Відео

Que?

Thank you!

Subscribe, I plan to cover that in a future video.

Thanks!

1. I'd say it's moderately scary, it probably won't haunt your nightmares but it is spooky and tense, and has moments of psychological horror. It does more to unsettle than terrify. I'd compare it to The VVitch in tone and atmosphere, for the most part. 2. It has some thrilling moments, but it's not a thriller. No jumpscares in this one, as far as I can remember, although there are some moments that may make you gasp. 3. No, it is primarily intended to be a low-budget Witch movie set in colonial New England, the educational value is moreso a consequence of this setting being well-realized and woven into the horror. 4. The performances are, for the most part, excellent. I would say one of the characters is a tad over-acted, but overall I'd say the film is very well acted, and with such a small budget those performances really carry the film.

Hope that works lol

Thank you!

Ah, you're a tad mixed up, Juda is one of the many spellings of Xweda/Whydah/Hueda, a kingdom and port city in what is now the REPUBLIC of Benin. The modern day country of Benin is indirectly named after the Kingdom (it's named for the Bight of Benin, which is itself named for the Kingdom), but it's a totally different place; the Kingdom is in modern Nigeria. The Kingdom of Benin was not heavily involved in the Transatlantic Slave Trade, as they banned the export of enslaved men between the 1530s and 1730s.

Que?

Unfortunately for them Europeans only sold outdated or defective weaponry to Africans - they kept the up-to-date, fully functional stuff for their own armies. Benin had some cannons, but they had no way to get their hands on things like automatic weapons.

I mention the name Iya in the video, and they are longer than the Ming section of the Great Wall of China but a bit shorter than the Great Wall of China as a whole (I show the measurements in the video as well)

Bruh they're still there, you can look at them lmfao

If you can send me sources I can correct myself next time I make a video on Benin, but I can't take the word of a random UA-cam commenter.

@@SomasAcademy please get "The Benin Monarchy" An anthology of Benin History

@@nosaidubor9499 Oh man that book is already on my list, it's unfortunately way too expensive for me though lol (I don't make enough money to justify book purchases above $50 (and even $50 would be a major purchase for me), and the cheapest I can find that book for is over $80)

Watch the video lol

When you say "this channel" are you referring to Economics Explained or my channel? If the latter, I never engage in speculation without verbally signaling it. I include citations for all my videos, in this case there are on-screen footnotes with citations in the pinned comment. By all means, check my sources; I would encourage anyone who has the time to fact-check my channel and any others you watch.

1. Egyptians aren't European, and they themselves got the wheel through contact with Asians 2. The point is literally about wheel technology spreading across the Sahara lmfao

@@SomasAcademy You're mistaken, modern DNA plus historical records show that the founding stock of ancient Egyptian civilization were in fact Europeans. From your video it's clear that wheels in a form technically existed throughout the sub-Saharan but not really in the practical way they existed elsewhere that is often imagined.

​@@bigchongusHH 1. No it doesn't. No historical records suggest anything of that sort, and I say that as someone who has studied Egypt in university and can literally read Egyptian hieroglyphs. A 2017 study found that, based on 90 mtDNA samples and only 3 full genome samples, the local population of one region in Egypt had a closer affinity to Anatolian (i.e. West Asian) and European populations than modern Egyptians do between the late New Kingdom and Ptolemaic period. This is not the same as them being European, nor are these samples "the founding stock of ancient Egyptian civilization" - the earliest of these samples date to around 1,000 years after the Pyramids at Giza were built, and well over 2,000 years after the foundations of the Naqada culture (the civilization that developed into Dynastic Egypt). Moreover, the samples were taken from a single region of Egypt, and in addition to studies of individual regions not being representative of the full genetic diversity of large territories like Egypt (which shows a genetic gradient from North to South today, and most likely did historically as well), this particular region is well known as a point of settlement for populations like the Sheridan in the late New Kingdom (i.e. at the start of the study's timeframe). The Sheridan were a foreign population belonging to the so-called "sea people," and are commonly believed to come from Sardinia, a European island where the local population is primarily of Anatolian Farmer ancestry, which would explain these genetic affinities. In any case, even if these samples did represent all of Egypt or dated to earlier than the late New Kingdom, they would not make Egyptians European, as A. They are more similar to Asian populations, affinity to European populations can be attributed to the strong Asian genetic influence on southern Europe, and B. That would not make Egyptians either European or Asian, as ancestry does not equate to geography. All North Africans have significant amounts of ancient West Asian ancestry, they're still African by nature of living and culturally developing in Africa. 2. Exactly, that's the point I made, pay attention to the video lmfao

​@@bigchongusHH 😂😂

@@shafsteryellow Look what the trans Atlantic trade dragged in

Female?

@@SomasAcademy You telling me it's NOT female?

@@chrispile3878 It's a cartoon version of me and I'm not female so yeah lol

@@SomasAcademy Then that cartoon is very unfortunately drawn. And still STOOPID.

@@chrispile3878 With my editing style it's hard to fill every second of he video with visuals. The avatar lets me fill in the gaps.

😂

Non-sequitur

@@SomasAcademy conflict avoidance.

@@ML3180 What conflict?

1. EE suggests, in accordance with the Acemoglu and Robinson article, that the wheel was not known or used in Sub-Saharan Africa until after European contact, and then makes statements about the wheel not being widely adopted AFTER it became known at that time. I clarified in the video that wheels were known before that point, and were adopted in certain regions, before falling out of use. The rest of the argument is about the reasons why wheels were not widely used, and the fact that wheels were at one point adopted in certain regions is relevant to the position I present. 2. EE asserted that the degree of separation between Sub-Saharan Africa and the rest of the Old World was comparable to that between pre-colonial Australia and the Old World. That is not merely a matter of how many tons of goods can be transported per year. Moreover, while ships are much more efficient than any form of land-based transport (as discussed in the video), land-based transport was nevertheless extremely significant to global trade. Suggesting that Sub-Saharan Africa was cut off from the trade routes "between Europe, the Middle East, and Asia" based on the fact that trans-Saharan Trade was less efficient than maritime trade is incoherent, as said trade routes between "Europe, the Middle East, and Asia" included major land-based trade routes (and the overland routes between Europe and East Asia notably took around twice as long as those between Sub-Saharan Africa and North Africa; the connections across the Sahara were by all accounts significantly stronger than those between Europe and East Asia, yet the EE video sets Sub-Saharan Africa apart). This is further not to mention my discussion of maritime trade between Asia and North Africa and Sub-Saharan Africa, which made up approximately half of the section debunking EE's claim of Sub-Saharan isolation. Your snide remark on "sensitive viewers" is uncalled for, and can easily be turned back on you as a "sensitive viewer" who was offended into leaping to the defense of EE, requiring more explanation from me. By contrast, EE themselves graciously accepted my criticism and requested to include it in their end-of-year corrections video.

1. I'm Asian, and the playlist also includes videos from Hometeam History, From Nothing, Bamise, Ken Kwame, and The Wondering Griot, all of whom are Black. Less than half of our participants were white. 2. Race has no bearing on one's ability to talk about Black history. The idea that talking about Black history is something for only Black people to do just contributes to keeping it "untold." More non-Black people should talk about Black history, to spread it to wider audiences; I first started learning about African history from Hometeam and From Nothing years ago, and now I'm sharing it with more people.

I didn't say anything about Madagascar, I primarily focused on the Swahili Coast for that section. Are you just commenting because you notice that Madagascar is involved in Indian Ocean trade routes on that map? That's not a problem, that's just a fact. Regardless, Madagascar was populated by groups coming from Austronesia and mainland East Africa around the same time, and the modern population is descended from a mix of both. Additionally, Madagascar is part of Africa, which makes the people there African regardless of ancestry.

Unfortunately we know very little about that region during the early middle ages. Archaeological remains from those areas go back thousands of years, but there is a large gap in archaeological data through much of the middle ages, and to my knowledge, oral traditions from West Central Africa (the area of modern Congo and Angola) and the Great Lakes region of East Africa (Uganda and its neighbors) only stretch back to around the 14th century, after the time when Wagadu had disappeared. They probably weren't disconnected from the rest of the world, though; trade routes stretched across most of the African continent by the Middle Ages (which I talk about a bit in my response video to Economics Explained, if you want to check that one out!), and I wouldn't be surprised if they existed earlier, as I know that there were earlier trade routes between the East African coast and the interior of Southern Africa, and between the Sahel and the forest region of modern-day Nigeria (Igboland)!

during the russian revolution in 1917 there were a few people suggesting that instead of fighting the corrupt orthodox church an being anti-religious, they should instead make their own religion. you can google "god building" if you wanna find out more.

This sounds like a variation on the hypothesis suggested by Sigmund Freud in his book "Moses and Monotheism," that Moses was a Priest of Aten who left Egypt after Akhenaten's death. However, for the reasons I mentioned in the video as well as some others I didn't get into, this hypothesis is effectively pure speculation that doesn't line up with any existing evidence. Moses is typically believed by historians to be a literary construct, not a real person (as there is no archaeological evidence or Egyptian corroboration of the Exodus story), but if he was real, the Exodus story is dated to during or after the reign of Ramesses II, as the city of Pi-Ramesses is referenced in the text. It's entirely possible that the story was composed later and incorporated new elements even if it was inspired by real events, but if the story changed in such ways, why would we assume there was a real individual figure equivalent to Moses, especially if we're assuming said figure was just an Egyptian who moved to Asia? At that point, we are essentially throwing out every element of the Exodus story except the notion of a single guy who left Egypt and became a founding figure in Judaism. Why would we dismiss so much of the Exodus story as creative license while assuming that single element was true? It's a creative concept, but not a valid historical hypothesis. Moreover, as mentioned in the video, the dates don't line up; the earliest evidence of Monotheism in Palestine comes many centuries after the disappearance of Atenism. In order for us to assume a connection, we have to assume that rather than travelling to Palestine, "Moses" travelled somewhere nearby, and founded a monotheistic hybrid religion of which we have no evidentiary traces, that centuries later influenced Judaism. It's not impossible, but it's an unfalsifiable claim with no basis in the evidence, and thus invalid as a historical hypothesis. And once again, at that point we are getting so abstracted from the Exodus story that it's not reasonable to assume any part of that story was based on reality. Occam's Razor would suggest that the similarities between Atenism and Judaism can be explained by both being Monotheistic faiths that developed out of Near Eastern religions, not that there was some elaborate chain of events through which the former evolved into the latter while leaving no evidence aside from a highly abstracted set of general plot details in the otherwise radically different Exodus story.

@@SomasAcademy it still interesting idea

@@SomasAcademy good point

Thank you!

Thanks!

Okay? What does this have to do with the video?

@@SomasAcademy Everything !! Why the Afrocentric , and their sympathizers spread lies , culture appropriate, and black wash history all the time ,, and no one says anything or correct them !! so you are upset because I am Narrating history as it should be !! Shame on the educated people who can’t face some woks who erase people to steal their history !! And get caught , they cry racism!!

That isn't an explanation of what it has do do with this video, since I'm not Afrocentric and didn't spread any lies or appropriate or Blackwash any history in said video.

The cisse were the kings of Ghana empire.

All the kings of ancient Ghana empire were the cisse.

How do you expect anyone to know what statement you're talking about