Genuine discussion about why civilization stalled throughout much of Africa. Don't give me that whole "because black people" excuse because humans are originally white and thus the African continent would've been populated by white people before they were exposed to the sun long enough to become black. So it can't be a race problem otherwise the early white humans would've created civilizations but nothing really happened until the "brown" Egyptians came along. And any significant developments happened on the east coast along the Nile. This suggests that geography was on their side despite the fact that there are more fertile areas in sub-saharan Africa. My theory is that the humans which migrated throughout the rest of Africa were homo erectus whilst the homo sapiens, Neanderthals and Denisovans migrated north and eastward. The homo erectus then died out, leaving very few homo sapiens in Africa and thus civilization stalled until another group moved in thousands of years later.
Genuine discussion about why civilization stalled throughout much of Africa...
parts of africa are places of relative abundance
africa is the enviorment were humans need the least to survive
have you seen how some of those unindustrialized village people live? they want a lobster, they go dive into the ocean and a few minutes later they pop up back with a lobster on their hands
you're european. you want seafood or fish? good luck, mate. start constructing a boat.
they didn't develop because there was no reason to
doesn't explain why other things like society, arts and philosophy didn't develop
that can only be explained with because black people.
Exposure to trade.
SSA is relatively isolated, especially West Africa where we got most of our slaves. But in the East you actually saw civilizations develop like Ethiopia, the Swahili City States, and even Somalia which was pretty advanced historically
Guns, germs and steel.
You couldn't farm anywhere.
>humans are originally white
Incorrect. White skin evolved after Homo sapiens had developed in Africa and dispersed to Eurasia.
It's too hot.
No that can only be explained "because no writing". Only a few civilizations developed writing with everyone else borrowing. Plus all that culture and stuff came later on in history (for west africa) but I'm curious about why it didn't happen before.
Also the whole "easy to survive" kind of makes sense if Africa is our natural environment however it would've been EAST AFRICA that was our natural environment meaning that adapting to west africa would've been harder. None of it makes sense unless the human species goes way back to when there was one continent and humans all originated in North America or something lol
>>humans are originally white
Bait thread
i agree with this, it makes sense
No you're thinking of caucasian which is basically pale white. I'm thinking of just light skin in general. Very few primates have dark skin under their fur and early humans were also light skinned. I think I remember reading that white skin was actually a genetic mutation because otherwise the Mongols and Chinese would be white as well as the eskimos and what not. They're still light skinned but not pale as fuck.
Japanese skin is paler than Caucasian skin though. Anyway what about our non-human ancestors like Homo Heidelbergensis? What color would their skin have been?
even after writting, they still don't produce any of it
That still doesn't account for all the Eurasian groups that aren't very light. I'm starting to suspect that maybe humans really do date back to when the continents were all joined because it would explain why there were black people in South America, India, Indonesia and Melanesia. I understand that it's "because of the equator" but you'd see a lot more dark skinned people if this was true. Plus I read somewhere that Melanesians are genetically related to Africans which means they would've had to migrate and yet there's not much evidence for this.
Africa is a very harsh place for humans to live in.
Pretty much like blue eyes, dark skin is a "recent" mutation. Before that humans were... lighter, or a little bit lighter.
The first great civilizations started in the middle of fucking nowhere (desert). Harsh environments helps us to use our creativity to beat the circumstances. SSA is pretty comfy overall, there's no reason to do autistically great buildings or other stuff if you think about it.
>The first great civilizations started in the middle of fucking nowhere (desert)
No, they didn't. Those regions look like desert now because the inhabitants practiced unsustainable farming techniques + climate change. When those "desert" civilizations were active, those lands were fertile.
They started around river basins like the Tigris-Euphrates, Nile, and Indus.
Everything near a river is fertile. The "fertile crescent" tells more about the civilizations than anything else (Iraq and Egypt).
Egypt is another good example btw.
>dark skin is a recent mutation
Proofs?
>Genuine discussion about why civilization stalled throughout much of Africa.
>posts it on Sup Forums
Ooga booga bix nood
IDK, India was highly advanced prior to the Muslim conquests and it's certainly an easy, lazy place to live in with warm weather year-round and excellent quality soils.
>because humans are originally white
is this what Sup Forums actually believes? howling
How do you explain genetical mutation through sun exposure? It's really unbelievably stupid, plus earth's ozone wasnt as bad as it is now, the temperature was less harsher back then. Sun exposure is just a environmental effect to someone's physical character and it has slight effect on their gene.
The sunlight doesn't directly alter the pigmentation of indigenous populations; rather, it introduces a selective pressure causing those with more pigmentation to have a higher fitness (ability to survive and reproduce) due to their resistance to UVR and thus lower rates of cancer. Therefore, the alleles which code for dark pigment proliferate more than the others and the population becomes dark.
True, and also China. But consider the fact that there was an aryan invasion of the hindus long time ago, and indo-europeans survived the last ice-age (harsh as fugg).
Now I'm confused with my own arguments.
Don't forget that a lot of our modern domesticated animals came from the Indus Valley and Yellow River civilizations. Places that are abundant in resources. Yet they still felt the need to develop.
At least blacks developed metallurgy on their own. White """"people"""' didn't do anything until arabs blessed them with civilization.
Oh this makes more sense than the OP explanation in the beginning if thread, thanks american
Could it have been the religion that was the driving force behind civilization? After all some of the oldest monuments in history were built for religious purposes. I know ancient Africans had religion, but perhaps animism wasn't enough?
Did you know that the original Irish were black? So was Beethoven btw
Monkeys have light skin.
Its generally accepted that civilization forms when a land is abundant enough to produce population densities high enough that it requires a higher level of organization than prior. The idea that harsh lands make civilization is a meme and most first civilizations rose out of extremely fertile river areas. If Africa was an easy environment then population densities would have risen to the point of needing a civilization to manage it. Everything else I would say on that subject is in pic related.
Also just because it is our natural environment doesn't mean that it is an easy environment. It may have made it even harder since all of the fauna and diseases would have evolved next to us and would know how to fuck our day and see us as food.
Did you know that white people are being genocided?
African civilizations did exist. Large kingdoms traded gold and slaves with Europeans on the regular, and before Europe really started to gain power from colonialism, they had to respect these African kingdoms abilities to defend themselves. The Portuguese for instance couldn't strong arm Africans because they were well armed
Well considering most black Africans we know of developed on west coast, their largest source of water was the Atlantic ocean which isn't exactly easy to navigate. And these early river civilizations relied heavily on the river for transportation. Imagine trying to build a civilization if you had to walk for days just to get a small portion of resources. You'd need enough people to keep up the pace which requires enough food to be produced. As far as I know the only food in sub-saharan Africa that could've supported such a large population was Cassava and that was cultivated heavily by the Benin Empire. My question isn't whether or not civilizations developed. They clearly did later on in history. My question is why not sooner? My theory is that the people who live there were actually introduced to the region later on. Perhaps from a nearby island?
Well back then all that mattered anyway was how powerful you were. Money wasn't as important as it is today. As soon as guns were introduced to the area they were on equal footing with Europe and it all came down to skill and reaction time. Which is why the Americas (which didn't have guns) were easily conquered whilst Africa took a bit longer. However still doesn't explain wy these societies took forever to develop in the first place.
I'd interject that Europeans special ability to conquer the world was actually money. They excelled at generating international capital to expand and exploit targets, and the Spanish and Portuguese were star examples of this. Money dictated euro expansion so much that Spanish expansion was halted in America because they couldn't find an avenue to earn profit from the natives that were more hostile and nomadic than Central Americans and no resources that earned enough
Idk about Africa : climate, ethnic conflict, societal structure and religion are reasons I wager
Humans evolved from great apes such as ourselves, not monkeys
Who you callin' dark skinned bro?
>I'd interject that Europeans special ability to conquer the world was actually money
Europe actually is relatively resource-poor. However, it does occupy a favorable geographical location with easy access to four continents.
Woah, South Brazil really is white
Yes, and this is why colonialism was so key for European nations to acquire resources and wealth to compete with other European nations. Spain had the greatest momentum first when it inherited the wealth of the Hapsburgs, allowing it to launch missions from the West Indies into Central America, but as I said earlier their progress was halted by the hostile North Americans. It was the British and French who found trades like beaver pelts further north as an economic resource they could exploit allowing them to expand and overtake spain
I should also add that Europeans found ways to exploit existing trade as well to fuel colonialism. For instance the Portuguese set up ports all across Africa so they could block shipping and force Africans to use them as middlemen, generating wealth
Prior to European colonization Africa was sparsely populated and Food was easly obtained all year round.
Asia and Europe where relativly densly populated and required agriculture to sustain themselves. Food for them was also seasonally grown. They needed to be smarter to survive. The dumb died off, those who could store and preserve food for the winter survived, those who did not died. That is why Asians and Whites/Arabs ended up smarter. The huge spans of time where food was scarce altered our evolution.
>Prior to European colonization Africa was sparsely populated and Food was easly obtained all year round.
Not really. Africa doesn't have a huge amount of plants which lend themselves to mass cultivation, nothing like wheat or barley. The tropical soil is also thin and not very good compared to the deep soils of northern Europe and Africa is full of extremely dangerous wildlife.
>Humans were originally white
Also I like to add is that natives in North America didn't stop the Spanish with warfare, I mean they stopped the Spanish by being extremely difficult to be enslaved. Europe was still recovering from the Black Death and had emerging metropolitan centers that offered jobs, meaning that euro nations couldn't pump euro nationals to work in the colonies. They needed a large native slave force to carry out the work (long enough to be replaced by Africans when euro disease killed the natives)
For a population of their size prior to colonization they had plenty.
The huge amount of game even in modern day Africa as well as native flora that grows all year round. Not good to cultivate and farm true, but naturally growing and easy to forage for. And your forgetting that Europe also had dangerous wild life, it had a now extinct species of lion, it had wolves and bears as well. All this as well as a long and often harsh winter cycle. In Africa you need to look out for wild life true (its no surprise they are naturally athletic, strong and fast people passed on their genes, slow people got eaten.) But the weather was not as big a threat as it was in Europe. For sure droughts and freak weather can happen, but its not consistent.
Also the Africans where resistant to the diseases in south America, while life expectancy for whites there was fairly low.
Indeed! Euros actually had higher life expectancies and larger families in more northern settlements in North America than they did in the southern US for instance
Africa is much worse because the wildlife there evolved alongside humans, therefore they've learned to see us as an enemy/prey which was not the cause with Eurasian fauna. Africa also has more large predatory animals than any other continent.
THE most retarded thread I've seen all year, and probably will for the rest of the year
So if you aren't baiting, at least you have that
Lmao read some of the above posts. Probably some of the most intelligent int discussion I've seen
Of course I had just opened the OP
RUNT
RORKE
Whites and Asians cross-bred with Neanderthals and Denisovians as they spread across Eurasia. This could have given them an intelligence boost.
Dumb yank
I've read some opposing views that say the Neanderthals were essentially beaten by us because they were extremely individualistic, making them easy to kill, starve out, or just ignore, because we have such complex societies that promote teamwork and strength in number
Idk tho we could have also banged them out of existence but they are not hot from what I've seen
When they started they weren't deserts, they were lush, ecologically rich areas that humans destroyed through years of Trump-like incompetence.
*runts you*
"Rorke"s a pint onto your "nob"
CELSIUS
>haha am I in with the lads yet? arse! haha
Fuck off
despite being far left I honestly believe africa would be better of if the europeans had finished colonizing it instead of pulling out and leaving them to their own devices
Seems you are a bit on a minge spree nonce. Maybe yob some sod and nonce a nando before gobbling off at nob on me nonce.
T E S C O
I think you'll see things get better when more people get the Internet and can receive the information they're not getting from education.
I mean, Europeans end goal was not the wellbeing of the African. If colonization did continue it would just be more replacing them with whites and enslaving them
I mean some people argue that euros brought civilization which makes sense in some degree, but let's not pretend it was out of altruism
>because the wildlife there evolved alongside humans
Thats pretty much true where ever you go.
Europeans mastered and killed off their predators.
Thats to say animals that could not be domesticated where either food or a threat. The animals of Europe learned to be afraid and avoided humans because they where not an easy meal.
Evolution never stops, the predators and large animals of Europe changed because the European adapted them. Africans rarely domesticated animals, they rarely developed weapons or traps that shifted the balance in a hunt.
Just remember that the French bulldog is a decendet of a domesticated wolf, once the apex predator of Europe. Now it has breathing problems and can pass out from a light Jog. Evolution is a bitch.
They were probably dumber than us considering their material culture i.e. toolmaking was always less advanced than that of contemporaneous Homo sapiens populations. They didn't even invent throwing spears lmao fucking retards
True, however while their treatment was not by any means good, there was an effort to "civilise" them. Their health care needs where attended to, their food distributed to. Although this ended up fucking them when the euros left because the population was so large and natrual selection for the past generations was messed with and the people who would have died young had children who where unfit for life in Africa.
need a river valley
best thing in africa was the nile.
Lol what cucks we prolly killed the men with our superior throwing spears and them slammed that Neanderthal bush till the rest looked like us
You're right, some good did come from it. The line between the white mans burden and colonizing and replacing the natives seems blurry though. I honestly wonder what they thought back then. Did they want other races to become just like Europeans? Or did they want to slowly transform their societies and eventually replace them with euros
LITTLE NEANDERTHAL SPEARS
BIG HOMO SAPIENS PERSISTANCE HUNTING ENDURANCE
BETA NEANDERTHAL AUTISM
ALPHA CHAD HOMO SAPIEN COLLECTIVISM
Too many fuckin' jungles n shiet.
Also the African continent is relative narrow compared to Eurasia, which means that as you move north/south the climate becomes different faster, and the same techniques can't be used.
It's geography and politics.
They were isolated from the river valley birthplaces of civilization, and so it never really spread to them except much later, and when it did they didn't really have the infrastructure, culture, or resources to handle it. The places in Africa that did become semi-modernized had access to what little gold and iron was available, and later on slave empires to fuel the slave trade.
Really the only place that ever had a chance was Ethiopia, but they got screwed over by political isolation due to Islam.
Combine that with the fact that any tropical areas are teeming with malaria, and all sorts of other nasty shit that would make keeping any sizeable collection of cattle nearly impossible, and you get a recipe for failure.
/thread really. Although I doubt anyone else will really agree since it isnt something revolutionary. The Sahara is a natural barrier as are the large jungles which prevented outsiders from getting into the center and south of Africa and natives from getting out. The only thing I'd add is a lack of competition with other larger enemies. The constant strife in the Andes and in central America allowed for some civilizations to form there out of necessity and it wasnt until conquests and the silk trade that places like Central Asia started to develop
That and most of the other points in this thread is true. However tribal warfare seemed to be always constant in Africa, nearly more common than in Europe where whole seasons where meant for war.
too hot
>But consider the fact that there was an aryan invasion of the hindus long time ago, and indo-europeans survived the last ice-age (harsh as fugg).
I'm pretty sure India had civilization before the Aryan invasion. Indus Valley for one.