African Pride

  • Thread starter Thread starter New Editor
  • Start date Start date
kingblaze84;8603207 said:
A Nigerian man at one point helped create the fastest computer in the world.....he also helped create wi-fi internet and improved the speed of search engines
http://www.math.buffalo.edu/mad/computer-science/emeagwali_philip.html

Philip Emeagwali's father went to school with Chike Obi, the first African to get a Ph.D. in Mathematics. Philip Emeagwali was born in 1954 in Nigeria.

Philip Emeagwali designed the program and formula for the fastest computer on earth, the Connection Machine. He designed the system of parallel computers that are used by all search engines, for example Yahoo or Search.com. The parallel computer idea was also worked on by individuals such as Burton Smith and Daniel Hillis.

The Connection Machine with a program developed by Philip Emeagwali solved a 350 year old packing problem that was considered to be one of the great unsolved mathematics problems. The Connection Machine and Mr. Emeagwali also designed equations to explain how sperm swim, how polluted groundwater flows, how the Earth's interior moves and causes volcanic eruptions, finally how to recover petroleum safer and in larger quantities.

Finally Philip Emeagwali designed the Hyperball computer which is able to forecast long-term global warming patterns.

That's amazing, this was all done in the 90's and I'm just learning about this. Smh, pitiful.

Delphas;8610690 said:
https://youtu.be/V9MjUj9fudA

This is DOPE, but I have a feeling our hands won't be the only ones in the pot!

 

Yeah, it's a great feeling knowing we have such a rich history....if more knew, then more would see their potential.[/quote]

Completely agree with this!

kingblaze84;8649579 said:
I also take pride that Europeans weren't able to fully colonize and cause chaos in most of Africa until the 1880s, while Europeans did the same in the Americas as early as the 1400s. That shows how strong we were.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_Africa

Between 1878 and 1898, European states partitioned and conquered most of Africa. For 400 years, European nations had mainly limited their involvement to trading stations on the African coast. Few dared venture inland from the coast; those that did, like the Portuguese, often met defeats and had to retreat to the coast.

Would that change have been brought on by the gun?

 
Last edited:
@bbkg79

It's bigger then the gun, because Europeans had access to the gun since roughly the 1400s. The bigger breakthrough for Europeans was the speed in which guns could re-load. That changed everything.
 
Last edited:
kingblaze84;8663185 said:
@bbkg79

It's bigger then the gun, because Europeans had access to the gun since roughly the 1400s. The bigger breakthrough for Europeans was the speed in which guns could re-load. That changed everything.

It was more or less incomptent weapon since you had to reload and put in gun powder just so much to do. But the machine gun changed that.
 
Ajackson17;8663775 said:
It was more or less incomptent weapon since you had to reload and put in gun powder just so much to do. But the machine gun changed that.
well, they were colonizing prior to the era of machine guns, but that undoubtedly made it easier.

 
janklow;8664027 said:
Ajackson17;8663775 said:
It was more or less incomptent weapon since you had to reload and put in gun powder just so much to do. But the machine gun changed that.
well, they were colonizing prior to the era of machine guns, but that undoubtedly made it easier.

They were having a lot of trouble getting inside of the mainland. Plus, it was more of manipulation versus military and a lot of europeans were scared of going into the mainland to occupy it.
 
Ajackson17;8664057 said:
janklow;8664027 said:
Ajackson17;8663775 said:
It was more or less incomptent weapon since you had to reload and put in gun powder just so much to do. But the machine gun changed that.
well, they were colonizing prior to the era of machine guns, but that undoubtedly made it easier.

They were having a lot of trouble getting inside of the mainland. Plus, it was more of manipulation versus military and a lot of europeans were scared of going into the mainland to occupy it.

Yeah, but I think what he meant to say was that before the machine gun, the guns Europeans had access to were still good enough to colonize many other non-African places before the 1880s.
 
Last edited:
Ajackson17;8664057 said:
They were having a lot of trouble getting inside of the mainland. Plus, it was more of manipulation versus military and a lot of europeans were scared of going into the mainland to occupy it.
well, the main thing is that they didn't start colonizing with machine guns, so it wasn't strictly an issue of "now we can do this thing." don't know that i would totally say "scared," either, because Europeans were definitely colonizing in the face of massacres prior.

that said, i'm not entirely sure what you're calling "mainland" and what's outside that, and i would definitely say the specific area/colonizer makes a difference in this debate.
 
janklow;8666405 said:
Ajackson17;8664057 said:
They were having a lot of trouble getting inside of the mainland. Plus, it was more of manipulation versus military and a lot of europeans were scared of going into the mainland to occupy it.
well, the main thing is that they didn't start colonizing with machine guns, so it wasn't strictly an issue of "now we can do this thing." don't know that i would totally say "scared," either, because Europeans were definitely colonizing in the face of massacres prior.

that said, i'm not entirely sure what you're calling "mainland" and what's outside that, and i would definitely say the specific area/colonizer makes a difference in this debate.

Passed the coastal parts. Let me get some references for you, so you can understand.
 
Ajackson17;8667356 said:
Passed the coastal parts. Let me get some references for you, so you can understand.
i really just want to hear an example or two of what's "past the coastal parts"

 
janklow;8669830 said:
Ajackson17;8667356 said:
Passed the coastal parts. Let me get some references for you, so you can understand.
i really just want to hear an example or two of what's "past the coastal parts"

I thought about what I was talking about and I mean the mainland.
 
janklow;8674502 said:
Ajackson17;8672711 said:
I thought about what I was talking about and I mean the mainland.
okay... but just give me one example.

not even arguing the point, i'm just curious

I live in ohio it's not coast but inland, while most of the kidnapped africans were close to the coast like New York and Miami and San Diego while it took much longer to get inland like Nebraska. You get my example.
 
Ajackson17;8674697 said:
I live in ohio it's not coast but inland, while most of the kidnapped africans were close to the coast like New York and Miami and San Diego while it took much longer to get inland like Nebraska. You get my example.
well, i understand what "not a coastal area" means. what i'm wondering is "what's an example of a colonized nation in Africa we couldn't call coastal on some level?"

 
http://www.unesco.org/new/en/culture/themes/dialogue/general-history-of-africa/

In 1964, UNESCO launched the elaboration of the General History of Africa with a view to remedy the general ignorance on Africa’s history. The challenge consisted of reconstructing Africa’s history, freeing it from racial prejudices ensuing from slave trade and colonization, and promoting an African perspective.

UNESCO therefore called upon the then utmost African and non African experts. These experts’ work represented 35 years of cooperation between more than 230 historians and other specialists, and was overseen by an International Scientific Committee which comprised two-thirds of Africans.

The result was the elaboration of the General History of Africa into eight volumes (Phase I of the project). This huge task, completed in 1999, had a great impact in Africa and, beyond, within the scientific and academic circles and is considered as a major contribution to the knowledge of Africa’s history and historiography.
 
im a former afrocentric. but learning about the copper colored people changed my whole life within 2 months. Now im hammering the old people in my fam with questions. grandmas gettin it too. pause.
 
That's cool, more info about the 1.5trillion contributions we've made to humanity. I can't lie though, a piece of me hates hearing about my culture from white people.

A friend of mine shared this article with mehttp://bittergertrude.com/2016/02/08/white-people-shut-up-about-beyonce/

And after watching this video, this comment which was written (in regards to the article) by a white person came to mind.

"When a person of color tells me the story of their cultural experience, whether or not they are painting an ugly image of those who share my whiteness, I listen. Because if you are American you have to realize that our nation was built, quite literally, on a foundation of institutionalized racism. It lies in our nation’s DNA and the active awareness of that ugly truth, told through the stories of those who suffered it, should always be at the forefront of our national consciousness.

But when another white person wants to yell at me that I don’t “get it” (“it” being some ill-defined aspect of the African-American experience) because I’m not black, here’s what I want most to say to them: Guess what? NEITHER ARE YOU. And no matter how much you proclaim that you DO get it… you really don’t. And neither do I. And we never will. Because we’re not black.

The difference between you and I seems to be this: I’m fully aware of the limitations my ethnicity imposes upon my perception of the very race-particular struggles undertaken by all American people of color. You, on the other hand, seem to perceive yourself as all-knowing in regards to issues you can not possibly have personally experienced.

While I always hesitate to speak for anyone else, I’m reasonably certain the African-American community neither needs nor wants you to ride in on your white horse and speak for them with the presumption that other whites won’t listen to THEM, but will only listen to YOU. And I can, again, only speak definitively for myself, but other white people screaming about how great they are because THEY ARE THE ONLY WHITEZ WHO REALLY, REALLY UNDERSTAND BLACK PEOPLE… these people come across as perhaps the most clueless lot of all.

The African-American community has for half a century spoken loudly and proudly for themselves. They certainly don’t suddenly need YOU in all your glorious whiteness to do it for them.

Frankly, you probably owe them an apology.

P.S. – I didn’t even realize those were supposed to be Black Panthers with Beyoncé. I thought she was doing a RHYTHM NATION homage.

That would have been dope."


cannonspike1994;8671048 said:
https://youtu.be/KeBPKyNar5Q

 

Members online

No members online now.

Trending content

Thread statistics

Created
-,
Last reply from
-,
Replies
58
Views
3
Back
Top
Menu
Your profile
Post thread…