Why has there not been a single successful sub Saharan African civilisation?
Europeans flourished and created dozens of successes; the same is true of the people of the Steppes and the Orientals. For Africans, there is a vacuum; nothing. No wheel. No animal domestication, very little agriculture despite being the most fertile continent on the planet.
Why is this?
Why did no one tame and domesticate the Zebra before Europeans?
Why did no one invent the wheel to aide with daily task and toil?
Why did none of this happen?
>Try not to trigger people while you're here.
What the fuck is wrong with you? This board isn't tumblr, it isn't reddit, it isn't some dull politically correct forum. If you're going to get upset at someone for asking an important historical and anthropological question perhaps you shouldn't be here
>throughout the Islamic world.
And that's the point; it wasn't a sub Saharan achievement, it was an Arab one.
It took Arabs to bring their knowledge, a sort of Middle Age colonialism.
My question is about the natives themselves.
What? That's like saying the Celtic and Germanic tribes had to civilisation until outside forces brought it to them. They adapted the Islamic civilisation into their own. Mali was quite ahead for its time.
Fertility brings destruction OP. People need to survive and fight for scanted lands and survival brings challenge. Challenging brings innovation and power at the end. That's the most basic explanation.
>Why has there not been a single successful sub Saharan African civilisation?
Because the resources and clima needed for farming is just not there which means all the rich minable resources will never even touched by the natives.
Stop talking out of your ass and go back to /pol/.
Keep in mind that most of Subsaharian Africa is either desertic plains or infested jungles.
Try building something from scratch in a place like this. same reason why there aren't any "major civilisation" in Amazonia. Agriculture is hard to maintain if not plain impossible, natural ressources are rare and thus you only have zones with very low population density.
>friendly reminder that the bell curve study was a scam financed by the KKK
>friendly reminder that IQ is irrelevant when it comes to race since half of it changes according to education
People have tried over the years to domesticate zebras however time and time again it has failed. It would take a huge amount of artificial selection of zebras with good, predictable dispositions over countless generations and even then this is only speculation.
>Agriculture is hard to maintain if not plain impossible, natural ressources are rare
>natural resources are rare
It's just being cut off from international trade and ideas.
>It would take a huge amount of artificial selection of zebras with good, predictable dispositions over countless generations
Almost sounds like the domestication of the wolf (dog*) horse, cow and so on.
It's because you're looking at it through the lens of western 'civilization', europe had very little resources compared to africa, it was smaller and was forced to innovate to survive, it was helped by the flow of ideas from eurasia as well.
However Africa was cut off from the ideas and trade, it was incredibly big and there was no need to innovate because their civilization worked with no challenges, like europe, to overcome. It's like the saying 'If it ain't broke, don't fix it"
Seconding the idea that necessity is the mother of all invention. Harsh and competetive enviroments forces the people to adapt and innovate to overcome both nature and their neighbours. Africans never had to plan for and endure winters, agriculture never caught on to the point where populations boomed allowing for massive armies and higher forms of bureacracy and religious administration.
Very good, finally someone who understand the point. Not only africa remained for thousand of years without civilization, but all humanity and everyewhere. We had civilization only recently compared to the existence of mankind. Civilization is not a sure thing for humans, it can also not happen, and it need a continue custody with institutions, rites and biliefs to mantain and spread it, in a continue strain beetween conservation and innovation. Trade can be useful to spread ideas, but when tou have sahara and two oceans is not strange find that the better example of african subsaharan culture are on red sea coast, east africa coast, west africa, gulf of niger.
Only if you define the latter as "having light skin". East and West Africa didn't seriously fall behind until very close to present day and if you actually observe history, rise and fall is a part of life - not like Europe hasn't had its own tough times.
What use is a wheel in a society where you have little/nothing to transport? If you have no suitable draft animals you have limited agricultural options. Which means you do not have a surplus of goods to need transit.
You're putting words in my mouth.
>Mayas = civilization
>North American nomadic tribes = not civilization
>Pre-colonization aboriginals in Australia = no civilization
>Maori in New Zealand = civilization
Theoretically this would be improved with domestication. Original horses were mostly unsuitable for the work they're used for today.
But again, that's theory. And would take hundreds of years to even attempt.
Besides the point, lad. The original question was why Sub-Saharan never had a successful civilization. You asserted they did, with your reasoning being that a few nations nations existed- ignoring the fact that,again, they were never successful technologically and were fairly unadvanced (i.e. never learned to work the land for agriculture, never created the wheel, etc.)
Back to reddit where you can go sulk about it.
>But again, that's theory. And would take hundreds of years to even attempt.
This is the main point. Innovations existing without clear utility is a very recent thing. People didn't just go about doing something because it would lift them up on imaginary ladder of progress, that would be visible only visible in hindsight.
Calling someone a retard while you demonstrate they're a retard is fine.
The way I see it, using race as the sole reason is a remarkably lazy explanation indicative of someone who was unwilling to actually look for a more nuanced explanation. If you really want to go full /pol/ it may be a contributing factor, but even so, it's a boring fucking answer and there's more to it. Using it as the sole reason just gives you a reason to neglect further examination.
The way I see it, while sub-saharan Africa (at least, West Africa) lacked a lot of the large scale monuments and shit people tend to use as defining markers of civilization, they formed plenty of empires geographically larger than most European states. The lack of navigable rivers and the fact that the Tseste fly killed most beasts of burden generally restricted travel and trade to what a person could carry. It's pretty clear that trade, in most civilizations, was a substantial factor in development and technological exchange.
I also think European influence was generally detrimental, though I don't blame the Europeans for any of it until the 1870s. Prior to that, the slave trade was a bit of a drain on many of Africa's healthiest young people, it flooded the states responsible with weapons and basically just meant that the states with powers were making their money on trading slaves. Again, I don't really hold Europe responsible for this, they were the buyers, but Africans were the sellers. It still certainly didn't help. Then, when slave trade was outlawed, a lot of these states more or less had their feet kicked out from under them. The scramble for Africa took part during a period when Africa was relatively balkanized. While I'd be hard pressed to argue that Africans could have successfully fought off the Europeans if they hadn't been so divided (the Maxim gun's a hell of a thing), the centralized states had the most success.
Lack of need.
In equatorial regions, you have abundant food sources year round that are unlikely to fail. Natural shelter is sufficient.
In Europe and Asia the food leaves in the winter, and even in the other three months, natural sources are temperamental.
In North Africa and the Middle East, most of the land is uninhabitable and everything concentrates around water sources. It's far from abundant and requires management and efficiency to support growing populations.
These cutlures decided to capture and breed the animals, and plant concentrated food sources so they could directly control their survival. It escalated from there, making processes more efficient. Shelter from the sun in a place where trees aren't everywhere, or shelter from the cold so you don't have to be restricted to caves encourage more complex architecture.
Necessity is the mother of invention and Africans could survive indefinitely as stone age cultures.
As for extreme Arctic regions, you can't farm properly, so they became extremely specialised hunter gatherers and also remained as stone age. Scandinavia was next to Europe, so it could essentially leech European technology and overcome the cold climate.
I'm not sure about North America. As far as I know they had agriculture and animal husbandry, but never worked metal. Possibly due to relative isolation, there was less need for competition, so basic technology was good enough when there aren't invaders from all directions for most of your history.
The factor that set Europe apart from Asia was glass working. China may have conquered the world if they'd discovered glass first.
This is all just speculation.
>(i.e. never learned to work the land for agriculture, never created the wheel, etc.)
That's not even an argument, that's just plain being WRONG. Eastern Africa, down to the Horn of Africa, was an extension of the original fertile crescent very early on. Wheat, barley, millet, etc.
As for wheel - yes, that is true. It's also not an argument, because you know who else never invented the wheel? Literally EVERYONE that wasn't Sumerian.
As said, in east and West Africa, serious technological gap with Europe did not appear till quite recently.
> never learned to work the land for agriculture
Is this nigga serious? I don't even know that much Sub-Saharan history and I can point with civilizations with agriculture, like the Ashanti, Aksum and Kongo.
>never created the wheel
The point been? Most of civilizations didn't invent the wheel just got the idea from elsewhere, Chinese and Indians also didn't invented the wheel, and civilization pre-dated the wheel. Unless you don't consider anything in the Americas civilization
To expand on this a bit, I've also heard some people consider that in the more tropical regions, going beyond the issues of travel being difficult, scarcity of the things required for survival wasn't common. This was also an impediment to trade and progress. As >>31375 noted, progress for the sake of progress isn't actually that common. A society that has what they need doesn't always have an incentive to innovate.
The whole idealization of innovation branched more from the enlightenment than anything, I think. Lots of societies were cool with "it works, don't fuck with it."
>The factor that set Europe apart from Asia was glass working. China may have conquered the world if they'd discovered glass first.
I'm intrigued by this. What makes glass working so important?
I'm aware of it being used for telescopes/microscopes and reading glasses, but is there some other obvious utility I'm missing?
Those things and glass vessels.
You can't do as much science in a ceramic vessel as a glass one.
Scholars become less useful in old age, when they're most experienced, because they can't read. Some intellectuals can never read without glasses, so they're never harnessed.
The very small can only be speculated about without a microscope.
Astronomy is limited without telescopes, as is long distance navigation.
Glass windows allow for better construction.
Maybe a few other things.
It would also explain any intellectual differences between the races if they were found to be provable.
Picking fruit and stabbing animals is pretty much the skill ceiling of an abundant climate.
If that's all you can do in a hostile one, you'll die in the winter, whereas those that made provisions will survive.
There were several succesful civilizations in the Ethiopian area, West Africa and the Kongo river. They domesticated animals, farmed the land, worked iron and traded withe Euros.
Cutting out cultural exchange and going "they didn't do that" is complete bullshit. Think of all the things the Arabs have to thank the Romans for, the Romans have the Greeks to thank for, and that the Greeks have others to thank for, etc.
Part of the reason Europe flourished was because the Mediterranean facilitated all sorts of exchange.
Atleast they didn't have fucking GOLD right under their feet, they didn't have metal under their fucking feet and had to toil the land to get even scraps of said metal, the kingdoms >>29541 posted were successful only because they had resources in abundance.
While the african kingdoms got fucking destroyed by outer forces, vikings actually subjugated the surrounding kingdoms.
They were starting to pop up noticeably by the 1800's but then colonial empires happened. In a way it's kind of sad, just because I think it would have been interesting to see how those civilisations would ultimately develop. But yeah, it's whatever.
House of African nobility, c. 5th century. (reconstruction)
Islam and Christianity were both born from Judaic tradition. Do we have the Jews to thank for Arabic and Christian successes? After all, these religions were fundamental to their respective societies.
Are you starting to see why this reasoning is a little flawed? Judging a civilization solely by the things that explicitly originated there is retarded. Especially given the influence of Greek and Latin culture on all of Europe that were, for all intents and purposes, just as uncivilized as the Africans prior to this.
Why do people get butthurt that a European linguistic culture is more interested in the (substantial) events of its own history? And anyway Europeans show more interest in world history than anyone else. They colonised most of it after all.
There was African civilizations in Sub Sahara African, but Hunter-gatherer model is completely sustainable. Africa is rich of resources so human gathering works just fine in Africa . Modern Human Gatherers have pretty much proven that their model can last a long time. They are "backwards" because they don't have a reason to get better at all. There has already been tribes like Hadza People that were offer a taste of European Civilization but rejected it numerous times.
Not that it matters, Nomadic and Human Gather tribes in Africa will die in your lifestime because of international corporation and governments.
That's why Africa today needs constant aid from the evil whitey.
Africa is a massive failure, we should cut all aid and let them fend for themselves.
Now now, Ethiopians have proven to be quite an excellent peoples, some of the western Africans as well. They still need to receive aid. I'm sure the Ethiopians will bounce back up after they sort out that famine.
>Ethiopian noble (that it was the palace of the Queen of Sheba is a latter day romantic delusion - it was built about 1500 years later).
And how do you know this?
Not to mention, Dungur was located in the capital of the kingdom of Aksum. The architecture there is going to more extravagant than compared to the countryside. If you want to play that game you can compare Roman architecture to some backwater outpost in Mali.
This is going to be a regular thing, isn't it? People are going to keep making these threads, no matter how many times the question is answered. Nobody will ever acknowledge when someone answers the question, and nothing will ever be learned. It's just going to be the same stupid shit over and over again, retarded /pol/acks and Afrocentric idiots flinging their shit at each other for all eternity.
>Again, I don't really hold Europe responsible for this, they were the buyers, but Africans were the sellers.
That's a simplification. The only reason "Africans were sellers" was because Europeans created the transcontinental slave trade to begin with. And it's important to state that it's not so much "Africans" selling other "Africans", but rival tribes raiding each other, taking advantage of this new trade system as a means for wealth and political domination. What I mean is, no one can condemn all Africans as having taken part in the slave trade and point to the ones that did doesn't justify or moralize the slave trade.
How so? They test logical thinking through recognizing patterns and so on. If you look hard enough you could probably come up with SOME form of bias (like reading left to right is mainly a western thing) but I don't think that's an excuse for other cultures to perform poorly. Asians do remarkably well on white IQ tests, don't they?
Because no sedentary or pastoralist groups except isolated Khoikhoi (who domesticated cattle) lived around zebra for a long time - until the Bantu migration. When sedentary pastoralists did move in during the migrational period, it was too recent (only like 2000 years) for zebras to be domesticated, along with other animals from the region of southern Africa. It takes many thousands of years to domesticate ungulates straight from the wild without a coherent breeding program.
Also humans haven't tamed and domesticated zebra, they just tied them to a carriage a bunch of times and saw what happened. Domestication is a bit more complex than that.
But they did. Ethiopia is one of the countries with the largest economic growth in the world. Ethiopia really just got fucked over by a pseudomarxist dictatorship that assfucked their entire economy and country.
You could also look at some of the West African nations, like Cote D'Ivoire (bar recent civil unrest and conflict because of election and political controversies). Kenya is also a relatively prosperous nation, while pretty underdeveloped. Africa gets a really bad rap in general, but it's really not all as bad as people think.
>And it's important to state that it's not so much "Africans" selling other "Africans", but rival tribes raiding each other
>What I mean is, no one can condemn all Africans as having taken part in the slave trade and point to the ones that did doesn't justify or moralize the slave trade.
But you condemn all Europeans for it, despite only a few European nations (or 'tribes') taking part in it?
>because Europeans created the transcontinental slave trade to begin with
It's uncertain how much of a role culture, education, genetics, society, etc. play in it.
The left refuses to believe black culture can possibly be destructive and admitting genetic difference in anything is taboo, so they claim it's all just racism.
I'd guess it's probably primarily cultural. Until the last few decades, non-white were largely well integrated and had economic success - they had to because society wouldn't carry them. There wasn't really a culture to encourage societal dysfunction. Then the leftists started shovelling them in, sticking them in their own ghettos, and encouraging them to hate whitey. The amount of open racism towards them has certainly decreased, but they've become far worse despite it.
Third generation immigrants are usually functioning members of society who talk and act mostly like natives. Recent immigrants are often unemployed welfare dependants or criminals who use their own dialects and act in their own way. The only thing that has become worse is the culture they're exposed to and the lack of any expectations.
Africa, Europe and Asia are different continents. Sassanids have enslaved many Romans in the past, Barbary Coast pirates have been raiding Europe for slaves from Africa for years, as well as Ottomans and other steppe hordes invading Russia and enslaving their peoples, hell Ottomans have raided Iceland a number of times too, Africans have been hunting each other for slavery and selling them to prospective slavers.
Intercontinental slaving has always been a thing. Euros just transplanted some of their Africans slaves to the new world
>throughout the Christian world
And that's the point; it was a French achievement, it was a Catholic one.
It took Catholics to bring their knowledge, a sort of Middle Age colonialism.
My question is about the natives themselves.
I find it absolutely amazing that people still post this shit.
Zebras cannot and have not been domesticated by anyone ever. Taming an animal is not domestication. Africans tamed animals all the time, they even exported giraffes to China. Some animals cannot be either tamer or domesticated, such as African elephants. Indian and (now extinct) North African elephants can be tamed, but African ones are far too dangerous, though some Africans (Nubians and Ethiopians) did tame North African elephants when they were still around.
These pictures you post are basically circus animals. None have been domesticated, and in most cases they weren't really tamed either since they were notoriously aggressive and hard to control.
But no, fuck explanations. You have a picture, that's all the proof needed.
I never said they're rich now, they're just on the track to get better already. Also, in Ethiopia specifically, a lot of the money in the country still flows through state-run corporations.
The nature vs nurture debate has been going on forever but as far as I know it's generally agreed that both parts matter, we just don't know if it's 50/50, 40/60 or how to quantify how much genetics matter over culture.
To me it's given that genetics come into play. Some people are born to be taller, stronger, faster. Men have better spatial awareness than women - there are clear difference between both genders and races, so it should be obvious that some races might possess traits that give them an advantage in certain enviroments.
Ghetto culture is no doubt the biggest crutch black people have as they've previously done relatively well under strict rule, but I can't help to think that genetics come into play more than we'd like to think.
They did have civilization's, they just (conveniently) don't teach about them in Western schools.
British civilizer standingf beside a barbaric dwelling in Kumasi, Ghana. Google Akan architecture for other examples. The city was then destroyed and the place (conveniently) called a land where civilization didn't ever happen.
I'd agree that genetics probably do play a role, but I think both the visions of:
A) it's all the fault of whites forever and we'll just keep making excuses and pushing for more of what isn't working
B) they're inferior and can never be improved so don't even bother
Are both flawed.
There probably cannot be the same bell curve for all races, but there can probably be so much overlap that it's pretty much a non-issue.
Oh I wasn't aware, good for them. Them and the Rhodesians are my favorite African countries.
Ethiopia being an ancient Christian empire that survived in an ocean of Islam. And Rhodesia just for holding out as long as they could. I have a thing for determined resistance, even in the face of complete destruction.
>Was afraid this board would be a racist circlejerk
>mfw it's mostly logical discussion
Ghetto culture continues because whites keep treating blacks like animals, and shoving welfare in their faces to keep them happy.
Force them to stand on their on, and you'd have a far more successful race.
Pretty much right. A good read on how Africa got so fucked for anyone interested is this right here btw. Pretty unbiased as well, almost impressively so.
I don't really get what you're trying to say.
Diamond puts forth the argument that the Zebra cannot be tamed, domesticated, or used by humans as anything other than something to be hunted.
The picture refutes that claim. No one is saying Rothschild's Zebras were perfect and just funny looking horses. The picture is not part of some bizarre strawman to an argument no one is making, it's proof that - if given enough time - the Zebra COULD be domesticated and COULD be used identically to the horse.
>The factor that set Europe apart from Asia was glass working.
>China may have conquered the world if they'd discovered glass first.
No. All that you said is mostly true but this glass nonsense isn't.
I'm sorry but it's not just Ethiopia. Pic is Luanda the capital of Angola. There was almost nothing there 10 years ago
Portugal asking for money to former colony Angola
I'm leaning towards the explanation that they simply are not meant for western civilization. In my experience they tend to be:
>somewhat dumb and aggressive
They're not the kind who functions well in a society where one must wear a suit and sit still and do administrative labour in a tight office cubicle 8-10 hours a day. They hate the idea of commitment and prefer a more carefree lifestyle.
The problem is that we hold ourselves as the standard for the world - it would be easier to accept that we live in the way that we do and they can still live as hunter-gatherer tribes in Africa, and there's nothing wrong with that.
>from the evil whitey.
What is with the passive-aggressive, and why do you need meta-narrative for these threads?You understand that humans being hostile to people different is human nature, right? It's just pure human Instinct when native American, or other Indigenous tribes reject and are hostile to European empires. If you believe indigenous are just subhumans, there is no reason to believe that they are intentionally aware of their malicious actions. I don't understand how /pol/ who loves nationalism, cannot grasp that even subhumans have the same feelings about their land and life instinctively.
If China/Japan/etc took over Africa, they were would have reacted the exact same way as they did with Whites. There were slave revolts against Arab empire too, you know.
Won't adversity and not having anyone to crutch them help them become a more successful race since they're being forced "to stand on their own" like in your comment here?>>33923
What is the line between abandonment and forcing them into a situation where they need to learn how to stand on their own?
How is the picture proof of anything? All it is some zebras tied to a carriage. You could tie some circus lions to a carriage too, would that mean that lions can be domesticated?
The zebra could not have been domesticated because they are too aggressive to breed in captivity and make any use of. Wild horses were easier to tame, and thus could be bread and domesticated. The first people to tame horses could have actually made use of them for transport and military purposes, while zebras were of no use.
Maybe they could have been of some use after centuries of alteration, but do you seriously think that generations of Africans would have exerted countless hours of time and effort breeding animals that are of no use to them, just to their distant descendants might possibly be able to ride them? It makes no sense.
and by reddit standards, it's nazi right wing bullshit penned by Putler himself if it doesn't suck the cock of the Africans and has a line saying "we're sorry for enslaving you all those centuries before, we totally deserve this treatment due to the actions of our far ancestors as much as those crime statistics from two years ago not being representative of the African-american population"
Fuck of with your holier-than-thou bullshit.
I see what you're saying, and agree that necessity is the mother of invention but
>hurr they didn't make civilization because they had such great resources
>Europe only prospered because they had less
I'm the anon you responded to. Thanks, I'll look into that book the next time I'm out. Any other suggestions on post-colonial-modern history books?
Most of my knowledge of recent African history comes from conversations with [spoiler]obviously biased[/spoiler] actual first-generation African immigrants and a few searches on my own. It's extremely interesting seeing near-modern nation-states popping up relatively-speaking out of nothing and trying to right themselves.
Tbf Europeans did racialise slavery in a way that didn't happen before the Transatlantic slave trade, except maybe to some degree with the Arabs and the way they racialised Africans as Zanj (but they still had close ties with people on the Swahili coast). It wasn't just about 'I'm going to sell these people because all people can be a commodity in the right context', because that became unacceptable to European thought, so now it was 'I'm going to sell these negroes (who aren't people) because negroes are a commodity in most contexts'
Glasses for sight were of huge importance. They extended the working life of someone such as a carpenter or scholar or anyone who needed to see shit for like a good 20 years.
At least that's what i remember for a history reading for uni
Europeans were effectively homogeneous at this point in time and the slave trade involved every major European power (not at all equitable with a tribal political structure). But no, I don't condemn all Europeans. Europeans invented the trans-Atlantic slave trade. It's time to stop being ass-pained about it, delicate flower.
I wish people who post that shit would open books.
Most European native civilizations had complex societies, art and architecture, there was a vacuum created, in France for example, by the Roman conquest followed by the Roman collapse and the civil wars that ensued.
There are archeological proofs that Gallic druids had doctrinal contacts with the Aristotelian and Platonician schools and could at least read Greek.
While one-off attempts to tame a single animal may have been successful, domesticating them—breeding captive herds specifically for human use—proved impossible. They were easily agitated, aggressive when cornered (biting and kicking so hard they could easily maim or kill a would-be rider), and bad tempered. And while they could carry an adult human, they were significantly smaller than European horses; the discomfort of having a passenger for any length of time was likely to activate their worse tendencies, even if they’d been successfully “broken.” Even Lord Rothschild, the most flamboyant proponent of zebra-transport, never attempted to ride them; he stopped at harnessing them to a carriage.
I will say I was too extreme when I said "force them to stand on their own." Let me correct myself.
Start treating black society like the white society.
Babying the black society is only encouraging black society to stay black society.
The entire scientific and medical fields would have never progressed to where they are today.
No eyeglasses, thermometers, barometers, beakers, test tubes, windows, mirrors, syringes, any meter that requires a glass plate, watches, televisions, telescopes, microscopes, the list goes on.
>Look mom, I posted it again!
Allow me to kek your shit up, senpai.
First, a definition: "civilization", as classically defined, simply means a society that possesses urban centers and a true writing system.
Now, some starting points:
1. Civilization only ever independently developed in two places: Mesopotamia and Mesoamerica.
2. Europe NEVER independently developed writing or civilization. ALL European written languages are the direct descendent of Levantine writing systems.
4. The development of civilization directly jives with contact dates with previous civilizations. This is why South-Eastern Europe developed civilization well before Northern Europe. Rome had been civilized for ~800 years before the first Northern Celtic/Germanics EVER put pen to paper. Large swaths of Northern Europe were uncivilized until the 13th century A.D.
Now, in terms of independently developing civilization, Sub-Saharan Africa was at a series of disadvantages, namely:
1. A smaller population (compared to Europe, East Asia, South Asia, etc.) and thus much lower population density in an area roughly two times the size of the United States. Sub-Saharan Africa didn't catch up to Europe in terms of population until about 2000 A.D.
2. A desert roughly the size of the United States separating most of Sub-Saharan Africa from the Levant, the "Cradle of Civilization". By contrast, there was no large geographic separation between Europe and the Levant.
3. Large plains interspersed with jungles, which made interior, far-reaching navigation largely impracticable until European explorers arrived in the 19th century.
Now you're splitting hairs with definitions, the definition isn't what matters but the utility, if you can tame a zebra to draw a cart (which has been done), you've greatly reduced your workload.
Quit being a disingenuous fuck mincing around words.
What about China and the Indus valley?
Those were pretty independent of each other, and had vastly different spheres of eventual influence (speaking in terms of who they are the ancestors of).
Just to make that point clear, for ALL OF RECORDED HUMAN HISTORY UNTIL 15 YEARS AGO, Sub-Saharan Africa had fewer people than Europe. Nonetheless, it has always been more diverse in terms of genetics and ethno-linguistics.
Put simply, having a small but extremely diverse population on a huge continent is not very conducive to the INDEPENDENT development of civilization. Sadly, this diversity greatly assisted Europeans in divide and conquer tactics during the colonial era and some of those policies resulted directly in genocide (as in Rwanda and Burundi). Many of these issues still plague much of Sub-Saharan Africa today and the politicization of ethnicity (i.e. "if you're part of ethnic group A, you vote for party A or you're a traitor!") is a huge problem today and directly results in massive amounts of corruption.
>muh natural resources
Many of the "natural resources that should have magically thrust civilization and wealth upon the blacks" simply weren't valuable or even known until the 19th century or beyond. I've literally seen /pol/sters cite Uranium and diamonds as would-be sources for African pre-colonial wealth. /pol/ seems to be patently unaware that most precious metals were largely disdained until Arab or European contact.
I lot of factors, with environment primarily being one.
Think of it like this. Imagine you are a human being living in a colder climate 3000 years ago. You're cold, and you don't want to be cold, so what do you do? You find some sort of covering, whether it's animal pelts, woven cloth, or some other type of wrapping.
Now think of the consequences of doing that. Wearing animal pelts leads to leather working and crafting, which can lead to a bunch of other uses than just clothing.
Weaving gives rise to rope making, basket making, and a plethora of other uses.
Now imagine you lived in a hot climate and never had the need to do any of these things. You're already behind.
This is obviously a gross oversimplification of things, but ultimately, hardship and adversary breeds success.
In regards to IQ, if you subscribe to the tautological reasoning that intelligence is "what ever IQ tests measure", then there's only a 50-70 year gap between black Africans and white Europeans. Owing to the Flynn Effect, the average IQ of unselected Finnish, Danish, and American soldiers (the former two tested with a highly g-loaded test (Raven's Matrices)) shows that Europeans in the early-mid 20th century would test around 80-85 today. And even if you reject the Flynn effect, Egypt, which currently has an average IQ of ~81, was civilized for ~3,500 years before the first NORTHERN European (~100) put pen to paper. Barbados (~83), a black country, is one of the least corrupt and best managed countries in the Americas and currently has a high income and a high human development index (occasionally venturing into "Very High"/"Developed"). The British managed to foster a civilized culture among the descendent of slaves who were by no means selected for their intelligence. So even if there is a permanent, irredeemable gap, culture is certainly a deciding factor in the success of a society. For reference, the average IQ in Sub-Saharan Africa is ~80 (Wicherts et al, 2010).
That being said, if we look at basic societal indicators such as life expectancy, literacy rates, years of education, maternal survival rates, number of Universities, road density, average income, etc. almost all of Sub-Saharan Africa is at a level that Europeans reached in the early-mid 20th century, which is to say that there are plenty of people still alive when most of Europe was shittier than Africa today. Plus, Sub-Saharan African countries currently have amongst the highest growth rates on Earth and there are far fewer civil wars and violent conflict than there were just 20 years ago.
In conclusion, /pol/, people don't call you ignorant just because you hurt their feelgoods. They call you ignorant because you're genuinely ignorant of human history.
Little is talked about how European explorers ransacked castles, monuments, art, and destroyed them. We now have a huge dearth in African history which has been used to unfairly criticize African people. This gap only fuels ignorance. A similar gap occurs in South America but because the explorers mixed with and raped them history is kinder.
Read passages of Ibn Battuta who traveled all around 14th century Africa, and stop falling for the *actually* revisionist claim that African civilizations did not exist.
>which is to say that there are plenty of people still alive when most of Europe was shittier than Africa today.
how long ago was it that european countries looked like this???
No idea what the fuck you're trying to say here. What definitions are you talking about? The difference between domestication and taming? That a fucking huge difference.
>if you can tame a zebra to draw a cart (which has been done), you've greatly reduced your workload
Not really, since like I said 'tamed' zebras are extremely hard to work with. The work you put into actually taming the animal and keeping it from killing you would make them uneconomical to use. Like I said, Africans did tame animals when the work involved in doing so was worth the payoff. The exported giraffes to Asia and the Nubians/Ethiopians used elephants for war.
I really don't know why people pay so much attention to zebras, seeing as Africans had horses in many areas anyway.
But wouldn't something have to already exist to be traded with? I'm not saying that it's impossible that Mesopotamia and the Indus civilizations (Of which there were quite a few, and succeeded each other) never traded, but evidence of Indus settlements go back to about 3300 BCE by most estimates.
Who knows, though, honestly. When you go that far back,absolute accuracy is pretty meaningless and difficult to determine with 100% certainty.
I already explained this, you worthless idiot.
>Some animals cannot be either tamer or domesticated, such as African elephants. Indian and (now extinct) North African elephants can be tamed, but African ones are far too dangerous, though some Africans (Nubians and Ethiopians) did tame North African elephants when they were still around.
Have a good day friend.
I think it'll calm down in a week or two. Right now it's a brand new board so everyone swamped over to try it out. Many will return to where they came from and only casually shitpost here once the novelty wears off.
There's absolutely no chance the history board will remain this fast-moving for long.
That doesn't count as domestication m8. It takes time to make an animal docile and suitable to your needs whereas taming is completely different and doesn't guarantee it from killing you.
Timbuktu burned to the ground because they thatched all their roofs with dried reeds in a area with 110° summers. Plus most of what we know about it is from one african kid the pope took a liking to, their isn't alot of arab writing about it so we don't know how much is true.
>African elephants are the same as Asian elephants
Asian elephants are far more susceptible to living and working in captivity. Elephants in captivity are in most cases Asian elephants captured in the wild. Selective breeding of elephants is impractical due to their long reproductive cycle, so there are no domestic breeds.
African bush elephants and African forest elephants are less amenable to training. Tame Asian elephants have been recorded since the Indus Valley civilization around 2,000 BCE. There's never been a great tradition for training or taming African elephants. Even during the time of Hannibal, the majority of elephants used would have been Asian elephants (like the one-tusked Surus), or the extinct North African elephant (Loxodonta africana pharaoensis), which was smaller than the modern African bush elephant, and also probably more docile than the bush elephant allowing the Carthaginians to tame it by a method now lost to history.
There's also the issue of elephant intelligence actually being non-conducive to training them as beasts of burden. Elephants have the largest brains of all land animals and, ever since the time of Aristotle, have been renowned for their cognitive skills, with behavioural patterns shared with humans. Pliny described the animal as being closest to a human in sensibilities. This makes even Asian elephants fairly difficult to train or tame, even more so the larger, less docile African species.
Pic related is an Asian elephant.
Also I was talking about zebras.
You don't understand the theoretical range of the Flynn effect. The fact that the gaps have remained the same even under the Flynn effect actually supports the hypothesis that variations in IQ between Europeans and Africans are genetic in nature. The actual change in the gap, the more important variable than nominal changes in IQ, started at 1.5 SD early in the century and then shrunk to 1 SD by the 1970s, and it has since stagnated. I believe that further shrinkage to .8 SD is probably possible under literal laboratory conditions.
I certainly believe and hope that Africa continues it's economic growth, but this is also continental Africa, where there is far more likely to be environmental measures that can be taken to narrow gaps than there is in, say, the United States, where blacks simply aren't oppressed. I also am fairly convinced that continental Africans are genuinely fucked over by the IMF and World Bank
We also have the fact that Korea and China were sandwiched between African countries mid-century in terms of real GDP, and their growth exploded within the century to rivalry with western powers, so much so that Japan and Korea sometimes culturally and technologically categorized as being part of the "western world". We also have natural mid-century experiments in which European and east Asian countries were bombed into the stone age, and yet rebuilt without a problem.
Do you really think Europe doesn't have / didn't have slums?
elephants are so based
We should have a 'history of animals in war and domestication' thread at some point
Uganda had a failed space initiative
The most likely option for any coherent space program is probably Ghana, because advancement and high human development, or Nigeria, because moneyyyy
Those are gipsy or African made, nothing comparable with industrial revolution slums because they are the product of exogenous infestation, it's literally Africans bringing their slums with themselves.
>Nigeria country has made great strides in satellite technology in the past decade with the establishment of NigComSat, an independent company charged with managing the commercial and business operations of communication satellites.
>With the help of the Chinese, NigComSat launched NigComSat-1R in December 2011. It is a hybrid geostationary satellite with a 15-year lifespan that has provided improved and cost-effective wireless and internet coverage for Nigerians.
>Not only has NigComSat-1R expanded opportunities for broadcast companies, but the government of Nigeria estimates that $10m (£6.5m) can be made from direct-to-home TV initiatives made possible by the satellite.
>NigeriaSat-2 and NigeriaSat-X, launched in August 2011 from the Dnepr rocket in Russia, provide high-resolution and medium-resolution satellite images that allow Nigeria to tap into a whole new set of commercial opportunities.
Little more complex than a floating fruitbasket, but I like the idea.
Or there was no pressure to adapt to the environment in the same ways as Eurasia: >>31468
Their adaptation was shit like sprinting fast, not getting skin cancer, not getting malaria, etc.
There was no mechanism to select for people good at technology because the technology would be superfluous for a very long period of time. Why build a farm when you're living in a natural one? Sure, you could make it better than your environment after thousands of years, but in the mean time, it's just a waste of effort.
I'll tell you which African country, the one that can afford the genetic revolution. Otherwise, it is 100% impossible for any African country to ever modernize because the vast majority of the population are not competitively intelligent.
The reason is pretty simple - for one, they we're not affected by the ice age and thus didn't have to adapt to new living conditions requiring mental prowess. Second, they lacked agriculture, which was born in the middle east among Arab Caucasian types. Great civilizations are directly linked to agriculture - Greece, Rome, Persia, Mesopotamia, even Britain! Eurasian Cromagnons, the closest common ancestor of all Mongoloids and Caucasians, was forced to gain higher mental ability to survive. This is why whites and orientals share a higher capacity for order and civilization.
Scientifically speaking, Ethiopians are actually a hybrid between male Caucasians and female Negroids. This is why they have such high rates of Caucasian haplogroup, Y-DNA specifically. The type of Caucasian was Hamitic, related to the Egyptians and Canarian Guanches.
"History cannot be written as if it belonged to one group [of people] alone. Civilization has been gradually built up, now out of the contributions of one [group], now of another. When all civilization is ascribed to the [Europeans], the claim is the same one which any anthropologist can hear any day from primitive tribes – only they tell the story of themselves. They too believe that all that is important in the world begins and ends with them . . . We smile when such claims are made [by primitive tribes], but ridicule might just as well be turned against ourselves . . . Provincialism may rewrite history and play up only the achievements of the historian’s own group, but it remains provincialism."
>I'm not sure about North America. As far as I know they had agriculture and animal husbandry, but never worked metal.
They actually had metalworking, they just used it for art and religion rather than for weaponry or domestic purposes (metal is quite rare in regions where there existed cultures advanced enough to work with it).
>Possibly due to relative isolation, there was less need for competition, so basic technology was good enough when there aren't invaders from all directions for most of your history.
Nah, untrue. The technology was as varied as in Old World. Hunter-gatherers were found in Arctic but also in the South (since there are no horses or anything resembling them on North American deserts), but advanced cultures were more common: most of the USA was habitated by people roughly as advanced as Germanic/Celtic tribes during European Antiquity. In those places in the South where water was more abundant, Great Zimbabwe-tier cultures ( like Anasazi or Hokoham) developed, along with Mississipian culture, which can be classified as civilisation depending on your definition of it. Most of these were like the so-called barbarian Europe during early medieval, but when you go down to Mesoamerica, you have Ancient Egypt-tier literate civilisations (most importantly Maya).
Haplogroup E, which is clearly the most common haplogroup in Ethiopia (as well as the Horn of Africa and the Maghreb), is named E for "Ethiopia" or perhaps "East Africa" because it has the highest density and variety there and geneticists thus conclude it must have originated there before spreading to the rest of the world.
Though Ethiopians are overwhelmingly E, minor haplogroups include A, the typical African haplogroup, and J, the typical Semitic haplogroup, which makes perfect sense considering they have Bantu and Yemenites for neighbors.
Not sure where you imagined some Caucasian haplogroup.
Sub-Saharan Africa was fully agricultural since Bantu Expansion, hunter-gatherers are extremely rare since then (Khoisan for example),
Also civilisations begin either where there is a need for localised, structured societies (best coupled with nobility-supporting religion) or are transported from neighbouring regions. It's simply untrue that a population has "higher capacity" and will eventually evolve into a more civilised society. It depended mostly on how much power do nobility/priests have (which will lead to building of monumental architecture and art) and the food sources (that's why most cradles of civilisation, except
Mesoamerica and maybe Egypt if Naqada is confirmed to be independent of Sumer, began near big rivers - rich enough to support a sedentary population, but necessitates work which leads to technological development). Nothing to do with Cromagnons.
I'd give a full detailed description but im lazy so im just going to use the tired and true response that longitudinal empires never seemed to work due to differences in environment, which in turn lead to differences in culture, and so forth.
No, there is a difference. Taming is something that can only be done with individuals. You can tame a tiger from birth and it could act mostly docile, but should it have a child that child will be just as wild as any other tiger unless you tame it as well.
With domestication, something that can only be done to mostly docile animals, and usually ones with a natural societal structure (sheep herds, dog packs) the entire species is more or less docile. A newborn foal or calf will naturally grow up to be tame Yes, there are feral dogs and horses and the like, but those are cases where the animal was given little to no human contact or a lot of abuse.
Treat a newborn puppy well and it will more or less grow up to be docile and won't try to rip your face off. The same isn't true for a wild animal like a tiger or a chimpanzee, for animals like those you'd have to invest a huge amount of time, effort, and experience into making them docile, and even then sometimes their instincts will take over and they'll just rip your face off.