So Africans were living with their wits under a tropical environment with no access to the development that ASIA, ARABS and EUROPEANS exploited through the famous trade routes like the Silk Road.

EUROPEANS EXPLOITED MORE THAN THEY GAVE BACK! Self titled “King” Neopold alone killed an estimated 10 million Africans for his cocoa enterprise.

You build your perception not by asking yourself tough questions or opening your thoughts to another possibility…..but you reinforcing a narrow line of thought which is motivated by your need to make Europeans (yourself) look good under the historical circumstances.

AFRICANS LEARNED QUICKLY…THEY WERE DEALT THE SAME CRUELTY AS NATIVE INDIANS….THEY KEPT THEIR CONTINENT…

If you knew better, you would know that many ‘English’ words are rooted from ‘latin’… in fact, many European words/language for that matter… and yes, Italy IS in EUROPE.

So, as I see it clearly, and, as debated and over-stood with my ‘Italian-Canadian’ mate, African’s are not ‘black’ – Europeans (even in North America…or anywhere in the world) are not ‘white’.

Perhaps knowledge and consistancy would reinforce people of the world based on their nationality. Putting an end to the ignorance/confusion of race versus ethnicity.

Blacks are not evil, whites are not pure. IF people knew anything about word association, and sub-conscious mentally, you’d comprehend my points. And yes, evolution and generational ignorance even had African referring to themselves as ‘black’ and Europeans as ‘whites’… in addition to the rest of nations.

So, perhaps consistency and knowledge would reinforce being referred to as your nationality and lineage (Continent-Country of birth)…

For Example: European-Canadian, or Asian-Indian
Me: African-Canadian

Remembering, Where you live makes you are CITIZEN (by paper) of that country, NOT your ‘race, ethnicity, colour, nationality’…

Then again, people are probably just too ignorant you figure this out.

Best Regards to Promote Anti-Oppression and Anti-Ignorance

I think this should be taught in journalism classes….the show has no clear message but just to dazzle the audience with pictures of far away land with out of context realities only stitched together in the fallible mind of its creators.

By the middle of 20th century, colonization in the form known before that time has already fallen out of fashion. The most significant effort at colonization of Ethiopia was made by the Italians late in the early part of the century, and they were handily defeated by the Ethiopians in that conflict. They were also handily defeated in Libya, a country next door to them. You may want to consult some information about the period of European colonization in Africa. It started in the 16th century.

Most of Italy’s colonization efforts in Africa were focused on East Africa, i.e. Ethiopia, Eritrea and Somalia. They came very late in the game and were also considered some of the most repressive, cruel and racist colonizers.

You sound like a Nazi/Fascist empathizer. Yes, they lost and for a good reason. Their attrocites paled those of other Europeans in contrast.

During World War 2, the battle between Italian and British forces for control of Ethiopia was hard-fought; and the Italian army, with limited resources, performed brilliantly. But the British were able to re-supply and won.

History is written by victors and this is more true of WW2 than of any other conflict in history. The focus on the British blitz, Nazi occupations of European countries, D-day and the heroic Anglo-American Alliance offers a false perspective by omitting or distorting terrible and larger events; the orthodox view underplays colonial conflicts in North and Central Africa, and heroizes blustering victors (British and Americans) at the expense of courageous losers (Italians and Germans).

There is a great deal of inferiority complex at display in the video.