More often than not, speaking to Americans, I'm under the impression that you guys believe that the Sahara desert was kind of a boarder between black people and brown people.
It's a thousand miles of desert from north to south and the people of the south were
too stupid to invent/use the wheel. The number of people who could make that trip was small enough to be a rounding error.
It's a thousand miles of desert crossed by trade routes centuries before Romans came into Africa.
Believe me, Roguey, I'm really having a blast with this thread.
Basically I'm looking to a bunch of ignorant kids that try to apply their made up racial categories to places, people and histories that they know nothing about.
And the funniest part is their adamant conviction that the rest of the world gives the slightest fuck about their silly battle pro or against black people.
They can't even concieve that the rest of world don't care and would simply love to not read a stinking pile of bullshit about its history any time Afroamericans are involved. Too hard to immagine for their limited minds, I guess
PS: in case you haven't noticed, in crossing a desert, wheels and carriages are the last thing you want to use.
Except you're still wrong.
Berbers aren't black. They mix, sure. Some tribes might be what we consider black, especially in the South by the Sahel, but there are many tribes - the majority - that are - what we would call Semitic, they're not Sub-Saharan Africans. This isn't because I hate black people or whatever, but the Sahara WAS an efficient barrier to mass population exchange, and the people who moved north of the drying sahara (even if they came, from say, the east) were different from the people who moved south of the drying sahara, and there were thousands of years between the drying and aridification and even Carthaginian, Roman, Greek, Egyptian civilization.
You just sound like a Afrocentric who wants to revise history, frankly.
Nah, I just sound like an Italian that knows his history and has been in Northern Africa in person, more than once.
I never said that Berbers are sub-saharians. I said that a significant part of the Berbers are black today and used to be black at the time of the Romans. Just google Berbers, Maroccans, Algerians, Tunisinians or Mauritanians if you don't believe me. Or go on YouTube and watch the first video you find about the famous Numidian cavalry. If you think that you can recognize a Berber by his/her skin color you are totally off track.
The same goes for Egypt. It was ruled for almost a century by a Nubian dynasty before Romans came to Africa and today Nubians are still an important minority there. Again, been in the country, seen with my own eyes.
In short, the very ideas that black people lived only south of the Sahara before coming to America is quite moronic and would make everybody laugh in Northern Africa.
So, unless you are nitpicking and you don't consider black, let's say, Barack Obama, you are wrong. Black people were quite common in Northern Africa at the time of the Romans like they are today.
And, at risk of being redundant, I don't give the slightest fuck about America's silly ideological battles. I don't take parts and I'm not remotely interested in the topic. And, honestly, I don't even understand why on earth a contemporary black person should consider an "honor" having a distant precursor subject to Rome. So, watching you guys fighting over this topic like it is something of great importance, simply amuses me.
I've just pointed out the obvious: That among the subjects of Rome there were numerous black people. And, of course, given the average level of the users here, this started the IX crusade, also known as the crusade of rednecks
You guys are boring. RPG party compositions are not weighted to the national census. Sigil was not full of floating skulls and walking suits of armor.
