Why did Africa not develop at the same rate as Europeans or even Asia?

No racism allowed.

The continent itself is rich and resources. They are supposedly the birthplace of civilization.

What happened to them and what can explain their lack of innovation? Is it true that they never had a written language?

Other urls found in this thread:

youtube.com/watch?v=eKwOoPO_MOw
twitter.com/SFWRedditGifs

It is a scientific fact that Blacks are less intelligent. They simply just didn't have the capacity.

And that's not racist, it is fact.

/Thread

If that is true, why are they less intelligent?

It's always the underachiever snow niggers.

Mmm...

Historically blacks just have a lower IQ, the modern day blacks of worth in Africa mostly have some sort of Semitic or European or even Arab admixture to them which is chiefly why they are able to have something similar to a stable country.

Historically speaking the USA has spent so much money trying to close the IQ gap of i remember properly around the early 70's is when the gap stopped closing. They simply have lower intellectual potential as a whole.

You said it yourself. Africa does not require more intelligence in order to survive. They developed exactly as much as they had to.

Go to more harsh climate, Europe, Asia or far East and suddenly only the smart ones get to survive and breed. The rest freeze or starve.

>no racism allowed

You cant deny facts bud.

>no truth allowed.
Well this is going to get difficult.

They never left aftica. All other african homosapiens had to adapt to different climates and predators. Also, no neanderthal dna or denisovian dna. How many nomadic african tribes are there. Literally every other race that left africa was nomadic at a point. Once the other races left and developed based on their environment other factors took play. Like dialect and hunting techniques. Coming up on other races and creating trade and intermarriage which created more diversity. Just think about all the crazy shit they went through! The africans just stayed in africa and did diddly squat for a loooooooooong time!

facts can't be racist boy

what about australian aboriginals? those individuals look african and they obviously left africa

Many reasons, for one their cultures in Africa never put a large value on intelligence or education to the level that the Ashkenazi jews or east Asians did. (These have the highest intelligence, it should be noted that Israel is an ethno- state and Hong Kong and Taiwan and even Singapore are pretty much the most economically right wing nations in the world, not to mention the authoritarianism of them.)

Europeans are also in the top bracket due to intelligence and education being esteemed but our culture doesn't value it and subsidize anywhere to the levels of the jews and Asians.

Many years of a culture shaping your way of life has its effects.

Because of heat. Overheating prevents the brain from being able to think, analyze, plan for the future, etc.

It's like a computer. The ones that were water-cooled could perform faster, better operations than the overheating one.

Proto-Europeans had the advantage of cold weather to help them accelerate civilization.

...

But are they any less stupid than the Africans?

>If that is true, why are they less intelligent?
They never had a need to develop logic. I think part of it is the Hunter/gatherer mentality. Populations in areas with seasons required thought to predict upcoming cold weather. They grew their food as farmers, and needed to prepare for winter by using logic to determine how much was required to survive. Intelligent farmers survived.

Meanwhile in Africa there was no need. Food was always available, should the hunter be in good shape. Strongest survived.

we cant all be winners. austrailia is a death trap, their lucky they survived at all!

Seriously though, theres not much diversity among aborigines. No other tribes, races, etc...

they were never given the opportunity to advance because of the relative desolation of the area they're in. Yeah the land in Africa is profitable now but only becuase of systems we have set up and technology we have invented.
Those who left Africa to escape the desolation obviously had a significantly higher intelligence, and those who left Africa and survived were far better off.

that sounds like bullshit bruh

Sub Saharan Africa is separated from Eurasia by the worlds hugest desert.

There are no domesticable crops or animals in Sub Saharan Africa. Also, the jungles render civilization impossible.

There was no reason for them to develop any form of civilization, whilst the harsher climates of Asia/Europe (and arguably stronger predators) made developping civilization a neccesity to survive.

I think it also has to do with a shitty geographical situation in general, most of the continent is full of mountains and it's generally hard to develop in those areas.

They never left australia is the problem kek

~40,000 years of evolution in a fucking hot dry desert (Basically africa) being isolated will fuck u up

>The continent itself is rich and resources.
Exactly
>They are supposedly the birthplace of civilization.
That's Mesopotamia you idiot.
>What happened to them
Nothing, that's the point.
>and what can explain their lack of innovation?
What would they need to innovate? Its warm all the time, there is always food growing, there is always animals to kill.
>Is it true that they never had a written language?
Not any that we know of, at least not in sub saharan africa.

Do you know how many calories our brain eat up? It takes a huge amount of energy to keep it going, wasting energy on having a big brain is not an evolutionary advantage if you don't need it. If you waste that energy on having lots of kids you will succeed better.

What about this is so hard to understand? Its like asking why they didn't put a v8 in a Prius because then it would go faster and be stronger. Yeah it would but it doesn't need a fucking v8 and it would also need more fuel if it had a v8, so why the fuck you have a v8 in a Prius made for driving from point a to point b on a paved road?

Niggers in a nutshell

youtube.com/watch?v=eKwOoPO_MOw

When times got rough, the clever africans left africa and settled in the levant, then progressed further to europe, asia, australia and north america. The subsaharan africans are still the same evolutionary stage they were 15.000 years ago because they had no reason to adopt further.

wouldn't they also have to move to australia? if pol is right, when they traveled from africa to australia they should have also changed.

No change of seasons, food readily available, little reason to progress beyond seasonal farming. No planning for winter. No culling of less intelligent people due to winter scarcity. Hundreds of thousands of years living like this = evolutionary lower intelligence than populations that lived through harsh winters.

A good example is this is that the Africans had iron relatively early on, but only used them for spear points and swords. They never thought to make a plow, or iron tires for their wheels... of which they had no wheels. In the rest of the world, iron tools predate iron weapons.

You asked for this. Any anthropologist or archaeologist would say the same shit but in an educated manner.

the climate in subsaharan africa and australia is pretty similiar isn't it? They lived the same way africans live, hunter-gatherer society.

but i dont really think that black people in africa are lazy because they have to work really hard to get even the smallest amount of food.

Only the ones that stayed changed (Indonesia, India, etc.)

The travel to Australia only took a few thousand years.
And then australia got cut off from asia due to rising waters and became isolated then

...

This whole thread in a nutshell "Africa was ideal and niggers are lazy therefore they never advanced."

Actual answer instead of
>lol niggers are retarded
Which if true needs to be explained how a species with the same ancestors a 100,000 years ago diverged.

Historically all civilisations started at rivers. Rome, Qin Dynasty, Ancient Egypt, Aztec empire. Africa has the Nile, which spawned Ancient Egypt.

This. A culture or species will retain primitive(ancestral) traits if the environment that it thrives in does not change. There was no reason for Africans to develop traits outside of what they already had culturally. There were also no selective pressures that selected for intelligence and creativity as the environment was in a stasis.

>the climate in subsaharan africa and australia is pretty similiar isn't it? They lived the same way africans live, hunter-gatherer society.
They weren't hunter gatherers, they where farmers and they knew iron working since at least 2k bc.

Google ''bantu expansion''
tl;dr
Bantu people from the Congo expanded outwards and assimilated, exterminated or displaced hunter gatherer people, pic related.

It's no surprise that the most primitive, ape-like looking humans are the oldest and least developed.

>there are no seasons in Africa
>burger education

I can see the naive mental image in your mind that Africa is a savannah with wildebeest walking around

>Africa has the Nile

And the Congo. And the Niger. And the Zambezi. And countless others

Anthropological evidence points to Aboriginals arriving in Australia 50,000 BC. That means they cross oceans millennia before the first vestiges of civilisation even appeared. What happened then?

>The continent itself is rich and resources. They are supposedly the birthplace of civilization.
Depends on what part of Africa you are talking about. Sub Sahara is completely different conditions from north Africa or even the horn of Africa. There were plenty of civilizations in Africa before Islam showed up but they kept falling into the traps american civilizations ran into: resource depletion, famine, subjugation and plagues. There is a reason why nomad and migratory cultures last so long. Berbers are gonna keep being Berbers.

Roll

I wouldn't say as much the fact that "food was always available", but the SAME food was available. They didn't have to adapt to hunting different types of prey and exploiting different sources of food multiple times during a migration. To assume that Africa never had droughts or famines (there was always food) however would be incorrect. In fact, you could say that low access to food is what motivated some of the populations (those that were daring, pragmatic, or intelligent) to start migrating.

I'm saying it's a requirement to civilisation. Obviously you don't get great civilisations just cropping up because you have a river.

In Africa, you don't need civilisation to survive

In northern Europe you do. The winters kill off those who cannot plan ahead and by the end of it all, all that is left are those who can solve the issues that harsh winters bring.

On the flip side if you go TOO far north into the Eskimo territory, then you are trapped in an endless struggle for survival and never have any time or resources to sit on the fruits of your labour and develop them.

Tribal stuff. Stone tools. That sorta thing.

Pretty sure they were horticulturalists and not agriculturalists. I've heard arguments that the cultivation of grains creates civiilisation because of the massive organisation required. If you just need to plant yams, plantains, sago, etc. then you don't need mills, you don't need ploughs, you don't need granaries, and so on.

To tell the truth, it's because God made them that way.

The sons of Noah had to cover up their naked father's body, but Canaan looked at him and so became cursed by God. Canaan is the son that spread into Africa, Japheth into Turkey and eventually Europe, and Shem became Israel and the middle-eastern people.

26He also said,
“Praise be to the Lord, the God of Shem!
May Canaan be the slave of Shem.
27
May God extend Japheth’s territory;
may Japheth live in the tents of Shem,
and may Canaan be the slave of Japheth.”

That's true.

I suppose there were never great civilizations in the Niger and Congo basins because of how unreachable they were from the Eurasian cores.

The last tribe to leave, didnt because of a need to show superiority through dominance. Thats smart???

Roll

we tried, they kicked us out. Some people like it that way.
Also Chinks tried to do somthing there but noticed how poitless it is and had to bring their guys to make it work. Its like addias sending 200 employes to fabricate some random shit and remember them every 10 minuts how it works.

Just kiding, but maibe its because its to hot?

so aus fags how did Australia become a prosperous country? was their a mutual exchange of technology between britain and you because you were a colony?

were you exploited by the british like america? why was their no rebellion like america? i'm not familiar with your history.

You tell us. Doesnt seem like mutch happened at all. Well maybe for drugs and the stick on a string to scare animals with a whirring sound!

Nope.

Search up "Eureka Rebellion"
Closet we have to a "Rebellion" in our history

We're pretty similar to America with the exception of a civil war.
We stayed with the Brits.

...

why didn't you guys have slaves or did you enslave the aboriginals? if you didn't have slaves and didn't have cash crops, what valuables did you export?

Closest*

Why can't people learn it's spelled "Nigger" not "Niger"?

1. we have a shitload of iron, gold, coal, oil, etc.
2. we killed off 95%+ of the natives
3. we have a massive grain belt
4. we have the lowest population density of almost everywhere, meaning more resources per person and a high level of industrialisation
5. no foreign power has ever directly attacked the mainland
6. we've never had a civil war
7. we're more selective about immigration than the rest of the world, and this has been the case for centuries

Take your pick.

Because its our natural habitat, we are just like the zebras on the savanna, we can just survive like we have for tens of thousands years there, and we evolved with the megafauna which allowed them to survive until modern times.

They just don't need the amenities beyond the advanced cavemen, once you have pottery, simple metal working, and a basic understanding of animal husbandry and agricultural, what more did they need?

curse of Canaan

fpbp

Harsh environment makes it harder to survive, have to focus more on hunting/gathering
More recently Imperialism

They said "Shit we crossed oceans millennia before the first vestiges of civilisation even appeared, time for a break and a little music from that long tube that goes Waa-waa-waa-waa-waa."

Slavery was taboo and pretty much out of the idea by the time Australia became a thing.
Abos had it lucky.

>What valuables did you export
Gold. Lots And Lots of gold, there's still plenty of old gold mines laying around everywhere and everything
Imagine being the brits and discovering this whole new continent where the ores have been virtually untouched, and it's all for yourself.

What the fuck is he doing?

isn't the discovery of minerals a relatively recent development? australia began to be colonized in the what 1700s?

roll

lunch

The Europeans went to the uncivilized dirt eating Africans and conquored them.

Because the western world shared philosophical and scientific breakthroughs from the smartest people on earth at each successive period of time.
Not to say blacks aren't dumb as a whole, but whites and asians breakthroughs were done by a super minority that actually rebelled against conventional wisdom.

#justniggerthings

Most of the people who left Africa thousands upon thousands of years met up with neanderthals and interbred, coincidentally the caucasians and asians. Hybrid vigour occured as our neanderthal ancestors had larger brain capacities but were not as numerous or fast-breeding as the diasporian ancestors.

Compared to those who stayed in Africa where they had everything provided (eternal warmth, large animals for food, year-round fruits and vegetas), early caucasians and asians had to think and plan ahead for winter. Those that did not or weren't capable enough died out, leaving the 'smart' individuals behind who learnt to farm and domesicate animals.

And so here we are today, with caucasians and asians having formed much of the world's history while Africa still remains in the mud hut age. Middle Easterners are unfortunately part of us, but 1400 years of inbreeding and the maniacal authoritarian religion known as Islam is beginning to retard them.

Alright, explain how a European winter is on par with an African winter.

A point I'd like to make is that possessing exclusive knowledge brings social standing to the person who owns that knowledge and teaching someone else what you hold exclusively diminishes the value of that knowledge and with it the social standing of the person whom once held it exclusively.
This leads to knowledge being hoarded and often lost when that person dies unexpectedly, leaving the rest of the tribe to either do without, or to reinvent what was lost.
Africans are just better at adjusting to the sudden void of lost knowledge rather than reinventing it and so seldom seek to recapture it.
This does not build civilization good.

as an example :
If Bob knows how to fix the water pump, that makes him important, teaching others to do so makes him less important, Bob wants to be and stay important, even at the expense of the greater good.
When Bob dies no one is left to fix the water pump and the village goes back to the dirty mud hole five miles away.

This is why they can't hold on to the civilization white people leave behind.

what fucking resource? its fucking dirt and sand and rocks. wild animals also kill people by the numbers. they have no fertile lands for food, at least not where animals dont roam to kill them. they also believe in witchcraft and stay afraid

The Egyptians had written language a little before Mesopotamia.
Independently developed, and used to catalog royal assets.
The Egyptians at this time were people pushed out of the expanding Sahara, full blooded Africans

They didn't mate with the Neanderthals who had bigger brains.

>>Any anthropologist
Not any real ones. The Middle East and North Africa were the first places were people switched from hunter gatherer society to farming.

Lets try.

parts of Africa with land you could farm did develop (Egipt), it's the shitty parts where people fought for every berry that stayed shit

Egyptians were part of the Sumarian empire which expanded all the way to Ireland and probably even further.

"Since the dawn of history the negro has owned the continent of Africa—rich beyond the dream of poet’s fancy, crunching acres of diamonds beneath his bare black feet. Yet he never picked one up from the dust until a white man showed to him its glittering light. His land swarmed with powerful and docile animals, yet he never dreamed a harness, cart, or sled. A hunter by necessity, he never made an axe, spear, or arrowhead worth preserving beyond the moment of its use. He lived as an ox, content to graze for an hour. In a land of stone and timber he never sawed a foot of lumber, carved a block, or built a house save of broken sticks and mud. With league on league of ocean strand and miles of inland seas, for four thousand years he watched their surface ripple under the wind, heard the thunder of the surf on his beach, the howl of the storm over his head, gazed on the dim blue horizon calling him to worlds that lie beyond, and yet he never dreamed a sail! He lived as his fathers lived—stole his food, worked his wife, sold his children, ate his brother, content to drink, sing, dance, and sport as the ape! "

--Thomas F. Dixon, Jr., 1905

Engaging in African romance.

I don't get why people keep asking this question. It's a son of a 60-70 IQ society - what do you expect these people to do??

But it wasn't a desert when all the important migration happened. It was a normal landscape with savanna, trees and animals. There are cave paintings all over it showing humans hunting their prey.

niiiiger

Roll

Darmalkwon Williams

im gonna rowl

>parts of Africa with land ruled by whites
ftfy

>50 000 bc
>cross the oceans
No.
Some channels at best. You can do that on a trunk.

Stimulating a cow's urethra so he can dye his hair with its urine

That's just beautiful.

Do you actually mean Africa, or jist sub-saharan nigs?

>Pretty sure they were horticulturalists and not agriculturalists.
horticulture is a branch agriculture.


>If you just need to plant yams, plantains, sago, etc. then you don't need mills, you don't need ploughs, you don't need granaries, and so on.
You don't need any of that shit in Europe either. You need a stick to loosen up the ground, two rock to mill the grain and some pots to store it. Plows and mills saves time and energy but its not required. Add some stone tor bone to the end of the stick and you have an even better stick.

Look at this shit, it wouldn't take that long to mill the grain required to make the days ration of bread.

>I've heard arguments that the cultivation of grains creates civiilisation because of the massive organisation required
I've heard its beer because of the massive amounts of grain required to make beer.

What?

Darmalmiah johnson

The land was different 50,000 years ago. Much easier.
When the water began to rise again tho then the abos became isolated