>won the Phi Beta Kappa Award in Science
>won the Pulitzer Prize for General Non-Fiction
>wone the Royal Society's Rhône-Poulenc Prize for Science Books
>The National Geographic Society produced a documentary for PBS
Why is this not the history book to end all history books /his/?
Redpill me on this gem, I'm all ears.
I very much need opposing viewpoints on this and seek them for any topic but I feel like Diamond has conclusively and successfully explained his theory and there's no room for improvement but very much would like to see if it can be picked apart.
please no /pol/ bullshit and no half assed domestication arguments from people that don't understand what domestication is, just a serious deliberation on the ideas put forth by this book
I'm sure you meant well OP but I can't be the only one who's fucking sick of talking about this.
>>305191
haven't read the book personally but i have this saved
what's your take on it senpai?
This AGAIN?
It's not a bad book, especially as an introduction to this sort of thing, but it attributes way too much to geography when there are certainly other factors that contribute to the success of certain civilizations. It also fails to address some of the more obvious criticisms.
>>305201
>It also fails to address some of the more obvious criticisms.
such as?
>>305191
Stop posting all this shit.
The guys work is unscientific and mainly based on conjecture.
He also uses terrible historiography and essentially wrote the book to justify his world view.
While the basic theory that geography played a huge role in human development is not particularly contentious, his ideas on how culture influenced advancements are.
>>305191
It was a fascinating synthesis from many field in relation to the 'paths' of different regions through history, was never intended to be a complete explanation, but it certainly identified many relevant factors
>>305191
>be non-historian
>want to discuss history on an amateur level
>/his/goes nuts
>/his/ still wants to suck this non-historian's dick tho
>>305230
>/his/ still wants to suck this non-historian's dick tho
I don't, I legitimately want you to explain why his inaccuracies and discuss whatever virtues he might espouse in relation to said inaccuracies.
>>305234
Not him, but his biggest inaccuracy is to fail to account for racial differences in intelligence.
For instance, he has absolutely no way to explain in his little theory why mesoamerican civilizations were far more advanced and complex than indigenous sub saharan civilizations.
>>305257
>were far more advanced and complex than indigenous sub saharan civilizations.
In what way? Methods of keeping the sun in the sky through ritualistic killing?
>>305267
>In what way?
Government complexity, city sizes, trade, etc..
>Methods of keeping the sun in the sky through ritualistic killing?
Ritualistic killing was commonplace in Africa until christian missionaries stamped it out.
>>305267
>Methods of keeping the sun in the sky through ritualistic killing?
kek
>>305191
It's fucking bush-league meme history at best and mostly conjecture - and conjecture that more-or-less entirely toes the line of political correctness, at that.
AFAIK he also hasn't ever responded to having huge holes punched in his claims by evidence ever since the damn book came out.
>>305275
>Government complexity
Wrong, they were theocratic and monarchical, same exact shit numerous Sub Saharan cultures had going on
>city sizes
By what standard? Mayan cities weren't particularly large, Cahokia wasn't any bigger than numerous sub-saharan twig hut collectives, Tenochtitlan wasn't particularly large either.
>trade
Huh? Africans traded with India, Egypt, Arabia, Europe and eachother, many of their domestic animals didn't originate there even though they eventually became their own distinct breeds.
>Ritualistic killing was commonplace in Africa until christian missionaries stamped it out.
Ritualistic killings were commonplace everywhere until something stamped it out.
>>305286
>Wrong, they were theocratic and monarchical,
They were empires of considerable size.
>same exact shit numerous Sub Saharan cultures had going on
Of course not. Most of sub saharan africa was made up of petty chiefdoms. The only time there were sizeable african "empires" are the slave states of the western coast who were propped up by western demand in slaves.
>By what standard?
The standards of the time.
>Mayan cities weren't particularly large, Cahokia wasn't any bigger than numerous sub-saharan twig hut collectives, Tenochtitlan wasn't particularly large either.
From wikipedia :
>Although some popular sources put the number as high as 350,000,[16] the most common estimates of the population are of over 200,000 people. One of the few comprehensive academic surveys of Mesoamerican city and town sizes arrived at a population of 212,500 living on 13.5 km2 (5.2 sq mi)
You'd be hard pressed to find a historical city that size south of the Sahara.
>Huh? Africans traded with India, Egypt, Arabia, Europe and eachother
They traded slaves, that's true, although the trading part was done by arabs, usually.
>Ritualistic killings were commonplace everywhere until something stamped it out.
But it was only common in Africa after the 19th century.
I don't understand what you're trying to achieve. It's objective fact that mesoamerica was more advanced than sub saharan africa.
>>305196
not OP
While I generally agree with what he wrote in the general text, his direct refutations are pretty shitty.
1.) Alps aren't even a barrier to Central Asia, the Steppes are actually one of the more conductive environments for migrations and cultural exchange, as witnessed countless times in history and I have no idea why the relatively fertile and easily traversable Anatolian Plateau would be a formidable topographical feature.
Also, the fact that cultural exchange only started happening after the 15th century is so blatantly false that HOLY FUCKING SHIT.
2.) The book tries to show why an abundance of varying crops would be conductive to faster development of settle agricultural communities, the refutation is literally meaningless/the anon doesn't understand what Jarkek was arguing.
3.) This is mostly scientific data that everyone can look up and I'm too lazy to do it for you.
4.) See 2, he doesn't understand the point that 1 domesticable animal != like 20 of them, also
>200 AD
Well, gee wheez, that sure isn't recent as fuck.
5.) Again, misunderstanding of the argument, IIRC the main argument was that agricultural civilisations primarily supplanted nomadic ones by sheer over-breeding and osmotic incorporation.
6.) This is a whole topic unto itself, but it's obvious that epidemic diseases that wiped out the majority of the continent facilitated in its conquest.
7.) whatever...
8.) Here I kinda agree with anon, Jared is overhyping the aboriginal skillset compared to the urban one.
This last point is critical, since in the book it's just a marginal unsubstantiated addition, but /pol/ and friends go mental over the whole book for it.
>>305257
>mesoamerican civilizations were far more advanced and complex than indigenous sub saharan civilizations
Mesoamericans didn't even have metal
Sub Saharan Africans had Iron.
>>305257
Were Inuit unable to develop civilisation because of Iq or because of their environment, because all naive Americans are related to Asians as are Polynesians
>>305293
>They were empires of considerable size.
The Maya never unified and were a collection of city states, we have no evidence the Missisipians were ever under any central authority, Aztecs only ruled Central Mexico which isn't that large, the only sizeable one were the Inca so one out of, what? 15? 20? Total known organized civilizations?
>Most of sub saharan africa was made up of petty chiefdoms
Most of the Americas were petty tribes but you have no trouble extending superiority to them now do you faggot?
>From wikipedia
Complete garbage, Mesoamerican cities varied in size wildly, trying to get an "average" is pointless and it's lumping in so many different cultures it hurts. Monte Alban on the same scale as Teotihuacan? Nonsense.
>They traded slaves
And general goods
>I don't understand what you're trying to achieve.
Pointing out that:
>It's objective fact that mesoamerica was more advanced than sub saharan africa.
Is an arbitrary nonsensical biased statement with no basis in facts or logic. You're probably just a buttmad Mexican that thinks he's a big bad aztec.
>>305304
>was far more complex than iron age sub saharan africa
You've completely failed to give any examples as to why you think this other than attributing a date to one.
>>305304
Ok so you accept the environmental differences between equatorial mesoamerica and the artic. Does the ecology of mesoamerica differ to sub saharan africa, some potential differences would be different species of domesticated crops, iirc maize could have something stupid like 3 or 4 harvests a year in the tropics, africa still retained the presence of megafauna, which were earlier driven to extinction in many regions of the world due to some combination of climate change and over hunting, Tsetse fly, barrier to ease of trade due to the sahara etc
>>305191
>Redpill
Fuck off to Reddit you faggot
>>305314
>The Maya never unified and were a collection of city states, we have no evidence the Missisipians were ever under any central authority, Aztecs only ruled Central Mexico which isn't that large, the only sizeable one were the Inca so one out of, what? 15? 20? Total known organized civilizations?
Even the Maya were considerably more centralized than anything sub saharan africa has ever seen.
>Most of the Americas were petty tribes but you have no trouble extending superiority to them now do you faggot?
Most of North America and the Amazon basin were petty tribes, but America had considerable civilizations. They were basically in a proto-sumerian state, too bad european colonization halted the spread of organized civilization.
>Complete garbage
Why, because it hurts your feelings? If you're going to disregard facts as "total garbage" we don't have much left to talk about.
>And general goods
No, slaves and gold. That was pretty much it. And salt from time to time.
>Pointing out that: Is an arbitrary nonsensical biased statement with no basis in facts or logic. You're probably just a buttmad Mexican that thinks he's a big bad aztec.
I'm not even remotely hispanic, considering I'm french. You, on the other hand, seem to be rather emotionally involved in proving that sub saharan africa was not the least developed continent prior to european colonization.
So I ask you, do you HONESTLY believe that mesoamerica was not more advanced than sub saharan africa prior to european colonization?
>>305328
Why don't you try and make me you little bitch?
>>305333
https://www.reddit.com/r/TheRedPill/
This is where faggots like you belong
>>305293
>>Ritualistic killings were commonplace everywhere until something stamped it out.
>But it was only common in Africa after the 19th century.
It was also still common in Polynesia, in fact, there's concrete evidence of tribes on Papua being ritually cannibalistic up until the 1960s at least.
This isn't some inherent thing, it was basically just harder for europeans with their providence and humanism and whatnot to culturally affect those places.
>>305191
Just look up some academic critiques of it, there's plenty.
Look up critiques of the more nuanced Annales School writers for that matter
>>305322
>You've completely failed to give any examples as to why you think this other than attributing a date to one.
What? Do you have reading comprehension problems? >>305275
>Government complexity, city sizes, trade, etc..
>>305325
>Ok so you accept the environmental differences between equatorial mesoamerica and the artic. Does the ecology of mesoamerica differ to sub saharan africa, some potential differences would be different species of domesticated crops, iirc maize could have something stupid like 3 or 4 harvests a year in the tropics, africa still retained the presence of megafauna, which were earlier driven to extinction in many regions of the world due to some combination of climate change and over hunting, Tsetse fly, barrier to ease of trade due to the sahara etc
No doubt some parts of sub saharan africa are inhospitable. I don't it's pretty logical that no civilization ever developed in the middle of the congo rainforest.
However, that being said, large swathes of sub saharan africa have a better environment for creating civilizations than does mesoamerica. This is what I'm trying to get at.
Despite being in a worse geographical position, and being COMPLETELY isolated from Eurasia, mesoamerica developed far more than any place in sub saharan africa. The only plausible explanation for this is that mesoamericans are on average cognitively superior to africans (which is corroborated by IQ tests conducted on mestizo hispanics and african americans in the USA).
Anyways, I'm going to lunch. I know you're probably going to attack me by saying "LOL IQ DOESNT EXIST" so spare me that. I just hope you'll ask yourself, honestly, why did mesoamerica develop more than sub saharan africa despite being in a worse geographical position.
>>305343
>This isn't some inherent thing
It's inherent to very primitive civilizations.
>>305345
I hope your a troll in the sense of
>pic related
>>305354
>I don't it's pretty logical
I think it's pretty logical*
I love the way this book is different than most history books. It tries to analyze history through a more scientific method.
However, I don't believe he is impartial enough. He is obsessed with undeveloped cultures and, while I love how he tried to explain why they are undeveloped, he failed to explain why certain cultures failed technologically.
It makes perfect sense that cultures with calorie dense grains would be able to depend more heavily on agriculture and abandon hunting and gathering quicker but why is it that Native Americans didn't develop technology as fast as Asian or European cultures when they had access to corn which is better than wheat. The Americas were just as resource rich as anywhere else in the world and the plains tribes had access to Bison for potential domestication but did not.
There is something missing from certain cultures that prohibited them from progressing as fast or there was something else holding them back. I think this book is a good step forward in the way people analyze history. There has to be a way of marrying this method of analyzing history with the convention way of understand history that can provide us with a better insight into the past.
>>305191
why don't you just read Il Principe and be done with it? basically the same book.
>>305355
According to the Primitiv-o-meter?
Because Carthage had ritualistic killings of humans as well, you know...
>>305331
>Even the Maya were considerably more centralized
They weren't centralized at all, again, they were a collection of city states that regularly fought between each other.
>Most of North America and the Amazon basin AND PATAGONIA were petty tribes
And those are most of the landmass your'e saying was more advanced than some other landmass, when they weren't.
You're cherry picking a few civilizations and thinking they's representative of the entire continent.
>Why
I explained why, it's comparing wildly different things and getting a rough average that doesn't tell you anything.
>if I estimate the total number of large cities and divide by the estimates of total population I get this number
Nevermind that before industrialisation you see upwards of 50% of the population in rural areas in tiny villages that wouldn't be preserved at all in a tropical settings.
>No, slaves and gold.
More bullshit
>You, on the other hand
>Nu-Uh! You're the shitskin
Neat
>So I ask you, do you HONESTLY believe that mesoamerica was not more advanced than sub saharan africa prior to european colonization?
Yes, I believe they were both equally shit except one decided to be shit with pyramids that made you think they were some kind of exclusive high class shit when they were just regular shit.
>>305191 (OP) #
Search "guns germs and steel debunked." Its one of the most debunked books of all time.
The real reason northern hemisphere societies evolved to be more civilized than southern hemisphere societies are as follows:
>North hemisphere was frozen and barren at the time, species had to be very clever to survive and work together in groups peacefully
>South hemisphere species evolved in what was essentially a food forest at the time. They could wake up, pick fruits from the jungle and hunt an enormous slow animal and have food for weeks. They focussed more time and energy on mating, thus the exaggerated sexual features (big lips and butts on African and native south american women, African men with comically huge penises that only know how to dance and fight to draw the females attention)
Reality is not always politically correct, and it seems a certain group is always trying to make it seem like white people aren't as advanced as they are because they struggled their way through the harshest crucibles of all time, the ice age in Europe. While niggers danced around fires and sang and fucked all day. Now it's the other way around, Europe is fertile and Africa is still quite fertile but the food forests and megafauna are mostly gone, and it requires farming and domestication if animals (stuff they can't into doing until the stupid ones die off and the capable ones breed to continue to race). These people literally can't even into filtering water and still live in primal villages, do you think that's because of the reason Diamond pulls out his Jewish ass or because of the reasons Darwin theorizes?
They are simply lesser evolved, closer to animals than the other subspecies.
>>305354
>Do you have reading comprehension problems?
You're not actually explaining how any of those were more advanced...You're just saying they are because reasons,
>>305354
Why would i say "LOL IQ DOESN"T EXIST' its a decent measure, not perfect or comprehensive however, There are so many contingencies in history, can you prove that africa would not have developed civilisation given more time. The middle east developed cities at least 7000 years ago, while mesoamerica developed cities around 3000 years ago
>>305363
>According to the Primitiv-o-meter?
Yes.
>Because Carthage had ritualistic killings of humans as well, you know...
An archaic remnant of their primitive past.
>>305364
I can't argue with you if you deny basic facts. What's next, you're going to claim that Papua New Guinea was on par with Renaissance Europe? Go read a book. Or even better, go kill yourself.
>>305345
>Capital: Critique of Political Economy debunked
>About 427,000 results (0.53 seconds)
>The Interpretation of Dreams debunked
>About 515,000 results (0.49 seconds)
>the bible debunked
>About 467,000 results (0.32 seconds)
>the koran debunked
>About 88,000 results (0.20 seconds)
>The Ego and His Own debunked
>About 483,000 results (0.57 seconds)
>Mein Kampf debunked
>About 96,900 results (0.42 seconds)
>Charlotte's Web debunked
>About 15,700,000 results (0.43 seconds)
>guns germs and steel debunked
>About 3,340 results (0.36 seconds)
>>305191
If the general western press rates it highly I am suspicious
>>305369
>get owned
>hurr go kill yourself
They were both stupid, dwi faggot.
>>305368
>Why would i say "LOL IQ DOESN"T EXIST'
Because you seem to be disagreeing with my thesis that average cognitive differences between mesoamericans and sub saharans are the reason for their differences in development.
>There are so many contingencies in history, can you prove that africa would not have developed civilisation given more time.
Oh, they could have perhaps developed civilization given more time, yes. But we're speaking of thousands of years. Your point being?
>>305375
>get owned
You didn't say anything besides saying "no the Aztec empire was really just a collection of villages, whereas we wuz kings n sheeit"!!
Go fuck yourself.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JEYh5WACqEk
:D
XD
;D
>:D
>CGP Grey being a boss and owning all da racis while shilling for the TRUTH
Love this guy
>>305379
Then why aren't Asians ruling the world?
>>305366
hello /pol/
just a reminder that taxonomically all humans are animals and thus no subspecies can be "closer to animals".
And another taxonomical reminder that what you think subspecies are is wrong and go read a book.
>>305386
They failed to industrialize on their own.
I find it strange that people who try and have native Americans and black africans square off so to speak usually side with native peoples.
The reality is that throughout African-Native interactions the African side wins out.
Miskitu Zambo
Garifuna
Zambo of Esmeraldes
The native tribes from Virginia to lower New England
>>305366
AFRICANS ARE NOT A FOREST PEOPLE
THE ONLY CAME INTO THE FOREST WITH THE INTRODUCTION OF THE BANANA BECAUSE OTHERWISE THEY WOULD STARVE
PYGMIES ARE NOT EVEN FOREST PEOPLE
Also quite that foodforest meme shit, African rainforests are barren outside of mbau season for about a month or two every few years.
>>305381
>the Aztec empire was really just a collection of villages
I never made that claim, I pointed out that calling it "large" was stupid when it only consisted of central Mexico....Which it did you mouth breathing retard.
>>305356
/pol/ doesn't purposefully shill like a lot of leftist groups, namely reddit raiders and JIDF which is not a conspiracy theory. /pol/ simply points out logic and draws criticism to politically correct bullshit. That's what political correctness is, willful ignorance. Lying to yourself to make it seem like the world is fair when its obviously not. That's exactly what Jewred Diamondsteins book is attempting to propagate, that whites and asians aren't smarter because of evolution, they're just lucky and blacks, aboriginals, and American tribes are their equals.
Look how the societies of South America and Africa are today. They live like they used to, in favelas or huts because they aren't evolved enough to think beyond the day and plan ahead. Europeans and Asians build today so they can survive better tomorrow, a trait that adapts only when a species has to prepare for winter or a time when food will become scarce. They're also less violent and more inclined to work together to achieve a goal, traits evolved to help the group survive during hard times.
>>305395
But IQ is the determining factor of civilization and industrialization
>>305397
This. Humanity evolved because we left the forests and went to the plains.
>>305386
da joos keeping tha aryan IQ results down
>>305379
I do disagree that cognitive difference were the MAIN factor
>we're speaking of thousands of years. Your point being?
Why did all civilisations only develop after 10,000bc
Why did civilisation not develop earlier in other interglacial periods
Not thinking that some degree of luck 'not the influenced idea of luck' doesn't play a role in history
>>305403
>But IQ is the determining factor of civilization and industrialization
No, it's one of the factors. Think of IQ as a foundation upon which civilization can take hold. To reach a certain degree of civilizational attainment, a people requires to satisfy a certain IQ threshold. But then, of course, culture plays a huge role. Culture is the reason why Europe dominated over East Asia starting from the 15th century onwards.
So now, please stop strawmanning.
>>305410
So you don't actually keep reading comments and just read the first two words? Good to know.
>>305397
Africa was densely forested and far more temperate when Europe was for the most part iced over. Africa still has more fertile land that Europe and Asia yet they do nothing but sit in huts and cry for aid. This isn't because of colonialism, colonization of Africa was so brief it was the blink of an eye historically speaking so you can't pretend that had such a huge effect on their evolution.
>>305378
It's worse than that, I confused Darwin with Newton and none of you even noticed.
>>305415
>I do disagree that cognitive difference were the MAIN factor
Then what was the main factor?
>Why did all civilisations only develop after 10,000bc
>Why did civilisation not develop earlier in other interglacial periods
Because human intelligence had not increased enough to allow for the development of civilization yet.
The fact that civilization arose independently at the end of the last ice age in several parts of the world is a strong argument in favor that a minimum level of intelligence is required to build and maintain civilizations. That ice age really sharpened up our ancestors.
>>305407
What?
>>305406
Westerners are so stupid when they make a picture of us being in some hit in the middle of a forest because those people are basically recent pioneers.
I think it stems from this false idea of creating some "pure" sub saharan baseline but the reality is African people by and large extended from the Montane Sahara, the Sahel, the Afro Montane of East Africa, miombo woodlands and the grasslands further south.
With formal States in the first three and the formation of complex chieftains in the last two shortly after the arrival of Sahelian crops.
>>305423
>So you don't actually keep reading comments and just read the first two words?
I did read the rest of your moronic post, but I couldn't be bothered to address it since it's, well, moronic.
>>305430
There was a complex interaction of many factors than can never be condensed to a single sentance
>>305419
>muh kultur
>>305441
>I can't understand statistics
>hurr yur st00pid
Pfft, right.
>>305432
If Jews are so smart why didn't they take over the world?
Oh...
>>305450
>when presented with ACTUAL data.
I pointed out how the data collected was a quirk of statistics.
>>305450
>That's a rather unsatisfactory answer.
And yet it's the best one there is.
>>305450
Are you sure it's not just kultur that makes a difference? Everything about the supposed weathering the icy north could be more easily applied to kultur than IQ.
>>305427
You do know that tropical soils are not more fertile right? That striga and other parasitic plants and weeds greatly restrict the viability of farms there?
You do know that excessive mineral imbalances are a hallmark of African soil right? African Rice and Fonio both having adapted to that where most crops fail.
Are you aware that there is no known population to have ever successfully gained 100% of the caloric needs in African rain forests?
Did you know that on the contrary hazelnuts, chestnuts and acorns are hallmark staples of upper Mesolithic and transitional neolithic populations in Europe?
Maybe that's the reason they never developed pottery before IEs while West Africans did 10K years ago? Food was just everywhere.
Tell me again how Africans are a tropical people living off of a forest ladder where it seems that Europeans before IE expansion took that prize.
>>305456
>I pointed out how the data collected was a quirk of statistics.
The population of Tenochtitlan is not a "quirk of statistics".
>>305459
No it's not. It's a shitty cop out to avoid addressing sensitive topics such as racial differences in intelligence.
Another example :
>why are black crime rates so high
>hurr durr there's no way to know :---D
>>305449
Because to take over the world you have to hide the fact that you took over and control the world...
Oh.
>>305432
You probably shouldn't save or post pictures with no source attached to them.
On a related note, how are Jews even counted as a race?
>>305450
>That's a rather unsatisfactory answer.
Since when does the feeling of satisfaction dictate the relevance of an answer?
>>305462
>Are you sure it's not just kultur that makes a difference?
Intelligence obviously plays a role. Otherwise, why didn't any Australopithecus develop civilization? Why didn't chimpanzees develop civilization?
>>305341
I read a bit of a post and regret it. what a bunch of deluded sissy bois
>>305479
Are you retarded? Genuine question
>>305401
>a trait that adapts only when a species has to prepare for winter or a time when food will become scarce
Implying that every prehistoric human population didn't have to cope through periods of scarcity and famine...
>>305480
Because their kultur sucked. Are you implying Australopithecus and chimpanzees had yuropeen kultur?
>>305475
>On a related note, how are Jews even counted as a race?
Ashkenazi jews have been endogamous for a long enough period of time for them to count as a distinct race.
>>305479
Maybe the word "unsatisfactory" doesn't mean what I think it means? English is not my native language. What I meant is that that answer was not good enough. "Insatisfaisant" in french.
>>305488
How did europeans develop a complex culture? Could a chimpanzee be exposed to european culture and become on par with europeans?
>>305486
Really, I am actually an ecologist
Do you somehow not realise that everything in the real world isn't so condusive to reductionism as to be expressible through a single numerical scale
>>305465
Here's a history lesson for /his/
>be white European settlers in South Africa
>turn a tribal shithole into the envy of Africa
>highly productive farms make the area flourish and become a center of trade across the world
>black Africans get jealous, start saying the white man be keepin them down
>genocide all the white farmers, headed up by Nelson Mandela, hero and patron saint to many leftists
>South Africa turns into a tribal shithole again, and a ghetto shithole in the cities the white man left them
>similar thing happened in Rhodesia, you may have heard of this flourishing metropolitan vacation destination
>it's called Zimbabwe now, its great you should visit sometime
Even with countless examples... Even through force, Africoid societies refuse to civilize. In many cases they evolve backwards because handouts don't exactly help them in the evolution process and they receive a lot of aid especially the ones safe here in the Western nations.
>>305491
By being in the icy north where they had to develop a stronk kultur to survive. Obviously tropical prime apes who have food forests around them would have no need to develop such a stronk kultur. Are you retarded?
>>305496
Sounds like kultur to me.
>>305496
>In many cases they evolve backwards because handouts don't exactly help them in the evolution process
>evolve backwards
>help in the evolution process
/pol/ truly is an endless source of comedy
>>305496
What a terrible history lesson, the majority of what you said just isn't true.
Please define "shithole".
>>305369
>I can't argue with you if you deny basic facts. What's next, you're going to claim that Papua New Guinea was on par with Renaissance Europe?
lol, faggot. He's right, mesoamericans were complete shit. If the Malian empire came into contact with the Aztecs, the meximidgets would get rekt.
>>305487
That's even more cold than my theory... So how come the southern hemisphere humans didn't evolve if food was scarce? Wouldn't they die off?
Let's take south Americans for example, they're an r type in r/K selection theory, thus the meme that Hispanics have so many children. An r type survives by having many children, a K type has fewer children because there are less resources and they need to focus on them, and also the mother would die carrying too many babies inside her leeching her nutrients. So how does it make sense that an r type doesn't have any food? The mothers wouldn't be too healthy from rearing so many children and the children would eat everything the tribe can hunt/cultivate. Africans are this way as well, there's a modern stereotype about welfare queens or whatever. It's not all cultural, there are biological reasons behind these traits.
>>305498
>food forests
I honestly wish >muh low hanging fruit fags would be dumped naked in the middle of Africa, together with all the "noble savage" homosexuals
>>305489
I was being a little pedantic, I think the meaning is roughly the same though,
I meant that even an answer that does not seem good enough may still be the best answer we currently have, and that definitive assertions
of knowledge of history can be seen ignorant, for a good reason
>>305496
So the Boers are an interesting case of White people adopting first the pastorialist traditions and sheep/goats of the khoi and then with not only guns but the financing of European powers, VOC and trade in international markets adopted the disease and climate resistance Sanga cattle, millet and sorghum of Bantu farmers.
Really had they tried to stay the sedentary farmers of wheat without the support of VOC and left to their own devices they'd all be dead.
It's cute you made up a nice story though to make yourself feel better though :3
Farm murders are not racial, more than a third of the victims are black.
>>305508
I'm saying they'll evolve backward if you give them handouts, that is: they will lose key survival traits if you keep giving them stuff for free. This is how "domestication" occurs. If you release a domesticated animal into the wild it is less likely to survive on instinct, because said survival instincts have not been important in its survival. It no longer has them, it de-evolved.
>>305510
Africa.
>>305522
Holy shit haha. This happens everywhere my friend. The indigenous population can't maintain a civilized and prosperous society. Look at the differences between Mexico and Spain even, with a good bit of genetic admixture they're still very different, and one is indeed more civilized than the other.
Race exists some traits are better than others. You have to accept this reality. It doesn't matter if the truth hurts your feelings, its dangerous to let your mind think how it does.
>>305525
You mean how the white proletariat was domesticated by the Jewish bourgeois?
:^)
>>305518
>didn't evolve food if it was scarce
In Australia only the macadamia tree has been domesticated even with modern biological understanding
The gestation and infant length for humans means that all humans follow the K strategy
Minor differences which have not been observable through long term study to have been consistently shifting in a particular direction can be explained just as reasonably as fluctuations around the mean
>>305534
*if food was scarce
>>305531
It's cute that you believe that race and not the financial, political and technological position of the invader is more important.
You idea of Mexico is also limited too.
>>305534
same dude, the ecology anon, we learn about r/K selection btw
Please defend the statement that
>south Americans for example, they're an r type in r/K selection theory
Because i do not think you understand evolutionary time frames
>>305534
length of time spent as an 'infant'
sorry for the typo's i'm a little drunk
>>305294
I'm not a big fan of GG&S, but I have to say that screencap is one of the stupidest things I have ever seen. The first point makes it especially clear that whoever wrote it has absolutely no knowledge of Eurasian geography or history.
And yet it will still be reposted forever and ever.
>Africa
Northeast Africa was connected with Asia, and they developed civilizations through contact with Asia just like Europe did. There's not much else to explain there. West Africa and Bantu Africa, on the other hand, had less contact with Eurasia and could not adopt crops because of their tropical climate. They were, however, able to bring in domesticated livestock, and between about 8000-3000 BC pastoralists spread across the green Sahara. When the Sahara aridified, these pastoralists were forced to gather around oasis where they came to domesticate pearl millet by 2500 BC. Around 2000 BC pearl millet spread across West Africa, leading to the later domestication of other plants over the next few thousand years. Agriculture later spread into Bantu Africa between 1000 BC - 500 AD.
This was a very late start to agriculture, and at this point civilizations had already arisen in Asia. Consider how long it took for those Asian civilizations to arise after the rise of agriculture; they arose by 3500 BC, after agriculture arouse around 8500 BC. It took 5000 years before civilization arose. Agriculture has been practiced in most of West Africa for less than 4500 years, and in Bantu Africa even less. What's more, tsetse flies hugely constrained agricultural development.
There was no time to develop a civilization, and yet, they still did. In the late first millennium AD, urbanism began to arise in Mali and Nigeria. Mali soon came under Islamic influence, so they aren't really a totally native civilization, but Nigeria developed in isolation and yet still managed to attain urbanisation and a level of artistic sophistication that surpassed most other incipient civilizations. However, the late development of civilization, only around 1000 AD, meant that there was not time to develop into anything else.
>>305711
>tada!
>>305711
>romanticizing Africa
Lol, go there.
>admitting they got the idea of agriculture from another society
And they still barely adapt it to this day.
>civilization
Go there. Post results of all the civilization and cultural enrichment you experience.
>Mesoamerica
The idea that Mesoamericans were primitive compared to Eurasians is pretty easily dismissed. Mesoamerican civilization started about 1000 BC. They were thus about 2000 years behind Eurasia, and in addition they didn't benefit from the wide interaction zone that Eurasian civilizations were a part of. If you look at the Classical Mayans, who flourished about 500-1000 AD, and compare them with civilizations in Eurasia 2000 years earlier between 1500-1000 BC, such as New Kingdom Egypt, Kassite Babylon, or Mycenaean Greece, the Mayans are in many ways more impressive than any of them. It's true that they lacked metallurgy, but they still matched Eurasian civilizations in their social complexity, their arts, and their architecture. In fact, the only civilization that came anywhere close to matching the Mayans in architecture, painting, and sculpture were the New Kingdom Egyptians.
>>305742
>romanticizing Africa
Where did I do that?
>admitting they got the idea of agriculture from another society
>And they still barely adapt it to this day.
You didn't understand a thing I posted. They adopted pastoralism from the Nile valley, but domestication of crops, the thing that actually leads to civilization, was an indigenous development. It was a knock on effect of Eurasian agriculture, but the idea of cropping didn't come from anywhere else. Domestication of pearl millet happened over two thousand kilometers away from the Nile. That said, that really wasn't the point of my post. I was explaining why civilization didn't fully develop if Africa, not where agriculture came from.
Also, do I need to remind you where Europe's agriculture came from?
>civilization
>Go there. Post results of all the civilization and cultural enrichment you experience.
Do you want to take a guess as to where Eurasia's first civilization was? Is it somewhere you'd like to visit?
>>305742
>>305742
The oldest domesticated crop in Africa is Fonio and that developed in West Africa.
There was no known farming population in contact with Neolithic Subpluvial populations and again the use of grains is by no means restricted to farmers you simpletons
Domestication is neither an idea or invention, it's a process.
>>305882
Not him, but everywhere I've read that the earliest crop farming in sub-Saharan Africa was pearl millet coming from the Sahara around 2500 BC.
>Domestication is neither an idea or invention, it's a process.
You're right about this though. Agriculture needs to stop being treated as an accomplishment. It's just something that arises when people intensively exploit certain types of plants in certain ways over long periods.
>>305914
No, the oldest agreed upon crop is White Fonio and black Fonio
Also domestication events for the same plant can occur in many places.
Anyways heres an old map
>>305939
I haven't seen any evidence for that. The only evidence for domesticated fonio comes long after the domestication of finger millet
>http://www.researchgate.net/publication/235410801_A_developmental_history_of_West_African_agriculture
>Despite being cultivated throughout much of West Africa, and considered to be one of the earliest cereal domesticates (see http://inco-fonio-en.cirad.fr/), archaeobotanical remains are extremely rare. Fonio has been identified at the site of Kolima Sud Est dating to c. 850 BC, and is argued to be domestic on the grounds of size diminution (Takezawa and Cissé 2004). Otherwise, the only other reliable finds of domesticated fonio come from Cubalel in Senegal, dating to c. AD 500 (Murray et al. 2007).
>>305966
Well I hate to say it but that only shows your understanding of African agriculture is both cursory and minimal because any intentional reading would give you statements of fonios antiquity which is much older than pearl millet.
>>305275
>Ritualistic killing was commonplace in Africa until christian missionaries stamped it out.
In more than 50% of pre-contact ethnic groups on the continent, or more than 50% of ethnic groups when you account for population? No? Then don't use "Africa".
>>305999
Can you actually back up anything that you're saying? I've given you a good source, you haven't given anything but a map from 1971.
If there's good evidence that fonio predates 2500 BC, then I'd like to see it. Do you expect me to just take your word for it?
No-troll it's the most important book I ever read. Got it for Christmas back when it came out, have re-read it every couple years since.
>>305191 (OP)
It tries to justify why non-whites fared so poorly in history.
>Muh /pol/!!11!!!1
The board literally has more redditors in it than /pol/acks
>>306050
It's not my word, I've never read a book or paper that hasn't states the antiquity of Fonio.
It's Turkey Day here so I'm going to go soon but given the fact that the the second oldest location in the world after Japan/Korea for pottery is in west Africa and we know pearl millet in its domesticated form was found on pottery shards from Dhar Tichit which is also west Africa is confirmed to atleast 3,800bp.
I don't think it's accurate at all to state that Wheat and Barley farmers migrated all the way to the West End of Africa remembering an exact process of domestication and then laid the ground work for agriculture again when we know the history of grain exploitation being much older on the continent.
>>306097
>It's not my word, I've never read a book or paper that hasn't states the antiquity of Fonio.
But you won't provide a single source.
>we know pearl millet in its domesticated form was found on pottery shards from Dhar Tichit which is also west Africa is confirmed to atleast 3,800bp.
Pearl Millet is older than that, it's been found domesticated in the Lower Tilemsi Valley by 2500 BC. This was the first cereal crop in West Africa.
http://www.researchgate.net/publication/251565314_4500-Year_old_Domesticated_Pearl_Millet_%28Pennisetum_glaucum%29_from_the_Tilemsi_Valley_Mali_new_insights_into_an_alternative_cereal_domestication_pathway
>I don't think it's accurate at all to state that Wheat and Barley farmers migrated all the way to the West End of Africa remembering an exact process of domestication and then laid the ground work for agriculture again when we know the history of grain exploitation being much older on the continent.
Nowhere did I make a claim like that.
this book is a interesting read but it's not "the history book that end all history book".
It's a world history for dummies, typical amerifat in trying to explain the complexities of world history in some chapters.
I'm not surprised that people like Bill Gates love this book.
(I read it and I loved it of course, I just don't think it is the last word on the subject, nor that it is free from criticism)
>>306093
>jump into the thread 120 posts after OP
>don't read any of it
>make a cursory attempt at stiring shit up
>defend oneself from percieved threats even before they appear
HELLO /POL/!
>>305191
Haplogroup
/thread
Every historian worth his salt has some issue with what the book has to say about his field.
>>305191
The thing about GG&S is that it fails to mention that the only time Europe wasn't being buttfucked by other people was during antiquity and 1500's+.
How can you say that Europeans conquered the world because of Geography when they were just in the right place to be the local whore cum dumpster?
>>306119
I don't provide sources when it's easily detachable on Google Books, I find it a waste of my time to spoon feed people.
I also forgot you're not the person making the claim that agricultural diffusion came to Africa from the middle east, which was the reason why I dropped by here in the first place to leave a comment.
Also 3,800bp is older than 2,500bp
>>306177
>Also 3,800bp is older than 2,500bp
Did this whole argument come from you misreading BC and BP?
Pearl millet is from 2500 BC, that is, 4500 BP. Fonio is younger than that.
>>306199
BP ends in 1950 not 1900 lad
>>306239
What's your point? These aren't precise dates anyway, a 50 year difference doesn't really mean anything.
>>306245
i wasn't even involved in the argument your error just triggered my autism Tbh f@m
>>306256
Alright, but you made a mistake too. If I thought BP ended in 1900 I would have said 2500 BC equals 4400 BP, not 4500 BP.
You can't out-autism me.
>>305430
>what is behavioral modernity
Humans attained the needed intelligence long before the end of Ice Age, and up to relatively modern times most people were hunter-gatherers. What is needed for civilisation is Neolithic Revolution, coupled with a bunch of other things, but Neolithic Revolutions happened very rarely and seem to have different reasons in different cases.
As to OP's question, this book is shit. It's partially true, but it's gross oversimplification.
