Can we have an sticky thread with information about black african history so pol can read it?
where do you think you are?
>>1264987
The sticky should be placed in /pol/
put all the great african kangz like charles martel and jesus up there my nigga fight da powah
>can we have an empty sticky
whats the point?
>>1265060
Sure go ahead I'm sure it compares greatly to western civilisation
WE
>>1264987
Nah.
>>1264987
>implying /pol/ would read it
>implying it wouldn't vindicate half of their preconceptions
This thread is a dead end.
>>1266648
its either this or WEWUZKANGZ, anon
>>1264987
>black African
>history
>>1266648
You don't have to cut yourself to know you bleed.
The only thing interesting with Sub-Saharan African story is Aksumite Kingdom and Imperial Ethiopia, the rest is toodamnshittyandmediocre-tier
>>1264987
Sure.
Africa is a continent of black people. These blacks founded great empires like Egypt where they invented money, mathematics, science, and philosophy. Blacks taught Europeans all these things. In addition throughout history many black people found their way into Europe and the rest of their world and became praised for their talents, people like Mozart and Jesus. One day evil white racists came along and enslaved the blacks and destroyed all their culture and star gates. Since that time white people have been responsible for keeping blacks in slavery by other names.
>>1264987
Yes we can
>>1264987
Great idea. Here I'll do it for you.
Here are all the great african historical achievements :
>
>>1266711
>>1266691
Leave /his/ if you're actually that ignorant towards history, this was built in the 6th century on top of a 2500 foot mountain, that has to be scaled on foot. It's a Ethiopian Christian Church, on of the earliest strands of Christianity.
>>1267088
>6th century
>earliest
No senpai, I don't think so
>>1267088
Ethiopians aren't really african. They're afro-semitic.
This is like saying that the Ottoman Empire was mongol.
>>1267088
East africa is the one part of black africa that had some impressive civilizations in it. The rest of africa south of the saharan desert is fucking pathetic in comparison to eurasia and the americas.
>>1267086
Agriculture. Iron working. First civilizations.
In ancient Somalia, known to the Egyptians as the Land of Punt, city states such as Mosylon, Opone and Mundus became fabulously wealthy after the establishment of the silk road trade routs. They would trade ivory, spices from India, Myrrh, Ebony, gold and exotic animals to the Roman Empire, Persia, Arabian Peninsula, Egypt and sometimes even as far as China.
>>1264987
Africa is a big place, I don't think a sticky could hold the many historical events and information about all the events that have been recorded to have happened in Sub-Saharan Africa prior to European colonisation.
>>1267095
I said Ethiopian Christianity was one of the earliest strands of Christianity, learn to read you fucking moron.
>>1267107
>>Agriculture. Iron working
Done first and better by other civilizations
>>First civilizations
>>black africa
>>we wuz egypshuns and carthagianums an shiet
Get the fuck back to black twitter already. You are not welcome here.
>>1267107
>Agriculture
Not really. The tribes who did practice agriculture practiced a very primitive form of agriculture. They dug holes with a stick and put seeds in them. They never developped the plough, or used beasts of burden, or used irrigation, or did crop rotation, or built terraces. And of course, many african tribes were still hunter gatherers when colonialism started.
>Iron working.
Once again, only a few tribes, and they were definitely not the first iron workers.
>First civilizations.
Kek what? Wasn't aware Sumeria was in Africa.
If you're referring to Egypt, Egypt was part of the mediterranean world. They had no contact with sub saharan africa. They were not black, but a semitic people.
>>1267097
You know the Afro-Asiatic Language family originated in Ethiopia, right?
What really annoys me about this post is that you're implying that every group in Africa besides Ethiopians are magically part of the same "underdeveloped shithole for all of history" meme. They wouldn't be if faggots like you didn't take every example of a civilization and say "oh well they weren't really African they were different" when African is already poorly defined.
>>1267103
Your forgetting the Mali empire and the empire of the Songhai but you're right. They had few domesticatable animals compared with Europe, East Asia and the middle, which plays a huge factor in developing advanced civilisation. Mali and Songhai had camels and some horses from the middle east, whereas the ethiopians/somalians/kenyans had some short horned cattle and camels. You've also got to consider their lack in fertile land.
African history can be pretty interesting but i will agree it never really advanced beyond the medieval period.
>>1267111
The "ancient somalians" weren't black, they were semitic himyarites/sabaeans.
>>1267107
Did you forget about the Kingdom of Kush? Contemporary with Egypt. Certainly one of the first civilizations.
And if you look at their metalworking, West Africans were quite skilled. And you don't just do agriculture better, it depends on your environment.
And it's funny that you talk shit about Agriculture, when it was never developed independently in Euope. They got it from the Middle East. Some random Sub-Saharans manages to create something as simple as agriculture and Europeans couldn't figure it out. Independent agriculture is certainly a huge achievement
>>1267124
>>Mali and Songhai
They would have been impressive if they had risen in the ancient or classical periods, but they didn't.
>>1267119
>You know the Afro-Asiatic Language family originated in Ethiopia, right?
That's the most accepted theory, yes.
Did you know that the english language originated in central Asia? I guess Uzbeks are direct descendants of the english.
>What really annoys me about this post is that you're implying that every group in Africa besides Ethiopians are magically part of the same "underdeveloped shithole for all of history" meme.
No, I never implied that. They're an incredibly diverse array of underdevelopped shitholes.
>They wouldn't be if faggots like you didn't take every example of a civilization and say "oh well they weren't really African they were different" when African is already poorly defined.
"African" is pretty well defined as any civilization below the Sahara. If you have trouble defining "African" you must suffer from some sort of brain damage.
Ethiopia is an exception because it's sort of a transition zone between the semitic race and the negroid race. Ethiopians (Habeshas) have historically considered themselves as non-black, and actually enslaved their negroid neighbors and considered them to be of inferior racial stock.
Saying that ethiopians are "african" is being historically inaccurate.
>>1267131
>They got it from the Middle East.
Europeans ARE middle eastern. Well half middle eastern. And half indo european. With a sprinkle of hunter gatherer.
If you knew history beyond wikipedia articles and John Green videos, you'd know that there was a big migration of middle eastern agriculturalists from the middle east to Europe which brought with them agriculture. And Europeans descend from them.
These middle easterners also migrated to Africa, where they founded Ethiopian civilization. Which is why Ethiopians are not really pure africans.
>>1267117
>Agriculture.
Once again, europeans never managed to develop it on their own, aww. Obviously agriculture wasn't primitive if they developed it independently and managed to sustain the Ghanan, Malian, Songhai, etc. Empires.
If being a hunter-gatherer works, what's the problem?
>Iron Working
Bantu people have been doing it for quite a
>Sumeria
You kidding? Kush comes to mind. Egypt, though Egypt was largely mixed. However, the primary group of people was Afro-Asiatic, whose language originated in Africa. That makes them African by any metric.
>>1267131
>>kush
Paled in comparison to egypt and was comparatively irrelevant.
>>And if you look at their metalworking, West Africans were quite skilled.
Nope, not compared to eurasian civilizations.
>>And you don't just do agriculture better, it depends on your environment
lol no. Agricultural techniques and technology matter and it is possible to do agriculture better.
>>And it's funny that you talk shit about Agriculture, when it was never developed independently in Euope. They got it from the Middle East. Some random Sub-Saharans manages to create something as simple as agriculture and Europeans couldn't figure it out. Independent agriculture is certainly a huge achievement
lol sub-saharan blacks figure out a very primitive form of agriculture likely many centuries after agriculture had spread to europe and this means what? That said blacks were better at agriculture then europeans? lol no
Get the fuck out of here, you retard.
>>1267139
>Ethiopians (Habeshas) have historically considered themselves as non-black
Where did you get that from? Most Habesha's consider themselves black (I'm Amharic Ethiopian myself), just because we have some Caucasoid mixture and therefore Caucasoid features such as hooked nose and straighter hair, doesn't mean we suddendly are a new race. The average Habesha only has %10-30 Caucasoid blood.
>>1267153
another race
>>1267143
>Europeans ARE middle eastern.
No, actually, they aren't. They're almost all Indo-European. Afro-Asiatic people did not migrate to Europe and bring Agriculture, Greeks adopted it and it spread since it was a good idea. Try again.
>These middle easterners also migrated to Africa, where they founded Ethiopian civilization. Which is why Ethiopians are not really pure africans.
Afro-Asiatic is a language family that Originated in Africa very recently. I don't see how you can sit here and tell me they aren't African.
>>1267146
>Once again, europeans never managed to develop it on their own, aww.
Once again, modern europeans descend from middle eastern farmers. So, in a sense, yes they did develop it on their own.
I'm terribly sorry you're so historically illiterate.
>Obviously agriculture wasn't primitive if they developed it independently and managed to sustain the Ghanan, Malian, Songhai, etc. Empires.
If being a hunter-gatherer works, what's the problem?
It was very primitive. Africa is incredibly fertile which is why you don't really need complicated agriculture. As for your "empires", they were meme empires, more like a collection of tribes subordinated to a master tribe.
>If being a hunter-gatherer works, what's the problem?
There's no problem, just don't call it civilization.
>You kidding? Kush comes to mind
Kush, i.e. ancient ethiopia, i.e. not black.
>You kidding? Kush comes to mind.
Yeah, largely mixed between semites, berbers and greeks.
I get it, you're a delusional afrocentrist. There's no point arguing with you
>da ancient olmecs wuz black
>da ancient chinese wuz black
Kek
>However, the primary group of people was Afro-Asiatic, whose language originated in Africa.
I know it's a tough concept for you to wrap you head around, but demographics have changed since 10 000 years ago.
>>1267128
evidence?
>>1267150
>Paled in comparison to egypt and was comparatively irrelevant.
You're only saying that because it doesn't fucking fit your narritiative. Get lost.
>lol no. Agricultural techniques and technology matter and it is possible to do agriculture better.
It really does depend on your environment. But, like I said, they did support empires, their techniques worked even if you don't like that fact.
Pic related, agriculture started in Sub-Saharan Africa around 5,000–4,000 BP.
>>1267153
>Where did you get that from? Most Habesha's consider themselves black (I'm Amharic Ethiopian myself)
Modern habeshas, who grew up in black culture in America perhaps.
I'm talking about Habeshas historically.
>The average Habesha only has %10-30 Caucasoid blood.
50% to be more precise.
>>1267156
>No, actually, they aren't
They are
>They're almost all Indo-European
No, even germans are like 50% neolithic farmer. And even then, indo-europeans are a group of middle eastern farmers who migrated north from Irak and became pastoralists.
>Afro-Asiatic people did not migrate to Europe and bring Agriculture, Greeks adopted it and it spread since it was a good idea. Try again.
Lmao, are you seriously implying that europeans didn't practice agriculture before ancient greece? You're way way dumber than I thought.
>Afro-Asiatic is a language family that Originated in Africa very recently.
From wikipedia :
>Estimates of the date at which the Proto-Afroasiatic language was spoken vary widely. They fall within a range between approximately 7,500 BC (9,500 years ago) and approximately 16,000 BC (18,000 years ago). According to Igor M. Diakonoff (1988: 33n), Proto-Afroasiatic was spoken c. 10,000 BC. According to Christopher Ehret (2002: 35–36), Proto-Afroasiatic was spoken c. 11,000 BC at the latest, and possibly as early as c. 16,000 BC.
It's literally older than agriculture.
Compare that with English. English is an indo-european language, and indo-europeans originated in Central Asia. Are you telling me that Uzbeks are English?
>>1267115
go the fuck back to /pol/. If you aren't willing to admit that subsaharan africa was not stone age and there weren't ancient african civilisations, e.g. Askumite, Somali, Nubia, then leave /his/ and circle joke over white men who were greater than you
>>1267157
>Africa is incredibly fertile which is why you don't really need complicated agriculture.
Where did that meme start?
>>1267171
Ahhh this simplification from bad to good is so bad.
>>1267117
>never used beasts of burden
I'm pretty sure that's because they don't have domesticatable beats of burden native to far subsaharan africa.
>>1267163
>>You're only saying that because it doesn't fucking fit your narritiative. Get lost.
Fuck you too you faggot. Kush isn't even remotely comparable to egypt, persia, rome or china.
>>It really does depend on your environment.
lol no, the slavs introduced a new type of plow into europe and agriculture across the rhine increased dramatically compared to what it had been in previous centuries.
>>But, like I said, they did support empires,
Sub-Saharan africa did not have empires worthy of the name.
>>their techniques worked even if you don't like that fact.
Worked at what? Feeding a bunch of ass-scratching tribals in huts? lol nice delusions there pal.
>>1267158
The 1st century AD Greek travelogue the Periplus of the Erythraean Sea first describes Azania based on its author's intimate knowledge of the area. Chapter 15 of the Periplus suggests that Azania could be the littoral area south of present-day Somalia (the "Lesser and Greater Bluffs", the "Lesser and Greater Strands", and the "Seven Courses").[3] Chapter 16 clearly describes the emporium of Rhapta, located south of the Puralean Islands at the end of the Seven Courses of Azania, as the "southernmost market of Azania". The Periplus does not mention any dark-skinned "Ethiopians" among the area's inhabitants. They only later appear in Ptolemy's Geographia, but in a region far south, around the "Bantu nucleus" of northern Mozambique. According to John Donnelly Fage, these early Greek documents altogether suggest that the original inhabitants of the Azania coast, the "Azanians", were of the same ancestral stock as the Afro-Asiatic populations to the north of them along the Red Sea. Subsequently, by the 10th century AD, these original "Azanians" had been replaced by early waves of Bantu settlers.[4]
>>1267171
I'm obviously not referring to the Sahara. But if you look at the Western coast you'll see that it's fertile.
>>1267174
>I'm pretty sure that's because they don't have domesticatable beats of burden native to far subsaharan africa.
They have goats and cattle, they just didn't have any incentive to domesticate them because agriculture was already easy enough (not to mention hunting and gathering).
Beasts of burdens didn't fall from the sky in Eurasia, y'know.
>>1267167
>>leave the board if you aren't willing to agree with me
You leave. Your mindset isn't compatible with a board that values free speech.
>>1267176
>I'm obviously not referring to the Sahara. But if you look at the Western coast you'll see that it's fertile.
It's not "incredibly fertile", not even close. You are taking, what, a few patches a few miles across and thinking they are representative of Africa as a whole?
>>1267186
If it wasn't clear already, here is another one.
>>1267165
>Lmao, are you seriously implying that europeans didn't practice agriculture before ancient greece?
Not him, but are you intentionally being retarded?
>Near Eastern populations adopted sedentism 11,000 years ago, developed the first villages and progressively started to cultivate and breed mammals. Three thousand years later the first farming communities reached Greece and Bulgaria through the Bosporus and also likely by sailing through the Mediterranean islands.
>>1267157
>Once again, modern europeans descend from middle eastern farmers.
Source this if we're going to take it as fact.
> Africa is incredibly fertile
Pic related, it's really not.
>meme empires, more like a collection of tribes subordinated to a master tribe.
I mean, how do I even argue against this? I could say that they weren't, you could say that they were, we'd get nowhere. You obviously have a vendetta against African people. They were Empires with complex social structures, and at one point an Islamic School in Mali was one of the biggest centers of learning in the world.
>The Sankoré Masjid was capable of housing 25,000 students and had one of the largest libraries in the world with between 400,000 to 700,000 manuscripts.
How a loose collection of subordinated tribes managed that, I don't know.
>I get it, you're a delusional afrocentrist.
African is too poorly defined to be an afrocentrist. I go off of language families.
>I know it's a tough concept for you to wrap you head around, but demographics have changed since 10 000 years ago.
What the fuck does that have to do with what I was saying?
Get lost fucking historical revisionist, you're lowering the board quality with every post.
>>1267175
>Fuck you too you faggot. Kush isn't even remotely comparable to egypt, persia, rome or china.
>persia
not an early civilization, notice how i said first civilizations
>rome
above
>china
above
>egypt
contemporary. my qualifier was being one of the first civilizations however faggot, not talking about their development.
>Sub-Saharan africa did not have empires worthy of the name.
"lemme just move that goalpost for you real quick"
>Worked at what? Feeding a bunch of ass-scratching tribals in huts? lol nice delusions there pal.
delusional? check. retarded? check. this board is for IQs of 85+
>>1267182
how the fuck can you preserve free speech on a board when you sit here and deny facts and spread disinformation?
>>1267171
I should probably take over from other anon.
The reason why Africa never developed large, advanced civilizations on the same scale that the Europeans, Middle Easterners and East Asians did was, for one reason, what is pictured in that map.
Africa has few fertile regions and it lacks in crops to cultivate. For example the banana is the staple food of the swahili people, rather than things like wheat. If you grow a huge amount of food very easily then you'll never create an abundance of it which will allow for people to spend time on other things other than food production, such as philosophy, iron work, invention etc.
Subsaharan africa, as well as places such as North America, are also strongly lacking in easily domesticatable animals that are native to there. The parts of Africa that did develop advanced civilizations, Askum, Somalia, etc had camels and short horn cattle, whereas the rest of Africa did not. Previously you mentioned Beasts of burden; these are extremely useful for farming as they make it a hell of a lot more efficient and allow for less people to produce more people. This relates to my first point because when you need less people farming ou can have more people building armies, building buildings, religion, culture, writing and eventually you have an advanced civilization.
Europe, China, India, Persia, etc - they all had the building blocks for prosperous civilizations from the get go and most of subsaharan Africa, North America, etc did not.
>>1264987
Fuck off cunt, /pol is all occultist and shit now
>>1267212
>Europe, China, India, Persia, etc - they all had the building blocks for prosperous civilizations from the get go and most of subsaharan Africa, North America, etc did not.
Guns Germs and Steel?
>>1267210
Have you read the labels? They show different factors, but you can take them all in and they show a consistent pattern: African soil is mediocre overall.
>>1267218
Yeah, but Africa is big and in all maps there are enough big spaces with good enough soil. Obviously not in the Sahara or the deep Jungles.
>>1267212
>Europe
Didn't have beast of burden to start with. They took those already domesticated by stepped nomads (horses) and middle easterners (cattle).
>>1267202
You're doing noble work anon.
"Hur dur i have the right to be wrong, FREE SPEACH!!!!!!!!!111!!!!!!!!"
>>1267165
>Lmao, are you seriously implying that europeans didn't practice agriculture before ancient greece? You're way way dumber than I thought.
you're retarded. it's really that simple. you're genuinely impaired. go out and find the data yourself, someone has already quoted something showing you that actually, yeah, europeans didn't practice agriculture until greece.
>No, even germans are like 50% neolithic farmer. And even then, indo-europeans are a group of middle eastern farmers who migrated north from Irak and became pastoralists.
oh all-knowing one, please impart your knowledge that contradicts evidence of how people got where. are chinese people aryans who teleported to east asia?
>Are you telling me that Uzbeks are English
UZBEK IS A TURKIC LANGUAGE.
Obviously the language family in Ethiopia has been the same over the last few thousand years. The same people have been living there for quite some time. What is your point with this one? What are you trying to say?
>>1267202
>>not early civilzations
Okay, not comparable to sumer, babylon and akkad then. You are still a faggot.
>>"lemme just move that goalpost for you real quick"
Cry more, you deluded afro-centrist dipshit. A bunch of primitives in sub-saharan africa do not compare to civilizations that actually mattered.
>>delusional? check. retarded? check. this board is for IQs of 85+
lol this coming from somebody who serious thinks that a word like empire is a worthy description of some band of tribal morons south of the sahara. That's a pretty epik maymay there duder.
)>>how the fuck can you preserve free speech on a board when you sit here and deny facts and spread disinformation?
Let's translate this shall we?
>>deny facts and spread disinformation
Actually means
>>deny that stupid barely above stone age primitives are somehow comparable to the civilizations that surpassed and latter conquered them
And yeah I do deny that, because Sub-Saharan African "empires" are even more of a joke then the "HRE" was.
>>1267220
Thanks for the correction :)
Sheep also came from Anatolia, but my point remains the same; their civilizations were reliant on said animals and would not have been as advanced or would have developed as early on without them. The model follows everywhere as far as I know.
>>1267219
I'm not just talking Sahara and Jungles. Most land isn't very fertile, the way European, Indian or American is. Our issue was your claim that Africa is incredibly fertile, which isn't backed by facts at all. Compared to other landmasses it's mediocre. If Africa is "incredibly fertile" what do you call Europe for instance?
There were some huge agricultural societies still.
>>1267217
It's an accurate, comprehensive model that is well sourced, well written and interesting. I'm really not bothered if some people from /pol/ say he's a "faggot who's wrong because he's a faggot"
>>1267107
we wuz egypt n shieet
WE CAME FROM DA STAR PYRAMIDS
FROM THE NEEGU
>>1267222
Actually, people do have the right to be wrong, it's why Tyrone here hasn't been banned for posting his idiotic revisionist horseshit. I mean fuck, we have fucking christards all over the fucking place.
>>1267229
>you are still a faggot
You're so pathetic... seriously just leave and go back to /pol/
>>1267107
kek
>>1267229
Not the guy who you answere, but.
>that actually mattered.
History is deciding which civilizations matter. It doesn't matter how big or rich a civilization was at its time.
>>1267241
>>History is deciding which civilizations matter. It doesn't matter how big or rich a civilization was at its time.
Great, but sub-saharan "civilizations" still fail by this metric.
>>1267229
>Okay, not comparable to sumer, babylon and akkad then. You are still a faggot.
Remind me what my fucking qualifier was? You seem to have forgotten. Do you have a point, or can you not refute mine?
>Cry more, you deluded afro-centrist dipshit. A bunch of primitives in sub-saharan africa do not compare to civilizations that actually mattered.
As I said I'm no fucking afrocentrist, I give credit where it's due.
>That's a pretty epik maymay there duder.
Oh, you're summer.
>>1267236
Look, I know it's really hard to read, I can tell by your strawman. But look, if you read my rebuttals, you'll notice that that's not my point.
>>1267241
>history is deciding which civilizations matter
what the fuck? History is about learning about the past because
1) It's interesting
2) you can learn about it and gain things from it
3) it's interesting
Which is more important, the Persian Empire or the two Kingdoms of Egypt? Stupid question right?
>>1267251
>>Do you have a point, or can you not refute mine?
I don't care about your point because your point is retarded, Kush was just a shitty ripoff of egypt.
>>As I said I'm no fucking afrocentrist, I give credit where it's due.
The only thing sub-saharan africans deserve credit for is being fodder for first western, and now also chinese interests.
>>1267266
> Kush was just a shitty ripoff of egypt.
And yet contemporary europeans didn't manage to emulate it.
Once again, what exactly is your point?
>>1267163
>agriculture started in Sub-Saharan Africa around 5,000–4,000 BP.
So 5,000 years AFTER it started in Mesopotamia?
> their techniques worked even if you don't like that fact.
Their techniques couldn't support the kind of population density you need to form a civilization, tho. The first wave of farmers who spread across Europe had a fairly primitive technique, and they were replaced with little effort by the second wave who had the full suit of the secondary products revolution to support themselves. "Good enough" is never good enough in the long run, because someone else will come along and do it better.
>>1267269
>>And yet contemporary europeans didn't manage to emulate it.
Not relevant as europe has long since surpassed most of africa and the only reason why contemporary europeans didn't emulate egypt is because most of them didn't live next to egypt.
>>Once again, what exactly is your point?
Sub-Saharan Africa has no empires or civilizations worthy of either name, afro-centrists like yourself are idiots and retards, you are also a faggot and your mother gives very toothy blowjobs.
>>1267266
>shitty ripoff of egypt
Kushites topped Egyptians.
Like Oreos topped the older Hydrox cookie sandwiches. Just because they were there before didn't mean they were all that better.
>>1267266
>Kush was a shitty ripoff of Egypt
If i was as ignorant and retarded as you I would say that the Roman Empire was a shitty ripoff of the Macedonian Empire.
>The only thing subsaharan africans deserve credit for is being fodder for the first western
>Credit where credit is due
So the Ancient Somalians who became fabulously wealthy through trading with the Chinese, Romans, Indians, Persians etc deserve no awe?
Wait - when did the study of history become infected by ignorant morons who think it's sole purpose is to circle jerk over their own countrymen's achievements?
>>1267278
>Wait - when did the study of history become infected by ignorant morons who think it's sole purpose is to circle jerk over their own countrymen's achievements?
1. Since ever
2. This is 4chan, you wont get anything other than edgy teen angst
>>1267274
>So 5,000 years AFTER it started in Mesopotamia?
WHAT
IS
YOUR
POINT
I was establishing that they independently developed agriculture. That's it. Nothing more. So what the fuck is your point?
>Their techniques couldn't support the kind of population density you need to form a civilization, tho.
And yet they did. Funny how that works.
Any evidence that African Agriculture was as primitive as you say? I've yet to see a source on that. Something tells me I won't.
>>1267276
>excuses
>and your mother gives very toothy blowjobs.
sure is summer
>>1267277
>>Kushites topped Egyptians.
Oh look, more bullshit.
>>So the Ancient Somalians who became fabulously wealthy through trading with the Chinese, Romans, Indians, Persians etc deserve no awe?
Not really no. As they did very little of any note or worth with their wealth.
>>1267276
Ok anon, so people who are interested in history have likely been bombarded with roman and other popular stuff for years, some people therefore might find slightly more obscure parts of history interesting, so try not to sperg out when someone talks about something you deem "not relevant" (regardless of if you're correct or not, because being relevant and being interesting aren't the same thing).
>>1267278
>>So the Ancient Somalians who became fabulously wealthy through trading with the Chinese, Romans, Indians, Persians etc deserve no awe?
Not really no. As they did very little of any note or worth with their wealth.
>>1267199
>11,000 years ago
>Three thousand years
So 8,000 years ago? No such thing as a Greek or even an Indo-European back then, the ancestors of teh Greeks were still making their way from Siberia to the Ukraine then.
>>1267210
that's not even the error, they all clearly show that sub-saharan africa is more fertile than other areas while those areas are and have been more successful in the past and present
>muh beasts
there's plenty of potential animals in africa, they just weren't domesticated for whatever reason, the same animals were tamed by europeans during the colonization era
>muh isolation
american kingdoms such as the inca, aztecs etc were far more isolated, while they've been known to house some quite advanced inventions and societal systems
Sub-saharan africans have no neanderthal dna, while euroasians have 2-4% in average, which is the only noticable difference between sub-saharans and caucasians/asians
>>1267301
Not just wars, but yes you do need to do things with your money. Switzerland is very wealthy and prosperous but is also irrelevant historically compared to places like italy and france because they mostly just stockpile money.
>>1267300
Modern Greeks have ancestry from European hunter gatherers. Here's the source that I forgot to include.
https://theconversation.com/neolithic-bling-provides-clues-to-spread-of-farming-in-europe-39848
And here's some of what was going on in the region after the introduction of farming.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vin%C4%8Da_culture
>>1267234
Africa is huge, those little pockets of green are as big as European countries and under colonial rule Africa was the biggest producer of foodstuffs of any continent. There are many reasons Black Africa never achieved civilization but the quality of their land was not one of them.
>>1267302
>the same animals were tamed by europeans during the colonization era
tamed =/= domesticated
>>1267302
>Sub-saharan africans have no neanderthal dna
Not true.
https://www.newscientist.com/article/dn24988-humanitys-forgotten-return-to-africa-revealed-in-dna/
>>1267302
>Sub-saharan africans have no neanderthal dna, while euroasians have 2-4% in average, which is the only noticable difference between sub-saharans and caucasians/asians
you forget that actually africa is not fucking fertile.
Here we go.
Neanderthals were significantly dumber than humans. What in the hell would make you think that that would generate greater civilizations?
>>1267308
only after using modern agricultural methods.
>>1267307
can we get a more substantial source?
>>1267293
>Oh look, more bullshit.
Kushites took over Egypt, man. That's a fact for you.
>>1267278
>So the Ancient Somalians who became fabulously wealthy through trading with the Chinese, Romans, Indians, Persians etc deserve no awe?
Not really since they were just middlemen.
>Kush
Why do you have such a hardon for these faggots? They were a nothing civilization that lead nowhere.
>>1267302
>Sub-saharan africans have no neanderthal dna
Factually false.
>>1267313
>can we get a more substantial source?
reverse image search the pic if you want the source.
>>1267287
>And yet they did. Funny how that works.
What are you talking about? There wasn't a single city south of the Niger on the whole continent.
>>1267313
according to all those pictures, africa is fertile in relation to other areas, while those areas are far more successful than sub-saharans
>>1267307
>European hunter gatherers
And this is relevant to Middle Eastern farmers how?
>>1267314
Yeah and then they lost control and Egypt went on without them afterwards, big fucking deal.
>>1267324
It was in response to
>the ancestors of teh Greeks were still making their way from Siberia to the Ukraine then.
>>1267313
>only after using modern agricultural methods.
... which must have just fallen out the sky someday? African agriculture was too primitive to make good use of the land, this is a failing of the techniques they were using, not of the land itself.
>>1267312
http://humanorigins.si.edu/evidence/genetics/ancient-dna-and-neanderthals/interbreeding
nice tumblr article, here, have something reputable
This thread is hilarious.
>lol nigger a shit they could only build mudhut
>but Ethiopia
>Ethiopian aren't black anon, they are basically white.
>lol niggers so stupid they couldn't into agriculture
>white neither agriculture come from mesopotamia
>WE WUZ MESOPOTAMIAN AND SHIT!
>>1267333
Too difficult for you to scroll down to the source?
http://www.pnas.org/content/111/7/2632.abstract
>>1267322
That's decidedly not what the graphs tell us, and I don't feel like going through ever one to prove this. Look again.
>>1267191
Fine, actually, if we look here, you'll notice that the best soil is in the Congo. Do you see why that might be a fucking problem?
>>1267171
If we look here, we notice that much of Africa is low or at most high. In fact, I can spot only one very high area, Ethiopia.
>>1267331
Undoubtedly they fell behind in the 1500s. At most they made it to 18th century agricultural techniques. That's not far behind. The difference, however, was massive.
Also, let it be known that much of Africa's land was not used/the people were displaced, so it makes a lot of sense that it became an agricultural center,
>>1267317
except to ethopia, a cultural masterpiece by any measure.
