Does Mansa Musa disprove the argument against “We Wuz Kangz” and that blacks had no ancient civilizations?
Does Mansa Musa disprove the argument against “We Wuz Kangz” and that blacks had no ancient civilizations?
Nope
No. You’re a retard
Sage
fpbp
I’m genuinely asking. How does he not disprove it?
Realtalk.
Mali was pretty based.
Mansa Munsa was a real dude, and he was pretty damn rich.
I believe the story of his wealth has become something of a fairytale, as dimly remembered events are wont to do.
This in no was invalidated the Empire of Mali, which was a pretty good shot at an iron-age feudal state, with a legit claim at some form of civilization.
Especially when compared to "true Barbarians" like the Zulu, or Papuans.
I don't mean Barbarian as an insult either.
Barbarians get things done their own way.
The ONLY economic activities that made im wealthy were trading salt and slaves for gold. That's it. Show me one respectable building left by Mansa Munsa's Great civilization, one Philosopher, one great literary work. Having a lot of cash for a short period of time does not qualify as Great Civilization, mate.
Ok thank you this is what I’m looking for
Don't use Jow Forums as a shortcut to try and win an argument against a dumb person, though. Do your own fucking research too.
>and that blacks had no ancient civilizations?
mansa musa was from the medieval period
Yeah, there's that, too. When they were building "awesome" mud Mosques, Hagia Sophia was almost a thousand years old.
Dankula is live with a new Mad Lads right now, just FYY.
>give out the gold that you made by selling slaves and salt
>cause a sudden oversupply and inflation
>singlehandedly cripple the already negligent African and arab economies
>700 years later some "people" praise you for being a true KANG
B but he wasted all the gold in fancy shit and after he died the country became a shithole
Shut up faggot you really think I trust these (((historians))). All they do is glorify these apes like they did in school
Ethiopia (Auxum in ancient times) is a far better argument as that land had been a recognizable kingdom/ethnicity for thousands of years. They were a southern rival of Egypt, even build some really interesting churches and bridges of stone.
Sadly, they were absolutely violated into irrelevance by the aggressive influx of Muslims direct from Arabia across the gulf (The Muslim pirate culture of Somalia is the resulting 'improvement' the Islamic invasion created.) Then the Itallians backstabbed them, twice, and some failed horribly at it (technically jumpstarting WWII in the fucking process.) Then the fatal blow was dealt by the Soviets revolutionary programs causing a minor communist phase that ousted their last kings.
So what's the argument against the Ethiopians as kangz?
Maybe if he actually used all of that gold to build a civilization it would.
btw I want to see an argument that shows that they collapsed on their own and did not represent a true civilization, at least not one even close to on par with Europeans at the time
>be me
>mansa musa
>one day look down at ground
>sheiiit there be gold everywhere
>become first African to pick it up and sell it
>waste all of it, hoard it and do nothing.
>empire is barely an empire despite sitting on incalculable wealth because you were a nigger and didn’t do anything with it
>be praised as a hero 700 years later
find shiny, people like shiny, spend shiny like there is no tomorrow, buy useless and frivolous crap, do not spend anything on your infrastructure and society, go on a spending trip so outrageous it tanks the MENA economy, go home, the shiny runs out, fade in to obscurity
this story is so black it hurts
Well, they were a legitimate country, but all in all not an especially impressive one. Also as far as your wewuz amerinogs are concerned, they come from the opposite side of the huge continent and are an entirely different ethnic group than the largely Bantu niggers that were imported as slaves.