undefined | Better HN

0 pointskbrannigan4mo ago0 comments

Let’s consider *Sub-Saharan Africa* (itself a label that lumps dozens of distinct civilizations into a single “other” category). These societies kept recordsnot folk tales, not vague legends, but structured historical accounts.

* The Kingdom of Kush maintained *3,000 years of king lists*. * Ethiopian monasteries preserved *written chronicles in Ge’ez* for over a millennium. * Mali’s griots memorized *centuries of dynasty records* with such precision that griots from distant regions told the same histories word-for-word when Europeans finally documented them.

Yet when do these count as "real" history? Only after Europeans wrote them down? Only when archaeology "confirms" what griots already knew?

The map shows detailed Rome but blank Africa, despite these complex states existing for millennia. it's about whose preservation methods and developmental paths count as "real" history worth mapping.

0 comments

santiagobasulto4mo ago

The Kush Kingdom was settled around the Nile, it's NOT sub-saharan Africa.

And yes, there are a lot of historical artifacts spread out in the world. But how much WRITTEN and RECORDED history can you find? You can find a totem buried somewhere in the south of Argentina, so you know you had an advanced culture there. But can you name them? Does it have the ruler's name?

Nobody is arguing that there were advanced civilizations ASIDE from Mesopotamia, China and North Africa. But we have very little written records to name them, classify them, etc.

prmph4mo ago

Around Nile excludes sub-saharan Africa? Seems your knowledge of geography is a bit lacking. The Nile runs through 11 African countries.

And, what does sub-saharan even have to do with anything here? Seems like a weird thing to bring up. The people of the Sudan (where Kush and Meroe, etc were located) are one of the blackest people on the planet, nobody is going to mistake them for Mediterranean people, as has been argued with Egypt, itself an African civilization that had strong links to other parts of Africa.

It's kind of funny. Point out that there were advanced civilizations, writing systems, and historical record-keeping in various parts of Africa, and the response for some people is, "ah, but that's not sub-saharan Africa", or, "but, those were not real Africans", etc, etc.

So, the definition of "real" Africa becomes: whatever seems to confirm your biases about what Africa is supposed to be, quite a circular definition.

santiagobasulto4mo ago

What! I never said any of that. Never mentioned that people along the nile are "not real africans" and what skin color has to do with it? I just pointed out that the Kush kingdom is NOT sub saharan africa. Why did I point it out? Because of the argument above. The most advanced ancient civilizations were in northern Africa and Mesopotamia. Jeez, Idk why I'm even replying to this comment.

j / k navigate · click thread line to collapse

0 pointskbrannigan4mo ago0 comments

Yet when do these count as "real" history? Only after Europeans wrote them down? Only when archaeology "confirms" what griots already knew?

The map shows detailed Rome but blank Africa, despite these complex states existing for millennia. it's about whose preservation methods and developmental paths count as "real" history worth mapping.

0 comments

santiagobasulto4mo ago

The Kush Kingdom was settled around the Nile, it's NOT sub-saharan Africa.

Nobody is arguing that there were advanced civilizations ASIDE from Mesopotamia, China and North Africa. But we have very little written records to name them, classify them, etc.

prmph4mo ago

Around Nile excludes sub-saharan Africa? Seems your knowledge of geography is a bit lacking. The Nile runs through 11 African countries.

So, the definition of "real" Africa becomes: whatever seems to confirm your biases about what Africa is supposed to be, quite a circular definition.

santiagobasulto4mo ago

j / k navigate · click thread line to collapse