![df0b24_b7e0f2b90a4e42a4bce074604587ba62[1].png](https://i.imgur.com/Mhwnuke.png "df0b24_b7e0f2b90a4e42a4bce074604587ba62[1].png")
Does /his/ have a coherent explanation for why Africa has simply underachieved in terms of culture and historical impact? At least sub-saharan Africa?
Not a /pol/ thread I swear, but I'm not incapable of accepting coherent 'racist' explanations.
>>721294
Lack of contact with Eurasia. Ideas flow from place to place which is how civilization spread out of the fertile crescent. Unfortunately for Sub Saharan Africa, they have been largely isolated until colonization with Islam only playing a pivotol role in some areas. The Horn of Africa did havr contact but not enough due to geography.
>>721294
Africa isn't a country
>>721294
Check the archive. It's like everyday we get this thread.
They didn't and probably will not (in our lifetimes) hammer these ethnic groups into about 2 dozen +
>>721368
Source on the map
>>721294
Because they had all the resouces they need
Civilizations don't grow out of nothing, there needs to be something to cause innovation
>>721368
This map is actual ass.
>>721323
I don't think OP referred to it as such
After ancient Egypt, Africa was repeatedly raped by Europeans and Arabs.
>>721426
Carthage, Ethiopia, Zulu, Ivory Coast, all stamped out before they could do much.
Carthage had the biggest chance after Egypt
>>721441
What about Axum/Ethiopia? They conquered parts of Arabia at various points in their history, I believe. Mali and Songhai had really powerful empires as well.
>>721294
their shit was fucked up during the cold war
>>721395
>Because they had all the resouces they need
Not really, no.
subsaharan africans have a mean IQ of 80-85 which is considerably lower than that of the people of asia and europe.
evidence:
There was a study done that controls for environment, upbringing and culture where they compared the IQs of 100 black adopted babies raised by affluent white parent's in Minnesota with the IQs of 100 white adopted babies raised by affluent parents in Minnesota.
And the same gap in mean IQ between the two groups of 15 points persisted.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Minnesota_Transracial_Adoption_Study
Mean IQ measured at age 17 for white adoptees :106
Mean IQ measured at age 17 for black adoptees: 89
Obviously the white sample has anIQ of 106, which is significantly higher than the true white population mean of 100. But we know that the children were raised all by affluent families and the average IQ of the adoptive parents involved in the study was 110, so we can reasonably deduce that the environment helped raise the sample's average IQ 6 points higher from what it would have been in normal circumstances.
89-6= 83
>>721477
also see
Factor Analysis of Population Allele Frequencies as a Simple, Novel Method of Detecting Signals of Recent Polygenic Selection: The Example of Educational Attainment and IQ.
Two single nucleotide polymorphisms (SNPs) whose associations with intelligence seem to be robust because they have been replicated in several independent studies were chosen as representative of intelligence increasing alleles.
The first is rs236330, located within gene FNBP1L, whose significant association with general intelligence has been reported in two separate studies (Davies et al, 2011; Benyamin et al, 2013). This gene is strongly expressed in neurons, including. hippocampal neurons and developing brains, where it regulates neuronal morphology (Davies et al, 2011).
The second SNP is rs324650. It was included because its association with IQ has been replicated in four association studies (Comings et al, 2003; Dick et al, 2007; Gosso et al, 2006, 2007). This SNP is located in the gene CHRM2 (cholinergic receptor, muscarinic #2), which is involved in neuronal excitability, synaptic plasticity and feedback regulation of acetylcholine release.
East Asian populations (Japanese, Chinese) have the highest average frequency of beneficial alleles (39%), followed by Europeans (35.5%) and sub-Saharan Africans (16.4%).
http://www.ibc7.org/article/journal_v.php?sid=312
>>721464
The land quality is shit precisely because rainforest soil is terrible for farming, but they don't even need farming because they can hunt the animals and eat the fruits than grow in the jungle.
>>721294
Disconnected by the Saharria with shti tier climate making agriculture hard and disease rampant.
>>721294
The Sahara
>>721514
Everyone fucking hunts but picking wild fruit trees and sustaining off that as a main source of food is fucking retarded no on did that. Even then hunting cant sustain big populations and wild fruits are a shit source
>>721441
Carthage was big, rivaled Rome which is no small task.
>>721514
Do you think that fruits grow 24/7 all year round even in the jungle?
>>721477
What's the economic factor in these studies? How much social mobility for the parents have?
>>721294
early primitive men left the continent in search of better shit - who was left behind? the weak, the stupid, the cautious, the old and the conservative.
so there you have it, the most evolved people were driven by curiosity and an infinite search for "what's there for us" while the rest that decided to stay in africa just wanted to live their lives in peace
>>721477
IQ tests can't be considered a universal way to measure intelligence (if something can even exist) and works mostly with western society because it's based on logical exercices that we're trained with since our first childhood
>>721956
i'm assuming you have a better theory then and will obviously provide proof to back it up since you're all about factual debates
and apparently things that happened millions of years ago have no impact at all in the modern world because it's the current year
>>721965
Not that anon
>while the rest that decided to stay in africa
You're an idiot for thinking it's some type of uniform choice across a continent, the populations who left Africa were the ones who lived near the 'exits'.
>>721965
You don't have any proof what so ever to back your claims so I find it rich that you ask me that when no archaeological paper has said what you claim.
Also
>peace
Lulz
>>721514
Um have you ever been to an African rainforest? Primary forest sucks for foraging, you'd starve. Pygmies don't even do that.
>>721972
are you stupid? did i ever claimed it happened in a single day?
i'm supposing that more adventurous people tend to keep going north if they originally settled in a hot place since the tendency was for things to get hotter and hotter and the hotter it gets the less resources the ground will provide - so two major groups would be created: those who didn't bother in tightening the belt and eventually starve and the others who knew it was a huge gamble but decided to take the risk by migrating to unexplored places.
many must have died but the survivors probably got to set foot in better lands and live better and wealthier lives
>>721982
no i don't, since there's a reason why it's called prehistory but since you refuted all my points with so much confidence with a single phrase, i was hoping for a bold and well-argumented reply destroying my pathetic hypothesis
>>721926
I can't tell if you were being serious or not, but in case you were, does that mean that native Americans and Australian abos are the most advanced/evolved people? Since they were the most curious and travelled farthest from Africa, they must be superior to those who stayed in the Middle East and Europe to live their lives in peace.
>>721965
Animals don't move because life is too easy or some bullshit, they are forced to move because of a stronger flock taking over their territory.
That goes for humans too, see Huns forcing Ostrogoths towards Rome.
>>721996
You do know that homo erectus left Africa far earlier than modern humans and evolved into Denisovans and Neanderthal right? Why would you suggest that something like temperature would be the main factor rather than expanding into less densely populated areas? why would north be chosen with no awareness of unexplored geography.
>the hotter it gets the less resources the ground will provide
Proof? pretty sure it's much more varied than you are suggesting, and more reliant on local scale habitats, the sahara was home to giraffe and hippo just 8000 years ago. Or is this just the stormfag cold=smart, hot=dumb argument in a different form?
>>721996
>no i don't, since there's a reason why it's called prehistory
What do you mean by this? That because you are speculating about something happened in prehistoric times it doesn't need to be supported by evidence?
>>721965
Holy shit you're serious.
>>721965
Quality content m8.
>>721965
Everybody's jumped on your comment already, but maybe you could support your theory with some evidence that traits like "curiosity", "caution" and "conservatism" can be inherited genetically.
Resource curse. Also read Guns, Germs and Steel.
>>721294
Because of geography. Africa is running from north to south and on the other side euroasia is running from east to west. So some zones are deserts some shitty rainforest and some are just to remote.
>>721294
I had a thought about climate being a factor. Peoples who lived in Northern areas have to plan ahead for winter, storing up food and firewood, or else they would starve or freeze to death.
Peoples who live where it is warm all the time, and hunting and gathering is always good don't get that forward-planning mindset.
That same long-view forward-planning gave Northern europeans the edge in other things, leading to sailing and colonizing the world, the industrial revolution, and massive wealth.
I'm open to any criticism of my idea.
>>723588
>read Guns, Germs and Steel
retard detected
Watch Jared Diamond in person and it is obvious.... He is is a white-guilt liberal who is desperate to explain away the failings of darker-skinned people. His "logic" is barely half right, but the look on his face tells it all; he is an MSNBC-tier left-wing clown.
>>723766
not that guy but those are some fiery ad-homs son
why not attack JD's actual arguments
>>723776
>zebras
This has been done to death m8
>>723624
Hm, sounds good.
>>721368
Ethnic homogenity being needed for success is a faggot meme. Europeans lived in multiethnic empires until the early 20th century and still conquered the rest of the world.
Sf
1. Geography
The Sahara separates Sub-Saharan Africa from Eurasia
Rivers aren't as navigable as in other regions
Impassible jungle dominates the center of the continent.
2. Geography's effect on biology
Agricultural societies probably lead to selective breeding. The same traits that make someone a good hunter-gatherer are not going to make them an ideal settled farmer.
The 6,000 year gap where civilization existed in Eurasia and it didn't in most of sub-Saharan Africa could have resulted in biological differences.
3. Luck
Why it's been shit since independence is a bit of a different question. Geography still makes governing many of the states difficult.
Concepts such as rule of law, nationalism, human rights, professionalization of the civil service, etc. have centuries of history in Europe and Asia. Even when nations like Vietnam where backwards in 1900, they still inherited a Confucian culture that had the underpinnings they needed to adapt to modern civilization.
I don't really buy the whole "no good crops or domesticatable animals." Those do exist, the cultures that would have domesticated them just never arose. Again, geography plus luck.
>>722058
Man, I had that edition of that book growing up. All I remember is Riki Tiki Tivi though
>>721441
Carthage was a Phoenicia spin off. If OP's idea of Africa is about why natives dun gooffed, Carthage should not be counted.
>>721294
>At least sub-saharan Africa?
>implying this even remotely applies to North Africa
>underplaying Egypt and Carthage
fucking disgraceful
as for your question... it just didn't. The world isn't a civilization game where all civilizations make constant progress. There was probably a "if it aint broke, don't fix it " mindset
Anyone got a theory on why Sub-saharan Africans didn't undergo the same cognitive evolutionary pressures as Europeans or North Africans?
I'm pretty convinced in the racial intelligence gap existing I just want to know how the difference in environment over time created these different pressures.
>>724209
It was too nice in Africa. There are basically no dangers there, and food is found absolutely everywhere. You don't need any intelligence to survive or breed, as you need to do is wander around the forest and literally let food fall into your mouth.
Meanwhile in Europe, there's a constant danger of fucking AUROCHS which are the most dangerous creature on Earth, and the harsh ultra-winters mean that only those smart enough to store food can survive.
That's why Europeans ultimately invented agriculture and civilization while Africans remained stone age hunter gatherers for all eternity.
>>723776
You can tell when someone is bullshitting you when they have a clear political agenda and everything they say supports it.
His arguments about rivers and animals are so trivial and scatterbrained, it's hard to even bother. A sane person doesn't spend time arguing with a lunatic.
>>724234
>AUROCHS
More dangerous than crocodiles, hippos, rhinos, lions, poisonous snakes, and disease-ridden mosquitos.
R U trollin?
Every historian and archaeologist says that farming was invented in Mesopotamia, not Europe.
>>724615
>cognitive dissonance, the post
>>724640
Farming was invented independently multiple times across the world. But you are right, it definitely spread to Europe from the Middle East.
>>721477
It's worth nothing that children in Kenya and other African countries still fail the mirror test at six years old. Babies in America and Britain pass around 18 months
>>721945
Yes, and that logic is needed to build civilizations, hence why subsaharan africa is so poor in them
>>724640
I think he may have been. I can literally only understand what he said as being sarcasm.
>>721294
A plentiful environment, separated from
the rest of the world by a disgracefully hot one.
Without scarcity of resources, there is no civilization.
Agriculture was never an obvious advantage, not a self-evident necessity, and contacts with the rest of the world remained sparse.
>>721294
Lack of exploitable resources for early humans, harsh environmental conditions, no "farming" animals and lack of tameable beasts of burden, lack of cultural exchanges etc.
>>721294
Population. Africa has always been severely underpopulated and thus, had an abysmally small population density and economies.
This made trade much more difficult. Even as late as 1950, the African continent only had 220 million people.
>>721453
>Axum
stomped out in response to their pirates raiding the Arabs
>>726961
It actually declined over time, it's declien has nothing to do with Arabia.
With soil being drained due to heavy use on top of loss of many of it's close neighbors like Egypt, Makurai and Alodia to Islam.
This is coupled with some Queen from either the Beta Israel or Sidama in Ethiopia destroying the empire and a dark age of sorts before another dynasty arising after several conflicts..
>>721322
sup Jared
tbf has this ever been refuted successfully?
>>721464
>>721956
>>723786
The idea that colonial borders forced tribes to live together and that is the source of all conflict is also a meme. Not saying the borders are perfect, however some sort of effort to get tribes to cooperate was a strategic necessity.
Rather than asking for more maps, show us a map that you think accurately represents the tribes.
>everything in the universe depends on good soil
Why isn't Norway a 3rd world country?
Africa wasn't a good place for intensive agriculture during the medieval era, that explains why other civilizations creeped ahead of it in the past, it does not explain why they failed to develop in the modern era.
>>727016
>Why isn't Norway a 3rd world country?
they've got oil beneath their soil
>>727016
>Why isn't Norway a 3rd world country?
Literally oil
t. Jan Larsen
>>727056
>picking fruit
>>721322
I wish this meme would die
>>727002
It cant be, it contain facts, it cannot by definition be refuted. His opinions about the facts can be challenged though. As it is, most of the people here doing so will be parroting the view of another more skilled person and then taking the legitimacy of that person for themselves (the teenager claiming their dad is better than your dad and feeling bigger for it) Without being an expert, and lets face it a minimum of a Masters in Anthropology is an expert with regards to being able to constructively criticise something of this nature, any criticism is Dunning Kruger based and not valid. So no, not by anyone here, and without said expertise as mentioned above, reading an article criticising it is not the same as knowing the article is correct in its criticism. So you cannot without being an expert even know if the criticism is correct.
>>727075
Except anthropology is a meme / joke / waste of time degree.
Even a sociologist is more adept at trying to explain the complex human interactions that underplay the building and destroying of empires. An evolutionary psychologist is far better. A biologist would even be better, or a historian. Additionally, you are doing exactly the same thing you complain about in your post
> As it is, most of the people here doing so will be parroting the view of another more skilled person and then taking the legitimacy of that person for themselves
you are doing this with the assumption that Jarred diamond is more skilled than yourself.
Lastly, criticism is no more or less valid by the one who gives it. Criticism is made valid or invalid solely on the merit of it's ideas.
>>727062
>having a diet of several fruits, nuts, grains and vegetables is impossible
Let me remind you that hunter gatherers are the type that would (and did) absolutely chew and eat bitter or unpalatable plants as their main source of food for survival, and would never waste any part of the animals they hunted.
In fact its probably ten times better a diet than what most of us eat today with our limited variety of "proper" meats and vegetables (if you even eat vegetables at all).
>>727091
Anthropology is not useless and it draws form a ton of other fields as well as it's own.
>>727092
Yet H&G's got BTFO everywhere by more sedentary folk.
>>727091
>Except anthropology is a meme / joke / waste of time degree.
In your opinion, a very strong opinion, so valid you resorted to insulting the subject without resort to logical criticism.
>Even a sociologist..
Again a strong opinion, you seem to be saying you aren't a Sociologist or an Anthropologist and better than that you insult both in the way you state it. You then Tier List (teenage affectation to help deal with complex structures that don't follow linear rules, adults understand there is no comparing) the sciences in your own personal DK based order, fulfilling my earlier statement.
>you are doing this with the assumption that Jarred diamond is more skilled than yourself.
I didn't deny the legitimacy, I said the person taking it on was unable to know whether it was true or not in the first place. I don't support Diamond particularly, I am however against the constant childlike bandwagon theme of merely repeating other work instead of trying to discern the truth. Doesnt matter anyway, I am only here wasting time while waiting for a hospital appointment. This is a terrible board filled with teenage brinkmanship and little to no discussion beyond cut n pasting from wikipedia.
>>727113
the only thing Anthropology has given the academic community that is 'unique' is a style of glorified fan-fiction called 'ethnography'.
Every other thing Anthropology purports to do is done better by other fields.
>>727116
...Becuase they could eat more.
The ability to eat more is one of the biggest pluses one could have, because with excess one can specialize in other fields.
I'm not arguing the H&G is preferable, just that it can, and has worked before.
>>727092
>people who ate whatever they could get their hands on (which changed seasonally) knew more about nutrition than modern scientists who have decades of research substantiating which vegetables and foods should be eaten and in what proportion.
>>727122
>I didn't deny the legitimacy, I said the person taking it on was unable to know whether it was true or not in the first place.
I reject that claim. A person is capable of understanding information without being institutionally specialized or having
>a minimum of a Masters in Anthropology
Jared Diamond makes many foolish assumptions in his book, and the wide range of criticism given to this book only supports this. A person can understand and give valid criticism to a subject without having been institutionalized on this subject. This is from a current graduate student. Learn to think critically and for yourself and don't hide behind universities to let you know what you can and can not think.
>>727056
>because its always growing season in the jungle.
Kek
>If its always warm then plants don't have to hibernate and therefore can keep growing.
Oh god
You DO realize that food was so scarce up until the arrival of southeast asian & american crops that the continent was underpopulated, right?
>>727075
>dude New Gunieans are smarter than Americans because I said so lmao
>>727130
I'm not claiming they "knew" anything, just that due to the circumstances they had a very varied diet that ranged widely and provided a healthy amount of vitamins and nutrients. The common modern human on the other hand, usually have a very limited diet of fast food and easy to make meals with very little nutritional value because we tend to ignore the nutritionist and eat what tastes best or is quickest and cheapest to make. This is why we have a lot of digestional issues like diabetes and obesity or the requirement to take vitamin pills. Or why things like scurvy exist.
>>727124
http://anthro.palomar.edu/intro/fields.htm
>>721477
>Those invalid sample sizes
>Just deducting 6 points from the the black adopted IQ because the white IQ was 6 points higher than the average
>Not considering biases and preferences in selection of adopted children
>Not considering environmental variation in prenatal environments and early nutritional deficiencies and exposure to harmful substances like lead
>>727154
>The common modern human on the other hand, usually have a very limited diet of fast food and easy to make meals with very little nutritional value because we tend to ignore the nutritionist and eat what tastes best or is quickest and cheapest to make
That's if you don't care, not every human is like that just like how not every scavenger in many cases could not find enough food and often died off.
>>727137
>Kek
kys
>Oh god
I know how farms work m8. You don't seem to though.
Vegetables can grows year round in the right conditions, like good soil, heat and moisture.
Its why crops thrive in places like the southern USA while they die in the cold
>>727155
Biologists are superior to 'Biological Anthropologists'
Sociologists are superior to 'Cultural or Socio-cultural Anthropologists'
Linguists are superior to 'Linguistic Anthropologists'
Archaeology is its own field
Detectives are superior to "Forensic Anthropologists'
Doctors are superior to 'Medical Anthropologists'
:^}
>>727161
I know that, but you are phrasing like MOST modern humans are listening to scientist while in reality the majority are not and are just eating whatever.
>>727137
>You DO realize that food was so scarce up until the arrival of southeast asian & american crops that the continent was underpopulated, right?
How can a continent be underpopulated due to scarce food production? The food production sets the population. That's like saying a desert is underpopulated due to low food production.
>>727159
Multiple IQ estimates in the Bell Curve weren't even from the countries they claimed to have tested. They just approximated the IQs from countries that surrounded them.
A lot of research for books (generally not actual journal articles) cited by "scientific racists" is funded by the Pioneer Fund, which is an ideological think tank that seeks conclusions to support their preconceived far-right ideology, not any kind of genuine scientific curiosity.
>>727181
>How can a continent be underpopulated due to scarce food production?
Less food = less people
>>727159
>Not considering environmental variation in prenatal environments and early nutritional deficiencies and exposure to harmful substances like lead
I know I shouldn't be shocked someone else thought of this criticism, but it really fucking pleases me to see someone else making it. I made it on /pol/ back in the day and got shouted down for it.
>>727189
>Environmental constraints to population size do not exist.
>>721294
[spoiler] institutions
>>723742
I had thought the same
Similarly, arctic societies did not create any civilizations because they could only plan ahead using the methods they knew, with little room and high risks connected with attempting new methods
>>721294
not going to start a list of climate, geography, lack of this too much of that oh wait but they did 'achieve' this that the other, basicaly most of africa functioned on par with 'midieval' level cultures in asia, middle east, even europe, there were kingdoms and empires and tribal set ups of all sorts, and then there was arab expansions, etc etc... but thats ultimately irrelevant to the point i wanna make
and its this one;
one of the basic concepts that needs to be bandoned if any of this aspect of history, weather were talking africa or anywhere else, is to be understood, is that human populations function in a way where 'achievement' has objective meaning
since human cultures are naturaly occuring phenomena they mostly just 'happen', under the constraints of given conditions and bla bla bla, achievement or underachievement, as somekind of general term, is simply meaningless in the context of a continuous existence of a human population
to simplify, a group of stone age villagers has no notion of achievement in terms other than that defined by their stone age culture, like say, building a decent house, killing a dangerous animal, having food to spare or acquiring some special trinket that might serve as a status simbol
at no point in time, even in the deepest depths of shamanicaly induced visions or strain or disease caused hallucination, will any of these humans ever just spontaneously get the idea of - ''hey if we put a bunch of rocks together in a geometric pattern other humans 2000 years later will look at it and say we achieved something, and then well conquer all the sorrounding tribes and ingrave the mountain rocks with images of us assraping their dads, so everione will know we were badass and totaly achieved shit''
this holds true even if the people are living in a stone age culture in /current year/, a given system once stable can just continue generation after generation, theres no point to it, it is just a thing that happens
>>727181
It was underpopulated in relationship to the person-per-land-mass ratio of the other non-Australia continents
>>727189
please read my entire post you fool.
>>728637
that is the same as saying that the desert was underpopulated in relationship to the person-per-land-mass ratio of the other non-desert areas.
Not all land is created equal. Africa necessarily had the population size and density that was correct for it, we know this because that Africans had naturally expanded to the population size that they had. Short of outside intervention, which the post was specifically not talking about, Africa had reached homeostasis.
>>727016
>Afro Asiatic
That's a funny way of spelling Arabic.
map is trash/10
>>728874
Arabic is a language of the Afro-Asiatic family you dip
>>728907
My annoyance is with Semitic being a subgroup of Afro-Asiatic despite using root and pattern morphology and at having an 'afro-asiatic' language family in the first place. Semitic languages need to have their own family you dip.
>>728939
I've never heard anyone suggest that Semitic wasn't a branch of Afro-Asiatic, or that Afro-Asiatic doesn't exist all. I'm not an expert of that language family by any means, but do you have any evidence I could read for your theory?
>>728939
Other Afro-Asiatic languages use root and pattern morphology as well, but I believe they are generall biconsonantal roots as opposed to Semitic triconsonantal.
>>728970
I wish it was my theory, it is just a theory I subscribe too.
Are you familiar with linguistics? If you are not, the links I would dump would be boring and difficult for you to parse. Linguistics articles are notoriously wordy.
>>721294
We have this thread every day.
>>728978
which ones?
>>728980
Ling major, so please dump away.
>>728985
Berber and Egyptian do, I don't know enough about other languages to say for sure.
>>727184
And do you think the academics on the other side of the debate aren't ideologically motivated?
>>721705
I'm assuming OP meant subsaharan Africa.
Before I became a racist I frequented /b/ often, this was probably around 2008. There were these exact same type of threads multiple times a day.
Eventually the racists and their theories won because they seemed a lot more plausible. The anti-racists would just fall back on a different contrived excuse every time the racists refuted their previous excuses for the negroes. That is what gave birth to /pol/.
Unfortunately this is now not debated much on /pol/ and /b/ because the anti-racists lost a long time ago. Apparently /his/ is like some backwater full of newfags that weren't around for those debates and are probably just parroting whatever their boomer professors tell them in their anthropology classes.
>>729048
no friend, it happened because no /b/tard ever starts off taking that shit seriously, which opens up a conduit around all conscious defenses and straight into the subconscious, and by the time one notices his attitudes and oppinions are literaly getting warped out of shape and hes identifying with absurd bullshit, its allready too late
>>729075
Actually no that's not how it always works. I tried really hard to argue against the racists but they are fucking right.
>>729048
>admitting that /b/ was the deciding factor in any decision
Kill yourself
>>724648
>Farming was invented independently multiple times across the world.
Yes, I think it didn't take a rocket scientist to spread around more seeds of the plants they like to eat.
The Fertile Crescent may have been given the credit for inventing modern farming by taking it to the next level, irrigation.
In the early modern period the fault can be traced to Europeans, although this doesn't take agency away from African actors who propogated their own collapse.
The need for Asian goods led to the discovery of the new world and trade lanes which circumvented Africa. The Portuguese and then the Dutch took control of trade in the Indian ocean, making trade from Swahili city states, Arabia, and India obsolete. This led to the collapse of their wealth and disrupted trade within the interior.
A further introduction of raw materials from the Americas also made it less profitable to trade with west Africa and it's own dwindling gold supply. Islam may have been able to hold the states in this region together, but African elites had enforced a policy of selective conversion, as you couldn't own slaves who were Muslim, and slaves were needed to mine salt and gold.
The slave trade was the final nail in the coffin for west Africa, as humans became the primary export of African states. This led to massive wars for the sole purpose of capturing slaves to sell to Europeans, and these flames were fanned higher because Europeans would often trade firearms for slaves.
In addition, Ethiopia may have become a major player in sub-Saharan Africa had it not been for an Ottoman conquest in the mid 16th century.
>>721294
Shit terrain which means agriculture could not sustain large populations and create a surplus, having a large group of well-fed people who don't necessarily have to work 24/7 is one of the thing that leads to the development of new ideas and technologies.
Relatively isolated, lack of trade, and contact with foreign civilization means trade of ideas and technologies, which brings progress.
Essentially, they're far away, don't really have anything worth trading on hand, and the environment refuses to co-operate. They were bound to fail.
a malign fusion of Nike, the witch doctor, the mobile phone and the machete
>>721294
Cultural development follows the Silk Road for most of human history, and the Persian Road preceded it. At best, the north of the continent received the echos of human development, the rest sat in ignorance of them.
>>722005
abo's are their own species n'sheit. indians are descended from that one dude who was huffing a shitload of pine sap and when dared to cross that sick lookin ice pack actually did it the mad man.
>>727002
>Tfw bought this book years ago and never got around to reading it
Is it any good?
>>729125
Nope /pol/ was. Sniff your butt hole harder.
>>731890
some people say it's racist, some people say it's not racist enough
>>731890
it basically attributes the superiority of the western world over other civilizations to geographic factors
>>731945
>IQ is not static
Yes, it varies from childhood to adulthood. That doesn't invalidate the point
>nor is it a good indicator of intelligence
It correlates with pretty much everything we consider more likely to happen in intelligent people.
>and it was never meant to be
Meaningless, something could have a purpose or a use that wasn't envisioned by its creator.
>>727195
>Not considering environmental variation in prenatal environments and early nutritional deficiencies and exposure to harmful substances like lead
The reason why you were shouted down for it is that it's not as smart as you think it is. Literally everyone who doesn't know anyone about the field could make this argument in order to sound clever.
fuck off back to pol with your "underachieved" shenangians
cultures are not inferior or superior
>>733005
>cultures are not inferior or superior
Yes, they're all equal.
Just think of all the great philosophers, writers, and musicians produced by the San people.
>>721907
All parents ncluded in the study were classed as upper-middle socioeconomic class or affluent.
>>721945
>>724655
These negros were raised in America from birth so these points are both moot.
>>727159
even with sample sizes of 100 each, the results of the test are still significant at an extremely high level, both via a t-test and making hte reasonable assumption that both populations have the same standard deviation of 15 iq points. Do you have any idea how unlikely it is for two samples of size 100 drawn from the same underlying distribution to have sample means that differ by an entire standard deviation? It's less than one in a billion.
even if 6 was not adopted from teh black IQ score they still only had a a mean IQ tested at age 17 of 89 , even when raised by affluent , white, upper middle class minnesotan parents who had an average IQ of 110-115.
the results of the test provide evidence that being raised by intelligent and affluent parents increases the IQ score, as the white adopted children score 6 points higher than the population average of 100 , and the black children score about the same amount higher than the black american average IQ of 80-85.
all babies were adopted by infants and were adopted willingly. why would parents intentionally adopted black babies they thought to be dull-witted?
the screening of children for the study filtered out infants whose mothers were known to be drug addicts or other factors that would significantly damage the results.
>looking for any excuse to ignore study showing that even when negros are raised in the same culture and environment as whites they still score 15 points lower on average than white europeans , showing that many other general IQ surveys showing that blacks have a mean IQ around 15 points lower than europeans are not inaccurate and that this difference is not due mainly to environmental factors as thought since controlling for parenting and upbringing did nothing to close that gap.
>>731945
IQ is a very good but low resolution indicator of intelligence.
You are wrong.
Proof:
find a 100 people who scored 80 on an IQ test then find 100 people who scored 130 on an IQ test.
If you set the two groups challenges involving using their brain, for example learning a new language none of them have ever learnt before, becoming good at a board game none of them had ever learnt before (e.g. imagine none of them had played Go before and you put them through a week long intensive course of Go and had them play a tournament at the end), enroll at a university in a course none of them had ever studied before, any kind of activity or task requiring understanding new concepts or learning new things or mental problem solving and the IQ 130 group will always perform FAR better than the IQ 80 group.
And if you deny this then you are either totally fucking delusional and don't have a shred of intellectual honesty
>>733015
Although I agree with you generally I don't think stupid shit like philosophers or material wealth equates superiority. Survival is the only thing that matters so if a culture cannot defend itself, then it's inferior.
>>733005
why do people say things like this they clearly don't actually believe?
sure this could be bait or a troll ut lots of people say this kind of thing trying to be serious when clearly inside they know that for example the culture of the taliban or somalia is inferior to that of western europe for example (many other cultures are also superior to the taliban and somalia)
>>733054
im not baiting
im just not some uneducated hick from amerilardland who found /his through pol whose only education is from history channel and his own hillbilly neighbourhood
nothing is superior or inferior
if ppl choose to live in it, let them be
>>733042
Survival chances are greatly increased with a culture more apt to produce material wealth which it can put towards guarding itself and leaving proof of its existence/records of its customs
That's why we have a better idea of how Romans lived than the Native Americans
>>733042
>stupid shit like philosophers
dude, stop.
Survival is one of the most fundamental things, sure. But strong abstract thinking capabilities help surviving by enabling us to change the environment and organize effectively.
>>727091
>An evolutionary psychologist is far better
lmao
