>people living in the climate where humans evolved are comfy and don't need to adorn their bodies with special fabrics to handle the weather
makes sense to me tbh. It's not even just Africans, other tropical peoples also traditionally wore very little, 'cause it's what our bodies are designed for. Papuan men back in the day only wore penis gourds.
>in line with custom
first of all, a king's clothing is usually very formal compared to most people's.
if that's the case here, well what does it mean when the 'custom' is to wear clothing no more complicated than two entire animal pelts sewed together?
yeah I don't see what the big deal is. They had fancy clothes for special events and formal things, but your average joe in South Asia didn't have to be fully dressed all day. Especially if they worked physical jobs.
Even Africans have very long and rich traditions of textiles and robes mainly in the West African region
1 year ago
Anonymous
During the contact period with Europeans textile was one of main trades and what many states would transition to even during the trans Atlantic slave trade places like the Kongo kingdoms we’re exporting it in high numbers to Europeans
>white barbarian king clad in furs >'VGH, my ancestors, so powerful and based - unburdened by cringe farmoid tendencies!' >black barbarian king clad in furs >'grotesque, slovenly, uncivilized, cringe'
A dichotomy I have noticed.
Germanic and Celtic warriors only wore fur to appear threatening and wild to intimidate their enemies, they had normal linen and wool clothing not so different to our modern clothes.
After they ramped it up to industrial levels
And only as a frick you to their traitorous colonies
1 year ago
Anonymous
>After they ramped it up to industrial levels
The Arab slave trade was bigger.
1 year ago
Anonymous
No they didn't. Britain did and even that came with a little of caveats and compromises on top of them merely just using the next best thing.
1 year ago
Anonymous
Yeah and we engaged in it too. We should've never gotten involved in the first place. The slave trade was their problem, not the white man's problem, we had no duty to do anything about it. Also, the slave trade bounced back anyway, so big deal.
Yeah, just the usual British busybody moral universalism that backfires tenfold.
1 year ago
Anonymous
>Also, the slave trade bounced back anyway
You mean Anglos shipping Indians enmasse to plantations allover the Caribbean as well as in the Indian Ocean alongside as indentured labour in Eastern/Southern Africa?
1 year ago
Anonymous
No, I was more specifically referring to the modern day re-emergence of slavery. But why not your example too, if you're dunking on the Anglos for their hypocrisy and crimes against sovereign peoples, then I'm all for it
1 year ago
Anonymous
Actually from what I gathered it really didn’t most of the state’s actually responsible simply just transferred over to kola nut and fabrics
Don't forget they also introduced alien ideas to disparate peoples with tons of languages and different traditions who were in a completely different civilization state and probably nowhere near ready for the realities of largescale modernization, crammed them all into nation states and said "OK you all have to work together because you're a nation", and indoctrinated them into new ways of thinking that were not in line with their ways of life or day-to-day reality. If Africa hadn't been colonized, yes there would still be a lot more ooga-booga'ism, but at least they would be free to choose their own path and we, the West, wouldn't be in spiritual and material debt to them. Colonialism genuinely tied the fates of Europeans and Africans together, and that was a huge mistake & it's biting us in the ass
Who here still has the snippet describing a cannibal tribe in Congo? The snipped came from an Victorian era ethnography of Africa if I remember correctly.
It would describe how the tribe would plunder a village, line up all men, trow spears and capture those who wouldn't flinch. The rest as eaten.
I'm looking for the book, it was called "Halley's Africa" or something like that.
Different priorities, traditions, and cultures, different mindsets and worldviews. There were royals and chieftains in West and Central Africa (I'm assuming there were also those in Southern Africa that did the same) who dressed in what I'm guessing you would consider real textiles
>leaders should never dress practically in line with custom
>Africans should not be expected to invent clothes you racist, they're too dumb
>change your goalposts already you stupid leftist
Huh?
>people living in the climate where humans evolved are comfy and don't need to adorn their bodies with special fabrics to handle the weather
makes sense to me tbh. It's not even just Africans, other tropical peoples also traditionally wore very little, 'cause it's what our bodies are designed for. Papuan men back in the day only wore penis gourds.
He's got his Black person Glasses on right now, anon. You can't hope to reason with him.
lol you leftoids will reach for anything to defend Black folk
>in line with custom
first of all, a king's clothing is usually very formal compared to most people's.
if that's the case here, well what does it mean when the 'custom' is to wear clothing no more complicated than two entire animal pelts sewed together?
>a king's clothing is usually very formal compared to most people's.
Some do some use other ways to display status and/or wealth.
reaching
Not every royalty dressed to the nines anon.
Not being civilised isn’t a custom.
its hot there
>Ooga booga it's so hot, let me put on this thick insulating fur on to cool myself down
moron
Sekhukhuneland has a climate similar to England or New Zealand, moron
I'm him you moron South Africa is sort of cold that's why he's wearing fur. He or you is a moron who thinks he's wearing fur because it's hot
>I'm mocking him
It's hot in south/south-east asia as well
most south asia n south east asia originally dont wear clothes as well. even until colonial era, in some area being topless were still the norm
yeah I don't see what the big deal is. They had fancy clothes for special events and formal things, but your average joe in South Asia didn't have to be fully dressed all day. Especially if they worked physical jobs.
Even Africans have very long and rich traditions of textiles and robes mainly in the West African region
During the contact period with Europeans textile was one of main trades and what many states would transition to even during the trans Atlantic slave trade places like the Kongo kingdoms we’re exporting it in high numbers to Europeans
BOOBA
Africans are all assmen. They don't give a shit about tittes.
Those were Indians in that picture though
Contemplate the aroma
He looks pretty based like he’s seen some shit and has had to kill his way to the top, Don’t see the issue
This is also an apefrican "king" xD
built for BWC
Never forget that Black folk have higher levels of estrogen in them
>white barbarian king clad in furs
>'VGH, my ancestors, so powerful and based - unburdened by cringe farmoid tendencies!'
>black barbarian king clad in furs
>'grotesque, slovenly, uncivilized, cringe'
A dichotomy I have noticed.
Who are these barbarians kings covered in furs? They always also had normal clothes underneath
Germanic and Celtic warriors only wore fur to appear threatening and wild to intimidate their enemies, they had normal linen and wool clothing not so different to our modern clothes.
>Ooga booga where da white wimmin at
how did you manage to make this about interracial sex you cuck
>>>
> Anonymous 02/03/23(Fri)13:15:45 No.14572706
Americans, they are obsessed with BBC
How were they such good shape before modern work out?
White people invaded their mud huts and stole their...nothing. And that's why they're poor.
If their freedom was so worthless you wouldn't have tried so hard to steal it
White people stamped out the slave trade.
After they ramped it up to industrial levels
And only as a frick you to their traitorous colonies
>After they ramped it up to industrial levels
The Arab slave trade was bigger.
No they didn't. Britain did and even that came with a little of caveats and compromises on top of them merely just using the next best thing.
Yeah and we engaged in it too. We should've never gotten involved in the first place. The slave trade was their problem, not the white man's problem, we had no duty to do anything about it. Also, the slave trade bounced back anyway, so big deal.
Yeah, just the usual British busybody moral universalism that backfires tenfold.
>Also, the slave trade bounced back anyway
You mean Anglos shipping Indians enmasse to plantations allover the Caribbean as well as in the Indian Ocean alongside as indentured labour in Eastern/Southern Africa?
No, I was more specifically referring to the modern day re-emergence of slavery. But why not your example too, if you're dunking on the Anglos for their hypocrisy and crimes against sovereign peoples, then I'm all for it
Actually from what I gathered it really didn’t most of the state’s actually responsible simply just transferred over to kola nut and fabrics
Don't forget they also introduced alien ideas to disparate peoples with tons of languages and different traditions who were in a completely different civilization state and probably nowhere near ready for the realities of largescale modernization, crammed them all into nation states and said "OK you all have to work together because you're a nation", and indoctrinated them into new ways of thinking that were not in line with their ways of life or day-to-day reality. If Africa hadn't been colonized, yes there would still be a lot more ooga-booga'ism, but at least they would be free to choose their own path and we, the West, wouldn't be in spiritual and material debt to them. Colonialism genuinely tied the fates of Europeans and Africans together, and that was a huge mistake & it's biting us in the ass
Who here still has the snippet describing a cannibal tribe in Congo? The snipped came from an Victorian era ethnography of Africa if I remember correctly.
It would describe how the tribe would plunder a village, line up all men, trow spears and capture those who wouldn't flinch. The rest as eaten.
I'm looking for the book, it was called "Halley's Africa" or something like that.
Not so divine this kingship if all that matters is the trappings one is surrounded by.
Some of them dress like this. It's stupid to generalize an entire continent.
Cause they got "civilised" by Arabs obviously
>Berbers don't exist.
>Local indigenous cloth weaving don't exist
>guards execute your cracka ass for insulting the king
Why u so mad mbumba?
Why did Spain get raped by Arabs for 700 years
does IQ have anything to do with it
did you hunt your daily antelope, ngwambe?
OP IS A homosexual
POST ETHIOPIAN AESTHETICS IF YOU DARE, COWARD!
More like a tribal chieftain.
sovl
>but it's the ubangi ass Black man so it's bad, bad, bad! I hate it! Black folk!
Different priorities, traditions, and cultures, different mindsets and worldviews. There were royals and chieftains in West and Central Africa (I'm assuming there were also those in Southern Africa that did the same) who dressed in what I'm guessing you would consider real textiles
He looks comfy.