Ok, Van, let's continue ...

[RadioFan]

Also, last I checked, Spain was in Europe.

Last I checked, it was too.

Notice, in a previous post, I referenced "African invaders." Just overlooking history, or just trolling?

You also tried to give credit to Africa for things which occured in Spain; things which didn't also occur in Africa.

And what's with this bullshit "trolling" crap? Either substantiate that charge or drop it already, jackass.

Again, there isn't a single moment in post Egypt history where the quality of life in Africa hasn't been well behind that of Europe.

I'd argue that the quality of life was better in North Africa, A.D. 800 than anything in Europe, outside of a few holed up monks, eating rancid meat, of course.

And you'd of course be wrong.

Europe isn't just France, Italy, Germany and, Spain. (Spain being "Africa North", apparently, to you! ) You still had Scandanavia and all of eastern Europe, including Russia, and plenty of those places were still more advanced and living better than anywhere in Africa.

You also conveniently keep ignoring the obvious fact that North Africa in 800 A.D. was largely the product of a thousand years of Roman influence, which is the sole reason they fared better than their primitive sub Saharan brethren...

You're just playing Annie's usual role here anyway, that of being the nitpicking contrarian, trying (and still failing) to locate one micro smidgen of time in all the long years of history when Africa wasn't woefully behind Europe...

The gist of this shit? How's North Africa (and sub Saharan black Africa) done either before or since 800 A.D., compared to Europe?

Same bottom line: Egypt's Africa's only claim to fame and, especially, Africa's only enduring claim to fame. Africa never achieved equal footing with Europe from the time of Alexander The Great forward and even as we speak much of Africa still has its hand out to Europe (and the rest of the world), begging for help just to survive...

[RadioFan]

You also tried to give credit to Africa for things which occured in Spain; things which didn't also occur in Africa.

And what's with this bullshit "trolling" crap? Either substantiate that charge or drop it already, jackass.

Only after you "substantiate" your new-found racisim, "jackass."

I'd argue that the quality of life was better in North Africa, A.D. 800 than anything in Europe, outside of a few holed up monks, eating rancid meat, of course.

And you'd of course be wrong.

Europe isn't just France, Italy, Germany and, Spain. (Spain being "Africa North", apparently, to you! )

That's not what I said. Reread the thread. How many references do I need to type to AFRICAN INVADERS, jackass.

You still had Scandanavia and all of eastern Europe, including Russia, and plenty of those places were still more advanced and living better than anywhere in Africa.

You also conveniently keep ignoring the obvious fact that North Africa in 800 A.D. was largely the product of a thousand years of Roman influence, which is the sole reason they fared better than their primitive sub Saharan brethren...

No shit, Van? And did you get a chance to hear the Cure or Ozric Tenatacles while in Europe? How about Depeche Mode?

:roll:

You're just playing Annie's usual role here anyway, that of being the nitpicking contrarian, trying (and still failing) to locate one micro smidgen of time in all the long years of history when Africa wasn't woefully behind Europe...

That's where you are incredibly, wrong Van. Aside from being woefully ignorant about Africa and South American (since you abstained from answering my earlier question, I can only assume I made my point)

Nice dig with the "Annie's usual role here anyway, that of being the nitpicking contrarian."

Incredibly lame, since we've never even had a "meaningful" public discussion ... but props. I guess.

The gist of this shit? How's North Africa (and sub Saharan black Africa) done either before or since 800 A.D., compared to Europe?

Get a clue, and welcome back, motherfucker.

[Risa]

Van doesn't come to the SZ, dude.

[BSmack]

Find me something that is worth a fart, built by Europeans, without African influence i.e. outside of Spain in the 7th century, A.D.

Gloucester Cathedral.

This was not built in the 7th Century AD.

[BSmack]

The work was started in the 700s. It's beside the point in any event.

No, the work was started in the 11th Century by Abbot Serlo. And it is not besides the point since you were the one trying to pass it off as an example of Dark Ages architectural achievement. That William the Conqueror found the abbey in a state of total decay, prompting the laying of the foundation for the building we now see also shoots your idea of Gloucester as a Dark Ages architectural wonder straight to hell.

The Moors had been Roman subjects for nearly seven hundred years and had been under Roman influence for another 200 years.

That is completely irrelevant. All of Europe south and west of the Alps was under Roman domination. Why were they unable to keep pace with the Moors?

[Tom In VA]

The historical element of this discussion has been an excellent refresher to Western Civ 101.

Great stuff.



Would the Romans be considered "Aryan" ? Just asking because there's so much emphasis placed on "White Supremecy" of Germanic peoples and such that it has always amazed me they would claim this superiority, while the cultural advancements and the "civilizing" of Germany, France, and the British Isles .... were all the results of the indigenous peoples there having Rome's boot stuck firmly up their ass.

[BSmack]

No, the work was started in the 11th Century by Abbot Serlo. And it is not besides the point since you were the one trying to pass it off as an example of Dark Ages architectural achievement.

The 11th Century is smack dab in the middle of the Dark Ages.

Try the High Middle Ages.

People in the know refer to the period from the 5th to 10th centuries and the Early Middle Ages or, as the Dark Ages.

BTW: Here's an example of Early Middle Ages architecture.



As you can see, it is totally unlike the Gloucester Cathedral.

The Germans didn't get that far in any great force, so Roman customs, culture and technology survived there longer than it did in Europe.

The Visigoths pushed the Vandals out of Europe in they in turn invaded and overran much of North Africa. There weren't very many of them and relied on the locals (North African Romans) to maintain order. The Vandals were assimilated into Roman culture and about 70 years later the Byzantine Emperor, Justinian, was able to re-establish control over the region.

You're not exactly making an argument for European superiority with that statement.

[Tom In VA]

PSUFAN in the original thread used a word that was very intriguing.

"Hubris"

How much of these Europeans advancements were based on an unwillingness/inability to, live within the natural habitat and elements ?

How much of these European advancements were fueled by the things that have been noted as the 7 Deadly Sins.

Pride, Anger, Lust, Sloth, Gluttony, Avarice(Greed), and Envy.

It's a double edged sword, if you ask me, the advancements, can be perceived as liabilities in some aspects.

[RadioFan]

Find me something that is worth a fart, built by Europeans, without African influence i.e. outside of Spain in the 7th century, A.D.

Gloucester Cathedral.

Fine.

Find me something completed in the 8th century, A.D.

Unless of course, you want to argue Gloucester Cathedral for it's "importance" in anything. You know of what it is I type. Most of these tards don't.

Nice jab, btw. If you insist on tarding up the ring, I can educate the morons. Your call, history major.

[Moorese]

You also don't seem to know much about the Moors either.

Oh, so sorry, it's Moops.

Moops.

[BSmack]

Thanks for the clarification. As you can see, it is also totally unlike anything you would find in sub-Saharan Africa as well.

Of course it is, the building materials available to natives of Sub Saharan Africa are not the same. Let us look at something more comprable to and from the same time frame as Gloucester Cathedral.



Great Mosque at Djenne, Mali.

As you can see, it is a very impressive structure in its own right.

The Greeks and Romans were from which continent?

Africa

sin

Louis Leakey

[BSmack]

It was built in the 20th century on the ruins of a 13th century structure. It also looks like shit.

Gloucester Cathedral was given a complete makeover during the 19th century. What's your point?

[BSmack]

The point is that it is absurd to compare any medieval cathedral to a pathetic pile of mudbrick shit like that.

Are you trying to tell me they don't have stone in Africa?

They do.



But maybe not in Mali. They did what they could with what they had. They adapted, they overcame. Tell me, were you in supply? Because you're a walking clusterfuck as a history student.

[RadioFan]

Nice jab, btw. If you insist on tarding up the ring, I can educate the morons. Your call, history major.

Give it your best shot, "toughy".

Too bad the "Africans" you cite were actually Roman citizens for over 700 years.

:roll:

Sorry I missed this gem.

"toughy"

Yeah, the "citizens" of Rome took on a new religion and improved on their architechture, and oh ... invented the concept of zero.

But hey, according to Van, "What have blacks contributed ..."

:roll:

Good God,



The building is most notable for its giant arches, with over 1,000 columns of jasper, onyx, marble, and granite. These were made from pieces of the Roman temple which had occupied the site previously, as well as other destroyed Roman buildings.

But it isn't like this building is special or anything.

:roll:

[RadioFan]

N..ggers didn't build that. Try again, PC faggot.

So none of the Spanish Moors, who came from Africa, were black?



Nice mini-melt btw. You're 2 for 2 now, "toughy."

[RadioFan]

N..ggers didn't build that. Try again, PC faggot.

So none of the Spanish Moors, who came from Africa, were black?

Their slaves were black.

Interesting nonanswer.