Youtube historian explains how the kingdom of Congo fell off, and how saudi arabia will too.

[Scustin Bieburr]

Basically Congolese nobility got rich selling slaves to the Portuguese. The hustle was so lucrative that they started wars for the express purpose of getting captives to sell off as slaves.

They used the wealth to buy guns to make them dominant through military force and to snuff out any domestic dissent. Inequality grew and their national identity broke. By the time the Belgians were ready to take over, Congo was too divided to put up a united front and repel them.

Saudi Arabia is a modern Congo, except instead of slaves they have oil and they use that oil money to crush any dissent and use it to fund violent action in countries that have oil

 

[CopiousX]

I must admit, it’s been a while since I’ve watched an entire video that has been posted on the Coli, but I saw this entire one.





Here are my thoughts….

The saudis are different than the Congolese. Rather than seeking industrialization, I think they’ve chosen a strategy similar to Liechtenstein, or Switzerland, where they’re being financiers of other people’s industry, as opposed to running their own factories. Forexample, the Saudi‘s are one of the bigger backers of the Swiss banks to the extent that when credit suisse was failing in the past few weeks, it’s the Saudis they asked for more financing ; notice the swiss didn’t come to America to ask for that.


Similarly, the Saudis use the wealth that they currently do have to invest huge amounts into US companies. It does not escape me that the Saudi‘s were one of the biggest investors in Uber a while back, and hefty investors in US banks as well. They are also controlling assets in Asia such as the japanese giant SoftBank. Through softbank, the saudi(s) breifly controlled one of the big 4 carriers, Sprint. Thus The ancient Congo empire was not like this. it would be the equivalent of the king of the Congo investing in the east India company, or the Dutch East India Company.


To put this in the context of normal people, it would be like a person who doesn’t feel like doing the hard work of rehabbing a house, instead choosing to purchase a REIT investment vehicle composed of houses; which that person does not need to manage but still gets profits/divdends from it.






So because of this financial side of things, I don’t think Saudi Arabia is in any danger. They are operating under the same social contract that China has with its Chinese citizens, where, as long as the nation is wealthy, the individuals living within the nation could not be bothered with politics because their lives are good. due to these financial investments, saudi arabia will not fracture, its future is good

 

[Mowgli]

The bougie class destroy their own countries trying to get a hug from the white man

 

[Wiseborn]

Well first you have to define the Kingdom of Kongo.

Alfonso sold slaves his sister Nzinga went to war against slavers.

I'm a history buff and watch a ton of these channels, This looks like one of them them alt righty alternative history channels.

 

[Samori Toure]

Well first you have to define the Kingdom of Kongo.

Alfonso sold slaves his sister Nzinga went to war against slavers.

I'm a history buff and watch a ton of these channels, This looks like one of them them alt righty alternative history channels.

Exactly. Not only that but the Kingdom of Kongo was rich before the Europeans even arrived so slavery was clearly not the reason for their wealth. Most of their wealth and that of the Empires of Ghana, Mali, Songhay, Benin, Oyo, Kanem Bornu, Hausas, Wolof, etc, came from trade in goods and gold. Additionally, some of those empires taxed merchants that traded in their territories and goods that crossed their territories.

This goes to a bigger issue though. White people are always trying to rewrite history. They earned their wealth through slavery. Before that they were broke. They don't want to admit how rich they became because of slavery, so they have rewritten history over and over to pretend like their wealth came from the industrial revolution and they have tried to minimize slavery's impact on their wealth, institutions and countries. There is a whole book on the subject called "The Half Has Never Been Told" by Edward Baptist. So White people are big revisionists.

Fwiw the only African Kingdom that I can think of off the top of my head that got wealthy exclusively due to the slave trade was Dahomey.

 

[ignorethis]

The Coli discovers Kraut

 

[Wiseborn]

Exactly. Not only that but the Kingdom of Kongo was rich before the Europeans even arrived so slavery was clearly not the reason for their wealth. Most of their wealth and that of the Empires of Ghana, Mali, Songhay, Benin, Oyo, Kanem Bornu, Hausas, Wolof, etc, came from trade in goods and gold. Additionally, some of those empires taxed merchants that traded in their territories and goods that crossed their territories.

This goes to a bigger issue though. White people are always trying to rewrite history. They earned their wealth through slavery. Before that they were broke. They don't want to admit how rich they became because of slavery, so they have rewritten history over and over to pretend like their wealth came from the industrial revolution and they have tried to minimize slavery's impact on their wealth, institutions and countries. There is a whole book on the subject called "The Half Has Never Been Told" by Edward Baptist. So White people are big revisionists.

Fwiw the only African Kingdom that I can think of off the top of my head that got wealthy exclusively due to the slave trade was Dahomey.

Exactly staying in the Kingdom of Kongo it wasn't like one day Alfonso got baptistized and started selling slaves it turns out there was an exchange and a real trade system, Alfonso sent hundreds of people to Portugal to study Portugal the same way Portugese came to study the Kongolese.

Again the dude Alfonso was a c00n but it wasn't like some white explorer came to Kongo and homie said Can you take these slaves off our hands?

Around that time there were still some Moorish African Converts in Spain and Portugal so the idea that Black people were some inferior races of slaves came much later.

But the point of all this shyt is to absolve white people of guilt and act like white people reluctantly took slaves that were offered that certainly wasn't the case and Africans who did sell slaves would've been suprised that that meant enslavement forever and all of their decendants even the arabs didn't move like that.

 

[Wiseborn]

Exactly. Not only that but the Kingdom of Kongo was rich before the Europeans even arrived so slavery was clearly not the reason for their wealth. Most of their wealth and that of the Empires of Ghana, Mali, Songhay, Benin, Oyo, Kanem Bornu, Hausas, Wolof, etc, came from trade in goods and gold. Additionally, some of those empires taxed merchants that traded in their territories and goods that crossed their territories.

This goes to a bigger issue though. White people are always trying to rewrite history. They earned their wealth through slavery. Before that they were broke. They don't want to admit how rich they became because of slavery, so they have rewritten history over and over to pretend like their wealth came from the industrial revolution and they have tried to minimize slavery's impact on their wealth, institutions and countries. There is a whole book on the subject called "The Half Has Never Been Told" by Edward Baptist. So White people are big revisionists.

Fwiw the only African Kingdom that I can think of off the top of my head that got wealthy exclusively due to the slave trade was Dahomey.

Yeah Dahomey wasn't ADOS's Homies but even that was rewritten in that movie Woman King turns out the Dahomey Amazons where a auxilliary force at best and palace guards not General or some kind of elite regiment.