Why is Africa so terrible? They have shitloads of resources that would make a nuked Europe close to normal again.
>>1154390
>Why is Africa so terrible
It's not, I've been to Rabat, Lagos and Windhoek, lovely places.
>>1154409
>Rabat
When people talk about Africa being shit they usually mean Sub-Saharan
>Lagos
Nice for tourists but an utter hellhole to live in. It's dense, crowded, and pretty much the only center of activity in a country too big for its own good.
>Windhoek
Namibia has a really low population density and is one of the few exceptions to the common situation in most of Africa.
>>1154390
Niggers.
Now seriously, I find it hard to think of any other explanation
The hardest part of building rule of law is the first 500 years
-Some fag
The institutions that enable people to set up businesses without getting immediately shaken down by corrupt politicians take time, political capital, and some luck to build.
Africa hasn't had any of these.
Places like Ghana, Botswana, and Kenya have done better than places like Liberia and Zimbabwe, but even the best off African countries have a world of shit to plow through before they can think about catching up to the rest of the world.
>>1154390
Niggers, Europe colonization and american capitalism.
>>1154426
Most African countries have a low population density.
>>1154409
I loved Tanzania, Tunisia and Namibia. But I didn't like Botswana, I was staying in Gaborone and the humidity was unbearable.
>>1154390
How is anything under the red line, supposed to get anywhere?
Exactly
>>1154452
>loved Tunisia
Literally why? Worst country I've ever visited by a mile.
>>1154426
OP's map includes all of Africa so fuck off
>>1154465
t. some mena sandnigger
>>1154471
MENA > every black country ever
>>1154465
Agreed. Somaliland is very stable and closer to North Africa and the Middle East in prosperity compared to the rest of Africa save Botswana.
it's /his/'s trigger word. Geographic determinism.
Africa has resources, yes, but it lacks a lot of the basics needed for a civilization to thrive. which are
1. an easy to grow agricultural product that provides a high calorie count
2. interconnection between settlements for ease of travel.
3. large pool of domesticated animals to use for work/food.
4. easy routes for trade with other people groups.
North Africa thrived in ancient times because of Wheat that could be grown on the Nile/Mediterranean coast, letting Egypt and Carthage thrive as nations, but once you travel south, there's no such easy food crop to grow. African city states only began to take shape after bananas were introduced to Africa around 800 CE. Without a food source to anchor your population, cities are impossible to make.
travel is also a nightmare in africa with all the barriers it holds. Crossing the Sahara to trade with Carthage/Egypt was a fools errand for anyone not called Ethiopia, and the Interior rainforest was inhospitable less you wanted to die of yellow fever and dengue. This made travelling to Carthage or Memphis for trade impossible.
next is docile animals. your barnyard staples such as horses, cows, pigs, and chickens are largely absent from Africa, with more carnivorous animals taking their place, or just animals that flee at the first sight of a person like Gazelles and Zebras. with no beats of burden, citybuilding is just that much harder.
in order to build a state or empire, you need to be able to travel to all your settlements, with the geographic barriers said before, that's a tall order for anyone not on the North or Eastern coasts, which were the first two areas to see actual civilization rise because of the ease of access to these lands.
Africa has a lot going for it for an advanced society, but has almost none of the ingredients to build the basics of a starting civilization.
>>1154390
Geography. The heavy jungles and deserts meant that each tribe lived in relative isolation. Small isolated communities = lack of development. And the lack of development meant that certain attributes like intelligence weren't being selected for in sexual selection. Jigboos can dance well and are muscular because that's who was getting laid and having kids. Not the quiet but smart industrialist who gets pussy from being wealthy like in Europe.
>>1154481
>>1154471
If you have the freedom to expand east, west, north or south, you're pretty good. You can interact with anyone else around you.
If you can only expand north or south, it's pretty bad, since youll be running into the same people group every time.
If you're living in the Congo and the only place you can go is The Sahara Desert or to Egypt, you probably won't have a good time.
If you're living in Italy and you can sail anywhere, you might actually become successful.....kind of like a certain large empire that expanded in a circular fashion around the Mediterranean
>>1154496
>sail everywhere
>implying the Africans couldn't
>>1154491
Anybody who cites Jared Diamond, even in casual conversation on 4chan, should be shot on the spot
>>1154390
it's mostly jungle, desert and mountains
and there's a distinct lack of good crops, domesticable animals and access to the rest of the world. Unless you were near the nile or the horn, you weren't going to do well.
it's not not a very good places to build empires unless you already have one
>>1154514
>South America
And yet they made far greater civilizations than niggers have ever made.
>>1154514
>Where will they be sailing to?
India? Persia? Fucking Arabian peninsula?
>>1154502
how about instead of threatening to shoot people, present a credited refutation to the argument?
Diamond has stood this long as a valid argument because there has yet to be a complete refutation to discredit his thesis.
I'm still waiting on a refutation, until then, he is credible, whether you like it or not.
>it's an africa episode
These threads are the worst. Here's hoping /his/ can pull a decent thread out of it's magic hat though.
>>1154525
>>1154390
>he hasn't been to Bostwana
reeeeeeee
>>1154502
And we're to blame?
>>1154523
How will they be getting there? It's not exactly a few hours sailing
>>1154491
This.
Agriculture is the big one, most of Africa is either:
a. desert (no water for crops) or
b. jungle (which you may not know, but are actually very low in nutrients. You cannot grow agricultural crops in jungle soil because it's constantly being recycled by the ecosystem, it doesn't build up in the soil as it does in other places, meaning no nutrients are readily available).
Let's also not forget that there are terrible diseases that are only present in Africa and in large numbers. There are many tropical parasites and other pathogenic organisms that significantly decrease the quality of life, especially when there's little access to medical care as is also the case in many regions.
>>1154390
>generalizing this hard
wew lad
>>1154555
...by building ships and sailing there?
>>1154555
That did not hinder other peoples to sail to America or the Sahara
>>1154491
>Bananas were introduced to Africa
What? They're not a native plant?
I would love to see the sources on this. Agricultural background and I had no fucking idea.
>>1154561
>land is so bountiful that crops don't need to be grown
>somehow worse off than Iceland
>>1154491
This.
>>1154572
>it's the "hurr africa is bountiful and easy" meme
>>1154564
>>1154567
Which means, we have to go back to the first thing and look at how "other people" got there. Presumably you mean the British, Portuguese,, Spanish etc.
These people didn't start sailing that far until the year 1450. Even then, it was dangerous, expensive, needed a proper navy and army to enforce etc. etc.
So remind me again how a tribe in South Africa that has had zero contact with the rest of the world, supposed to build a 15 tons galleon and start sailing?
The world isn't like your Sid Meyer video games.
>>1154390
How much money from those resources stay in africa?
Agriculture makes civilization. Everything else is important but less so.
South America and Mexico had neither beasts of burden (llamas are pretty good for meat and clothing though, but that was only South America) nor good travel routes to other civilizations (like traveling to one another).
What they did have though was maize and the almighty potato. That's what set them apart from Africa.
If I could change one thing about history, it would be giving the Mesoamerican and South American civilizations a good travel route through Panama to contact with one another. I think if that were possible, we would have seen a development of even greater civilizations.
>>1154519
Ethiopia, Kush, Nubia, Mali, and Ghana > mesoamerican anything
>>1154577
Going to Madagascar could be a first
Then throught the Aden gulf / Red sea
>>1154390
There's a reason the moors invaded Spain lad.
And look what happened afterwards. Despite impressive architecture and military strength, they enslaved pillaged and raped.
There have been cases where there were African kingdoms who were powerful and influential, the Axum empire for example, which said to have rivalled Rome.
Ultimately it's a combination of geography, culture, exposure, and travel.
The more you have, the more powerful you become as a nation.
>>1154577
Apparently the muslim merchants had no trouble at all saling to east African coast but suddenly it's some kind of unmovable obstacle when Africans try to do it.
>>1154585
Why?
>>1154577
You can literally sail all the way to fucking India just by staying close to the coast and resupplying often. It's piss easy.
>>1154591
>those who invaded Spain were africans
>>1154584
This. Less chances of barbarity and violence and more unity.
>>1154600
Well they were.
>inb4 only blacks can be African
>>1154584
Could the capybara have been domesticated?
>>1154605
>HOW CAN THEY EVEN STARVE?
Blame the west for introducing them to modern medicine. They didn't have starvation problems when there were 5 and a half of them.
>>1154589
I really don't think you realize how massive Africa is.
>>1154593
>Apparently the muslim merchants
Yeah, those guys who were at the certain of every civilization on Earth. They had no problems going to the library and reading how to perfect the art of ship making.
>suddenly it's some kind of unmovable obstacle when Africans try to do it.
Yes. Building a large, 15 ton galleon with no knowledge of physics and ship making is in fact pretty damn hard. So hard that it didn't happen
>>1154545
WOW! a post on 4chan.org with no sources and classic old racism sprinkled on top to cement that Western European society is intrinsically superior.
I'm such a fool for ever doubting your flawless logic, I'm now compelled to get on my knees and suck your dick until you cum in my mouth and make me swallow!
yeah nah fuck off
>>1154602
The moors did Come from Berbers who were black.
>>1154602
>they weren't from Arabia nor the levant
>>1154599
>You can literally sail all the way to fucking India
On what?
>resupplying often
Where at? With what money? All that Roman gold just sitting in South Africa?
>>1154605
>triggered /pol/fag
Read the thread you idiot.
>>1154585
All those except Ethiopia are garbage, and Ethiopia doesn't even boast architectural feats like the Meso-American pyramids.
>>1154610
Crossing to Madagascar or through the Aden gulf back and fort couldn't be any big deal. Through pratice they'd end up going to Persia
>>1154622
>garbage
Ok kid.
>>1154616
>Berbers who were black
Berber here, top bait.
>>1154619
You just can't stop making excuses can you. Indians had no trouble, Arabs had no trouble, Italians had no trouble, but for Subsaharans it suddenly becomes a monumental challenge.
>>1154613
Can you come up with a rebuttal for the post? Or are you going to just shitpost about it?
>>1154629
>implying North Africa wasn't a cesspool for race mixing
Ok, lol.
http://www.africaresource.com/rasta/sesostris-the-great-the-egyptian-hercules/the-appearance-of-the-original-berbers-according-to-european-perceptions-by-dana-marniche/
>>1154613
>Western European society is intrinsically superior
Eastern European as well. Arab, too.
>>1154637
>africaresource
Didn't even click lmao.
>>1154624
>land on shores of Somalia
>local king ask what you're doing on his land
>???
Then what?
>>1154633
>Indians had no trouble, Arabs had no trouble, Italians had no trouble
All of those places are in the center of civilization
> but for Subsaharans it suddenly becomes a monumental challenge.
Just like the British until the Romans showed up
Why are the British so mentally retarded that they just can't make a boat and start sailing to the Middle East?
>>1154635
Not him, but that's rich, coming from the fact that the post was flawed, and had little citations and was biased.
Your source is shit.
>>1154640
>didn't even click
Which is why you fail.
>>1154624
Have you ever sailed across a body of water the size of Texas on a dingy?
>>1154646
>you fail
As opposed to a black faggot? Top lel you're the definition of a failure.
>>1154641
This. Brits were running around nude and had little advancements themselves.
If anything, Sub Saharan medicine was far superior to that of Celtic Druids, and other forms of medicine
>hurrr durrr the leaves from these plants look like lungs, hence they must fix lungs!
>>1154637
>Rastafarian website
Are you even trying
>>1154645
>Flawed
Explain why it's flawed. It makes perfect sense to me as it is very logically.
>>1154496
>Guns, Germs and Steel
Take your pseudo logic and get out
>>1154662
>not bothering to read the article and the cites that it sources and evidence it presents.
And you're calling me a failure?
>>1154660
How so? If anything we've debunked most of the racial bias that you have.
Read the thread and then fuck off back to /pol/ you autist.
>>1154665
>very logically
>I explained why the source was shit
>Durr why is the source shit?
You're mentally handicapped are you?
Not surprising considering that racists have low IQs.
>>1154674
T. Butthurt stormnigger
Now make like a Siamese twin and split.
>>1154570
Bananas come from India and SEA.
>>1154616
No.
Go back to twitter with your afrocentrist revisionist shit.
>>1154680
You don't tell me what to do retard. Keep getting buttblasted that people don't consider some geoshitties Rastafarian website holding together by a string a credible source.
>>1154676
>sources
This isn't an argument. You don't need sources to debunk Diamond's bullshit, but rather critical thinking and deductive reasoning. Again, have you actually bothered reading all his points carefully instead of declining it?
>>1154493
I hadn't heard that theory before but holy shit that makes a lot of sense. Has anyone formally put that theory out there in academia? Sounds a little 1800's-ish but intelligence is heritable.
You morons actually think all the fruit you see in the grocery store is African?
FFS
If you took a time machine to Africa 1000AD almost everyone would be eating sorghum and millet supplemented with animal flesh and milk
>>1154713
>revionist
You can't even spell you irrelevant little shit.
>>1154491
Posts like these are what differentiates /his/ from /pol/ in that every reply before this was regurgitated pseudoexplanatory bullshit on the basis of emotional insecurity from idiots trying to assert themselves as something worthwhile by disparaging everyone that isn't their x, y, or z demographic
Not projecting at all btw
>>1154731
/pol/ is the most blue pilled board on this site.
What'd you expect?
>>1154730
>>1154591
How much cultural influence did Axum have, if it was an African rome? Does it's art influence most neighboring art? Did its language influence huge areas of speakers?
>>1154584
That would be cool. But imagine aztec imperialism. Blood for the blood god and all that. The amount of sacrifice that would have taken place in North America would be incredible. Worse than European colonialism. And there would still be that 90% die-off from disease when the euros arrived or the new worlders sailed east
>>1154659
Vikings did, all the time.
>>1154759
It conquered South Arabia, had monoply on the red sea trade, and Rome failed to conquer it.
>>1154731
and this is regurgitated pseudo-explanatory bullshit as well. What's more, it's regurgitated pseudo-explanatory masquerading as a real answer when, in fact, it's unsubstantiated post-hoc reasoning (read: horseshit)
>>1154491
>>1154561
This is absolute nonsense. Basically every society in Africa was agricultural apart from the San. Millet and sorghum were the primary crops grown in west and central Africa, while the east and north relied more on wheat and barley.
In the classical era, most of India's goats came from east Africa. Most peoples in southern Africa and the highlands of east Africa have a very old tradition of cattle herding.
Where did this
>Africa had no agriculture
Meme even start? Historically the population centres of Africa were no less agricultural than those in Europe or the Americas.
>>1154795
>Millet and sorghum
read: high calorie and easy to grow
you can sustain a population off of such products yeah, but you have to dedicate a large number of people to keep it feeding the community.
what agriculture is supposed to do is be easy to grow food so that other people can be free to spend their labor on more than just survival. Wheat, Barley, and Rice are kings when it comes to providing enough nutrition to reasonably free a population so they can dedicate more work on other projects while remaining fed.
>>1154781
Rome failed to conquer Germanic tribes. Geography. Not worth taking. In no way does that make them their rival in any respect. Also,
>conquered nearby desert tribes
You're shitting me. You actually think that is an achievement? I know there was nobody around to conquer really but jeez, before the Rashidun caliphate all of Arabia was beyond backwoods. Nobody, from egypt to Sumeria to Persia to rome, has ever bothered with conquering it because there is *nothing there*. Except oil.
Alexander wanted to conquer it, but that was because he was a powergamer who couldn't handle there being something he hadn't conquered.
I'm not knocking the empire, just don't compare it to Rome which is the foundation of pretty much every western nation. Its not the same. Qin China? Yeah. There is a good comparison to Rome.
>>1154390
shitty law enforcement and bad governance?
Their laws are probably not very business friendly either.
>>1154822
In the sentence "Their laws are probably terrible for businesses." Is it correct grammar if I use either their or there in that circumstance. If so that's pretty fucking sweet.
>>1154828
It seems like the sentence is the same regarding either possession (their) or location (there)
>>1154704
No one in the academic community will ever research this because academia is so liberal. But I am very certain that differences in sexual selection between cultures has had a significant impact on the differences between ethnic groups.
>>1154822
>Their laws are probably not very business friendly either.
Either that or the opposite. Too prone to abuse by big companies inside and outside the company. Lindalike how there's a goldilicks zone being so emotionally impenetrable you can't get a gf or being way too open that exploits you because you are so easy and you have no limits or boundaries.
>>1154839
Asians have had civilization longer, therefore more time to select for intelligence. Hence smarter.
This is making *too* much sense man.
>>1154807
>you can sustain a population off of such products yeah, but you have to dedicate a large number of people to keep it feeding the community.
And the places in Africa that did have such big populations due to a variety of reason those crops were abundant.
>>1154570
Many African crops came from the new world or Asia through trade.
>>1154855
So you are saying that there might be some problems mitigating wage gaps. Not like Murican's wage gap more severe. That seems possible.
There is the sahara desert. Seems practically useless unless there is oil and it is pretty fucking large portion of the Africas
>>1154810
>I'm not knocking the empire, just don't compare it to Rome which is the foundation of pretty much every western nation. Its not the same. Qin China? Yeah. There is a good comparison to Rome.
>In the 3rd Century AD, the Persian philosopher Mani described Axum as one of the four greatest kingdoms in the world, along with Rome, China and Persia.
>>1154491
>next is docile animals. your barnyard staples such as horses, cows, pigs, and chickens are largely absent from Africa, with more carnivorous animals taking their place, or just animals that flee at the first sight of a person like Gazelles and Zebras. with no beats of burden, citybuilding is just that much harder.
WHEN WILL THIS MEME DIE
THE ANCESTORS OF COWS AND PIGS WERE NOT DOCILE THEY WERE FUCKING TERRIFYING
WILD HORSES ARE JUST AS SKITTISH AS ZEBRAS
>>1154903
I'm sure he did. But he is wrong. He lacks historical perspective. Not that lack of historical perspective precludes correctness, but because had no idea of the far-reaching and seminal cultural influence Rome had on all cultures later. At the time of his writing there were 4 empires he knew of.
>>1154491
>1. an easy to grow agricultural product that provides a high calorie count
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Taro#West_Africa
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cassava
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Commercial_sorghum
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cooking_plantain
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eragrostis_tef
(^more calorie dense than wheat btw)
>2. interconnection between settlements for ease of travel.
See pic
>domesticated animals
I don't really know how domesticating animals works, but aren't all domesticated animals originally feral/wild?
>4. easy routes for trade with other people groups.
Pic also applies, I think. The East African coast in particular was a trade destination with the Arabs and Indian Ocean trade.
I remember reading a few explanations as to why Africans never formed long lived empires or state societies out of a few exceptions (notably Ethiopia), the most common explanation being that Africa is such a massive place filled with dense jungle that in ancient times only local strongmen and chiefs could effectively control their domains and anyone coming along had a hell of a time doing it. The only way they were able to keep a kingdom or empire together was by giving the chiefs luxury items to buy their loyalty, otherwise if the king did something that the chiefs didn't want they're just fade back into the jungle and become completely impossible to govern. While that's completely understandable and makes perfect sense for the rainforest parts of Africa, it doesn't really explain why the coastal areas didn't develop into more powerful states, nor does it explain why more arid areas didn't become prosperous states (few exceptions to this like Mali, Ghana or Songhai), especially after Islam arrived and with it urbanization + trade with the Muslim world.
>>1154496
China expanded north-south as did India, while steppe empires could only really expand east-west but never became long lasting, successful states, despite them sitting on quite a large amount of very fertile soil; same with American Indians.
Diamond does way too much post-hoc rationalization.
>>1154920
i think you may underestimate just how large africa is
>>1154946
In what way?
>>1154390
First reason: its geography is shit-tier.
Its climates are mostly either desert, tropical savanna, tropical jungle, or subtropical areas. These are, of course, far less conducive to human life than the more temperate climates of Europe and east Asia.
The Sahara desert cuts sub-Saharan Africa off from the Mediterranean. To its west is the vast Atlantic ocean, and to its east is the fairly large Indian Ocean. Couple this with the fact that Africa's coastal geography is mostly inhospitable for human life, and you get a continent that's relatively isolated in terms of trade and population exchange.
This means their culture is stagnant and their societies were not exposed to advancements, both technological and cultural, innovated by other peoples. This was especially important during the Modern period where Europe skyrocketed ahead of the rest of the world on the back of new ideas and technologies.
continued
>>1154967
Second reason, sort of following up: Its societal structures were always shit-tier and took forever to get to any sort of stability.
Because they were cut off from the Mediterranean world and Asia by a vast desert and a vast ocean respectively, the invention of writing never made its way to Africa for quite some time. This meant more complex institutions like a permanent government, a code of laws, trade agreements, etc. never really materialized.
In addition, in many place, there was no centralization. At all. In some tribes, every village was independent. Society was dominated by elders who extracted rents from young men. With poor agricultural yields, these young men had to band together and raid neighboring villages or tribes to pay rent. This environment was extremely unstable and hostile to diplomacy or trade - obviously not a breeding ground for complex institutions like states.
Finally, in many places, even to this day, there are people who live as hunter-gatherers - the megafauna of the continent made this viable food-wise, and the low population density and lack of important cities followed as a result.
continued
>>1154628
Not the same guy but nice rebuttal
Mesoamerican empires were particularly good farmers, and kinda debunked the jungles claim made earlier in the thread about why niggers can't build a successful empire in a debatably more hostile area. Not to mention had some of the most advanced astronomy, medicine, and innovative architecture
Niggers civs can hardly slap mud together in fertile places, Incas made a badlands into a rich empire. Not saying they're the greatest, but mesoamericans are a hell of a lot better than anything African
>>1154971
Third reason: Absolutism and Patrimonialism.
Pretty much every African "government" (i.e. not a tribal sort of deal) until the modern period when Westerners started influencing them, was based on the idea that there was a leader who had absolute authority, and it was usually a dynastic rule, too.
Perfect example: Ethiopia/Aksum. It had lots of trade with the Roman Empire and their neighbors. When Rome declined and fell, it did too, with Arabs taking the place of Huns. It even had a feudal dark age with absolute rulers. But later on, in the early Modern period, Europe transitioned away from absolutism - e.g. Britain, the Netherlands - but Africa did not.
This culture of absolutism prevented the social reforms that let European empires be so prosperous - and exist in the first place - and the tendency of people to rely more on dynastic ties than national identities, states, or religious institutions, meant that African countries in general were, and still are, more unstable than countries in other parts of the world that had embraced the state, an organized church, nationalism, etc.
Basically, Africa was stuck in the feudal age for way too long and thus never developed beyond it before they got SCRAMBLED by big white cock.
end
>>1154967
>>1154971
These are both piss poor excuses since Native Americans were able to write their own languages in relatively the same fertile regions. Niggers are simply shit tier, I don't know why people find it hard to realize. It's not as if Afirca is a suitable place to live in, it's an amazing place to live in, their inability to adapt and create it into a suitable place is an indictment of their people.
>>1154978
Absolutism is historically the key cornerstone of any social reforms also. Take a look at any king or emperor with the word great attached to it, or even famous despot not known as a crazy lunatic. Social contract revolves around that power is derived from the people, kings have historically enacted social reforms to solidify their rule and decrease uprisings. Africa simply does not culturally value those things, so they have never done such things.
But don't act as if social reforms was a foreign things, it's been happening since Cyrus the Great
>>1154545
>Incas
How's their development go?
>Cahokia
And what ended up happening to them? Oh, we don't know
>Animals
It's not that there were no animals for domestication, Africa just has more large dangerous ones. That attack you
>>1154992
>How's their development go
particularly well until the whole Spaniard conquering came, and well developed the land further
>cahokia
It's most likely the black plague that occurred across North America at the time
What do you think happens in every other continent with animals....
>>1154985
Please actually read the post. Their culture was a major contribution to the problem. They practiced slavery and had absolutist, tribal societies. They lacked organized religion and many Africans did not build cities.
Meanwhile Native Americans, particularly the Nahuatl and Maya, had organized religions and writing. The Nahuatl had complex relationships with their neighbors and North American natives were known to form federations and use democracy in their government.
If you're saying the reason WHY this occurred is "lol niggers" you're wrong. Africans never developed writing because they didn't have a reason to. The original reason writing was developed was to keep track of trade - some of the oldest cuneiform tablets are trade records- and they didn't do much trade because of their tribalist, decentralized culture, where much of the economy was based on slavery and raiding.
The reason none of that shit ever changed and got more like Europe or Asia DID have to do with geography. If the Africans could've engaged in Mediterranean trade, or if systems of writing naturally made their way to the African interior through trade, they would have developed more quickly. But natural barriers prevented that. You can't deny Africa is in a disadvantageous position in the world compared to other continents.
That being said, I'm not going full Diamond here either. It's not just the fault of geography, like I said there's also a cultural resistance to new technologies/ideas and a lack of willingness to respect higher authority. So yeah, maybe there is some aspect inherent to African people that makes them less likely to develop complex society, in fact I think that's probably correct. But you can't start saying Africa is "an amazing place to live in" just because you disagree that geography is solely responsible for Africa's poverty.
>>1154992
The animal argument is so bunk its not even real. Any fucking idiot can use bark fiber and sticks to make a reasonably strong cage. From there it's either breed em or tame em. With zebras and whatnot, mind you. I doubt big cats are as domesticable as wolves.
>>1155012
I'm not going to say it is, and I agree with everything you say
>>1154989
You're correct in saying that strong authority can bring about social change, but what I'm referring to here is not a few periods of absolutist, patrimonialist rule. I'm talking about a constant rule by arbitrary monarchs, with no code of laws, no checks or balances, no guarantee of property rights or even the sanctity of contracts. Here's a quote speaking about Ethiopia:
>It is so usual for the Emperor to exchange, alter and take away the lands each man holds every two or three years, sometimes every year and even many times in the course of a year, that it causes no surprise.
>Often one man plows the soil, another sows it and another reaps. Hence it arises that there is no one who takes care of the land he enjoys; there is not even anyone to plant a tree because he knows that he who plants it very rarely gathers the fruit.
>For the King, however, it is useful that they should be so dependent upon him.
What I'm getting at here is that not only was much of Africa ruled by absolute monarchs, but there wasn't even a landed nobility beneath them, nor did anyone really own anything at all except the crown. There was no sense of responsibility to the land or the harvest, no responsibility to the future, nothing at all.
Hence, there was no motivation for society to improve and develop. They lived to serve the king and the king lived to be served. A stagnant civilization.
Whereas, in other civilizations under "the Great"s you speak of, Alexander, Cyrus, Constantine, Charlemagne, etc. it was different. There was indeed private land ownership. There were codified laws. There were governors who acted as representatives of the emperor in some cases, and landed nobles who acted as vassals in others. Such things did not exist in most of Africa, which stifled development greatly.
>>1155046
I think the reasoning why though is becuase their population is beyond primitive and their people have shown why they've constantly stagnated was because they're dull
>>1154692
Not him, but critical thinking based on no research and deductive reasoning based on no evidence? I'm just expected to go "Oh, you used BIG MEANINGFUL WORDS, that means you did your research."?
I mean shit I'm not believing any of you chucklefucks but you should at least know the first thing about speaking from a credible standpoint. This ain't no wikipedia but if you're trying to be convincing then I better hear someone's voice besides yours and they better not be as big a faggot as yourself.
>>1155071
I think what's he's saying is that an outside source isn't required to debunk Diamond because his arguments are logically incorrect and can be disproven purely by reasoning.
For example, you don't need me to link a source if I claim 1+1 doesn't equal 3, because you know that can't be true from a logical standpoint. What he's saying is that Diamond is claiming 1+1=3 here.
>>1155077
Thank you, gentleanon.
I took a look at that image and if it literally looks like 4chan shitposting from a glance I don't see why I should give a shit about it.
>>1154633
It was pretty hard for the Germans too Klaus
>>1155027
if zebras were any good then white people would have made use of them
>>1155077
So... exactly which of Diamond's arguments can be refuted with critical thinking and no knowledge of the subject matter or research on African history?
I'm having a very hard time thinking of any
>>1154985
are black people really that bad if many of them made it out of africa, cucked neanderthals and became the most successful race on the planet?
>>1155172
Not when they already had horses. Its always the path of least resistance. The only reason to domesticate zebras now is their heat tolerance, which machines outdo them on in every category, and have since the 1880's land-grab.
>>1155182
so yeah zebras are a shit-tier animal
>>1154920
none of those plants are native to africa you fucking tool
>>1155027
>I doubt big cats are as domesticable as wolves.
Africa has dogs too anyways.
>>1155186
In their current form. They could be domesticated, just like any other animal, it's just catching them and breeding them that's the hard part. Steppe peoples did that with the horse, Africans never did it with their horse. Simple as that. If they had domesticated it like they could have, Africa today would be pretty different.
>>1155196
damn they should have researched the right technologies at the start of the game
Diamond is a fuckin' idiot f a m p a i.
The earliest civilizations developed by clinging to the coast of rivers surrounded on all sides, in large part, by inhospitable wasteland. See Egypt, Mesopotamia, the Indus Valley folks. Yet his claim is that subsaharan Africa was incapable of developing advanced civilization due to its inhospitable landscape. Last I checked the Orange River and the Zambezi Rivers were both located within the so called 'cradles of humanity' where our earliest ancestors likely used to piss about.
In fact, our ancestors pissing about around these parts is probably related to why they're stuck in a pre-industrial rut. Civilizations developed in places furthest from humanity's ancestral homelands. While our ancestral homeland never advanced beyond spears and the like. If innovations is driven by necessity, and one can assume that the region in which we evolved is the one we're most suitable for, then it would make sense to claim that the areas in which we evolved would play host to less innovation.
>>1155196
>Steppe peoples did that with the horse
what natural predators are there for horses on the steppes? it's a greater challenge (arguably one that was not worth undertaking since civilisation isn't pre-ordained) to domesticate an animal that has evolved with everything hunting it than an animal that only finds predators once it is introduced to an area that has them after domestication
>>1155077
then why has no one in serious academia debunked it?
hard mode: no conspiracies
>>1155217
>what natural predators are there for horses on the steppes?
Wolves, pretty sure asiatic lions, tigers and leopards as well.
>>1155244
please define "serious academia"
>>1155267
Pleistocene saber-tooth cats as well. Also horses used to be way smaller. They're only this size today because of selective breeding. Same with reindeer.
>>1155217
>what natural predators are there for horses on the steppes?
Wolves, for one.
If you're really going to make the argument that it wasn't worth it to domesticate zebras/etc, you should at least comment on the fact that the Wheel and the Plow were never really widely used in much of Africa and as such, domesticated ungulates were less important to Africans.
>>1155274
holy shit, you know what I mean. not on some blog done by some tinfoil.
clutching at straws if you need this defined.
>>1155296
I'm not even the fag you were arguing with earlier but I find it hilarious that you need to attach all kinds of qualifiers to defend someone who's work can be BTFO by the existence of the Mesoamerican and Andean civilizations.
>>1155312
so why is no one but people on tinfoil websites talking about it?
>>1155293
That's a chicken and egg situation. They're useless without ungulates to pull them. The Inc and and Aztecs knew of the wheel (see artifact toys) but without a large hoofed animal (and flat land, which Africa has in abundance) they are no advantage compared to that of boats or in the mountains, alpacas.
So, riddle me this: how come africans never became mariners? They had reason to fish, the Polynesian had a similar level of tech and materials to work with, yet they colonized most Pacific islands with boats the Africans could easily have made. Why was there never a thassalocacy like there has been in so many other places? That in and of itself should have led to writing (phoenecians)
>>1155322
Because you don't have access to jstor because you're not in academia lol
>>1155244
http://www.livinganthropologically.com/2013/01/26/eric-wolf-europe-and-people-without-history/
http://www.livinganthropologically.com/anthropology/guns-germs-and-steel/
https://www.insidehighered.com/news/2005/08/03/ggs
http://www.columbia.edu/~lnp3/mydocs/Blaut/diamond.htm
https://mises.org/library/diamond-fallacy
http://savageminds.org/2005/07/24/anthropologys-guns-germs-and-steel-problem/
http://savageminds.org/2005/07/25/whats-wrong-with-yalis-question/
http://www.history.ac.uk/reviews/review/51
yeah, real ""tinfoil"" stuff here
not even posting the stuff only available in journals, either
>>1155340
I'm an elitist I literally only read journals. post them.
>le peer reviewed meme.
what could have been
>>1155323
no maritime trading partners
>>1154920
>I don't really know how domesticating animals works, but aren't all domesticated animals originally feral/wild?
Yes, but that doesn't mean every animal can be domesticated. In order for animals to be domesticated, they either have to be relatively small and easy to subdue, like a pig or rabbit, or they have to be herding animals with a strong social hierarchy, like cattle or sheep.
In addition to this, all domesticated animals also have to be
1. Easy to feed, either eating small amounts of food (cats, dogs), eating something abundant that humans can't or won't eat (sheep, cattle), or eating just about fucking anything (pigs).
2. Easy to breed, hence why elephants have never been truly domesticated despite having been tamed individually for centuries. Elephants don't often reproduce when in captivity, and when they do, the time and resources needed for an elephant calf to mature are enormous, making large-scale breeding and artificial selection impossible.
3. Not aggressive, meaning that when angered or threatened their first instinct is to run away rather than kill, and also that they do not become angered or threatened easily.
As you may be able to see, not many animals fit all of those qualifiers.
That said, the myth that Sub-Saharan Africans didn't domesticate any animals is ridiculous. The donkey originates from Sudan, and many African societies also had cattle.
>>1155323
Because most of Africa is in a really shitty area for maritime activities. The coasts are treacherous and the currents and winds only drag you back to Africa.
In the few regions of Africa where this wasn't true, like Somalia, Africans did become successful mariners.
Europe and the Middle East, the locations of the most successful maritime cultures, had the advantage of places like the Mediterranean or Persian Gulf, large, relatively calm and mostly inland bodies of water that offer the perfect location for a society to refine their seafaring technology. Africa didn't have any of these sorts of locations with the sole exception of the Red Sea at the northeastern most tip. When Africans started maritime actives, they were floating out in the open ocean. That's like trying to ride a bike when you don't even know how to crawl.
>>1154946
So is Asia.
>>1155189
>teff
>not native to Africa
>sorghum
>not native to Africa
Another one that's not mentioned is rice, which is indigenous to Africa :^)
Even one of those things should be enough.
3/10 got me to respond
>>1154545
1. Eurasia's geographic barriers are far less daunting than, say, Africa's. Cross the urals or the alps? you're delayed a few weeks maybe a month. Cross the Sahara or the Congo rainforest? you're dead.
2. no one said you need a diversity of food crops, you only need one that can sufficiently feed a population while freeing up other people to do other work other than farm. the incas built a robust irrigation system for their potatoes and maize, which led to their success due to the crop.
3. America does have tons of viable crops, but without beasts of burden to drive the plows or do the labor necessary for crop rotation, doing it by human hands only is an uphill challenge.
It was only because of African slave labor that these crops now became super viable in the new world, then the introduction of European animals made it more easier, ingredients the New World lacked prior to the arrival of Europeans.
4. The llama isn't that great as a beast of burden, with only being able to carry at most 100 pounds, you're not getting that much work done with llamas that you would with a ox or horse.
Europeans didn't hunt horses or cows to extinction cause they realized they could be put to better use than just meat, and were docile enough to make them work.
North America has the buffalo which would be great for such labor projects, but domesticating a living Tank is impossible compared to the relaxed cow.
5. urban civilizations can build empires and make them stay. the Empires of Attila or the Khans expanded rapidly then fell almost immediately because there were very few cities founded to serve as anchors to consolidate the war gains.
6. The New World was indeed feeling the wrath of disease by the time Spain moved on the Aztec and Incas. Spain had a presence in the New World for 30 years before they tried to tackle the Aztecs, more than enough time for them to be gutted by exposure and weakened to the point where conquest was a simple task. (cont)
>>1156302
6 cont.
again, the technological advantage of Europeans over Aztecs goes back to Diamonds earlier chapters. all the base conditions for civilization in the Old World allowed for people to spend their time innovating and making stuff like projectiles that use Black Powder while the New World peoples were still worried about having enough food for winter at the end of the autumn seasons.
7. I don't know enough about that subject to comment. I'll give it to you.
8. intelligence is pretty subjective in this case.
Diamond's argument is that city dwellers are not concerned with survival or having enough to eat at the end of the day, because your local market can do that for you.
His argument is that non-urban peoples are more intuitive because they have the experience to survive where a city dweller would have a hard time due to not knowing how to survive as they never learned how to do so. This is a very flawed argument as this could be debunked with teaching people the basics of survival, I'll admit that.
Diamonds work has merit and is open to contradictory views, but to completely try to refute it or write off his thesis as garbage isn't tackling the argument the right way. you need to discredit it by offering enough evidence to prove Diamond objectively false. Which hasn't happened, instead, people on the internet just bitch and moan about how they don't want to see it the way Diamond presents, without offering that much substance as to exactly why he's wrong.
in other words, SOURCE. YOUR. SHIT. you can make a unsourced claims and tout it around as fact all you want, but it won't hold water in a true academic setting, the setting you want Diamond's theory to be taken out back and shot, which hasn't happened because it can't be objectively refuted, only debated.
Goddamn guys how can I become as intelligent as you
I'm reading this thread and I'm like yea that makes sense , go on to the next post, wait no, this is what actually makes sense and so on
Basically because the decolonization process was a disaster. Most independence movements were set on fire by hating on the white colonizers and preaching of marxist dogmas by black radicals. The result is after independence most white settlers left because they were afraid things would go to shit when the inexperienced and unprepared africans took over. Rhodesia- Zimbabwe is the perfect example. IMO the decolonization process should have taken longer and being more thought out than it was.
>>1154920
>I don't really know how domesticating animals works, but aren't all domesticated animals originally feral/wild?
Yes, but certain animals you can get to breed with animals of your choosing. If you take, to use the famous example of foxes, and put them in an enclosed space, male and female, they will usually end up fucking.
If you take a male and female Zebra and put them in an enclosed space they will murder each other.
This is the essence of domestication, which is distinct from taming. Cheetahs have been tamed for thousands of years, but never domesticated, because of their complex mating rituals.
>>1155217
Nah, that's not so much a problem. The predation angle is that everything in Africa has had hominids hunting it for millions of years, so they're more naturally shy of humans.
>>1156302
>3. America does have tons of viable crops, but without beasts of burden to drive the plows or do the labor necessary for crop rotation, doing it by human hands only is an uphill challenge.
1) Indians (or at least the Chesapeake bay area Indians) did not need to perform crop rotation or plowing as they had an entirely distinct method of agriculture. They burned areas of forest and planted a combination of maize, beans, and squash which developed symbiotically and obviated the need for crop rotation.
>It was only because of African slave labor that these crops now became super viable in the new world, then the introduction of European animals made it more easier, ingredients the New World lacked prior to the arrival of Europeans.
The crops were valuable because there was an extremely high demand for tobacco in europe. Slaves were needed to make it profitable not because the crops were inherently lower value, but because the European farmers died or were made incapacitated by endemic malaria (early colonies had attrition rates above 50% for new settlers just from malaria), which the african slaves had already been exposed to.
source is 1493 by Mann, ch. 2
also i note that you didn't source your shit yet whined about other people not sourcing theirs.
>>1156741
it's not necessarily intelligence, just breadth of knowledge. It isn't always immediately obvious that an argument is bullshit if you don't have the requisite knowledge to determine the accuracy of the underlying assumptions.
>>1154491
This doesn't explain why it is shit now.
Vegas is in the middle of a giant fucking desert. People live all over the swamps of Florida. They live below sea level in New Orleans surrounded by massive flood works.
There are ways around all of these problems.
>>1155027
Zebras are notoriously immune to domestication. Cannot be done.
>>1154670
>I hate Jared Diamond because I wanna be moar racis
Nice try Wilhelm
i hate niggers xd
>>1157734
Those were done in modern times though
Not saying you can't live in a desert or swamp but there's much better places then either
>>1155207
>Civilizations developed in places furthest from humanity's ancestral homelands.
>Australia
>>1154641
The britbongs are still retarded, they just got lucky.
>>1156767
Nation-building is insanely difficult as it is, add in the way many of these colonies were treated and the best case is a fucking nightmare. I'm more shocked that not every african country is Somalia/Rwanda tier right now, especially after the AIDS crisis.
>>1154577
Acutally the Basques or the Nordics were going as far terranova for fishing cod or whales since at least the 11th century.
>>1157933
Venice was in a Swamp, and nearly all Holland was reclaimed from the sea.
>>1154409
>Windhoek
Kek, I'm Polish and I watched a travel show on tv. It was hosted by a fundamentalist Catholic (he's actually a great host and has an online shop which closes on Sundays) and he was furious when he saw an intersection of Karl Marx's and Bismarck's.
>>1158769
he won't answer this because you're right
>>1155012
What's the validity on this?
>>1159186
*link
http://www.taneter.org/writing.html
>>1157933
Africa has remained shit in modern times, even in areas with far more resources than the Nevada desert or swamps of Florida.
>>1154390
Precisely because of the resource abundance. Excuse the greentext:
>Anatomically modern humans first seen in Africa. Hunter-gatherer bands.
>As they migrate into Asia and Europe there is a competition for scarce resources, which leads to the creation of tribes, chiefdoms and ultimately states.
>Resource scarcity leads to a more sophisticated form of states in Europe, Asia, C. & S. America
>African chiefdoms & states exist, but they are unsophisticated because there is no need to have a sophisticated state - plenty of resources around means that hunter-gatherer bands don't want to serve some king
>Africa gets colonized ~500-120 years ago.
>Native culture not compatible with the nation-state. India & SE Asia were colonized as well, but they already had cultures that supported structured & complex societies. They are shitholes as well, but they have coped much better than Africa.
So African culture is relatively new, except in the Sahel and in Ethiopia (these regions were screwed because of political reasons).
The (lack of) culture was also due to Africa being thrust into the 20th century, rather than due to organic development. Africa will become un-fucked, but only after a few more decades. The next generation of Africans (born in 2020s and 2030s) should be better educated and better-equipped to create an African renaissance.
>>1155012
I was about to call you an idiot, then I read your post fully. Good job. But I agree with that other anon. Africa is pretty fucking nice to live in; for example: South Africa and Rhodesia. They managed to scratch a pretty damn successful living out of the continent.
>>1155027
you can't tame zebras
>>1159511
Dude the number of hunter gatheres were low and every groups that remianed H&G got btfo and forced to move or assimilated by the agriculturalist group and resource scarity exited a lot in Africa too.
The reasons you omitted were.
-population density VERY low
-diseases and pest limited the ability to do agriculture or cattle raising in large swaths of land.
-passing the stage of getting people to inhabit your kingdom or political entity was harder but it's been done plenty of times were it developed as well as disappeared like Great Zimbabwe.
>>1159904
Only a few parts of those are were chosen because they were mild at best and they did get a lot of support in their development whether due to a company of an empire and had dirt cheap African labour.
>>1154577
Literally all they needed was to sail up and down the coasts to trade. Or ply the Congo river because Jesus fuck could you imagine if there was a Congolese river empire? It would be glorious. But >nogs
As an artist wanting to create fantasy worlds. This thread is pretty helpful, even if all these views are wrong, they are all still believable enough for storytelling
Thanks!
>>1159924
Yes you can, search for Zed the zebra. There are tamed bisons/buffalos and even an elderly couple have a tamed hippo as a pet.
>>1159511
Yeah nah, they are going for having lots of babies instead of the efw but well raised options, they are fucked unless they stop fucking like hundred opf years before.
>>1161127
Look for SEA and oceanics, they blown African culture away with they shenaningans, plus they have lots of cool aesthetics and are very, very underapreciated be the mainstream. Only the Filipinos have like +50 kinds of blades than were used for warfare (and farming, one thing doesn't exclude the other) or have insane monsters/lore.
>>1154608
Have you seen a cabybara? What could it possibly be used for?
>>1161257
>Look for SEA and oceanics
Come again
But yea European fantasy setting are way too overused by now
>>1161127
>As an autist
FTFY
>>1161339
Not even that, Renaissence and Feudal England/France are, the rest of Europe is full of good ideas to exploit and myths to steal. Heck, the Mainstream doesn't even know about the ERE.
>>1161452
>England/France
This. Even Germany is underappreciated outside of nazi shit.
>>1161461
Even then France and England are only used in the widest stroke and little depth at that, but well RPG designers tend to go for rule of cool and cliches over interesting tidbits of cultures or some kind of plausibility.
>>1154390
Because it was too hot to be worth invading and colonizing and now we have shitty tribes everywhere. No one's gonna try colonizing in the 21st century either after what happened in south africa.
>>1154390
Multivariate. Here's the short list
Geography
>Africa is four times as large as Europe, but only has half the coastline
>Africa has really terribly situated rivers
>those rivers flow like shit; it's even worse than Russia
>half the continent is rough jungle land
>the other half is desert encroaching on aforementioned rough jungle land
Governmental/Cultural
>Decolonization threw European infrastructural builders out, nobody thought to learn how the infrastructure worked before kicking out the Europeans
>Decolonization movements (the sort of which generally have power in Africa these days) sour any sort of expertise training programs, even as they sop up tons of foreign aid
>Killing Europeans hasn't helped either
>African states haven't thought about maybe building some fucking roads hither and yon
>let alone the freight infrastructure needed to supply an urban population
Exogenous factors
>Everybody except for China is waiting for Africa to shake itself out with a few more wars; foreign investment has been low in Africa as a result
>More than any continent on the planet barring Antarctica, Africa needs dollarydoos for investment.
>>1161564
>anything but genetics
>Africa
There were about 8 (by my reckoning) completely different situations in Africa.
North Africa doesn't need to be explained. Egypt and etc. This includes Nubia and Kush.
West Africa/Niger-Benin had quite a few city states that existed, as well as a number of fairly industrious kingdoms in Nigeria. They were isolated from Europe by the Sahara, and didn't really profit from the Eurasian knowledge exchange until Arab and later European contact.
Mali and Songhai produced important local empires in their regions, with millions of inhabitants, large cities and trade that were contemporary with late medieval Europe. This was mostly unified following Arab missionary work.
East Africa had a number of city-states that stretched from Somalia to Tanzania, and was a large part of Indian Ocean trade with Arabia and India.
The Congo river basin was (and is) home to a really inhospitable rainforest. As well, the tse-tse fly made large concentrations of people and more importantly livestock almost impossible.
Still, by the time of Portugese exploring, there were small kingdoms in that area, the largest of which being Kongo, which Christianized.
The Great Lakes region is actually really densely populated, and was home to a number of kingdoms and city-states, but was hemmed in on either side by mountain ranges, or the Great Lakes themselves.
South Africa was settled fairly late into world history, relatively, and the Bantu only arrived a few centuries before Europeans did. I honestly don't know much about pre-Bantu South Africa, but they were primarily pastoralists.
Ethiopia produced a distinct and long-lived group of cultures, that was united more often than not. However, it has always been fairly isolated from world trade due to being based in a very mountainous region of the world, and for much of its history being hemmed in by usually hostile Muslim powers.
Africa is a really fucking huge place.
Can someone suggest a book to me that explains this topic that's not Guns, Germs, and Steel? I've heard a lot of shit about that book but I'm still really curious on a decent take of the question it seeks to answer.
>>1161590
>Botswana
>Senegal
Sure, there are retards stewing shit up in Rhodesia and South Africa, but there are retards stewing shit up in Croatia and Bosnia, too.
>>1161610
"The Revenge of Geography" by Robert Kaplan has some tidbits, but it's hardly a focused treatise on Africa.
>>1161077
The Swahili, Ethiopians, and Somalis did because the east african coast is peaceful
Major African rivers are treacherous as fuck and full of raging cataracts
Not to mention that Africa has barely any natural harbors
Africa is literally a giant plateau which means that most of it is just sheer cliff above the sea
>>1161610
I would start with "The Berenstain Bears And Cultural Genocide" by Jan and Stan Berenstain.
>>1161728
Senegalese people hardly have the same genetics as someone in Uganda.
>>1161339
>But yea European fantasy setting are way too overused by now
Not at all though.
>>1154390
>shitloads of resources that would make a nuked Europe close to normal again
Hah, and to think you don't even realise how right you were.
>>1154491
>gools errand for anyone not called Ethiopia
This is strait bullshit. Trade routes through fezzan, connecting Mediterranean nations with sub Saharan ones, have existed existed for several thousand years and stopped running around 1911. This also makes them the last "caravan" trade route to exist
>>1161592
Bantus actually appeared in south Africa as early as 300-500 AD
>>1161252
Having few is actually not as good as an idea contrary to popular opinion here.
>>1162512
It's obvious as Fuck he's a cheap low quality troll no need to Fucking say it.
You gave him his (you), now you fed him his reply
>>1154491
leftists can always fall back on the infinite complexity of environmental determinism to explain away facts of reality that don't jibe with their emotions. africans have significantly lower intelligence levels and therefore civilization is more difficult for them to achieve and maintain compared to other groups such as europeans and east asians. it isn't difficult for level-headed people to surmise.
>>1154545
You're refuting his post with a 4chan post? Wow.
>>1161312
Meat
>>1161592
Most of the Sahel had a different history from Mali and Songhai.
And Madagascar is a very special case.
>>1159924
You really think that the first horses people tried to domesticate were all sugar and sweet? No, but people kept at it until they were rideable/herdable.
>>1162510
Why not? The less you have the most resources you have to raise them so they aren't subsistence level farmers. WHile having lots than you can't even cloth or feed properly (imagine then how would you educate them) is a good way for them to be poor farmers forever, and that if they have the luck to own good enough land, than it will be a rarity specially in the world of today.
>>1154591
Alas, for poor Axum. The one hope africa had.
>>1162493
Was it really that early? As I said, I am way less sure of South African history, thank you for correcting me.
>>1162528
Except geography plays a bigger role than intelligence for the Africans. Prescily why Ethiopia/Nubia was so successful compared to the sub saharan.
>>1154390
>Living in tribes
>white men come along
>destroy our culture and become our rulers
>force us to work for them, destroy natural resources for diamond and other raw material
>decide to up and leave after ruling us for generations
>don't train any new leaders
>>1162528
I see you have no argument
>>1163420
Axum/Abyssinia was so cool man...
Bunch of champions.
>>1158769
>>1159066
The Basques and "Nordics" weren't isolated from the big centers of civilisations.
Jesus christ, some Africans did sail the seas and trade with Eurasia. Ethiopia, Nubia, Somalia and West Africa (from where the richest man ever came from) all had flourishing civilisations.
The ones who lagged behind were those from central, east and south Africa who were for all intents and purposes completely isolated either by thick and unforgiving jungle or by infinite ocean. The only place you can sail to from there is fucking Madagascar and they mixing with the Austronasian population.
If there even is something to discuss it's not how stupid sub-saharan africans are, but how smart mesoamericans were for coming up with civilisation on there own - something even the whitest and most germanic of you can't say.
>>1161610
Guns, Germs, and Steel is fine. It has a few problems but it's still pretty interesting if you wanted to know more about this stuff. Don't listen to the /pol/acks.
>>1163862
>The richest man.
And he didn't do a shit with it.
Mansa Munsa was rich in gold because he had a monopoly of it in his land than had the biggest gold mines ever. Like an arab sheik. He was even more retarded, when going to Meca he wrecked the local economy of Egypt and arabia for five to ten years expending the gold because he didn't catch the value of it (in mali salt was a lot more precious for example). And nope, the most rich men in History wasn't Mussa, than its' say than his riches were around 400 billion dollars, while Augustus caesar was around $4.6 trillion.
>>1163573
>Living in tribes
>Never progress past this point
>Begin to enslave eachother
>sell eachother to white people
>white people use slaves to get power
>white people come back and take over
>Show Africans how to work a society
>People have food, violence is low
>Africans get land back
>Immediately ignore everything they've learned
>go back to tribes and mud huts and shit
>Kick out all whites
>Commit genocide
>Destroy homeland
IT WAS ALL THE COLONISTS FAULT
>>1163974
Africans didn't forget what the whites taught them. The educated ones either got the hell out of there or became corrupt politicians. The common people were never taught shit.
>>1161980
On the other hand, these genetically superior individuals don't run the continent, which someone with a genetic view of history might expect.
>>1154390
something something white MALE!
>>1163974
>Living in tribes
>Never progress past this point
Are you people actually capable of reading history books? Why are you even on a history board? You obviously have no interest in it
Friendly reminder that all niggers lived in caves and used stone/animal bone tools
They are mentally incapable of farming
That's why 99% of them lived in roving cannibal bands unless ruled by Arabs
Look it up
All the "black" kangz of note in Africa were actually full blooded Arabs and Persians
>>1164116
/his/ is is a weird mix of /int/ and /pol/
>>1164135
Nice shitposting.
>>1164151
Anyone who is neutral about blacks hates whites
End
Of
Story
>>1154491
2, 3 and 4 are basically the same points. Domestic animals spread along trade routes. Like horses and donkeys and goats.
>>1164457
huh?
>>1164116
the west african kingdoms got shit done and were aspiring the level of civilisation precolonial malaysia had, the islamic ones were already there.
Go further south and there were only bantu tribes who may be able to stack some bricks and farm a bit in small communities along khoi san hunter gatherers.
>>1154913
Aurochs were notably nonchalant to approaching humans.
Boars can gore, sure, but they aren't more aggressive than, say, swans. Like wolves, boars can be easily broken in as babes and pigs/dogs left to their own devices will revert to feral states; think dingoes and wild Australian pigs. Dangerous, but not really terrifying.
Wild horses can breed in captivity anyway, and the ancestors to domestic horses didn't look anything like horses alive today. They were small, much too weak for work, simply herded for meat by steppe nomads. Over many generations, breeding larger animals for more meat, they happened upon horses with strong backs. Zebras are a separate branch of Equidae: humans never met tiny, meek zebras and Africans would've had better sources of meat anyway.
>>1164475
If you don't hate niggers, that means you hate whites
>>1164590
I want /pol/ to go
>>1164590
what if I just average it out and mildly dislike people with a medium brown skintone?
