Where would Africa be, technologically, had whites never contacted it? How much of what we have invented would they have invented on their own without any help?
How far down the list would they have come by today?
- farming
- steam engines
- telegrams
- telephones
- human flight
- internal combusion
- solar energy
- the personal computer
Feel free to suggest other milestones, just a rough list.
Really depends on where we are talking about.
Most niggers have zero ambition. However if we were talking about places like Ethiopia im sure they would have advanced quite a bit.
It would still be a series of Bicameral Kingdoms in a sea of hunter gatherer tribes
bump
Mesolithic era mostly and early bronze age in the shithole "kingdoms".
Daily reminder that black Africans never invented the wheel or the sail. They never invented the saw. They never built a multi-story building. There is no example of anything which could be called a mechanical device having ever been created by black Africans prior to their encountering white people. Daily reminder that, even in 2017, most black Africans still require white people to come show them how to dig a well, or to swat the flies away from their faces.
People have been farming in Africa for 1000s of years.
The thing about Africa is that it is our natural habitat so there's not the same environmental driver pushing new technology development.
They would have some impressive stone buildings for sure.
The wild card is really their boats, if they developed good ocean faring vessels, that could of changed everything because it would of exposed them to other technologies.
The Iron Age begins by putting the correct types of stones in an extra hot fire, it can come at any time.
if you look at undisturbed tribes in Africa, they barely even make decent weapons.
>The wild card is really their boats, if they developed good ocean faring vessels, that could of changed everything because it would of exposed them to other technologies.
So basically what it boils down to for you is that Africans are fucked without other races showing them how to do things.
they'd be freestylin in the jungle yo
Literally nowhere
It's astonishing how ass backwards Africa was and is
The Aztecs and Mayans, despite sacrifices and shit, had developed accurate astronomy, water engineering, and a ton of other shit
Then pig farmer faggot Spaniards came and sneezed a couple of times and everyone died
But Africa just never developed further
Neither had native Americans
Which provides another question
What specifically drove natives in now Latin regions to advance where other natives hadn't?
>e thing about Africa is that it is our natural habitat so there's not the same environmental driver pushing new technology development.
>They would have some impressive stone buildings for sure.
>The wild card is really their boats, if they developed good ocean faring vessels, that could of changed everything because it would of exposed them to other technologies.
>The Iron Age begins by putting the correct types of sto
ennghhhhh wrong,
The Dutch, Potuguese, Muslim, and other slave traders who encountered Black Africans in East Africa during the early slave trade.. recorded in annals their utter disbelief.. when not only hadn't the Blacks invent anything of import… but wouldn't even adopt things as useful and as practical as the wheel even after 150 years of colonial contact and interaction… With North African Muslims and Europeans.
They did have good working knowledge of natural praxis however, medicines and bush survival etc… but in terms of technology as we understand it, they seemed to have no interest in it.
I've seen the hypothesis posited several times that the natural African ecology allows humanity to thrive in the absence of tools. Rich abundance of edible plants, temperate weather, clear freshwater rivers, diverse migratiry game species. Africa is pretty much a group of hominds that kicked their collective feet up and said "we made it" while all other civs kept working.
Subsaharan Africans STILL haven't independently developed a written language. If it wasn't for French and English, the whole southern part of the continent would be absolutley illiterate.
Well, when Europeans found d them they had fire and sharpened rocks, doubtful they would have gotten very far past that.
Same with native amerindians, most of them didn't even have permanent structures.
These aren't even technological milestones, these are evolutionary milestones, achievements made so far back in European history that their exact development is unknown
I know Africa is terrible but there was stuff like fine clothing and metalworking, and fairly big stone buildings in Africa.
Ethiopia has medieval castles and Sudan has ancient stone cities and stuff. Mali did have astronomy and all kinds of libraries and things.
Could one make the argument that a hunter/nomad society isn't less "advanced" then an agrarian society, but that an agrarian lifestyle will almost necessarily lead to greater technological advancements then a nomadic society?
Europeans had tools because they needed them based on their chosen lifestyle: sit and farm.
yeah but you're primarily talking about North Africa which was a melting pot of EuroMed/Asian/Black cultures.. I know there were some great archaeological sites such as Adams Calendar and stone structures etc but many if not most were close to the ocean, which makes it quite possible that they were interacting with advanced seafaring cultures like the Phoenicians.
South Africa is covered in gold mines and wacky ruins full of strange musical stone artifacts that are thousands of years old.
There's a white SA guy called Michael Tellinger who does a really good presentation on the ruins. He's REALLY tinfoil hat though and believes it to be some annunaki thing but don't put off by the tinfoil, it's very intresting regardless.
Farming....and that's about it.
>131533094
Yeah Im aware of that researcher but like I said, most (IMO) likely influenced by foreign seafaring cultures.. yeah I saw his vids, and yeah I had to put on a crazy filter to separate the archaeological info from the whacky ancient aliens shit..
Theres those stone rings in (?) Uganda? Im not sure exactly where… they are bizarre and seem to serve no practical purpose… they assumed perhaps livestock pens but there are no entrances/exits… interesting.
The ring stones are cool too… again ample in number but serving no immediately apparent purpose we are aware of.. a new age nut bars dream come true or conjecture.
Archeological evidence has shown that contrary to popular belief necessity is not the mother of invention, luxury is.
When 100% of active time is dedicated to meeting the minimum requirements of survival, the risk associated with trying new things is too great.
It's only when survival is ensured that a group of people can afford to spend time on things that aren't immediately necessary for survival, such as science, culture, government, etc.
I have no idea what the problem is in africa. hunting, fishing, foraging, all of these things are easy, yet free time is never spent on anything productive.
Parts of Africa where food was freely collectible never developed agriculture.
Parts of Africa where there wasn't enough food in nature developed agriculture.
What conclusion can we reach?
A good example of this are Eskimos and native siberians. Both groups live in harsh environments, however neither group developed beyond the level of native Africans either. This makes sense considering it takes every resource they have just to meet the minimum requirements of survival. Nothing is left for experimentation and advancement
Even native americans developed basic agriculture. I guess there must be some threshold, some perfect not too easy, but not too hard environment where advancement can take place.
If the environment is too nice there is no drive to develop (think tropical islands, those people never developed either)
But if it is too harsh there are no resources to dedicate to advancement (eskimos)
Eskimos invented the kayak, a design so ingenious it is still used today. They also had many tools and specialized workers.
The Siberian domesticated reindeer and created their own dog breed, one of the best in the world. They also had small cities before the Mongol invasion, when the population was large enough.
There is no real "too hard" because either you just die, either you have some energy to spend in the improvement of the situation, plus you come from somewhere, so you can use supply from the homeland for some time before you solve the biggest issues.
So then what is the conclusion to draw from this?
It's obvious that environment drives development because adapting to our environment is basically what humans do.
Can Africans exist in developed nations?
Is it simply a question of environment which explains their natural state?
If you took a tribe of Africans and put them in the arctic would they develop similar survival techniques or would they just die as frozen snow niggers?
What is the deal with Africa?
Africa is big. They have sand desert, rock desert, Savannah, plains, forest, rainforest, hills, mountains...
Egypt and Babylon were built on a river lost in a desert, Africans have that too.
I don't know why they failed so hard, but there is more than "environment" in the equation.
This wasn't said by Charles Darwin, but it's still objectively true
I understand that africa is a very ecologically diverse place. It's an entire continent afterall, but this just adds to the confusion. In all that space, with all those different climates (north africa excluded, because sub Sahara africa is still Fucking enormous) how is it that not a single tribe settled down and built anything close to civilization. Technology, art, music, theology, philosophy, government, where is any of it? Or an even better question: with all those resources and low competition why didn't at least one tribe develop to the equivalent of even mideval europe