I knew about Septimus Severus and Basil II. But Who else can be in the list?

WE
WUZ
KANGZZZZZZZZZZZ

>>17776815
Its an actuall book despite the controversial topic. I was wondering who else could be listed by the author

>>17776813 (OP)
>Anu M'Bantu
Whose real name is probably Solomon Rabinowitz.

>>17776813 (OP)
Much more interesting to learn about the anglo kings of Africa. The builders of the great pyramids. The crafters of the great golden relics. The architects of the dreamscapes of the Great Mosque. Who were these Anglo Lords and why were they erased from history by colonizers?

>>17776813 (OP)
>”Black Kings of Europe”
>Basil II
>Not Black
>Not a King

>>17776813 (OP)
I'm assuming they're going to take a very broad view of what constitutes "black" people and say that Spain had black kings during the ~700 years of Moorish rule.

>>17776813 (OP)
The people we now know as black, were sub-saharan africans in ancient days (and still are unless if they migrated, usually via the transatlantic slave trade).

I don't understand why they don't try to take pride in who they *actually* were.

Probably because they were neolithic mud hut dwellers whose primary food was insects.

Septimus was Libyan. Basil II was Greek. So they weren't black by any measure. They would look Middle Eastern or Mediterranean.

This WE WUZ KANGS shit is **always** blacks trying to take the credit for other culture's achivements, because they have none of their own.

They lived like monkeys and were repeatedly enslaved.... and that's their entire history. They didn't invent anything, they didn't have culture, they didn't have history.

And while we're on the topic, Mansa Musa, the extremely wealthy king who WAS African. Pretty much exhibit A in the Kangs discussion, got that way by abducting hundreds of thousands of rival black tribes and selling them as slaves to the middle east.

Mansa Musa was rich BECAUSE he enslaved his own people on a scale never before seen or since.

>>17776813 (OP)
The subtitle "Black Complexions in Royal Families" is very telling.

That's their copout for everyone they're discussing being "blackish" and not an actual black.

The blackwashing of historical figures by black american "intellectuals" is due to their inferiority complex

>>17776875
To be honest, the history of Kush, Timbuktu and Aksumite empire are pretty fascinating in their own right. Africans had their own history but they are very repetitive and tribal with a kingdom here and there that doesn’t show much difference to its neighhoring kingdom aside from language and culture.
And Mensa Musa being the richest blackest nigger to have ever lived through slavery should be a feat on itself. I know it is contradictory bringing this to an american conversation but overall /his/torical topic, slavery is present in like 90% of history and literally every period had slaves in them. Only americans seem to have an odd need to censor it when it was a factual part of history. Mensa Musa being so rich he broke nations when he walked through them is kinda badass because neither jews or romans were able to have this type of output as to become nation-breaking rich by selling slaves.

>>17776881
And in medieval times they were called swarthy, which was not a synonym for Sub Saharan African.

>>17777116
>Kush, Timbuktu and Aksumite
All of them made by berberids and/or african semites. They were the swartiest caucasoids, not sub-saharians

Blacks were the seminal foundation to European dynasties

setting the precedent for seminal glory imbued into European tapestry, siring sovereign shepherds that lifted the swine out the proverbial mudhut

in absense there is no "europe"

>>17776881

the throne was inherited by mutts but the patriarchal precedent was set , thats why royals were swarthy juxtaposed to the native peasents

>>17776813 (OP)
Severus literally had a chudout when he saw a Ethiopian when he inspected troops in Britain