I mean, yeah, but it is just meant as a fun thing, not really meant for immersion.
-
If you are reporting a bug, please head over to our Technical Support section for Bannerlord.
SP - General African Inspired Faction
- Thread starter Charlemagne
- Start date
Users who are viewing this thread
Such as ?
He'll pull off a "some Arabs are Africans:" stunt.
Well, some whites are Africans too, like in South Africa, so technically etc.
We are all Africans, remember about it, people. That is our prehistorical origin.
We are all Africans, by origin. Not all of us remained there.
That wasn't really the point, then where do we draw the line from our " origin " while you have millions years to cover. That's an entire science field on itself. I guess we agree he meant " African civilizations ".
The Jawwal.
How did you not notice?
I'll stop bringing up real history when people stop making up fake history as support for their made-for-TV sense of what the Middle Ages were.
oh god i forgot this thread even existed.
because im not entirely sure what this is reffering to i will simply make the argument that using sub-saharan is a horrible idea even if it is correct because it generalizes people that have no relation to each other and vastly different cultures. i mean the rhodesians are sub saharan african, but you wouldn't think of them as such would you?
That's the point.
Are you going to be fully contrarian and say that it's an horrible idea to call both a Spanish and a Russian European ?
If you want to go specific, then nobody stops you to be more precise, say Southern or Mediterranean for Spain ( even Iberian Peninsula ) or Eastern Europe for the Russian Federation ( a part of it at least ).
This is exactly what I'm doing right now, geographically speaking Eastern African civilizations are de-facto Sub-Saharan...
Why am I even responding to this.
There's one specific group of people regularly bringing up Rhodesia.
real genius, im a black white nationalist, i'd tell you to do stand up but you're a decade late. there are numerous non african sub-saharan groups. The south africans, the krio and liberians, the Malay...
Yes because much like the aforementioned spanish, the east africans have a absurd amount of west asian cultural and genetic influence which seperates them from West and Central Africans. While the russians only adopted "european" culture relatively recently being more turkic and slavic previously. This is ofcourse assuming that europe is made of a group sharing a majority of commonalities the easiest of which to argue being that they are the people traditionally west of anatolia, which would exclude slavic and iranic people who were related to the inhabitants of europe and did intermarry with them but are considered genetically disparate enough to denote a separate group of people. however if you consider europe to be a landmass it becomes a question best left for a different person than I.
You complain about the generalisation of "sub-saharan africa" but casually drop "west asia"?
I think we lost pretty much any logical reasoning a couple of posts ago.
I won't even try to refute where does he think Slavic people comes from, are they Martian rather than European or something, from which people Russia got created ... it's a waste of time at this point. He conflates Slavs with "European" which says a lot ... Slavs are European... Rus are European.
Wait .. no I was about to explain my idea.. let's not continue on this, I give up.
Brandolini's law - Wikipedia
yes because east africans invaded both the arabian pennisula and egypt, then they we're involved heavily with several west asian kingdoms like Israel, the Hyksos through the egyptians, and the assyrians. mind you this isn't saying there wasn't east asian influence through trade as well which included china, india, and persia.
I don't like generalizing SSA because africa is HUGE and complex while western asian culture tends to go with the flow and covers a much smaller area.
Slavic peoples initially formed culturally and genetically in the asian steppe and many slavic people today have east asian features. While they are related to modern europeans through a shared ancestry they are culturally and genetically different. Arguing otherwise is like considering Navajo to be Mongolian.I think we lost pretty much any logical reasoning a couple of posts ago.
I won't even try to refute where does he think Slavic people comes from, are they Martian rather than European or something, from which people Russia got created ... it's a waste of time at this point. He conflates Slavs with "European" which says a lot ... Slavs are European... Rus are European.
Wait .. no I was about to explain my idea.. let's not continue on this, I give up.
Brandolini's law - Wikipedia
en.wikipedia.org
The question of whether Slavic people / The Russian State are part of Europe is such a long and complicated debate dating back so many hundreds of years, that this very argument is in part what led to the modern concept of Europe in the first place. You really can't sum it up as "they are genetically different" or "they are culturally different" because Russia itself cannot properly answer this question.
You're saying that you don't like to generalise SSA, but in the process you end up generalising everyone around them.
These kinds of claims make you look foolish. Slavs are believed to originate in Eastern Europe and genetically only Eastern Slavs have some Asiatic mixing after they migrated East.
I'm sure Czechs for example would like how you branded them separate from some mainline European culture. Maybe you like wrong generalizations and careless bull**** claims.
This is the first time I've seen Liberians described as non-African...
because africa is next to russia and russia is the sole overseer of all that is slavic.
Slavs originate in the ukrainian steppe and interbred with the numerous tribes that escaped persia. this makes them asian. The Czechs were the result of intermixing with Celts and being ruled over by numerous germanic states, they are the exception that proves the rule.
That's because most people don't understand the complex history of Liberia and it's internal racial strife that lead to the original founders, who were biracial americans, being exiled by ex-slaves who were sent there after the civil war because their lands of origin were still controlled by the much more powerful slave states of west africa. said ex-slaves made alliances with the native krahn tribe who had initially tried to steal the money offered for their land by the biracial founders in addition to attempting to enslave them and sell them to muslims which resulted in a war which left the krahn enslaved themselves due to british intervention. after the krahn and ex-slaves had kicked out the actual biracial Liberians the Krahn proceeded to genocide the still very american, blacks who were previously slaves and simply kept the name liberia because of it's association with america. So while the current Liberia is undeniably african it did not start out that way, nor was it ever intended as such.
So did half the groups of the migration period that ended up in Europe. The only reason to specify Slavs as "Asian" is to arbitrarily exclude them from Europe. Ethnobrained writers in Europe have been doing this since the 1700s.
You know what Indo-European is right?
