So you are racist. The OP presented a question from an ignorant ass, but not specifically racist…. The above comment - clear racism.
Serious question
- Thread starter Teflon Don
- Start date
Teflon Don
I'm back baby
What is racist about it?
It is just an observation, but I can see it triggered you.
You are easily triggered
Here is where you virtue signal for all of the other board marxists
You are attaching a trate to generalize a race, that is racist.
Interesting. That's not the side of the argument your posting history leads people to believe you would be on.
He asked questions. Surely you know that, Brad.
Inaccuracy?
Whose work ethic isn't there anymore?
He can't say. It's a reflexive defense mechanism.
Apparently.
Yes, he is. PM me for details.
It's a race to the bottom, for sure.
He's asking Y O U, Brad.
What is a 'trate', Pretender?
If I say the skin color of black people is black, that is generalizing a trait. It is not racism.
If I say that black people are susceptible to a known disorder affecting their race called sickle cell anemia, that is not racism.
Racism is a compositional error fallacy involving people as the class and a genetic trait as the property. The ERROR must occur for it to be racism, Pretender.
Why do you think I would be a racist, Stooge?
What inaccuracy?
Long term welfare cases, encouraged by Democrats.
Somali fraudsters, encouraged by Democrats.
Homeless encampments, encouraged by Democrats.
Drug users, encouraged by Democrats.
Professional agitators, hired by Democrats.
So, something older is not ancient?
You seem to be very inconsistent what you call 'ancient'.
OP's inquiry was limited to "ancient" history. You listed later structures, including Egyptian ones.
Ancient Egyptians were an indigenous North African population with genetic affinities closer to Near Eastern and Levantine groups than to sub-Saharan Africans, based on genome analysis of mummies from the New Kingdom to Roman periods (roughly 1400 BCE to 400 CE). These ancient samples showed only 6-15% sub-Saharan African ancestry—lower than the 14-21% observed in modern Egyptians, with the increase in sub-Saharan admixture occurring primarily after the Roman era, likely due to later migrations or trade.
This supports depictions in ancient Egyptian art, where they portrayed themselves with olive to reddish-brown skin tones (darker for men, lighter for women), distinct from the darker-skinned Nubians to their south, whom they often showed as conquered peoples or tributaries.
While Egypt is geographically in Africa and had cultural exchanges with Nubia (a transitional region along the Nile in modern Sudan), ancient Egyptians were not "black" in the sub-Saharan sense; claims to the contrary often conflate the later 25th Dynasty (circa 750-650 BCE), when Nubian (Kushite) rulers from the south briefly controlled Egypt and were indeed darker-skinned sub-Saharan Africans.
Regarding architectural achievements, ancient Egypt and contemporaneous sub-Saharan Africa (south of the Sahara Desert) diverged significantly in scale, materials, organization, and purpose during the key period of pyramid construction (Old Kingdom, circa 2686-2181 BCE). Ancient Egyptians, benefiting from a centralized state, abundant Nile resources, and access to quarried stone, pioneered monumental stone architecture on an unprecedented level. This included the Great Pyramids at Giza—massive structures covering up to 13 acres, built with over 2 million limestone blocks each, engineered as royal tombs with precise alignments, internal chambers, and external causeways.
They also constructed vast temple complexes like Karnak, with hypostyle halls supported by massive columns, obelisks, and sphinx-lined avenues, all symbolizing divine kingship and eternity. These feats required advanced engineering, mathematics, and labor organization, drawing on influences from earlier Mesopotamian ziggurats but adapted with superior stone durability.
In contrast, sub-Saharan African societies during 3000-1000 BCE were more decentralized, often pastoral or agropastoral, and focused on functional, adaptive structures using local materials like dry stone, mudbrick, thatch, and wood.
In Nubia (often a cultural bridge but geographically sub-Saharan in parts of Sudan), mudbrick towns like Kerma (circa 2400 BCE) included walled enclosures, palaces, and the massive Deffufa temple, showing Egyptian influence but on a smaller scale.
Overall, sub-Saharan architecture emphasized communal, fractal designs (e.g., circular villages mirroring house layouts) lacking the Egyptians' grand, symbolic scale.
Sub-Saharan Africa's more impressive stone architecture emerged later, such as the smaller Nubian pyramids at Meroë (starting circa 800 BCE, influenced by Egypt) or the medieval dry-stone walls of Great Zimbabwe (11th-15th centuries CE).
The pyramids specifically reflect ancient Egyptian innovation, not a broader "black African" achievement in the sub-Saharan context.
That's right.
No, the archeological chronology is not of my making. I simply applied it.
Almost half of Egypt were black. These were primarily the upper Nile Egyptians,
BS. I have already listed them. Evidence found all over Africa (not just Egypt).
Quite a significant number, mostly in Upper (southern) Egypt.
Also known as 'Nubia', or the Kingdom of Kush; part of Egypt.
So, what is the "considerable number"?
The first Indigenous monarchy documented in Nubia was the independent monarchy of Kerma, also called Kush, in Upper Nubia. It flourished during the second millennium B.C.E., with Kushite monarchs practicing religious rites in mud-brick buildings such as the colossal deffufa presiding over the city of Kerma.
Hardly the architectural wonders some might extol, IMO.
BTW, Nubia was not part of Egypt when it was a separate, autonomously-governed nation, and the surviving structures are largely copies of Egyptian architecture.
During the New Kingdom (ca. 1539–1075 B.C.E.), Egypt occupied much of Nubia. The pharaohs appointed viceroys who ruled over Nubian lands, which they called Kush, from about 1550 to 1069 B.C.E. These viceroys commissioned the construction of imposing fortresses and splendid temples, such as those at Abu Simbel and Soleb. Later, the relationship was complex, fluctuating between periods where Nubia was a distinct, independent empire (such as the kingdom of Kush) and times when it was directly managed or annexed by Egyptian, and later Greek or Roman, rule.
So? Nubia was part of Egypt.
You better review your history and geography.
No, they were not conquered. They were part of Egypt.
Quite a few certainly were. I suggest you review your history of Egypt and your geography.
Okay. Central and southern Africa had ancient structures far greater than any pyramid built. I suggest you go study geography and history, particularly of Egypt and the remainder of Africa.
No. It's falling apart.
You will find ruins far larger across Africa than anything in Egypt.
You think the cities they build are 'pastoral'?
Nubia was part of Egypt.
There are city ruins far greater than anything in Egypt across Africa.
Nubia was part of Egypt.
Pyramids were not unique to Egypt. Grand pyramids can be found in the Americas and Asia as well.
I think you had better review your history and geography.