Kangz and Kweenz - Blacktivist/Black Nationalist Pseudohistorians trying to reclaim other nations' achievements and histories "WE WUZ KANGZ/KWEENZ N' SHIET"

[Zbk3VmLfujjzjxBd43tL]

How do I become black, I want to be a king with super powers

It's impossible. Yakub stole your ancestors' blackness. Those who tried to become black once again accidently turned themselves into monkeys.

 

[Niggernerd]

It's impossible. Yakub stole your ancestors' blackness. Those who tried to become black once again accidently turned themselves into monkeys.

Reject niggadry
Return to monke

 

[Banditotron]

It's impossible. Yakub stole your ancestors' blackness. Those who tried to become black once again accidently turned themselves into monkeys.

It is worth the risk. Hook me up to the machine, doc. If I don't make it, put my monkey-me in the congo.

 

[Nova Prime]

We wuz geniuses an shiet.

 

[Kubanot]

Wot? Maybe the world-first mud mosque in SUDDAN be a better term, but ok.
Here is a photo of what it looks like 100 years ago before Franch decades to bust their ego:

 

[Techpriest]

Wot? Maybe the world-first mud mosque in SUDDAN be a better term, but ok.
Here is a photo of what it looks like 100 years ago before Franch decades to bust their ego:
View attachment 2011560

He's referring to the University of Timbuktu, which is a general name for the three madrasahs in the city, and the massive community of scholars that embedded themselves around them. Established around ~1050 to ~1100 CE, the trio of schools were enormously influential and important. At their height, these schools had about 25,000 people attending them, working in them, listening to lectures on theology and the sciences (everything from medicine, astronomy, history or chemistry... there was a lot of stuff going on there) or accessing the absolutely enormous collection of manuscripts in the Sankore Madrasah. That's 25,000 people while the city they were in had a population of around 100,000. It was the largest hub of learning in the Islamic world for about 400 years, and scholars who'd studied there could get a job in any court from Mali to India. Of course, the primary purpose was religious instruction like every single one of the medieval universities in Europe. The most impressive thing about all this was there wasn't really a formal system of administration. To study there, you just had to memorize the Koran. The community had an assortment of teachers that kept their own hours and would often teach in the open air to a group of students, and book copying was an important part of the whole process - which is part of the reason we've got so many records. Sankore alone held the largest collection of texts in Africa since the destruction of the Library of Alexandria.

 

[Kubanot]

He's referring to the University of Timbuktu, which is a general name for the three madrasahs in the city, and the massive community of scholars that embedded themselves around them. Established around ~1050 to ~1100 CE, the trio of schools were enormously influential and important. At their height, these schools had about 25,000 people attending them, working in them, listening to lectures on theology and the sciences (everything from medicine, astronomy, history or chemistry... there was a lot of stuff going on there) or accessing the absolutely enormous collection of manuscripts in the Sankore Madrasah. That's 25,000 people while the city they were in had a population of around 100,000. It was the largest hub of learning in the Islamic world for about 400 years, and scholars who'd studied there could get a job in any court from Mali to India. Of course while the primary purpose was religious instruction like every single one of the medieval universities in Europe. The most impressive thing about all this was there wasn't really a formal system of administration. To study there, you just had to memorize the Koran. The community had an assortment of teachers that kept their own hours and would often teach in the open air to a group of students, and book copying was an important part of the whole process - which is part of the reason we've got so many records. Sankore alone held the largest collection of texts in Africa since the destruction of the Library of Alexandria.

And I'm referring to the location and photo. Why you are writing this wall of text all of the sudden about the library of Alexandria?

 

[Techpriest]

And I'm referring to the location and photo. Why you are writing this wall of text all of the sudden about Timbuktu and the library of Alexandria when the beginning of this mud mosque is not before 1200 ?

Because you've both got the wrong image there. The Great Mosque of Djenne isn't part of the Timbuktu complex he's referring to, even if it's done in a similar style to the originals in Timbuktu.

The Sankore Mosque is actually a pretty impressive building on it's own - that's not a small structure there.

 

[mr.moon1488]

View attachment 1970534

Who the fuck would build a chair that would try to steal your TV on a daily basis?


@Daughter of Cernunnos (quoting fucking up for me sorry)

We already have this thread: https://kiwifarms.net/threads/black-israelites.26993/ Also this meme is stupid. It's based off pseudohistory that enslaved Jews built the pyramids. Shouldn't rely on Christian pseudohistory with absolutely no evidence other than Bible fanfic for a gotcha. You can't prove hypocrisy by using a fictional example and a real example.
View attachment 1940641

>Absolutely no evidence
>From that point up to 3000s years later almost all major structures built with slave labor
>Niggers and Jews the closest primitives that could be enslaved by Egypt
>Herododus said they were built by slave labor
The only real "evidence" that's ever come out against the pyramids being built by slave labor came in the 1990s when some bodies that were uncovered around the pyramids had evidence of them being "well-fed." The problem with this "evidence" is that one, there is absolutely zero evidence to confirm that these bodies belonged to slaves since they could have been paid workers who did complex labor for the pyramids, and two that archeological digs in many many other places that were known to use slave labor indicated that most of the time, slaves were actually well-fed. Which kinda makes sense, when you consider how ineffective someone who is malnourished is at manual labor.

 

[Marissa Moira]

Who the fuck would build a chair that would try to steal your TV on a daily basis?

There's a japanese horror manga that describes this exact situation.

 

[SITHRAK!]

Who the fuck would build a chair that would try to steal your TV on a daily basis?

I think the idea was to make a chair that steals bikes, and that’s how the wheelchair was invented.

 

[Techpriest]

Who the fuck would build a chair that would try to steal your TV on a daily basis?


@Daughter of Cernunnos (quoting fucking up for me sorry)

>Absolutely no evidence
>From that point up to 3000s years later almost all major structures built with slave labor
>Niggers and Jews the closest primitives that could be enslaved by Egypt
>Herododus said they were built by slave labor
The only real "evidence" that's ever come out against the pyramids being built by slave labor came in the 1990s when some bodies that were uncovered around the pyramids had evidence of them being "well-fed." The problem with this "evidence" is that one, there is absolutely zero evidence to confirm that these bodies belonged to slaves since they could have been paid workers who did complex labor for the pyramids, and two that archeological digs in many many other places that were known to use slave labor indicated that most of the time, slaves were actually well-fed. Which kinda makes sense, when you consider how ineffective someone who is malnourished is at manual labor.

We found other archeological evidence, indicating that it was paid labor, mostly the occasional labor tablet, the fact that the work gangs had names that certainly wouldn't have been accepted among slaves (I think one was 'The Pharoh's Beer Drinkers'), and also the fact that Herodotus and many other Greek writers in Egypt weren't exactly very accurate. Slave labor was possibly used, but it probably wasn't the primary source of labor.

 

[mr.moon1488]

We found other archeological evidence, indicating that it was paid labor, mostly the occasional labor tablet, the fact that the work gangs had names that certainly wouldn't have been accepted among slaves (I think one was 'The Pharoh's Beer Drinkers'), and also the fact that Herodotus and many other Greek writers in Egypt weren't exactly very accurate. Slave labor was possibly used, but it probably wasn't the primary source of labor.

Highly doubt it wasn't their primary source of labor. While it's dismissed (mostly for fedora reasons) the bible is a source on the matter and it corroborates what Herodotus said. The "occasional labor tablet" also doesn't really mean much. As I said, it's highly unlikely they didn't have paid labor working on the project as well. The Egyptian "graffiti" you're talking about was also carved into various pieces of stonework. The people who would have been doing this, absolutely would not have been slaves, and likely would have been experienced masons. The people lugging massive stone blocks around would have almost certainly been slaves because dumb-paid labor like that would have been better spent elsewhere.

 

[Techpriest]

Highly doubt it wasn't their primary source of labor. While it's dismissed (mostly for fedora reasons) the bible is a source on the matter and it corroborates what Herodotus said. The "occasional labor tablet" also doesn't really mean much. As I said, it's highly unlikely they didn't have paid labor working on the project as well. The Egyptian "graffiti" you're talking about was also carved into various pieces of stonework. The people who would have been doing this, absolutely would not have been slaves, and likely would have been experienced masons. The people lugging massive stone blocks around would have almost certainly been slaves because dumb-paid labor like that would have been better spent elsewhere.

The Bible isn’t actually a good source on this as the Egyptians have very very good records. The Israelite/Hebrews were never in Egypt proper, and the Moses story is a myth.

“Better elsewhere” is part of the reason why it’s generally accepted it wasn’t slaves. During the inundation period Egypt had a massive pool of labor it could draw from that wasn’t currently busy working. We already know that these people were tapped for other building projects. Putting two together gets us the answer.

 

[mr.moon1488]

The Bible isn’t actually a good source on this as the Egyptians have very very good records. The Israelite/Hebrews were never in Egypt proper, and the Moses story is a myth.

“Better elsewhere” is part of the reason why it’s generally accepted it wasn’t slaves. During the inundation period Egypt had a massive pool of labor it could draw from that wasn’t currently busy working. We already know that these people were tapped for other building projects. Putting two together gets us the answer.

>Egyptians have very very good records
They do, but they aren't saying what you're saying. They're saying "there were paid workers." They are not saying "they did not have slaves."
>During the inundation period Egypt had a massive pool of labor it could draw from that wasn’t currently busy working.
This never happens in farm life. There is always something to do on the farms, and you don't just leave your field fallow. Some of them which had other people living with them might have taken up labor elsewhere, but not most of them. (Farms have livestock you can't just pick up and leave livestock)
>Putting two together gets us the answer.
It literally gets the exact opposite.

Egypt was a regionally dominant military power at this time. If they wanted some big project done, it was a lot more practical to grab up some filthy vagabonds from the outlands to do the dumb work than it was for them to pay a bunch of laborers that did have other things to do and would have to be paid extra to relocate for work anyway.

On the value of the sources
The biblical text is rejected for fedora reasons. None of the actual physical evidence contradicts anything the texts say unless you twist it into a very specific narrative that the evidence simply doesn't support. Likewise, other portions of the bible are absolutely confirmed by objective first-hand sources, and it's a document that has been vetted for over 2000 years now with throngs of people trying to debunk it. Think of it like the rosetta stone. If the two other scripts are saying the same thing, we can safely assume that the third script also says the same thing.

On Herodotus. Literally a completely unbiased source. Granted he would have researched the topic long long after the fact, but he was there long before the destruction of the Library of Alexandria (yes it was built after his death, but a lot of only existing copies were present there, implying they were around during his time). Chances are, most of his information came from scholars who had much more information than a few clay tablets in modern times, which don't support the narrative pushed anyway.

The tards rewriting history. Literally every motivation in the world to lie. For fame reasons, every retarded journo will put them in the headlines without further question if they come up with some "new" theory. Pure just survival of the field. The pyramids are fucking old. They were ancient when Cleopatra was around. Most of the "groundbreaking discoveries" have already long since happened. This means any "new" information, is going to have to be sold as being the most important thing imaginable if anyone is going to give two fucks about it. Money reasons. This goes back to the journos putting them in the headlines, but the people researching this live off of grants. Those grants don't come in unless whoever is sponsoring them gets results.

Edit:
The last bit is also why you see so many ancient alien faggots talking about the pyramids.

 

[mr.moon1488]

Actually, gonna triple down on this with this little point

and also the fact that Herodotus and many other Greek writers in Egypt weren't exactly very accurate.

If we're going to hold old Herodotus, literally the father of fucking history to this standard. Let's hold modern historians to this standard. How the fuck can one question the accuracy of Herodotus's accounts while simultaneously buying the accounts of fags who turn Legionaries, Britons, Irish people, and Spartans into niggers? I mean holy shit. The dishonesty of modern historians is legit to the point to where fictitious historical literature still isn't bull shit enough, so we gotta black Sir Lancelot and Lady Guinevere.

 

[Zbk3VmLfujjzjxBd43tL]

This never happens in farm life. There is always something to do on the farms, and you don't just leave your field fallow. Some of them which had other people living with them might have taken up labor elsewhere, but not most of them. (Farms have livestock you can't just pick up and leave livestock)

Whatever labor they could do wasn't as important as sending a couple farmhands to build the king's burial. "Wow, produce a little extra grain and meat or give the king the sickest ride into the afterlife we can, choices, choices."

Egypt was a regionally dominant military power at this time. If they wanted some big project done, it was a lot more practical to grab up some filthy vagabonds from the outlands to do the dumb work than it was for them to pay a bunch of laborers that did have other things to do and would have to be paid extra to relocate for work anyway.

You try moving giant blocks of stone and piling them precisely right using Bronze Age technology and see how "dumb" of work it is. Not to mention why would the Pharaohs wanted untermenschen building their sacred burial sites?

Old Kingdom Egypt was pretty shit militarily too, that's why they got BTFO by the Hyksos.

On the value of the sources
The biblical text is rejected for fedora reasons. None of the actual physical evidence contradicts anything the texts say unless you twist it into a very specific narrative that the evidence simply doesn't support. Likewise, other portions of the bible are absolutely confirmed by objective first-hand sources, and it's a document that has been vetted for over 2000 years now with throngs of people trying to debunk it. Think of it like the rosetta stone. If the two other scripts are saying the same thing, we can safely assume that the third script also says the same thing.

Just because the Bible says the (((king))) got his ass kicked and the Assyrian texts say "yeah we kicked the (((king)))'s ass" doesn't mean there were six million Jews or whatever in Old Kingdom Egypt.

On Herodotus. Literally a completely unbiased source. Granted he would have researched the topic long long after the fact, but he was there long before the destruction of the Library of Alexandria (yes it was built after his death, but a lot of only existing copies were present there, implying they were around during his time). Chances are, most of his information came from scholars who had much more information than a few clay tablets in modern times, which don't support the narrative pushed anyway.

Herodotus's sources include people who literally believed there were black people in Africa who didn't have heads but instead had eyes and mouths on their chest, and Herodotus thought this sounded perfectly reasonable and wrote it down. You sure you want to accept him as fact?

Actually, gonna triple down on this with this little point

If we're going to hold old Herodotus, literally the father of fucking history to this standard. Let's hold modern historians to this standard. How the fuck can one question the accuracy of Herodotus's accounts while simultaneously buying the accounts of fags who turn Legionaries, Britons, Irish people, and Spartans into niggers? I mean holy shit. The dishonesty of modern historians is legit to the point to where fictitious historical literature still isn't bull shit enough, so we gotta black Sir Lancelot and Lady Guinevere.

You've gotta be trolling lol and you're also a doubleposting faggot.

 

[dflatline]

Herodotus is also called the father of lies

 

[mr.moon1488]

Whatever labor they could do wasn't as important as sending a couple farmhands to build the king's burial. "Wow, produce a little extra grain and meat or give the king the sickest ride into the afterlife we can, choices, choices."

You try moving giant blocks of stone and piling them precisely right using Bronze Age technology and see how "dumb" of work it is. Not to mention why would the Pharaohs wanted untermenschen building their sacred burial sites?

Old Kingdom Egypt was pretty shit militarily too, that's why they got BTFO by the Hyksos.

Just because the Bible says the (((king))) got his ass kicked and the Assyrian texts say "yeah we kicked the (((king)))'s ass" doesn't mean there were six million Jews or whatever in Old Kingdom Egypt.

Herodotus's sources include people who literally believed there were black people in Africa who didn't have heads but instead had eyes and mouths on their chest, and Herodotus thought this sounded perfectly reasonable and wrote it down. You sure you want to accept him as fact?

You've gotta be trolling lol and you're also a doubleposting faggot.

>A couple of farmhands
>Moving stone blocks is just too complicated for slaves, but just simple enough for random farm hands
>A war hundreds of years later is relevant to the time period in discussion
>A source being reliable about most things means it should be considered untrustworthy
On the last part it's a half-dead thread and we're off-topic anyway. Also, I love how someone repeating something which can not be verified (the unknown about headless niggers), is somehow on par with the lack of credibility that comes with knowingly reporting things as historical fact that is verifiably false. Almost any time Herodotus recorded something which he thought was most likely bullshit, he followed it with "the reader may judge the truth of this for himself."

Edit:
Once again though. We're literally not even comparing sources anyway. None of the evidence actually indicates that they did not use slave labor for the pyramids. It just indicates there were most likely paid workers present, which is something none of the "conflicting" sources are even arguing against. So what we're actually talking about is a historical position which does have some evidence to support it, versus one that has absolute zero evidence to support it, and doesn't really follow what we logically know about mass building projects from the period.

 

[Zbk3VmLfujjzjxBd43tL]

Once again though. We're literally not even comparing sources anyway. None of the evidence actually indicates that they did not use slave labor for the pyramids. It just indicates there were most likely paid workers present, which is something none of the "conflicting" sources are even arguing against. So what we're actually talking about is a historical position which does have some evidence to support it, versus one that has absolute zero evidence to support it, and doesn't really follow what we logically know about mass building projects from the period.

None of the evidence indicates that aliens didn't help them either, but most people besides the History Channel would disagree. Actually, "aliens built the Pyramids" isn't too different than "slaves/(((slaves))) built the Pyramids", it's just a lack of being able to think outside your own culture and answering the way you think is best rather than try and understand how the Egyptians thought. Egyptians weren't part of your culture, I mean they're the people who believed their ruler had to jerk off into the Nile every year or else they'd have a bad harvest.

I mean the villages the workers lived in exist and we have all sorts of remains. They weren't slaves because one, that would be blasphemous, and two, slaves might do shit work. It's the same reason the Greeks and Romans didn't use galley slaves but because some medieval/early modern European powers did then that meant the ancients must have used galley slaves too.