Who thinks this?
My Af-Am studies class, inexplicably.
Anyway, as to the question, I think Africa is probably largely "Screwed" as long as it and its "Negroid" population remains oriented on a North-South Axis. Change that, and you may butterfuly away the origins of man entirely. Nevertheless, Africa needs to be shifted to an East-West Axis if the civilizations that arise there are going to have a real chance to compete with Eurasian Civilizations, and that is a pre-history mutation. The principle exception being Egypt, and a more navigatible Nile possibily allowing the North-South African Continent to compete. But we're talking a Nile blessed with no cataphracts, reaching its full extent. Short of Ancient Egyptians being able to sail into Uganda (And Ugandas being able to sail to Alaxandria) I dont' see it. But, if Ugandans can sail or paddle their way to Alaxandria / Cairo from time immemorial, than I suspect a "Black" Carthage is possible. On the other hand, the butterflies begin long before Carthage is even a twinkle in Dido's eye.
Honestly I'd say that just getting rid of the Tetse fly and Malaria would do more for African civilizations than anything involving Geography (India is a good case showing a north south oriantation is not a real problem for a region). The big problem with subsaharan africa (a terrible way to describe africa by the way, it's better to divide it up into West, Northeast, Couastal south east, the congo, coastal south west, and south in terms of geographic regions) is that most of it is not optimal farmland (besides egypt) and is riddled with diseases which ensure low populations.
Is it arguing that "Black" Sub-Saharans were a part of ancient North African demography or that blacks were the principal population of North Africa / "Tunisia" in the 3rd Century? (1)Secondly, what does blacks in Tunisia have to do with African-American Studies? (2)Or is this a Black Studies class? Finally, might it not simply be possible that objective of your lesson isn't to teach you that "Whenever Africans build something cool, white people just have to show up and destroy it..." (3)but that the historical rendering of North Africa as "Blackless" in its history is about as meaningful as America being Blackless in its history. Both viewpoints widely held historically, and equally false, despite the fact that "Blacks" never comprised the greater part of the population in either region at least during the periods most widely known and examined by historians(4).
"Destroyed" is a very strong and very harsh term for what happened. Conquered is better. The sub continent's civilization survived that just fine and its religious texts and written works are amongst the oldest in civilization. No one knows what happened with Harappa, but as a whole Indian civilization [though I find the grouping absurdly diverse] was never destroyed.I'm not quite sure why you'd say India stands out as being proof of the invalidity of the North-South theory, considering how often native Indian subcontinent civilization was destroyed / conquered by invaders from the East-West Eurasian continent. (North Africa experienced the same, it was the Sahara that stopped Eurasian invasions before 1500, largely.)
Hannibal Barca would be called Black Dynamite.
I'm not quite sure why you'd say India stands out as being proof of the invalidity of the North-South theory, considering how often native Indian subcontinent civilization was destroyed / conquered by invaders from the East-West Eurasian continent. (North Africa experienced the same, it was the Sahara that stopped Eurasian invasions before 1500 in Sub-Saharan Africa. And of course, while the Himalayas were not as complete a barrier as a Sahara before the domestication of the camel, invaders who figured out a way to cross it from Eurasia seem to have been more successful than not.
I'd much prefer Spartacus X to show up in this timeline, or the Rabbi King, but whatever.
err actual hannibal is phoenician technichally speaking since carthages elite was descended from phoenician seafairers. Howdve thwy did use numidian troops and so on but carthage itself was for all intents and purposes mainly phoenician.
Therefore perhaps the carthage elite mismanages rule over the native pops who revolt and establish a nunidian carthage dynasty. Thats the only real way to have a "black" carthage but even then stricltyl speaking all lands from mauritania(roman poftion) to much of india and persia fall under the caucasion group. Thereford to have a truly black carthage you need a subsaharan kingdom somehow conquer carthage.