>after an initial victory when the Kushites attacked Roman Egypt, they were driven out of Egypt by Gaius Petronius and the Romans established a new frontier at Hiere Sycaminos (Maharraqa)
just like Boudica, initial wins but lost in the end
It is a distortion for the purposes of creating a "YASS KWEEEN" story.
>Roman frontier lies at Hierasykaminos >while Roman governor is away fighting another war the Kushites attack garrisons as far as the first cataract at Syene >when the main Roman armies return the Kushites are pushed back >Romans then advance into Kushite territory and take Primis >Kushites attempt to counterattack but are repelled >Kushites then send a delegation to Augustus to negotiate and the frontier is restored to Hierasykaminos
The article implies the Romans feared the black warrior, but in reality they were not defeated at Primis. The one eyed queen started the war then lost the war, her only saving grace was the unwillingness of the Romans to maintain the war in perpetuity due to the expense and disruption of trade.
Strabo was a Roman. Of course he'd lie that the Romans won in the end.
2 years ago
Anonymous
>he's x so he must lie in favor of x
well to bad he's pretty much our only source for your Big Black Cueen.
And it's not like the romans could well you know simply not record it and pretend it never happened.
2 years ago
Anonymous
They could, but the truth would get out
It's easier to pretend that the war was hard-won and not worth the effort than that the Romans didn't get absolutely SLAYED by a BLACK QUEEN.
You clearly haven't read a primary source in your life.
cope
2 years ago
Anonymous
Now this is just pure cope. >hurr durr this source where it said the romang kangdom won against our moronic cyclop queen is false >hurr duurr but dem same source that says dem black queen is won? yeah dem be true hur durr
2 years ago
Anonymous
>the truth would get out >our only surviving source
Black person 90%+ of shit didn't get recorded back in ancient times
The romans had the punishment of damnorie memorie, re moving a person or persons from all sources. As did the Egyptians whom would often remove even the names of pharaohs from monuments.
If they wanted something forgotten they had things forgotten.
But they did not. They recorded this and against better odds it survives to us to this day.
And their version is all we have because africans and the written word go as well together as africans and swimming.
you are just a salty troll trying to squeeze the IQfy version of BBC posting.
Strabo was Greek.
It would be pretty hard to fake which cities the Kushites and Romans took and the general course of events. It is not as though he denied the fact the Kushites reached Syene, he even mentioned the bronze busts of Augustus that were taken, he was not very biased in Rome's favor.
OP article falls apart under a little scrutiny. I get that you want to stick it to /misc/ and racists, but no self-respecting historian will spread falsehoods to virtue signal. There are plenty of other fascinating (and true) things about the Kushites to talk about.
>we got invaded and had our territories taken >so we raised a massive army to destroy the invaders >and after we "won", we "gifted" the land to the invaders because the war was "not worth it" anyway
holy shit the cope lmfao
romans lost.
2 years ago
Anonymous
By this fricking moronic logic, Boudica also ""won""
2 years ago
Anonymous
>small groups of boarders guards get beaten by and army >take your army and defeat the smaller army that attacked your boarder guards. >sign a treaty with the attacks that they have to respect your boarders or else >they proceed to stay on their side of the boarder you chose for several centuries >you lost
why yes than this one cavalry raid by the Confederate states proves that the union lost the civil war
2 years ago
Anonymous
>the truth would get out >our only surviving source
Black person 90%+ of shit didn't get recorded back in ancient times
The romans had the punishment of damnorie memorie, re moving a person or persons from all sources. As did the Egyptians whom would often remove even the names of pharaohs from monuments.
If they wanted something forgotten they had things forgotten.
But they did not. They recorded this and against better odds it survives to us to this day.
And their version is all we have because africans and the written word go as well together as africans and swimming.
you are just a salty troll trying to squeeze the IQfy version of BBC posting.
2 years ago
Anonymous
If you knew a thing about Ancient Rome then you would be aware that Romans were more than willing to record defeats.
Now go ahead and explain what kind of motive Strabo, an otherwise impartial Greek living in Anatolia would have to lie about this.
2 years ago
Anonymous
You clearly haven't read a primary source in your life.
2 years ago
Anonymous
Strabo was Greek.
It would be pretty hard to fake which cities the Kushites and Romans took and the general course of events. It is not as though he denied the fact the Kushites reached Syene, he even mentioned the bronze busts of Augustus that were taken, he was not very biased in Rome's favor.
OP article falls apart under a little scrutiny. I get that you want to stick it to /misc/ and racists, but no self-respecting historian will spread falsehoods to virtue signal. There are plenty of other fascinating (and true) things about the Kushites to talk about.
2 years ago
Anonymous
Been on this shithole for almost 10 years and I've never seen someone blown the frick out this badly before. Holy shit
2 years ago
Anonymous
They could, but the truth would get out
It's easier to pretend that the war was hard-won and not worth the effort than that the Romans didn't get absolutely SLAYED by a BLACK QUEEN.
[...]
cope
Why would the Romans then record the repeated defeats at the hands of Hannibal?
They lost hundreds of thousands of soldiers to incompetent leadership, superior enemy weaponry, and tactics. Humility and learning from mistakes was a part of Roman History at least for a while. Victory adles the mind more than defeat does. Though an NTR enthusiast like you is already adled beyond thought.
Not *false* per se but like most Roman defeats in this period "this place is remote and not really worth conquering" played a major role, if she was queen of somewhere like Egypt or Carthage her political skills wouldn't have saved her.
>desert shithole gets uppity and asks for peace as soon as a pair of legions gets near them
i dont have anything against black ppl but these fantasy stories do more harm than good to them
also kushites are not representing all of black skinned people, especially nothing to do with afro americans
Even muskets used bronze. It never fell totally out of use.
2 years ago
Anonymous
Bronze breastplates are completely unreasonable though. The amount it would cost compared to iron and its effectiveness would make it redundant. Not to mention the Augustan army wore mail, not plate.
>They took the entire Triakontaschoinos region, including Syene, Philae and Elephantine, a terrain of 200 square miles. Strabo adds that in these cities, the Kushites “enslaved the inhabitants, and threw down the statues of Cæsar.” They then retreated south with loot, Roman prisoners and thousands of Egyptian captives.
And that's a good thing!
It's just funny. Blacks accept no excuse for slavery in others' history but when they hear of a situation where they had the power to take slaves, they're proud of it.
Nothing Africans did even comes close to rivaling the brutality and cruelty of slavery in America. I can’t believe you’re trying to die on this hill. chudley…. this ain’t it
2 years ago
Anonymous
You miss the point. "The brutality and cruelty" doesn't matter to them in principal. It's the fact that they were on the receiving end instead of the ones in the position to do it to others that they see as the great cruelty of it.
2 years ago
Anonymous
>They’re mad they were enslaved and wish they hadn’t been
Uhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhh yeah I guess?
2 years ago
Anonymous
More to the point, they wish they were the ones doing the enslaving.
It should tell you something that Liberia of all places had slavery. Blacks in America were given freedom and their own country to start anew, and even they, having lived through the horrors of slavery themselves, took indigenous slaves as soon as they could and practiced the same chattel slavery of the American South. They didn't think slavery was bad in principal even though they lived through it themselves. If they could be the master, they'd do it in a heartbeat.
2 years ago
Anonymous
There were a lot of mulatto slave owners in the Caribbean and they were exactly as bad as the white slave owners
2 years ago
Anonymous
Whites made the system
Whites benefitted from the system
Whites STILL benefit from the system
Why is this so hard for you to understand?
2 years ago
Anonymous
>Whites made the system
You morons still have no source for this. When did whites invent the concept of slavery?
2 years ago
Anonymous
I thought America was built on the backs of the hard working minorities?
2 years ago
Anonymous
Please friend explain to me how witch doctor medicine advanced the science and welfare of the African people.
2 years ago
Anonymous
See
>zero sources
Shut the frick up
2 years ago
Anonymous
What?
2 years ago
Anonymous
Slavery wasn't that bad. Black slaves had a higher caloric consumption than whites in Ireland and Italy. Beating slaves was rare and discipline had to be agreed on by a council of older slaves. There's an archive of over 2300 slave testimonials collected in the 1930s most are nostalgic for slavery.
2 years ago
Anonymous
link that shit cracker
2 years ago
Anonymous
>t. someone who knows nothing of African history
I hate white and israeli "leftists" so much.
nice strawman. The point is people in the US having a direct line of profit to structural racism. No one gives a shit about roman number 102020 enslaving kushite 14722. Nobody could claim anyone has any benefit because of that event.
2 years ago
Anonymous
Tell me more about your trickle down theory of economics.
2 years ago
Anonymous
Engage with his argument or frick off leave
2 years ago
Anonymous
If you believe that allowing the wealthiest 1% of society pay less for their labor by owning slaves instead of paying wages to citizens benefits all the people in the nation, it follows that allowing the wealthiest 1% of society pay less in taxes would have the same benefit.
I get the feeling he agrees with the first point but not the second.
There is no economic benefit from slavery that trickled down to modern Whites. Slavery is not the reason the West is wealthy, The West being wealthy was what allowed them to enslave other people in the first place.
2 years ago
Anonymous
Didn't black people in America benefit from slavery? It was their ticket here and they're benefiting from the same society now.
She attacked a few Roman garrisons when the Romans didn't think the Kingdom of Kush would actually start a war. She was apparently brave in battle, at least personally, according to the Romans themselves. When she had to face a proper Roman army with full legions she was defeated.
Augustus was more concerned with other parts of the Empire, so he wanted to wrap up things in Nubia quickly. To this end he came up with a peace agreement where Kush would get 60% of the disputed territory. That was more than half, so it could be sold as a win. The Romans would get the rest. Rome controlled none of the territory prior to the encroachments that sparked the war in the first place. So Augustus got most of what he was hoping to get, and turned an enemy into what would be a reliable trade partner, and he freed up resources to do other more important things. I think Augustus in kind of overrated but I'll admit that was pretty ingenious.
This, barely anybody knows of East African history, so contorting it for feminist pieces seems moronic. Who tf knows about Kush,D'mt, Ethiopian, Makurian, and Axum Kingdoms or Funj, Ajuran and Adal sultanates besides nerds who do independent research. I could understand writing a Yass Queen slay about something that occupies the periphery of normie history, but nobody even knows the first thing about African history, or let alone East African history in the first place.
Somewhat.
Both the Kushites and the Romans were successful in their attacks with neither side being able to follow through for a real victory. In the end they settled for a treaty; the Kushites were rich traders so the Romans were satisfied and the Kushites wanted more trade to make money so they were also satisfied.
Also people seething about Kushites are mega cringe. The Kush and the later Nubians are kino with their culture. A REAL claim to fame would be the fact they BTFO the Muslims twice while the Persians and Byzantine ""romans"" got steamrolled. Not bad for a bunch of Egyptian larpers.
approximately half the posts in this thread are OP just trying to keep the bait going with the least amount of effort and you keep replying to posts that call white people "mayos" like anyone on this site legitimately does that.
Do you really have fun, just replying to bait over and over and contributing to IQfy becoming a sea of frogposts and other equally useless noise? We can't let this site die, it's the only place on the internet you can actually fricking talk.
>We can't let this site die, it's the only place on the internet you can actually fricking talk.
Nah, whenever a subject comes up that someone doesn't like the thread gets spammed with porn/gore/roll images etc until it hits bump limit and/or gets deleted
Ton of posters bait threads they don't like into becoming controversial just so they can delete them
2 years ago
Anonymous
what you posted is not an argument tho
2 years ago
Anonymous
It wasn't me, I was just corroborating what anon said.
2 years ago
Anonymous
that's not what he said though, he was talking about people just coming in to a thread and spamming it to death. That only happens with forced memes and garbage spam threads that the board population is sick of seeing.
2 years ago
Anonymous
>That only happens with forced memes and garbage spam threads that the board population is sick of seeing.
Cool story bro
I noticed this trend lately. Sóy "reporters" from California take some female ruler, look at her for literally a second, write an article how good and nice and fierce she was. >then when you look into it it turns out she was a slavering warmonger who get the shit beat out of her as soon as she met an European
Take a look at this: >Hollywood is about to release THE WOMAN KING >A movie about Nanisca, a leader of the Dahomey Amazons >Movie portrays her as noble anti-slaver who wins every battle or something >In reality she enslaved thousands >In the movie she's portrayed as "resisting foreign invasion" >In reality the French told the Dahomey to quit raiding for slaves and when they didn't they invaded >"Fierce" amazons participated in the battles against the French where they got absolutely demolished >In one battle the Amazons lost over 800 warriors while the French lost... 6
oh and also that part >Movie portrays the WAHMAN KANG fighting against foreign invasions and for pan-African unity >"The slave trade has been the ruling principle of my people. It is the source of their glory and wealth. Their songs celebrate their victories and the mother lulls the child to sleep with notes of triumph over an enemy reduced to slavery."
uhhh
>read about the mighty Dahomey Amazons on some African-American revisionist website >apparently they were sassy strong black women who defeated France in many wars before being defeated by overwhelming technology >go check wikipedia >turns out they were utter shit and never won a single battle >the french defeated them with fricking bayonets and captured their capital (a mudhut village named Abomey)
>read about the mighty Queen Ndate Yalla on some African-American revisionist website >apparently she was sassy strong black woman who defeated France in many wars before being defeated by overwhelming technology >go check wikipedia >turns out she was utter shit and never won a single battle >a french garrison of a thousand men defeated her in the only battle she ever fought and captured her capital (a mudhut village named N'Der)
It doesn't need to be.
As accurate as Harry Potter
All true.
>after an initial victory when the Kushites attacked Roman Egypt, they were driven out of Egypt by Gaius Petronius and the Romans established a new frontier at Hiere Sycaminos (Maharraqa)
just like Boudica, initial wins but lost in the end
At least Boudicca does more damage out revenge. Where Amanirenas autism’s get btfo’d
>initial wins
How?
Raiding undermanned garrisons and villages.
>Kingdom of Kush
Bad dude weed lmao joke. Never happened.
>Kush
>Dahomey
Who wrote black people?
>Songhay (son-gay)
God did. And he had a wicked sense of humor.
>narratively.com
I wonder what's their narrative
It is a distortion for the purposes of creating a "YASS KWEEEN" story.
>Roman frontier lies at Hierasykaminos
>while Roman governor is away fighting another war the Kushites attack garrisons as far as the first cataract at Syene
>when the main Roman armies return the Kushites are pushed back
>Romans then advance into Kushite territory and take Primis
>Kushites attempt to counterattack but are repelled
>Kushites then send a delegation to Augustus to negotiate and the frontier is restored to Hierasykaminos
The article implies the Romans feared the black warrior, but in reality they were not defeated at Primis. The one eyed queen started the war then lost the war, her only saving grace was the unwillingness of the Romans to maintain the war in perpetuity due to the expense and disruption of trade.
>zero sources
Shut the frick up
source: Strabo
Strabo was a Roman. Of course he'd lie that the Romans won in the end.
>he's x so he must lie in favor of x
well to bad he's pretty much our only source for your Big Black Cueen.
And it's not like the romans could well you know simply not record it and pretend it never happened.
They could, but the truth would get out
It's easier to pretend that the war was hard-won and not worth the effort than that the Romans didn't get absolutely SLAYED by a BLACK QUEEN.
cope
Now this is just pure cope.
>hurr durr this source where it said the romang kangdom won against our moronic cyclop queen is false
>hurr duurr but dem same source that says dem black queen is won? yeah dem be true hur durr
>we got invaded and had our territories taken
>so we raised a massive army to destroy the invaders
>and after we "won", we "gifted" the land to the invaders because the war was "not worth it" anyway
holy shit the cope lmfao
romans lost.
By this fricking moronic logic, Boudica also ""won""
>small groups of boarders guards get beaten by and army
>take your army and defeat the smaller army that attacked your boarder guards.
>sign a treaty with the attacks that they have to respect your boarders or else
>they proceed to stay on their side of the boarder you chose for several centuries
>you lost
why yes than this one cavalry raid by the Confederate states proves that the union lost the civil war
>the truth would get out
>our only surviving source
Black person 90%+ of shit didn't get recorded back in ancient times
The romans had the punishment of damnorie memorie, re moving a person or persons from all sources. As did the Egyptians whom would often remove even the names of pharaohs from monuments.
If they wanted something forgotten they had things forgotten.
But they did not. They recorded this and against better odds it survives to us to this day.
And their version is all we have because africans and the written word go as well together as africans and swimming.
you are just a salty troll trying to squeeze the IQfy version of BBC posting.
If you knew a thing about Ancient Rome then you would be aware that Romans were more than willing to record defeats.
Now go ahead and explain what kind of motive Strabo, an otherwise impartial Greek living in Anatolia would have to lie about this.
You clearly haven't read a primary source in your life.
Strabo was Greek.
It would be pretty hard to fake which cities the Kushites and Romans took and the general course of events. It is not as though he denied the fact the Kushites reached Syene, he even mentioned the bronze busts of Augustus that were taken, he was not very biased in Rome's favor.
OP article falls apart under a little scrutiny. I get that you want to stick it to /misc/ and racists, but no self-respecting historian will spread falsehoods to virtue signal. There are plenty of other fascinating (and true) things about the Kushites to talk about.
Been on this shithole for almost 10 years and I've never seen someone blown the frick out this badly before. Holy shit
Why would the Romans then record the repeated defeats at the hands of Hannibal?
They lost hundreds of thousands of soldiers to incompetent leadership, superior enemy weaponry, and tactics. Humility and learning from mistakes was a part of Roman History at least for a while. Victory adles the mind more than defeat does. Though an NTR enthusiast like you is already adled beyond thought.
Do you seriously need a source for what is evident, you cuck?
>uhhhhhhh it’s evident bro /misc/ said so!!!!1!1!1
kek
Not *false* per se but like most Roman defeats in this period "this place is remote and not really worth conquering" played a major role, if she was queen of somewhere like Egypt or Carthage her political skills wouldn't have saved her.
>It’s not false but uhhhhhhh it’s not true either! Black people are smelly animals!
white cope is so delicious
They didn't conquer Scotland for similar reasons
This, same reason they left romania for strategic reasons despite having conquered it. It was probably a logistical nightmare.
If it's about a woman, a israelite, a homosexual or an african you should be skeptical, it's always done in service of a corrupt political agenda
>desert shithole gets uppity and asks for peace as soon as a pair of legions gets near them
i dont have anything against black ppl but these fantasy stories do more harm than good to them
also kushites are not representing all of black skinned people, especially nothing to do with afro americans
>His legions wore bronze breastplates
I'm going to go out on a limb here and say this guy doesn't know what the frick he's talking about.
Yeah? Why?
Why would The Romans use bronze? That's like a modern soldier going into battle with a musket.
Even muskets used bronze. It never fell totally out of use.
Bronze breastplates are completely unreasonable though. The amount it would cost compared to iron and its effectiveness would make it redundant. Not to mention the Augustan army wore mail, not plate.
The disabled poc african queen who defeated the Roman Empire (she was also a lesbian)
Don't forget to like and subscribe!
>just put the phone down bro!
nah i’m not going outside to get mugged by urban youths nice try tho goldberg
die in agony unironically
>They took the entire Triakontaschoinos region, including Syene, Philae and Elephantine, a terrain of 200 square miles. Strabo adds that in these cities, the Kushites “enslaved the inhabitants, and threw down the statues of Cæsar.” They then retreated south with loot, Roman prisoners and thousands of Egyptian captives.
And that's a good thing!
>enjoying the spoils of war is… LE BAD (but only when africans do it)!
mmmmmmmmm chudley not a good look
It's just funny. Blacks accept no excuse for slavery in others' history but when they hear of a situation where they had the power to take slaves, they're proud of it.
Nothing Africans did even comes close to rivaling the brutality and cruelty of slavery in America. I can’t believe you’re trying to die on this hill. chudley…. this ain’t it
You miss the point. "The brutality and cruelty" doesn't matter to them in principal. It's the fact that they were on the receiving end instead of the ones in the position to do it to others that they see as the great cruelty of it.
>They’re mad they were enslaved and wish they hadn’t been
Uhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhh yeah I guess?
More to the point, they wish they were the ones doing the enslaving.
It should tell you something that Liberia of all places had slavery. Blacks in America were given freedom and their own country to start anew, and even they, having lived through the horrors of slavery themselves, took indigenous slaves as soon as they could and practiced the same chattel slavery of the American South. They didn't think slavery was bad in principal even though they lived through it themselves. If they could be the master, they'd do it in a heartbeat.
There were a lot of mulatto slave owners in the Caribbean and they were exactly as bad as the white slave owners
Whites made the system
Whites benefitted from the system
Whites STILL benefit from the system
Why is this so hard for you to understand?
>Whites made the system
You morons still have no source for this. When did whites invent the concept of slavery?
I thought America was built on the backs of the hard working minorities?
Please friend explain to me how witch doctor medicine advanced the science and welfare of the African people.
See
What?
Slavery wasn't that bad. Black slaves had a higher caloric consumption than whites in Ireland and Italy. Beating slaves was rare and discipline had to be agreed on by a council of older slaves. There's an archive of over 2300 slave testimonials collected in the 1930s most are nostalgic for slavery.
link that shit cracker
>t. someone who knows nothing of African history
I hate white and israeli "leftists" so much.
no argument you’re just appealing to emotion
nice strawman. The point is people in the US having a direct line of profit to structural racism. No one gives a shit about roman number 102020 enslaving kushite 14722. Nobody could claim anyone has any benefit because of that event.
Tell me more about your trickle down theory of economics.
Engage with his argument or frick off leave
If you believe that allowing the wealthiest 1% of society pay less for their labor by owning slaves instead of paying wages to citizens benefits all the people in the nation, it follows that allowing the wealthiest 1% of society pay less in taxes would have the same benefit.
I get the feeling he agrees with the first point but not the second.
There is no economic benefit from slavery that trickled down to modern Whites. Slavery is not the reason the West is wealthy, The West being wealthy was what allowed them to enslave other people in the first place.
Didn't black people in America benefit from slavery? It was their ticket here and they're benefiting from the same society now.
It's a power fantasy of black kangz taking other races as slaves
Yass queen slayy
>for her disability
>Antigonus the one eyed
Only an idiot would believe this crap.
Sadly most people are idiots.
She attacked a few Roman garrisons when the Romans didn't think the Kingdom of Kush would actually start a war. She was apparently brave in battle, at least personally, according to the Romans themselves. When she had to face a proper Roman army with full legions she was defeated.
Augustus was more concerned with other parts of the Empire, so he wanted to wrap up things in Nubia quickly. To this end he came up with a peace agreement where Kush would get 60% of the disputed territory. That was more than half, so it could be sold as a win. The Romans would get the rest. Rome controlled none of the territory prior to the encroachments that sparked the war in the first place. So Augustus got most of what he was hoping to get, and turned an enemy into what would be a reliable trade partner, and he freed up resources to do other more important things. I think Augustus in kind of overrated but I'll admit that was pretty ingenious.
What makes you say that Augustus is overrated?
literal nobody praised by a website openly naming themselves as a propaganda vehicle
>narratively
lol
Why are niggos like this? Besides the overmemed mali empire, axum or the nubians in general are so much more interesting and less larpy.
This, barely anybody knows of East African history, so contorting it for feminist pieces seems moronic. Who tf knows about Kush,D'mt, Ethiopian, Makurian, and Axum Kingdoms or Funj, Ajuran and Adal sultanates besides nerds who do independent research. I could understand writing a Yass Queen slay about something that occupies the periphery of normie history, but nobody even knows the first thing about African history, or let alone East African history in the first place.
Somewhat.
Both the Kushites and the Romans were successful in their attacks with neither side being able to follow through for a real victory. In the end they settled for a treaty; the Kushites were rich traders so the Romans were satisfied and the Kushites wanted more trade to make money so they were also satisfied.
Also people seething about Kushites are mega cringe. The Kush and the later Nubians are kino with their culture. A REAL claim to fame would be the fact they BTFO the Muslims twice while the Persians and Byzantine ""romans"" got steamrolled. Not bad for a bunch of Egyptian larpers.
This is the literal definition of we wuz Quangs and sheeeit
>https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Twenty-fifth_Dynasty_of_Egypt
Uhm...
Quangs homie, quangs.
>foreigner semi-rule
Eh?
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vandal_Kingdom
approximately half the posts in this thread are OP just trying to keep the bait going with the least amount of effort and you keep replying to posts that call white people "mayos" like anyone on this site legitimately does that.
Do you really have fun, just replying to bait over and over and contributing to IQfy becoming a sea of frogposts and other equally useless noise? We can't let this site die, it's the only place on the internet you can actually fricking talk.
>We can't let this site die, it's the only place on the internet you can actually fricking talk.
Nah, whenever a subject comes up that someone doesn't like the thread gets spammed with porn/gore/roll images etc until it hits bump limit and/or gets deleted
really? I only see that happen when people get fed up with intolerable schizo spam. Sounds like that's the sort of thing you enjoy posting.
Ton of posters bait threads they don't like into becoming controversial just so they can delete them
what you posted is not an argument tho
It wasn't me, I was just corroborating what anon said.
that's not what he said though, he was talking about people just coming in to a thread and spamming it to death. That only happens with forced memes and garbage spam threads that the board population is sick of seeing.
>That only happens with forced memes and garbage spam threads that the board population is sick of seeing.
Cool story bro
still not an argument.
how new are you?
Nothing you read about blacks in mainstream sources is accurate. They are hacks, frauds and revisionists.
Another episode of Römegays seething
Oh no, melanin-enriched sisters, we got too wienery...
Sounds like a Huffington Post article to make black people feel better about themselves during Black History month.
I noticed this trend lately. Sóy "reporters" from California take some female ruler, look at her for literally a second, write an article how good and nice and fierce she was.
>then when you look into it it turns out she was a slavering warmonger who get the shit beat out of her as soon as she met an European
Take a look at this:
>Hollywood is about to release THE WOMAN KING
>A movie about Nanisca, a leader of the Dahomey Amazons
>Movie portrays her as noble anti-slaver who wins every battle or something
>In reality she enslaved thousands
>In the movie she's portrayed as "resisting foreign invasion"
>In reality the French told the Dahomey to quit raiding for slaves and when they didn't they invaded
>"Fierce" amazons participated in the battles against the French where they got absolutely demolished
>In one battle the Amazons lost over 800 warriors while the French lost... 6
oh and also that part
>Movie portrays the WAHMAN KANG fighting against foreign invasions and for pan-African unity
>"The slave trade has been the ruling principle of my people. It is the source of their glory and wealth. Their songs celebrate their victories and the mother lulls the child to sleep with notes of triumph over an enemy reduced to slavery."
uhhh
>read about the mighty Dahomey Amazons on some African-American revisionist website
>apparently they were sassy strong black women who defeated France in many wars before being defeated by overwhelming technology
>go check wikipedia
>turns out they were utter shit and never won a single battle
>the french defeated them with fricking bayonets and captured their capital (a mudhut village named Abomey)
>read about the mighty Queen Ndate Yalla on some African-American revisionist website
>apparently she was sassy strong black woman who defeated France in many wars before being defeated by overwhelming technology
>go check wikipedia
>turns out she was utter shit and never won a single battle
>a french garrison of a thousand men defeated her in the only battle she ever fought and captured her capital (a mudhut village named N'Der)
It's all so tiresome...
About as accurate as this.
Thas Southern heritage ya hear boy!
Monkey delusions