Africa a little 100 years ago.
- Thread starter Ethnic Vagina Finder
- Start date
Back to slavery.. which slavery are you talking about? Slaves were very much concentrated on coasts the inland excursions were excruciating for them and the slaves. There's a map in here of the activity look at it closely... Hence why it concentrates on the Atlantic and Indian Ocean exit points. If you look at the map there's thousands of miles of landlocked places with no access to those oceans. but you say "they were supposed to see ships".
trading excursions for those people meant sending out caravans that journeyed for months. this idea of yours is very fantastical. basically somebody is gonna outrun a european invasion coming inland to tell the folks ships have landed before they get inland.
Maybe your issue is you think Africa has a uniform history over hundreds of years. Places along the Coasts had the earliest exposures and trade dealings with Europeans... majority of inland nations/tribes never had exposure until the late 1800's. These people were not all communicating and or aware of Western Intrusions.
As I asked you why didn't the Natives of North America do what you are suggesting if it was so easy? They had horses to add to that. shyt sounds easy in make believe. But in actual reality it's not that simple. They took L's from Canada to Chile and many are gone from those genocides. Why didn't they just stand up one day and say we are all natives and fight back? I dunno but I won't act like I have answers or it was easy
why were your people gangbanged by europeans? don't come in here to throw shade. because your history doesn't fair any better. South American native tribes barely exist. you are part europeans. we are still african and we still own our land.
T'krm
Superstar
All Ados are, as it is a condition of our creation after being sold to the Europeans for bread crumbs.
History needs no shade, nor serves any puropse.
Oh definitely European countries did take Ls. But though they may have lost some battles they won the war ultimately and managed to colonize/dominate/indoctrinate a whole continent several times larger thanEurope despite being outnumbered and in foreign territory.And like I told you England took a lot of L's in other countries as well. It's kind of the reason they left
I am not saying that African groups did not fight back, I am saying some groups lost out due to lack of tactical strategy an in some respect complacency.
Some tribes built reputation for being Euro lapdogs and enrich themselves by their ties with Europeans.
some African tribes still have a bad reputation to this day due to working wth the British/French etc...such as the Fantes in Ghana, I know of some Nigerian people who have English last name not due to admixture or slavery but because they took on the last name of a friend or a missionary they respected.
Europe did not accomplish their colonization of the world simply because they had guns. They studied everyone and played each group against each other and came up on top. Strategy and guns sealed the deal.
and even if the French and English have centuries of bad blood they weren’t about to sell their peasants or even criminals to African Chiefs/Kings.
Last edited:
Cobalt Sire
All Star
it doesn't matter what you are saying your agenda is obvious you are pretending we are still colonized so you can rub salt in our wounds because you have an underlying issue with Africans regardings slavery
this thread has already taken a turn the agents are here
my people didn't sell anybody to europeans it is unfortunate but not my legacy and I won't take any responsibility for it.
this is where I exit.
Last edited:
T'krm
Superstar
Ur not Kenyan, ur probably South African.
I verified myself long before you started your agent posting with my actual kenyan passport on SOHHUr not Kenyan, ur probably South African.
see the 2012 posters have an actual verified history. you agents showed up late to the party and been tryna ruin the coli since. thread was fire before all the negative reputation red flag posters showed up.
1-i wrote "If they came by water". Learn to read properly. You're making a whole argument based on part of what I wroteBack to slavery.. which slavery are you talking about? Slaves were very much concentrated on coasts the inland excursions were excruciating for them and the slaves. There's a map in here of the activity look at it closely... Hence why it concentrates on the Atlantic and Indian Ocean exit points. If you look at the map there's thousands of miles of landlocked places with no access to those oceans. but you say "they were supposed to see ships".
trading excursions for those people meant sending out caravans that journeyed for months. this idea of yours is very fantastical. basically somebody is gonna outrun a european invasion coming inland to tell the folks ships have landed before they get inland.
Maybe your issue is you think Africa has a uniform history over hundreds of years. Places along the Coasts had the earliest exposures and trade dealings with Europeans... majority of inland nations/tribes never had exposure until the late 1800's. These people were not all communicating and or aware of Western Intrusions.
As I asked you why didn't the Natives of North America do what you are suggesting if it was so easy? They had horses to add to that. shyt sounds easy in make believe. But in actual reality it's not that simple. They took L's from Canada to Chile and many are gone from those genocides. Why didn't they just stand up one day and say we are all natives and fight back? I dunno but I won't act like I have answers or it was easy
2-like I wrote, the Europeans didn't conquer in one month, if they came to the coastal lands, it would have been multiple times. Enough time for African soldiers to be aware, and lookout for them, all you have to do is climb a tree to see a ship in the water. You can see them miles away, which gives you time to prepare for when they dock their ships.
Again you are ignoring my post to create an argument in your favor
3 - I explained already. Your issues is you dont want to accept where Africans went wrong, and place them in weak victim status. That is exactly why the black man is losing all over the world, too many of us dont want to accept where we went wrong
Last edited:
T'krm
Superstar
No wonder...I verified myself long before you started your agent posting with my actual kenyan passport on SOHH
see the 2012 posters have an actual verified history. you agents showed up late to the party and been tryna ruin it since
Amazing what unity can acheive, especially in the face of opposition. Taiwan, and Sinapore, for example.complacency? the indian's, chinese, phillipinos, thai, etc fought back. They got hit, they rolled with the punches better then we did.
hell I'm not sure what you're point is either
India is a nuclear power.
Hong Kong isn't a country but a part of China that was always going back to being one with China.
get these nets
Veteran
Not sure how serious you are with this post. In case you are being serious, l disagree and the facts support my take.And that is the main point of this thread!
Dont you realize how big Africa is? All the people had to do was find ways to trap them. Back then, the technology was nothing like the 60s. You had to reload your guns constantly, white men didn't have anything to keep them cool or to have clean drinking water. quinine is for malaria, but there is more to worry then that. Africans still have the Guinea worm effecting the people from unclean drinking water. If you dont know what it is, I suggest you look it up, it ain't no joke
Just ambushing them in the jungle areas could have pushed them away. Then when you take into account if they got there by water, Africans could easily be prepared just by seeing the ships come in
But like you said they got fooled by missionaries, although, once the first set of military came they new what was up. No matter how you call it, if just a few Africans United from different areas, they could have easily trapped the Europeans because of how big Africa is.
Like I said the technology wasn't that much more powerful back then, especially considering the landscape, and Europeans not having the tools to survive it for long. If Africa kept Europeans away, the west might not be as strong as they are now. Africa played a pivotal part in Europe getting so rich!
The colonization of Africa was another chapter in the conquest/colonization that Euro countries had initiated on indigenous people across the world. Those of us from African descent view Euros moving into the Western hemisphere in terms of the enslavement of our ancestors, but it was also colonization of the lands of indigenous people. Explorers,missionaries, merchants/traders....and then the soldiers come in. Roughly 400 years before the scramble for Africa, the "playbook" was already being written. And it wasn't a new playbook then either, it was the conquest playbook used throughout history.
They just adapted it for the Americas. Euros had people who spoke the native languages, they drew up maps detailing the terrain, wildlife,plants, and water sources, knew what existing rivalries between the native groups could exploited. And they had superior technology because they had knowledge access to the arms & science of the indigenous people + the arms & science that was being developed by Euro industry.
Roughly 400 years of warring with indigenous people around the globe + each other, helped develop the technology of Euros rapidly. When the conquest of Africa began,Euros had superior technology in terms of arms & science. Again, they had access to and knowledge of the technology of the indigenous people + that which had been developed from extracting resources from the lands they colonized and developed by war industry in the West. By that time, the technological advantage and the resources Euros had to fund military tipped the balance in their favor.
The people and soldiers in these places fought tooth and nail. The scenarios you wrote about "why didn't they just trap them in the jungle" or "see them coming in ships and wait for them" trivializes the efforts that people did put up to fight off Euros .
I study war, and you are wrong, but I want you to answer a couple of questions
1-name this advance technology, and science, that helped them avoid the knowledge of the land that the natives knew. You cant say quinine because that was discovered in the 1800s, shyt was over by then. Plus, there is more to worry about then malaria
2-missionaries, and merchants are not gonna know the strategies the natives used for war, so how did the europeans know before the conquest, as you say they did?
get these nets
Veteran
easy
1. The Euro military firepower that was developed, refined, and battle tested from warfare by the 1880s was superior to the weapons that the standing armies across Africa had access to. The Euros would know that, because they were the ones who had supplied most of those arms. At the time, the African nation states didn't have access to the new weapons, not did they have the capacity to mass manufacture them.
2. The Euro merchants who participated in the transatlantic slave trade exploited rivalries between the nation states in a region to fuel the supply of war captives and raiding victims that became slaves for them to purchase. It's documented when are where this occurred. Euros would supply the arms to one or both sides of a conflict depending on how it would benefit them commercially. Euros continued to trade with merchants and representatives of leaders after the transatlantic slave trade technically ended. They supplied Euro manufactured arms to them, and knew exactly who had what.
You did not read anywhere in my thread that I said that Euros knew which tactics the different armies would use to fend them off.
HOWEVER
- Merchants from these Euro powers were warmongers and arms trader to coastal African regions for centuries(surely noting and documenting which groups rose and fell using the weapons they supplied
- Euro powers were well funded war machines after centuries of fighting indigenous people and other Euro powers on different fronts
You do the math
