual written records show that their only income was taxing salt and surface gold, not even mining? His wealth was incalculable because we just have no idea, not because it was so large?He didn't actually depress the value of gold, that's a myth written by one guy? Oh, the people who live in that region HATE this guy, and teach that he spent years gathering the gold, and wasted it on this pilgrimage, and is taught as a cautionary tale of squandering wealth?The stories of 100 camels carrying his gold wouldn't even carry 1/4 of the amount of gold claimed?
>>18470443https://youtu.be/-MeYYOvRhyw?si=yxlpEv_n98ykGp7uhe was white, it was a kingdom established by a white tribe to harvest black slaves and use black slaves to mine gold
>>18470443your picture was altered to make him look black
>>18470443It's painfully obvious that the mysticism around this dude is just propaganda to make blacks feel better like the OOA shit and Yasuke
>>18470443This disingenuous video showed a bad angle of Timbuktu's magnificent mosqueHere's a better picture that shows how grandiose it really was
> Oh, the people who live in that region HATE this guyHatred for him is not at all widespread.> wait wait wait Mali was a couple of villages?Objectively false during his reign.We've had soooo many thread about this recently. Can you faggots shut up?
>>18470467You are not funny.
>>18470460> OOA shitCope lol
>>18470481No u
>>18470478>>18470467I just want you to look at this. I did this last week.And even I, the creator of this autistic shit, think that mosque is pathetic
>>18470443OP was humiliated in the other thread so now is having a meltdown
>>18470702this is my first post on this board, ever, since i started using 4chan in 2009
>>18470702link the thread
>>18470874>>18466665should also note the first post in that thread is the exact same as the previous thread
We have more impressive things in small european rural communities
>>18470443Not gonna watch a 30 minute rant by a politically motivated youtube historian but some of the comments are funny
>>18470883>no sahara desert in the 1300'sIm gunna guess EUROPE caused the desert by being evil and stealing all the plants and water?
>>18470443>>18470614>>18470460Yeah, Mali, blacks are subhuman and primitive or whatever. How did a coalition of pigskins lose to it, then? Cope, you're being replaced and raped by abduls in your own "countries"
>>18470915Are you under the impression that Africans have a generally favorable military record against Europeans?
>>18470940>Takes 5 centuries to conquer a continent while cucked on coasts (took just one to conquer all of South America for reference) and only gets slave whom most are sold>Attempts to advance deeper inside by force fails with numerous men slaughtered until the 20th century>The slaves you took revolt and kill nearly 200,000 Europeans>After just 60 years of "owning" Africa (some parts are nominally independent anyways) you run away and the parts that refuse are relentlessly slain by blacks.>https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Holden_Roberto>After visiting the United Nations, he returned to Kinshasa and organized Bakongo militants. He launched an incursion into Angola on 15 March 1961, leading 4,000 to 5,000 militants. His forces took farms, government outposts, and trading centers, killing everyone they encountered. At least 1,000 whites and an unknown number of natives were killed. Commenting on the incursion, Roberto said, "this time the slaves did not cower". The men killed everyone in sight.>https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Portuguese_Colonial_War>Rebel political victory
>>18470951Let's also not forget a single "negro island" repelling a 3-nation European coalition.>In 1849, with the people of the Bijagós still fiercely independent, the British and French mounted a joint expedition to 'pacify' the islands, but they were repulsed. The Portuguese tried several times to put down 'tax revolts' in the islands in the early 20th century but largely failed. The islands were not formally annexed by Portugal until 1937.
>>18470951Why do normies and /pol/troons think that colonialism was some sort of "Whites vs Non-whites" thing? Collaborators and local armies helped Colonialism for most of the bulk. The whole "Non-whites vs Whites" idea only came after colonialism. Maybe the Africans were always seen as inferior but in the case of the Indians and the Orientals, the Europeans basically bowed down and begged the local powers for trading rights and small outposts. Why are /pol/troons even proud of colonialism in the first place? Don't they hate Jewish antics and Jewery? Colonization of India and the rest of asia was basically the equivalent of a bunch of wealthy Jewish private businesses taking advantage of a fractured place and using the infighting to their advantage through "Jewish-esque" tactics lol.
>>18470964>Why do normies and /pol/troons think that colonialism was some sort of "Whites vs Non-whites" thing? Collaborators and local armies helped Colonialism for most of the bulk.Often because the latter only really cares about history, especially non-European history to stroke it to their race war fantasy. And in a way, it kind of was like that. Certain local armies and rulers served Europeans and without their collaboration there never would have been effective colonialism and its effects, most notably in places like Africa where much of the "effects" (slaves, resources, land etc.) were achievable only through the actions of some local rulers that had on and off relations with Europeans.>Why are /pol/troons even proud of colonialism in the first place? Don't they hate Jewish antics and Jewery? Colonization of India and the rest of asia was basically the equivalent of a bunch of wealthy Jewish private businesses taking advantage of a fractured place and using the infighting to their advantage through "Jewish-esque" tactics lol.They are hypocrites without principles.
>>18470443>wait wait wait wait this was in the 1300's?!?! I thought it was like, 500's or something.He's famous for doing the hajj, why the hell would he be pre-Islamic?
>>18470702i don't see him getting humiliated at all?>>18470951there was no need to conquer africa except for political prestige, europeans had already conquered india america and cucked china
>>18470467Built by the French
Mansa musa was Aryan
>>18471080>there was no need to conquer africa except for political prestige, europeans had already conquered india america and cucked chinaCheap resources, labor, and a powerhungry attempt at "world domination"
>>18471080>there was no need to conquer africaHoly cope
>>18470915The borders of the so called "Mali Empire" are unknown and the idea that it counted Senegambia within ithem at the same moment the Jolof Empire existed is ridiculous.The Portuguese never actually interacted with the Mali Empire and never made any mention of it.This is pure revisionism.Thyat said the Portuguese did have some failed raids against the Jolof (which was even more primitive than Mali) but defeating a few dozens unprepared sailors doesnt require being very advanced.
>>18470998>Certain local armies and rulers served Europeans and without their collaboration there never would have been effective colonialism and its effects, most notably in places like Africa where much of the "effects" (slaves, resources, land etc.) were achievable only through the actions of some local rulers that had on and off relations with Europeans.Subsaharan Africa is probably the place where Europeans would have had the easiest time prevailing even without collaborators, given how massive the gap in fighting capabilities was when Europe took over in the late 19th century.The locally recruited natives collaborators (which composed the brunt of the colonial armies) were very useful as they allowed Europeans to use less than 1% of their military might in the process, but without them Africa would have been taken just as easily provided the Europeans would consent in using 4% of their might instead of 1%
>>18471080>i don't see him getting humiliated at all?I'm talking about you dumbass. how many debates did you ran away from now? I lost the count
>>18471352>WikipeslopLolno there's so much stuff that they leave out
>>18471457I'm talking about the Scramble for Africa in the late 19th centuryIt would have succeeded easily with or without local collaborators.As for if Europeans had actually attempted taking over the continent in centuries earlier (I mean for real, not a few half assed Portuguese raids) it might have been very hard with collaborators because whitey hadn't invented the cure for malaria yet.
>>18471352Most major campaigns required more troops than these one off battles against often technologically superior opponents, most of those are after or around the time the rapid fire Maxim Gun was introduced to warfare and they're called "battles" and not "wars" there for a reason. In the majority of campaigns defeating a large or otherwise powerful African state with a small number of European troops didn't happen. Blood River casualties and Zulu troop strength there are just completely made up, as well.
>>18471474Most "major" campaigns in Africa were super small scale compared to what Europeans were used to when it came to fighting wars among each others back home.For exemple, the largest army France ever used in a colonial conquest in Subsahara Africa was when they used about 4,000 men (half of them civilian porters used to carry the stuff) in the Second Dahomey War.In the Sahel, the French conquered with very small columns consisting in about 200 locally recuited negroes and a dozen white officers each.Britain defeated the Benin Empire in 1897 with 1200 men and captured Kumasi (capital of the Ashanti Empire) in 1874 with 2500 men.War against African "kingdoms" and "empires" was super small scale and easy compared to what Europeans were used to.As a comparison, the Franco-Prussian War in the same era had pitted over a million men against each others on each side.>most of those are after or around the time the rapid fire Maxim GunNone of the battles on the pic involved the Maxim Gun.Just forming squares with regular rifles was enough to BTFO any local african army ten times larger.
>>18471474Don't waste your time the guy is dumber than dirt
>>18471543The battle that led to the capture of Kumasi involved 1509 European troops and 708 native auxiliaries, against 15 000 Ashantis warriorshttps://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Amoaful>You have to fucking brain dead if you think 2500 could occupy Kumasi.Have you even looked at Kumasi?How many gorillons do you think are required to occupy it?
>>18471499>Britain defeated the Benin Empire in 1897 with 1200 men and captured Kumasi (capital of the Ashanti Empire) in 1874 with 2500 men.2,500 British troops and SEVERAL THOUSAND WEST INDIAN AND AFRICAN TROOPS, not to mention intelligence provided by dissidents within the Asante state. Source Lloyd, Alan (1964). The Drums of Kumasi: the story of the Ashanti wars. London: Longmans p.88-102. You have to be fucking brain dead if you think 2500 could occupy Kumasi.Given your propensity for lying, I have serious doubts about your claims regarding Dahomey and Benin.
>>18471543>Given your propensity for lying, I have serious doubts about your claims regarding Dahomey and Benin.Stop coping alreadyhttps://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Benin_Expedition_of_1897https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Second_Franco-Dahomean_War
>>18470951>i-i-it only t-took you 5 centuries to conquer the entirety of our continent and subjugate our entire race>while the limiting factor was our disgusting diseases (as soon as you invented inoculations, we all capitulated in a decade)Damn. Whitey BTFO!
>>18471556>Look at the Wikipedia graph with the wrong numbersYou are cretin confirmed >Pics of Kumasi taken after the civil war, the famine and smallpox epidemic and gold shortageWe have collected testimonies from British visitors like Freeman who visited the city before 1874. Freeman confirms that the city had lost its former splendor. Another visitor in 1889 said Kumasi was in ruins.
>>18471587>Look at the Wikipedia graph with the wrong numbersThe pic you posted is another article than the one I posted, and this is teh source it's usinghttps://roguenation.org/british_loot_and_burn_kumasi_1874/A fucking random website about British colonial crimes lmao>Pics of Kumasi taken after the civil war, the famine and smallpox epidemic and gold shortageExcuses, copes, it went from Wakanda to mudhuts overnight...etcHere's what the wiki says about 1874 Kumasi>on 6 February British soldiers forced all the inhabitants of the city (number is roughly estimated of about 40,000 people) out to the wilderness.https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Capture_of_Kumasi_(1874)#Taking_the_cityIt was a fucking town of 40,000 inhabitantsIf you knew anything about warfare, you wouldn't have claimed that it's "brain dead" to think 2500 troops are enough to occupy a town of 40,000 inhabitants.That's way over the amount required for such a small settlement.
>>18471566>Benin expedition I like how you omitted the warship part written in the article > Second Franco Dahomean WarIn the section regarding military build up states that also included "Foreign Legionnaires, marines, engineers, artillery and Senegalese cavalry known as spahis plus the trusted tirailleurs." The full number of these additional forces isn't mentioned
>>18471596>The pic you posted is another article than the one I posted, and this is teh source it's usingIs from Wikipedia you stupid fuck https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anglo-Ashanti_wars section regarding Third Anglo-Ashanti WarAlso stated in the article about the capture of Kumasi https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Capture_of_Kumasi_(1874)>you wouldn't have claimed that it's "brain dead" to think 2500 troops are enough to occupy a town of 40,000Yup you're brain-dead
>>18471614>I like how you omitted the warship part written in the articleHow are warships in the nearby area who didn't take part in the expedition relevant to the discussion?Benin City isn't even near the sea>In the section regarding military build up states that also included "Foreign Legionnaires, marines, engineers, artillery and Senegalese cavalry known as spahis plus the trusted tirailleurs." The full number of these additional forces isn't mentionedYou're not even trying anymore.French Foreign Legion, Marines, Engineers, Senegalese tirailleus and Spahis = the composition of the French force deployed in Dahomey during that campaign, and the total number of this force is plainly stated: 2164 men in total.In addition to those, there were 2600 African auxiliaries of the Porto Novo kingdom who served as porters.Which bring the total of the French expedition to about 4700 men, less than half of which were fighters.So precisely what is stated there >>18471499
>>18471645>warships in the nearby area who didn't take part in the expedition"9 February 1897, the invasion of the Kingdom of Benin began. The British invasion force of about 1,200 Royal Marines, sailors and Niger Coast Protectorate Forces was organised into three columns: the 'Sapoba', 'Gwato' and 'Main' columns. Flotillas of warships (including HMS Philomel and Phoebe) and gunboats approached Benin City from the east and west.The 'Sapoba' and 'Main' columns reached Benin City after ten days of fighting. The 'Gwato' column (under Captain Gallwey) took the same route as that taken by the previous mission and came on the scene of the massacre, finding headless bodies of the victims."Keep lying >French Foreign Legion, Marines, Engineers, Senegalese tirailleus and Spahis = the composition of the French force deployed in Dahomey during that campaign, and the total number of this force is plainly stated: 2164 men in totalI checked directly the source on internet archive the author himself states the majority of those vast majority of those men were Africans (a little more than the 200 you mentioned earlier). tThe graph made it seem that all men were French but it seems it was innacurate
>>18471645I also wanted to add that neither Dahomey nor Benin were military powers by the region standards especially towards the end of the 19th century.
>>18471686>"9 February 1897, the invasion of the Kingdom of Benin began. The British invasion force of about 1,200 Royal Marines, sailors and Niger Coast Protectorate Forces was organised into three columns: the 'Sapoba', 'Gwato' and 'Main' columns. Flotillas of warships (including HMS Philomel and Phoebe) and gunboats approached Benin City from the east and west.The 'Sapoba' and 'Main' columns reached Benin City after ten days of fighting.Ok, so basically the 1200 men force that conquered the Benin Empire was the crew of the warships you mentioned earlier...Cool trivia but that doesn't change shit, it was a force of 1200, thet just happened to be sailors and marines from warships>I checked directly the source on internet archive the author himself states the majority of those vast majority of those men were Africans (a little more than the 200 you mentioned earlier). t>The graph made it seem that all men were French but it seems it was innacurateWhat are you even mumbling about?It's plainly stated that the 2164 French force included Senegalese tirailleurs and Spahis alongside the white troops (Marines and Foreign Legion).You're attempting to grasp at straws left and right, but none of the failed arguments you bring even come close from debunking the point that was made in this post >>18471499 Which is the fact that the campaigns of the conquest of Africa were super small scale compared to the kind of warfare Europeans were used to and that Europeans used less than 1% of their might to subdue Africa.Like, take the Second Dahomey War for exemple.If you remove the 930 Senegalese tirailleurs and Spahis from the 2164 men strong French army, and also remove the 2600 Porto Novo porters, then what?Then France just has to send an additional 3530 men to reach the exact same numbers (and with troops even more reliable this time).You think adding 3500 men would be a big deal for a country that is used to fighting wars involving millions routinely?
>>18471694LmaoCare to tell us who were the "powers" of late 19th century West Africa then?Benin Kingdom, Ashanti Empire and Dahomey are the names that always come on the table.Other states were even less significant.
>>18470915>Although these expeditions largely ended in failure, they marked the first steps in Portuguese expansion along the West African coast, a process that would eventually lead to its naval victory at Diu in 1509
>>18471727>Ok, so basically the 1200 men force that conquered the Benin Empire was the crew of the warships you mentioned earlier...Yeah they also shoot rockets from the ships.>You're attempting to grasp at straws left and right,I'm not grasping at anything, you said 200 Africans. You straight up lied.>Which is the fact that the campaigns of the conquest of Africa were super small scale compared to the kind of warfare Europeans were used Depends on which period you are referring to>that Europeans used less than 1% of their might to subdue Africa.Wow the leading industrial power easily defeated a pre industrial society who could have ever imagined that...>Like, take the Second Dahomey War for exemple.The fact that you keep bringing up those wars between the major industrial European powers and pre-industrial African countries that aren't even known for being military strong as a cope response is hilarious, but doesn't changes the fact that before 1800 the Portuguese could not subdue Kongo ever even its emerging rebel vassal Soho. And claiming that that they weren't interested in conquering the region is a lie
>>18471760>I'm not grasping at anything, you said 200 Africans. You straight up lied.Oh, so this whole long useless discussion comes from the fact you can't read...What I wrote in the initial post ( >>18471499 ) is:>For exemple, the largest army France ever used in a colonial conquest in Subsahara Africa was when they used about 4,000 men (half of them civilian porters used to carry the stuff) in the Second Dahomey War.>In the Sahel, the French conquered with very small columns consisting in about 200 locally recuited negroes and a dozen white officers each.Read nigga, READ.Columns of 200 Africans was for the Sahel conquests (stuff like the Voulet Chanoine expedition for exemple).Dahomey was 4000 men (with a little more than half being Africans).>Depends on which period you are referring toWe're talking about the period during which Europe conquered Africa, so roughly 1870-1900.>Wow the leading industrial power easily defeated a pre industrial society who could have ever imagined that...>The fact that you keep bringing up those wars between the major industrial European powers and pre-industrial African countries that aren't even known for being military strong as a cope response is hilarious,Yeah nigga, that's my entire point.That precolonial Subsahran kangzdoms were weak ass shithole that Europe defeated easily.I'm not trying to imply it was glorious for Europe or an impressive display of skill, I'm just pointing out it was easy and low effort.
>>18471778>Oh, so this whole long useless discussion comes from the fact you can't read...Says the guy that can't even bother reading the articles he links>We're talking about the period during which Europe conquered Africa, so roughly 1870-1900.Nope the other anon mentioned an episode were Portuguese were humiliated by random Jolof and Mali sailors you got triggered, took the bait and posted a pic of Africa colonised by Industrial powers.>That precolonial Subsahran kangzdoms were weak ass shithole that Europe defeated easily.Which is why Portugal was beaten so bad by Soho at the battle of Kitombo they had to give up their goal of creating an empire in the region for at least 3 centuries.Not to mention the embarrassing Khoikhoi episode
>>18471800>Jolof and Mali sailorsNaked dudes in a dugout canoe aren't "sailors"You first need to dream a sail to have sailors
>>18471804>Thinks that 1800s illustration is an historical accurate representation of 15th century events Lmao the cope is incredible.
>>18471804Senegambian mariners sailed to other coasts of West Africa and Fantes sailor travelled to places as far as Kongo's coast.
>>18471817Precolonial Senegambians didn't have the sail, that's a fact.That's why they never discovered Cape Verde
sneedsa feedsa
>>18471821>Precolonial Senegambians didn't have the sail,Except they did>That's why they never discovered Cape VerdeSays who?
>>18471760Do you even know what the Kongo was? It was a Portuguese vassal, where the people followed Portuguese religion and customs. It was already "conquered" long before the 1800s, even Soyo. Portugal saw it as a land to uphold, not something to destroy and conquer.In comparison, look at what happened to the Somali city-states, who were all muslim and against Portugal. They were almost bombed out of existence by Portuguese armadas
>>18471817>>18471820>>18471833Your revisionist cope is just sad
Least we still got Yasuke, the greatest samurai that was ever.
>>18471833>Says who?EveryoneIt's the historical consensus on the topic
>>18471837>It was a Portuguese vassal,It wasn't, like at all lmao>where the people followed Portuguese religion and customsLast I checked Christianity is an Asian religion, near eastern to be exact.>was already "conquered" long before the 1800s, even Soyo. Portugal saw it as a land to uphold, not something to destroy and conquer.Portugal got manhandled by his own vassals? That's sounds even worse lmao >They were almost bombed out of existence by Portuguese armadasSo Portuguese strength revolves around their navy but the moment they couldn't use them they got curbstomped by the locals? Got it
>black people>making sail boatslol, maybe they should start with a chair, or a wheel, and work up from there, if they can (they can't).
>>18471778>That precolonial Subsahran kangzdoms were weak ass shithole that Europe defeated easily.Hardly. Only during the 19th century after the Maxim Gun was made and large campaigns were launched, the Portuguese campaign in Mozambique required around 40,000 Africans and a minimal amount of European troops. Prior to that, battles, even wars were frequently won by Africans. Some places resisted well until the 1910s-1937.https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_Guinea-Bissau>>18471842>Be primitive>Win anywaysYeah they were nude, had a shit navy, they still raped the Portuguese with sticks, islanders in Guinea Bissau took them and other European sailors captive, successfully seized boats, etc. your point dude? Any individual using a boat for marine purposes, effectively or not, is a sailor. Your smartass takes are the actual revisionism. Btw I'm sure that poster was referencing an event where the king of Dahomey sent a ship to the Kongo's capital for diplomatic negotiations.
>>18471837Soyo wasn't a vassal, huge cope. After defeating the Portuguese they got far more independent and they screwed off from that particular region for some time... Your entire force of euroid boys got fucked by half-naked africans with spears and the survivors sold into white slavery.>The Battle of Kitombo was a humiliating defeat for the Portuguese and a boon for the state of Soyo. Portuguese Angola remained hostile to Soyo and Kongo, but they dared not venture back
>>18471861>Count Estêvão Da SilvaVery African bantu name, definitely resisted those pesky hundred or so Europeans
>>18471842What cope? The European trader Jean Barbot in 1680 stated that with their cannoes the Gold Coast mariners trasported their transport their "cattle and merchandise from one place to another, taking them over the breakers loaded as they are. This sort can be found at Juda [Ouidah] and Ardra [Allada], and at many places on the Gold Coast. Such canoes are so safe that they travel from Gold Coast to all parts of the Gulf of Ethiopia [Guinea], and beyond that to Angola.” The source "Afro-European Trade in the Atlantic World by Silke Strickrodt pg 71, West Africa's Discovery of the Atlantic by Robin Law pg 23"West Africans established fishing communities in Cabinda, Boma e Marradi.Source Les pêcheries et les poissons du Congo by Alfred Goffin pg 16, 181, 208
>>18471855>Hardly. Only during the 19th century after the Maxim Gun was made and large campaigns were launchedComplete revisionism.Most campaigns of the Scramble didn't involve the Maxim Gun.None of the battles on that pic >>18471352 involved the Maxim Gun.Regular rifles and superior discipline and tactics were all the European officers and their pet negroes needed to prevail over wild negroes.>Prior to that, battles, even wars were frequently won by AfricansPrior to the Scramble of Africa there were barely any battles between Europeans and Subsaharan Africans.Maybe you can cite 10 mionor battles between some tribes and the Portuguese spread across 400 years....that isn't a serious attempt at conquest.
>>18471863So now we agree they were canoes and not sailboats.And btw 1680 is 200 years after European contact and 200 years after the event we were discussing ( >>18470915 )And the fact some West Africans from Ouidah (the far south eastern end of West Africa) reached Angola isn't exactly the same thing as claiming Senegambians did travel there.
>>18471862>They had Portuguese names This is your brilliant argument? That their Christian names were in Portuguese like the people who introduced them to the new religion? Next you are going to tell that the most popular names in the Western world and Muslim societies are of Hebrew origins.
>>18471866>Most campaigns of the Scramble didn't involve the Maxim Gun.Not true and a couple battles with exaggerated casualty counts don't prove anything. The Boers and British would later be stalemated at best by the Basotho.>Maybe you can cite 10 mionor battles between some tribes and the Portuguese spread across 400 years....that isn't a serious attempt at conquest.Adding to the multiple other mentioned victories in the thread:Dahomeans, Ashantis captured European forts and led one commander to commit suicide>The Maravis wiped out a European force>The Mutapa killed 200 Portuguese troops>The Rozwi destroyed Portuguese settlement in Zimbabwe permanently>Biagos Islanders defeated a 3-nation European coalition>The first few Boer wars against Xhosas were defeats for the former that resulted in loss of land until the arrival of the British>Mukua tribesmen destroyed a Portuguese force as late as 1814, and killed a Portuguese governor in the fightingThe reason there's a hyper focus on the Portuguese is because they were one of the European few nations (retarded enough) to send armies into the lions den that was Africa before the 19th century made this task easier and safer.
>>18471875>not sailboatsWest Africans also made large canoes with mast and sails *Red Gold of Africa: Copper in Precolonial History and Culture By Eugenia W. Herbert, pg 216, Two Trips to Gorilla Land and the Cataracts of the Congo,: Volume 1 By Sir Richard Francis Burton, pg 83, Precolonial African Material Culture By V Tarikhu Farrar, pg 243"
>>18471883>Not trueNot an argumentUse of the Maxim Gun was factually the execption, even during the Scarmble.As for the rest of your post...do I even need to address it?There was no attempt at conquering Africa until the late 19th century.A dozens of skirmishes between some tiny European outposts and the local neighbouring tribe, spread across four centuries, does not constitute an attempt at taking over the continent.
>>18471037Why the fuck would i know that much about your backwards pedophile cult?
>>18471898>There was no attempt at conquering Africa until the late 19th century.You keep saying it that but isn't true the Portuguese tried and failed>A dozens of skirmishes between some tiny European outposts and the local neighbouring tribeThe "skirmishes" like the Portuguese clash with the Khoikhoi gives us glimpse of what would happen if they tried full assault in the West African interior, hell we already have an idea just by looking at their wars against Kongo.
>>18471844East Africans settled in Madagascar in 9th century AD not sure why you showed that part.I didn't even dispute that they did it, I just asked a question you schizo.
>>18471969That "backwards pedophile cult" is an important part of human history, regardless of whether you hate it or not
>>18472040"backwards pedophile cult"which one?the one from the middle east!which one?The one filled with child rapists who want to take over the world and enslave you!which one?the one that doesn't eat the raped childrenoh, islam
>>18470451Maybe he was depicted white because the Italian who made that map never met him?
>>18470467>>18470478opulent...
