When I read about some African societies from the medieval period, they look more like they're from ancient history (same for the Aztecs btw), so, is it correct to speak about medieval Africa like medieval Europe or Japan or is the way we divide African history different and "medieval" doesn't apply just like the Americas?
 It's All Fucked Shirt $22.14 |
 Tip Your Landlord Shirt $21.68 |
It's All Fucked Shirt $22.14 |
Does "Africa" include North Africa?
Why are you comparing a continent to an island and a subcontinent?
Cuz he dumb.
>subcontinent
Europe is a peninsula of Eurasia
You are an autist
There were only stone-age societies or a handful of Arab trading outposts. They had no era with technology and social organization comparibale to medieval Europe.
>develops sophisticated ironworking by themselves
>stone age
>develops sophisticated ironworking by themselves
Diffused from North Africa. Try again.
Literally impossible since the Garamantes never traded any further south than lake Chad and the earliest iron smelting from Taruga in Nigeria and the Central African forest pre date any garamantes excursions that far south.
t. PW Botha
No it fricking wasn’t, moron. Read a damn book for once.
Even Europeans at the time didn't think these guys were stone age.
The West African blacksmiths never died out because they used their reputation for quality to compete with imported European wares, and because of how much African purchasing power expanded during colonialism they were able to keep going in that niche. They started teching up and a lot of them make guns now. Even assault rifles are within the capabilities of West African blacksmiths.
Kongo got all of it's knowledge of metallurgy from the Portuguese in the 15th century. Their metal was only considered superior by some in the 18th century because Portugal had by that time wisely shifted it's focus from refined quality to mass production.
That building is actually just made of plaster, and it was created to house an Ashanti monarch
Bantus were practicing ironworking long before any Europeans showed up.
It clearly does much of Africa was connected to the broader medieval world and had societies technologically, politically, and socially on par with the medieval world particularly the densely populated places, you had societies that existed as migrant pastoralist who’d settle down build up a semi city that move on, you hade feudalistic kingdoms in Ethiopia, Sultanates along the eastern coast Somali and Swahili, Western Africa was medieval and its Muslim states considered on par with the rest of the Islamic world hence many travelers and visitors, the Forrest kingdoms had sophisticated political systems and metallurgy making art on par with the medieval world. you Kongo kingdoms later kingdom which were akin the the northern American societies but Iron Age
This post is gonna be met with asshurt replies screeching about them build a lot with adobe and that big stone monuments is all civilization is
>much of Africa was technologically on par with the medieval world
Don't be moronic
Even as late as the late 19th century, most Subsahran Africans were far from having reached the level of development of medieval Europe or China (be it in architecture, science, overall technology...hell, most didn't even have a written language....)
Three "cities" in the Sahel and two in Ethiopia =/= Africa was civilized
>here’s some random nomads in a hut see your wrong
Yeah yeah we no it was all Arabs and Persians
no you don't understand, cherrypicking most impressive images you can find of europe and the least impressive images of africa is the key to a IQfyner ever having sex, you can't rob him of this
African "kingdoms" were a handful of mud huts with a wall around them.
Most of the crap people regurgitate about "great African civilizations" is a bunch of wuzz.
What a moronic pseud. It's no surprise that all it takes is an intelligent sounding English accent to be regarded as a voice of authority by uneducated /misc/tards lacking autonomous thinking
Africa outside of the parts that had contact with the Mediterranean trading network was(with rare exception) incredibly primitive and backwards up until basically the 19th century. So no, it isn't correct to speak about medieval africa, since most of africa was never even as developed as medieval western europe, let alone the byzantines or the various arab and persian empires.
Yeah yeah we no it was all Arabs and Persians
>never invented wheel
>never developed writing system
>no roads, no cities, no monuments (no, piles of clay with sticks in it does not qualify)
>metal working and agriculture was adopted thousands of years later than in the rest of the world
>in 19th century still iron age
n-no but they had cool stuff like wooden masks and their music and dances music is like in their blood right and their food thats culture too you know white people dont use spices haha and giraffes and
B8
I'm not the other anon. But none of those things were ever indigenously developed by Europeans. They got literally all of those from their neighbors in Asia. A lot of West and Central Africa's problems stem from how geographically isolated it was and you could see this if you looked at map
invented wheel
Ethiopia used the wheel
developed writing system
Ethiopia did
>>no roads, no cities, no monuments
Ethiopia had all of these
working and agriculture was adopted thousands of years later than in the rest of the world
Ethiopia had metal working and a relatively well-organised empire based about agriculture
>in 19th century still iron age
Ethiopia built train networks in the 19th century.
Ethiopia was an Omani colony
What? You mean a periphery costal province was controlled by the Omani?
Still never happened
Addis Ababa was recently established and not it's greatest city, so of couse it looked like an underdeveloped shithole. It hadn't existed for more than a decade before that photo was taken. Also, those photos are mostly of the houses of regular people - not elites. Pic related is Gondar, an older Ethiopian city from the early 1600's.
>used, not invented
Europe used, but did not invent the Wheel
>based on the original phoenician alphabet
Like every European script. Do you think a Greek just woke up one day with the idea of their alphabet?
>steles, impressive. egypt had them 4000 years before. also, by roads i mean constructed stone roads, not trampled paths
So now the goal posts have shifted and it's now necessary to prove that Ethiopia was actually superior to Egypt? Also Ethiopia had stone bridges that lasted for centuries, road building was particularly difficult in the Ethiopian highlands.
By the way, Spain in the 19th century was still mostly covered in poor quality trampled paths, as was all of the world outside of Europe.
> but had a frickton of contact with the cultures just across the naval highway that is a sea?
Ethiopia has been an isolated hermit kingdom for most of it's history. Isolated from both Africa and Eurasia.
>Pic related is Gondar, an older Ethiopian city from the early 1600's.
Pic related is a castle, not a city
Show a panoramic photography showing the whole city
I don't think anyone claims that Ethiopia invented, or even particularly innovated anything. It's simply that they succeded in continuing their existence despite being surrounded by hostile neighbours since the rise of Islam.
What are you babbling about, moron?
by that account all European existing culture are more impressive.
Because we all fought each other all the time. But you survived as a culture and even contributed and innovated in even some minor way means that you are impressive compared to Ethiopia if just surviving is good enough to get praise.
17th century
castle with masonry walls, multiple walls, taking influence from several external architectural stile but retaining their own identity, several layers of walls and strong points
19th century
a grouping of huts
stacked stone barrier and a wooden palisade with larger wooden or plaster work buildings inside
and your picture shows a castle with a modern city around it and no town as it was in the 16th century or any hint as to what it might have been and so doesn't really address the other annons point. If anything he'd probably use the rather slum ish looking buildings on the bottom right corner to attack your argument in some way.
>by that account all European existing culture are more impressive.
I see that the goal posts have shifted already. The point argued was that Africa didn't have metal working, agriculture, stone buildings, or monuments. I just proved that Ethiopia had all of these things. And now I'm supposed to argue that Ethiopia is superior to Europe despite never claiming so? lmao.
I see nothing else worth replying to, but I might for a few things anyway.
>a grouping of huts
I presume you are talking about that photo of Addis Ababa again? That's because those are temporary fortifications for a recently founded capital. Ethiopia had been a fractured and disunited kingdom controlled by competing feudal lords only a few decades before this.
Sumerian wagons were actually first
>Tried to think late 19th century or early 20th century photographs of that city and I can't find anything beside the castle
It was very difficult to access the area for Europeans in the 19th/20th century. The only way for most European travellers to reach the interior of Ethiopa was by passing through Djibouti and going straight to Addis Ababa, avoiding the highlands.
Still, regular houses were often built out of stone in that area.
South Arabians, not Arabs. But everything of note happened after they had already mixed with the native Africans anyway, so who cares.
>I shift the goal post
you I and quote "I don't think anyone claims that Ethiopia invented, or even particularly innovated anything. It's simply that they succeded in continuing their existence despite being surrounded by hostile neighbours since the rise of Islam."
mere survival is the goal you have set
and by that standard all cultures that have survived are winners. Having done anything more than mere survival is there fore even more than just winning
You do not address the point in that structures a are more impressive than structure b.
Despite structures a being older than b.
the only way you might be seeking to address this is by saying that structures b are temporary
there is nothing about picture b and I know you did not post this one that would suggest it is the temporary building for a city in construction
you could just post a picture of the works being completed a few years later.
also it being a feudal mess a few decades before while Napoleon had come and went and possible even the civil war in the usa is no excuse. If anything it just shows how backwards they where.
"hey guys it's 1890, we are finally getting around to building our capital. Don't mind the mess it's only a temporary shanty town. And cut us some slack while you where ruling the world and having battles involving hundreds of thousands of men thousands of mile away from their homes. We where still petty tribal chieftains in a feudal system so we are high achievers"
>hermit kingdom
they received israelites and converted largely Christianity
Had an arabic based alphabet
frequent trade contacts for centuries
so isolationist that over medieval Europe knew about them, just got a lot wrong.
In essence it is North korea getting the combustion engines and electronics. Then going all hermit. And claiming that what ever shit knock of vehicle they make while not improving on what they got was all their own doing
And not to hate on ethiopia, but you are huffing them like copeia
so between the 17th and the 19th centuries they degraded and this supposed to be impressive how?
Tried to think late 19th century or early 20th century photographs of that city and I can't find anything beside the castle
I suspect it was only straw huts surrounding it
Actual cities like Timbuktu or Kano have tons of photographs from that era depicting the entire thing
>Europe used, but did not invent the Wheel
Earliest wheel is from Europe. Earliest wheel ruts are from Europe. Earliest depiction of a wheel is from Europe.
That's not a random house, it's the palace of chief Kofi of Abengourou in the Ivory Coast. It's a nice looking style of architecture but don't pretend peasants were living in these. Ashanti was a hellish place to live by all accounts.
I like some of this guys other stuff but he gets a lot wrong here. He clearly doesn't know much about Africa when he says that 'their only technology was the plough and the spear', which is wrong since outside of Ethiopia the plough was unknown. Speaking of Ethiopia, he claims the Aksumites weren't really African but Semitic colonists, but that's mixing Aksum with its predecessor D'mt. He claims there were no two story buildings in West Africa which is just not true, and he claims that Mali was built by Arabs which is also wrong (Mali is extemely overrated and produced nothing of note but it was clearly African).
>Earliest depiction of a wheel is from Europe.
Are you sure? The oldest is almost definitely a Sumerian picture of a war wagon.
>https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bronocice_pot
>Several historians argue that there was a diffusion of the wheeled vehicle from the Near East to Europe around the mid-4th millennium BC.[9] However, all of the earliest evidence for wheeled vehicles, including models, pictoral representations, wheels and vehicle remains, is in Europe, rather than in the Near East.[10] According to Schier (2015), “The present evidence for early wheeled transport does not support the traditional belief in the oriental invention of wheel and wagon", and either wheeled vehicles were invented independently in Europe and Mesopotamia, or else the technology was transferred from Europe to Mesopotamia
>Ethiopia built train networks in the 19th century.
Yeah, no it didn't
Here's how Ethiopia's greatest city looked in 1890
Ethiopia only started developing after European colonized its surrounding areas and agreed to help them develop
>Ethiopia used the wheel
used, not invented
>Ethiopia did
geez alphabet is an offbranch of south arabic alphavet which in turn is based on the original phoenician alphabet
>Ethiopia had all of these
steles, impressive. egypt had them 4000 years before. also, by roads i mean constructed stone roads, not trampled paths
that said i concur that ethiopia is at least somewhat civilized, also they are a mix of africans and semites.
>used, not invented
Can't believe whites can never claim to have invented the wheel (swarthy half neareastern Yamnaya did)
>swarthy
literally arian urheimat. the epitome of white.
>see this region that had nearly no contact with the rest of the continent they are on but had a frickton of contact with the cultures just across the naval highway that is a sea?
>well yes they are that continent for all I care about
100% proven correct
You could apply the same standard to Europeans if not more so
Maybe during Antiquity
During the middle ages, even Sweden or Scotland were more developed than 90% of 19th century Subsahran Africa
Absolutely not. Unless we are getting dates confused.
Northern Europe (untouched by the invasions and influences of romans, celto-gallo-romans, etc) was definitely Bantu tier until around 1400 AD. Interestingly, African kingdoms and states went to absolute shit after Europeans showed up and all signs of domestic industry collapsed when trade became monopolized by Europeans. Cities went to shit, roads went to shit, farms went to shit, etc
>Interestingly, African kingdoms and states went to absolute shit after Europeans showed up and all signs of domestic industry collapsed when trade became monopolized by Europeans. Cities went to shit, roads went to shit, farms went to shit, etc
Yeah bro, it truly was Wakanda before whitey arrived, and then it suddenly vanished without leaving any ruins behind (like those in Egypt or Mexico) that could prove the Wakanda existed
How sad...
More like it was a typical iron age kingdom/city state structure before Europeans showed up, and we still have tons of ruins and old cities to prove it. You're not even trying with this shitty bait lol
>and we still have tons of ruins and old cities to prove it.
Wrong
Some (not "tons") ruins or old city exist in the Sahel or in Ethiopia, but that's about it
There are ruins in central/southern africa too
Bantus set up centralized kingdoms and city states, that much is known for certain. The issue is they had such low pop. density and so little exposure to outsiders that nothing really happened. Most of the empires rose and fell on their own and only west africans achieved enough pop density to actually fight each other with real armies
Great Zimbabwe wasn't built by blacks
Blacks just put some of their typical Black straw huts within the ruins of this wall
This isn't an exemple of ruins of a city
>literally the same thing as celtic, gaul, and germanic cultures for 3000 years
lel
At some point all humans were naked in huts, that's called the neolitic age
But only the Black remained like that until the 1880s
It was still a typical iron age kingdom/city state structure after Europeans showed up, too. The one place things truly did go to shit was Southern Africa, and that was because of the Zulus, not any Europeans.
>It was still a typical iron age kingdom/city state structure after Europeans showed up, too
I would disagree. Most of the political and social organization collapsed after colonization really took hold. Even prior to the scramble for Africa, Europeans in west africa made a point of fricking with the existing hierarchy and social class system because a stable, wealthy kingdom would be able to control trade better than a shitty puppet "kingdom".
>The one place things truly did go to shit was Southern Africa, and that was because of the Zulus, not any Europeans.
It was both the Zulus and Europeans. One of the only places that ended up okay were the Tswana kingdoms who unified under a confederacy and beat the Boers on numerous occasions using rifles and horses.
social organisation prior to european contact and for far to long after european contect was a bloody game of petty kings jockeying for position. Whit one or the other to come out on top. To lord it over their subjugated peoples for perhaps a few generation before it went back to start. All the while performing very nasty and very many human sacrifices.
Well yeah, you can definitely blame Euros for most African kingdoms being as pointless and drama-ridden as they are today. The colonial governance institutions euros brought in were pretty shit too. But socially and economically, Africans advanced under colonialism. Euros abolished slavery, clamped down on wicked priests who were using their status to kidnap, ended the constant wars, and lowered barriers to trade.
>Bantu tier until around 1400 AD
b***h the scandies founded their Kalmar union in 1397. And that to counter pure economic and military ass rape they where getting by the Hanze
>Europe was only great because of the latins
technological development sped up afeter the fall of the roman empire. The rapid development of Germanic territories also disproves your stupid amrican take
>technological development sped up afeter the fall of the roman empire
the roman empire never really fell, the culture, language, tech, etc was directly forced onto its former subjects, who were also genetically mixed with latins after centuries of subjugation.
The Normans who conquered England and other areas were clearly Romanesque in their culture. Same goes for virtually every single great empire in the middle ages.
>The rapid development of Germanic territories
With roman ideas, technology, organization, even religion. The pure Germanics were living in mudhuts just like Africans. The mutted ones were semi civilized. And the conquered ones eventually went on to civilize their brothers.
how fricking delusional are you?
if you think the Nor;ans where romanesque I would like to point out that france in the middle ages where divided into the germanic north and the latin south in.
The frogs clearly stated the the north was germanic and it was that very north that would developed France and propel it forward. And Normandy is very much so in the northern pay de droit cottume.
Also it wasn't just the Normans that conquered England. More than a third of Williams army where Flemish and Flemings are even more germanic.
>all thanks to prior latin inventions
if anything that comes later is to glory of the older than the latin get no honor as well as they "borrowed" just about everything that we would consider as defining them.
Swords? Iberian
helmets, armor and shields? Gaul
gladiators? ethruscan
religion, culture, literature, science ect Greek
>your stupid amrican take
The rentfree is real
Medieval Japan wasn't that developed either.
Japan had its interaction with the Portuguese who re-introduced (this time successfully) them to gunpowder as well as Catholicism in the mid 1500s. The Portuguese and Christianity were banned in 1639, and Japan went back to being isolationist until the US forced them to open up in the mid 1800s.
I miss africa
There is considerable debate in historiography and art history on the validity of extending the term "medieval" to non-European societies. In the end, there are good arguments both for and against.
Honestly it’s kinda moronic. Medieval = between the fall of the WRE and the start of the renaissance. Why would any of that apply to the rest of the world?
Have you guys recognized the superiority of Akan architecture over other West African architecture types?
I'm glad you brought this up, because yes I have noticed this too.
For a culture living in near isolation from anyone else with few good building materials other than mud and straw, I think this is pretty good
Nice barn
Almost as great as the average European peasant's house circa 1400
Oh that's a Royal Palace?
>Almost as great as the average European peasant's house circa 1400
Lmao nowhere near.
Also this was a courthouse, not the king's palace.
Here's a random house from the outer stretches of the empire.
>Also this was a courthouse, not the king's palace.
Yes it is
This one building (the palace) is always posted from different angles
The average house in Kumasi was your typical African straw huts (you can see some in background there
)
>The average house in Kumasi was your typical African straw huts
How is that proof of anything? They were clearly building larger structures with pillars and supports, and not rarely.
You're basically describing northern europeans before meds showed up and raped them into a state of literacy and organization over hundreds of years. I personally don't hold Africans to the same standard as others because they had absolutely no contact with other civilizations or ideas until the 1400's and even then it was very very limited. Almost all developments related to farming, pastoralism, iron working, etc originated there in pure isolation and without help from others.
Also saying that the Mali Empire wasn't impressive makes a lot of European "empires" also look pretty shitty.
>Also saying that the Mali Empire wasn't impressive makes a lot of European "empires" also look pretty shitty.
He can just point to an image of St. gaygius Cathedral, Whatever-ny though
>He can just point to an image of St. gaygius Cathedral, Whatever-ny though
I'm not denying that the Romans civilized Europe over many centuries and the resulting cultures produced great works of art. The thing is, Africa never had the equivalent of the Romans or Greeks. they didn't have some EEF-loaded high IQ civilization that was able to sail and easily explore/conquer the african subcontinent. The egyptians and their east african periphery were impressive for the time and remained relevant for a while, but they were still geographically isolated from most of the Eurasian trade.
West africans and beyond were totally fricked and knew nothing except for their massive wilderness with few tamable animals and only 2-3 drought resistant crops that they somehow figured out
>I personally don't hold Africans to the same standard as others
/thread
subhuman tier reading comprehension
I explained why Africans are less advanced. They were isolated and had virtually no way of developing new technologies. They had none of the advantages of Eurasians.
So of course I will hold them to a lower standard. You have to be mentally moronic or trolling to think all humans started off on the same playing field in terms of environment and geography. Especially when a lot of Europe was also Africa tier until relatively recently.
>666
it is good to see that the devil agrees with your post
the american cultures faced the same isolation and far harsher climate. But they made it work a lot better. If anything isolated cultures should be measured by the americas. Even without metal working and far less useful animal husbandry they made empires and complex cultures that dwarfed the african ones.
What you are saying is that left to their own devices africans will stagnate. And if some /misc/ type would say the same you'd be screaming racism. But when you use it as an excuse it's kindness.
>the american cultures faced the same isolation
true
>far harsher climate
completely wrong. The Amerindians who had it as bad as Africans remained hunter gatherers and didn't develop at all. Amazonians are a good example, as are many of the tribes of north america.
>Even without metal working and far less useful animal husbandry
They had metal working, less advanced than Africans however. The animal husbandry was probably worse
>they made empires and complex cultures that dwarfed the african ones.
Depends which ones you compare. the best meso american empires were very impressive, but the average Bantu city state was easily better than the average tribal confederacy in north america.
>harsher climate
the various andian civilizations sure had it a lot harder than the bantu. And they thrived to be for more complex.
>no metal working
the amricas had native copperwork and decorative metal work
native copperwork, not copper worked by natives but copper that exists ready to use and doesn't take smelting. Was limited in time and location.
and decorative works and hardly be seen as contributor to a society's success as it doesn't help with production.
>average Bantu city state was easily better than the average tribal confederacy
no just no
not in terms of population
not in terms of societal complexity
Devil isn’t real
>They were isolated and had virtually no way of developing new technologies.
so were the natives of the americas. yet they developed astronomy, architecture, metallurgy, writing systems and mathematics by themselves and comparabely at the same time as in europe too
>nigs are so inferior I lower the standard for them
why are people that want to somehow fluff up africa so damn racist
just because they are black you don't get to hold them to the same standards we hold other races achievements
"hey look at all the cool shit that the Han did!"
"but this tribe somewhere build some cool houses and had neat bronzes so they are totally as advanced as the Han"
Yeah it's pretty much the same as how the supposedly "very racist" European colonists fawned over shitty wooden statues or mud mosques
Both 19th century European explorers and 21se century Western leftards treat Africans as that 5 years old nephew to whom you tell his shitty drawing is beautiful
>source is a sceen shot from a website
These are photographs, moron, not "screenshots"
They're infinitly better sources than shitty 16th century drawings
You fricking moron you used a screenshot of a website actually fricking read
>everything is a conspiracy to keep da black man down!!!! these photographs arent real, in reality it was Wakanda!!!
why are western incels so invested in trying to paint pre-colonial africa to be as primitive as possible? it's not helping you in anything
Because that's how it was
Wakanda never existed
Egypt was not black
The Mali "empire" wasn't impressive
The vast majority of Black folks before colonization lived naked in huts
Why are you fixated on trying to push this narrative?
WE
The problem with a "medieval africa" is that it's very hard to mark key game changers moments in African history
Usually it's just divided between pre colonial and post colonial Africa because that's the only event if African history that affected all of africa at the same time. . African history is isolated, the fall of a kingdom in west Africa has zero consequences for an African Kingdom in southern/Easter Africa vice versa. Africans rarely traded with each other outside of regional neighbors if you read only west African history you would have zero idea southern African kingdoms existed. Think about it, the fall of Axum probably meant more to the byzantines than it did to the kingdom of Ghana and the byzantines had been separate from Axum due to the Arab conquests. Compare this to Eurasia, China altering import export laws caused a chain reaction that resulted in rome altering it's currency.
That being said I think the fall of songahi is the end of the medieval Era in west African history, they were the last great west African empire until the French by techncality
>OP still trying this hard to bump his boring ass thread by arguing with himself
>Ethiopia has been an isolated hermit kingdom for most of it's history. Isolated from both Africa and Eurasia.
nah man. the ancient sabeans settled in what is todays amhara province and founded the precursor the the later axumite empire. they intermingled with the locals and became the amhara. ever since they had regular contact to egypt, arabian peninsula, india even to rome and greece
Ethiopia was founded by arabs from Yemen
No it wasn't. Also the original Arabs were Blacks.
Mental health & neuro-psychological assessment of the typical politically incorrect poster
Pepe Frog,MD,MPH,PhD,Wojack Feels Guy,MD
Every five or so threads created on the board witnesses one discussing Black folks, and even threads with nothing pertaining to them will usually have an anon who feels it necessary to drag them into the discourse.Behind all the hate; the monkey and KANGZ memes,Tyrone"sheeit" comics,gifs,demotivational pics,and webms -/pol/users secretly have a grudging respect,bordering on admiration,for the Black.Although if one were to ask them directly,they would vehemently deny the claim with all the passion of a demure,besotted teenager.
The nature of their fixation?The raw brass confident masculinity they possess which is derisively compared to feral beasts,and yet at the same time acknowledged is what women truly desire at their core and what is lacking in many white heterosexual unions.The intrinsic ruggedness that enables them to stamp their mark on any field of physical endeavor.The amazing sense of rhythm they naturally seem to possess,derisively likened to ape gesticulations,and yet is oh so majestic to witness and enthusiastically imitated.
Then there is the stereotype of the black man's sexuality,particularly his phallus.It has become a prodigious protuberance of myth and legend.There is a reason that r/AsianMasculinity trolls are laughed off while BBC and BLACKED generates anger and solemn disdain.For,to the /misc/yp,where the Asian man's masculinity is considered a joke the black man's is a threat to be taken with utmost seriousness;for there may be a kernel of truth to it.Is it a coincidence that, of all the races of men,it is the Black whose virile masculinity has become a meme that literally cannot be completed with?
Based on our assessment Dr. Wojack and I have concluded that /misc/ is a board populated with manic depressive autistic schizoid individuals afflicted with a Jungian-Pavlovian psycho-pathological Black-complex.