did blacks really invent math and science?

[DMAN]

what really pisses me off is that this whole PC bull**** says that blacks are the master race and the only reason that their countries are cesspools is because "da wite devul" came there and killed all the black people. i remember in highschool my history school said "the african countries are undeveleoped due to their history of being under imperialist control." what a bunch of bs, if anything imperialism got the african countries more developed, before that they were swingning off trees and eating each other.

[Meerkat]

what really pisses me off is that this whole PC bull**** says that blacks are the master race and the only reason that their countries are cesspools is because "da wite devul" came there and killed all the black people. i remember in highschool my history school said "the african countries are undeveleoped due to their history of being under imperialist control." what a bunch of bs, if anything imperialism got the african countries more developed, before that they were swingning off trees and eating each other.

not really, before the imperialists came, there was a sustainable food supply (jungle).

[DMAN]

there still is plenty of food in africa, its just that thier governments cannot distribute it properly.

[Rubystars]

You mean their leaders hoard all the food aid and eat it themselves.

[DMAN]

pretty much.

[Zelhar]

Did the black history "professors" ever learned math and science beyond multiplication to 100 and body functions ?

[TheCoon]

How do they calculate how much doodoo they need for their huts without math?

[Rubystars]

Well they just pile it up a bit higher than their heads.

[TheCoon]

Well they just pile it up a bit higher than their heads.

lol

For real though, if not for white colonization, Sub-Saharan blacks would still be living as their ancestors did 10000 years ago. Where whites didn't go you see tribes who still live in doodoo huts or small villages gated by acacia tree branches to keep wild animals out. In Northern Africa there were some black civilizations that achieved some success though like the Kushites, but I'm unaware of their total accomplishments.

[Meerkat]

Well they just pile it up a bit higher than their heads.

lol

For real though, if not for white colonization, Sub-Saharan blacks would still be living as their ancestors did 10000 years ago. Where whites didn't go you see tribes who still live in doodoo huts or small villages gated by acacia tree branches to keep wild animals out. In Northern Africa there were some black civilizations that achieved some success though like the Kushites, but I'm unaware of their total accomplishments.

you do know that before the enlightenment, europe was not much better than africa.

if during the 12th century, china, which at the time was very (they had gunpowder and could use it in a simple frag grenade) advanced, decided to take over europe in the same way that the european powers took africa during the 17th century, would that be justifiable? it would be the exact same situation, only instead of white people, you have asians making an empire, and instead of black people, its whites who are being conquered.

instead of white people talking about how much doodooo blacks need for there huts, the chinese would be talking about how the whites crap in there buckets and cover the streets with it.

im not saying it would be justifiable for china to take europe when it was an uncivilized craphole
but its also not justifiable for europe to take africa when it was an uncivilized craphole.

[Rubystars]

Europeans were much more advanced than Africans even when they were tribal and pagan. To compare them to modern society yes they were primitive compared to now, but their mythology was richer, their technology greater, and they had more innovations in hunting weapons and agriculture than the Africans. In order to survive harsh winters of the north, the Europeans needed to be able to plan ahead and innovate to survive.

[Meerkat]

i am not talking about pagan europe, yes, greece and rome were really powerful and really advanced. but europe was absolute crap from the fall of rome all the way until the enlightenment.

[Rubystars]

i am not talking about pagan europe, yes, greece and rome were really powerful and really advanced. but europe was absolute crap from the fall of rome all the way until the enlightenment.

It's true that there was an oppressive environment for most people. This is one reason I think it's absolutely stupid when blacks whine about having been slaves. If someone had a higher rank than you, you bowed your head to them and called them Lord, and you worked from dawn until night, and possibly more if you had children. Most white people have ancestors that were virtual slaves. At least they knew how to do fairly complex things that the blacks in sub-Saharan Africa would never have been able to do. They still had wheels, metallurgy, textiles, farming, and various crafts and tools that Africans had no concept of. Only the elites could read, but at least the society had written language, unlike the blacks in Africa.

[Meerkat]

i am not talking about pagan europe, yes, greece and rome were really powerful and really advanced. but europe was absolute crap from the fall of rome all the way until the enlightenment.

It's true that there was an oppressive environment for most people. This is one reason I think it's absolutely stupid when blacks whine about having been slaves. If someone had a higher rank than you, you bowed your head to them and called them Lord, and you worked from dawn until night, and possibly more if you had children. Most white people have ancestors that were virtual slaves. At least they knew how to do fairly complex things that the blacks in sub-Saharan Africa would never have been able to do. They still had wheels, metallurgy, textiles, farming, and various crafts and tools that Africans had no concept of. Only the elites could read, but at least the society had written language, unlike the blacks in Africa.

yes, europe had more technology, but only the elites had access to it. the stuff that the european peasants had, the blacks wernt that far behind. they domesticated some animals.

quality of life was about the same. you were lucky to reach the age of 25, there was no medicine, no sewage system, no education, barely anything to give indication of civilization.

[Rubystars]

When you talk about average age of 25, you have to take into account there was also a lot of child mortality. That brings down the average. If someone lived through childhood diseases, then they were likely to live beyond 25 (although life expectancy is not what it is today of course).

The European peasants used technology like horse-drawn plows and other tools that were more complex than what Africans had. The blacksmiths and candle makers had much more skill in crafts than Africans did. Africans did have some basic agriculture, but the vast majority were still hunter-gatherers into the 20th century.

[Zelhar]

Europeans were much more advanced than Africans even when they were tribal and pagan. To compare them to modern society yes they were primitive compared to now, but their mythology was richer, their technology greater, and they had more innovations in hunting weapons and agriculture than the Africans. In order to survive harsh winters of the north, the Europeans needed to be able to plan ahead and innovate to survive.

Of course European as well as Asian steppe "barbarians" had mastered key technologies such as husbandry, metal working, weaving, sea faring etc. thousands of years ago (before they settled down and became literate). In comparison, many African tribes didn't even discover pottery.

[Rubystars]

Yes Asians too were challenged by their environment and their people benefited from this and grew smarter over time, just like in Europe. African people remained living the same basic lifestyles for thousands upon thousands of years.

[Kahane-Was-Right BT]

Well they just pile it up a bit higher than their heads.

lol

For real though, if not for white colonization, Sub-Saharan blacks would still be living as their ancestors did 10000 years ago. Where whites didn't go you see tribes who still live in doodoo huts or small villages gated by acacia tree branches to keep wild animals out. In Northern Africa there were some black civilizations that achieved some success though like the Kushites, but I'm unaware of their total accomplishments.

you do know that before the enlightenment, europe was not much better than africa.

if during the 12th century, china, which at the time was very (they had gunpowder and could use it in a simple frag grenade) advanced, decided to take over europe in the same way that the european powers took africa during the 17th century, would that be justifiable? it would be the exact same situation, only instead of white people, you have asians making an empire, and instead of black people, its whites who are being conquered.

instead of white people talking about how much doodooo blacks need for there huts, the chinese would be talking about how the whites crap in there buckets and cover the streets with it.

im not saying it would be justifiable for china to take europe when it was an uncivilized craphole
but its also not justifiable for europe to take africa when it was an uncivilized craphole.

You know, back then, things weren't so much a question of justifiability as much as simply that people did what they were capable of doing.   We only look back on it in retrospect in terms of that question.   I don't really think I'd care if the Chinese had conquered europe, the question is what was their purpose in doing so, and what are their intentions going forward, how do they treat people now, etc.  Those would be the relevant questions.  Justifiability is a moot point, after the fact.   (except for arabs and arab nationalism of course.  arab jihad and warfare is always based on the notion of unjustifiable infidel/non-Arab possession of land).

[Meerkat]

Well they just pile it up a bit higher than their heads.

lol

For real though, if not for white colonization, Sub-Saharan blacks would still be living as their ancestors did 10000 years ago. Where whites didn't go you see tribes who still live in doodoo huts or small villages gated by acacia tree branches to keep wild animals out. In Northern Africa there were some black civilizations that achieved some success though like the Kushites, but I'm unaware of their total accomplishments.

you do know that before the enlightenment, europe was not much better than africa.

if during the 12th century, china, which at the time was very (they had gunpowder and could use it in a simple frag grenade) advanced, decided to take over europe in the same way that the european powers took africa during the 17th century, would that be justifiable? it would be the exact same situation, only instead of white people, you have asians making an empire, and instead of black people, its whites who are being conquered.

instead of white people talking about how much doodooo blacks need for there huts, the chinese would be talking about how the whites crap in there buckets and cover the streets with it.

im not saying it would be justifiable for china to take europe when it was an uncivilized craphole
but its also not justifiable for europe to take africa when it was an uncivilized craphole.

You know, back then, things weren't so much a question of justifiability as much as simply that people did what they were capable of doing.   We only look back on it in retrospect in terms of that question.   I don't really think I'd care if the Chinese had conquered europe, the question is what was their purpose in doing so, and what are their intentions going forward, how do they treat people now, etc.  Those would be the relevant questions.  Justifiability is a moot point, after the fact.   (except for arabs and arab nationalism of course.  arab jihad and warfare is always based on the notion of unjustifiable infidel/non-Arab possession of land).

if the chinese had the same motivation as the whites: money (lets be honest, thats all they wanted, they didnt come to civilize them)

[takebackourtemple]

Wow. I love how they have their comment setting to approved posts only.

[Meerkat]

Wow. I love how they have their comment setting to approved posts only.

what are you talking about?

[MassuhDGoodName]

KahanistLiberal,

Your points made are valid ones, "all things being equal", as they say in the world of academics.  However, in the real world of politik, "justifiable" is defined as "whatever can be gotten away with" - strength succeed and the weak perish.  Modern nations today just use a lot more "negotiating" and a lot less "invading" to achieve the same goals as before.  In fact, some peoples and cultures we consider undeveloped today once almost did overtake Europe.
In the 3rd Century BCE, ancient King Asoka united virtually the entire Indian subcontinent under one Buddhist nation, and sent Buddhist missionaries as far into Europe as the Polish Court to "convert" the Christians to "the middle way" of Buddha.  The Muslim Invasion which spread out of Arabia seized Jerusalem, vanquished the Byzantine Eastern Roman Empire, invaded western Europe across the entire continent from Romania to the Gates of Vienna and into France, after seizing the former Roman provinces of northern Africa and setting up a kingdom in Spain.  Only military force checked their advance and "saved" all of Europe from Islam.  The African Negroes might be the only racial group which throughout history only warred among itself and did not look outside of Africa with the intention of achieving wealth and building empires.  And if this remains true today, it more likely is due to the Negros' never having achieved any intellectual or technological advancement which would have enabled it to compete successfully with other races and peoples.  What can be stated with certainty is that the black Africans' lack of global conquest is not because of any special "sense of fair play" or because the Negro lacks the same aggressive, violent, and brutal nature of the Roman or Arab, but because the African Negroes never discovered the wheel and never developed the basic technology necessary to achieve a mechanized and disciplined society.  All of Africa's modern nation states and cities we know today were built and modernized by British, Belgian, French, and German Colonial Imperialists, without whom the African Negro would still be a naked cannibal chased by lions and tigers.  And which race/nation is the new colonizer and exploiter of the African sub-continent's resources?  China!

[MassuhDGoodName]

Re:  "Quote
Ever noticed that A-rabs only exhibit TWO behaviors throughout their entire lives:
They're either walking around real grim giving the "Evil Eye" to all inhabitants on planet Earth, or they're rioting in the streets calling for blood, maiming and murdering.

Yes, I did notice that.  They look at you like they want to murder you.

Yeah!  But that's when they're happy and feelin' good!

They also can give off mean looks when they don't like you!     

[MassuhDGoodName]

Re:  "before the imperialists came, there was a sustainable food supply (jungle). "

Well...OK ... but still there's only so much dark meat a cannibal can eat before having to enlarge the menu by cooking and eating a white Baptist Missionary!     

[takebackourtemple]

Wow. I love how they have their comment setting to approved posts only.

what are you talking about?

I left a comment asking the first guy to identify the difference between differential and integral calculus since he believes that blacks invented it. Don't expect it to go up, because he first has to approve my comment.