>>40963 This thread has no historical slant to it, with you using a picture of Africa that even has modern borders. Please add one or your thread may be deleted by a janitor and/or moderator, and rightfully so.
>>41060 >Sad how desperately poor it is That's the thing though, it really isn't. Europe didn't colonize the continent because they just wanted more places to put their flags. It's got tons of natural resources.
The lack of stability in the region, which exists for many reasons, is its biggest limitation.
>>41568 I don't know if you're being deliberately obtuse or if you're just of very low intelligence.
North Africa and sub saharan africa are two very distinct geographical regions, with absolutely nothing in common. When one says "Africa", one usually refers to sub saharan africa. Otherwise, one says "north africa".
Have you understood, or do I need to repeat myself again?
>>41773 They're both part of Eurasia, yes. So when you say "Eurasia", you're referring to all of them. You can't just say "Britain isn't in Eurasia", then turn around and say "EVERYONE KNOWS EURASIA ONLY MEANS MAINLAND EUROPE AND ASIA" like a faggot.
Here's a compromise: Everything north of, and including the historical Garamanitan lands is Africa., as in the Province of Africa/Kingdom of Africa. Everything south of that, including the traditional Tuareg lands, is Aethiopia. This is nomenclature that has historical precedent and is related to the modern terms similarly to how "Asia" referring to Asia Minor and the Middle-Eastern mainland came to be applied to that entire massive landmass that may or may not be the same continent as Europe.
>>41981 >The Sahara desert was as big a barrier as the atlantic ocean. That still didn't stop domesticated plants to come from Eurasia into sub-Saharan Africa and from sub-Saharan African cultures, like Ethiopia, from interacting with the rest of the world. So even with your retarded premise you're wrong.
>To lump in subsaharan africa with north africa is to show incredible ignorance. Basic geography, or do they not have those classes there? There's only one African continent. Or do you think north Australia and south Australia a separate continent because of the giant desert between them?
>>41981 >cultural and racial continuity between Scandinavia and the rest of Europe. And there isn't with Egypt and the rest of Africa? They traded with/conquered/were conquered by plenty of black tribes to the south.
>>42088 >There's only one African continent. Jesus, you have serious mental issues, don't you? I'm not denying that Africa is a continuous landmass comprising both north africa and subsaharan africa. I'm saying it's fucking stupid to group both considering they are completely alien.
>>42140 >And there isn't with Egypt and the rest of Africa? T There isn't.
>They traded with/conquered/were conquered by plenty of black tribes to the south. They were conquered a single time by a nubian dynasty (nubians aren't even blacks, they're hamitic. Clockmed is a nubian).
>>40963 Great potential, natural recources Unfortunately a lot of stupid people live there. Here's what Che wrote about Africans: >"The blacks, those magnificent examples of the African race who have maintained their racial purity thanks to their lack of an affinity with bathing, have seen their territory invaded by a new kind of slave: the Portuguese." "The black is indolent and a dreamer; spending his meager wage on frivolity or drink; the European has a tradition of work and saving, which has pursued him as far as this corner of America and drives him to advance himself, even independently of his own individual aspirations."
>>42196 >I'm saying it's fucking stupid to group both considering they are completely alien. But lumping all of sub-Saharan Africa together in the first place isn't an issue at all? Lumping Benin, Mali, Kongo, Zulu, and Ethiopia into one continent is perfectly fine, but add Egypt and it's a problem?
>>42361 >It's really not. It really is. If you're going by "muh racial groups" then it's relevant that Africa has the majority of human diversity. The Somali and the Khoisan are more distantly related than the Koreans and Polish.
If you're arguing about "muh culture", then Ethiopia, Nubia/Sudan, and Somalia have much , much more in common and cultural history with Egypt than with the Zulu or Kongo.
>>42429 >It really is. If you're going by "muh racial groups" then it's relevant that Africa has the majority of human diversity. Not the diversity you're thinking of.
They have "diversity" because their differentiation into various tribes started a lot of earlier.
>The Somali and the Khoisan are more distantly related than the Koreans and Polish. You're being disingenous. Khoisan are not bantus, which constitute 99% of subsaharan africans, and somalis are half-caucasoids.
>If you're arguing about "muh culture", then Ethiopia, Nubia/Sudan, and Somalia have much , much more in common and cultural history with Egypt than with the Zulu or Kongo. Well obviously, all the horner civilizations were started by semites crossing the red sea.
>>42524 >They have "diversity" because their differentiation into various tribes started a lot of earlier. That's... how the definition of genetic and even cultural diversity works. Groups separated longer ago are more distantly related to each other than groups more recently separated.
>>42546 Literally none of the articles you linked backed up your claim that Somalis and Khoisan are more distantly related than Koreans and Polish. If you were speaking linguistically, then you're right, but definitely not genetically. Furthermore, the second article you linked has the fucking line >However, the researchers also found that there were more genetic similarities across Africa than they had thought. so you're full of bullshit
>>42629 >That's... how the definition of genetic and even cultural diversity works Except that they're not really that diverse in terms of race or culture (they are all of bantu stock) once you factor out the khoisan/pygmies and other remnants of the pre-bantu expansion population
>>42685 They back up my claims that Africa has the most diversity of the species. The Khoisan in particular have been separated from other populations longer than a lot of continents have even been inhabited.
>>42770 I don't refute that fact, since I know it's true, I'm merely calling you on that "more different than the poles and the korean" comparison. If you were being serious then you're a fucking retard and if you were just exaggerating for emphasis you're still retarded because it's a stupid comparison
>>42899 >You wouldn't consider native americans and americans of european descent to be one and the same, now would you? No but they still live in (wow!) America, meaning they are a part of the same fucking continent.
>Europe isn't diverse Can Americans just be auto-IP banned?
>>42982 >No but they still live in (wow!) America, meaning they are a part of the same fucking continent. So when analyzing history, you'd lump in native americans and european settlers in America as the same? You wouldn't draw any distinction?
>Can Americans just be auto-IP banned? Je suis français, crétin.
>>43117 They still live in America, the geographic region. AKA what's been talked about from the very fucking beginning, since Africa is a single geographic area with many different regions, regardless of who or what lives on it.
>Je suis français, crétin. Nice Google Translate work
All trademarks and copyrights on this page are owned by their respective parties. Images uploaded are the responsibility of the Poster. Comments are owned by the Poster.
This is a 4chan archive - all of the content originated from them. If you need IP information for a Poster - you need to contact them. This website shows only archived content.
If a post contains personal/copyrighted/illegal content you can contact me at firstname.lastname@example.org with that post and thread number and it will be removed as soon as possible.