# Why didn't Africans ever establish any society on par with the ones in Eurasia?



## FUTUREMAN (Mar 25, 2021)

And by Africans i mean the sub-saharan kind.


----------



## DJ Grelle (Mar 25, 2021)

Ngl such overgeneralisations are pretty retarded

SSAfrica had societies on par with bronze age europe or late jomon japan or some of the precolumbians. It's not like there were no socities/cultures in SSAfrica. Think about the sahel kingdoms, the Kongo kingdoms or the states along the eastern coast. Africa is fairly diverse.

It is better to point out how they were incapable of sustaining the societies that europeans built for them. 

on another note: I hate niggers they should all die


----------



## A Spanish Inquisitor (Mar 25, 2021)

Simple answer is resources and animals.
Redpill answer is Kang brainz.

For the simple answer Europeans and Asians had access to burden animals to be domesticated, plus temperate weather for crops.

same reason North and South Americans were vastly different - North American natives didn’t have horses so were pretty shit as a society, South Americans (Aztecs and Mayans) had alpacas, so managed to build great empires and trading routes.


----------



## Beautiful Border (Mar 25, 2021)

Low IQ answer: Because they're too stupid lol

Normal IQ answer: Human history is not defined by a linear technological progression that happens for everyone at the same rate. Someone living in 2000 BC may have looked at the developed civilisations in Egypt or Mesopotamia and compared it to the relatively primitive state of northern Europe at the time and then have wondered why Europeans have never established a civilisation on par with those of the middle east. It's entirely possible that Africa was simply at an earlier stage of civilizational development than Europe was, and the imperialism of the 19th century interrupted its process of natural development. Indeed, the existence of the Ashanti, Songhai, and Kanem-Bornu Empires points to the possibility that Africa could have developed to the same level as Europe and Asia without the influence of colonialism.

High IQ answer: Because they're too stupid lol


----------



## FUTUREMAN (Mar 25, 2021)

A Spanish Inquisitor said:


> Simple answer is resources and animals.
> Redpill answer is Kang brainz.
> 
> For the simple answer Europeans and Asians had access to burden animals to be domesticated, plus temperate weather for crops.
> ...


Couldn't the Mali or Ethiopians buy horses and cows and what not from Arab merchants?
Or why couldn't they domestic the local fauna? Like Zebras, Rhinos, Hippos etc.


----------



## Table Country (Mar 25, 2021)

Because the white man came and decimated African culture out of fear that they would be wiped out by the BBC menace.


----------



## FUTUREMAN (Mar 25, 2021)

Table Country said:


> BBC


That's just a coomer fantasy.


----------



## Marissa Moira (Mar 25, 2021)

FUTUREMAN said:


> Couldn't the Mali or Ethiopians buy horses and cows and what not from Arab merchants?
> Or why couldn't they domestic the local fauna? Like Zebras, Rhinos, Hippos etc.


Zebras, Rhinos, and Hippos can't be domesticated for many reasons.

Water Buffalo possibly could have.


----------



## Beautiful Border (Mar 25, 2021)

FUTUREMAN said:


> Couldn't the Mali or Ethiopians buy horses and cows and what not from Arab merchants?
> Or why couldn't they domestic the local fauna? Like Zebras, Rhinos, Hippos etc.


Trying to domesticate a Rhino or a Hippo would be a retarded idea. Hippoes in particular are total bastards


----------



## Slap47 (Mar 25, 2021)

DJ Grelle said:


> Ngl such overgeneralisations are pretty retarded
> 
> SSAfrica had societies on par with bronze age europe or late jomon japan or some of the precolumbians. It's not like there were no socities/cultures in SSAfrica. Think about the sahel kingdoms, the Kongo kingdoms or the states along the eastern coast. Africa is fairly diverse.
> 
> ...


It takes organized states to maintain railroads that only go to the sea. Isolated collections of cities that hate eachother that have had no experience in administration for a century do not do this.


----------



## Syaoran Li (Mar 25, 2021)

Honestly, it's mainly because Africa got fucked by geography itself. If you notice, most of the advanced societies in Sub-Saharan Africa in the pre-colonial era were small kingdoms and city-states that were on the coast or along major trade routes like Ethiopia, Timbuktu, and Songhai.

The rest of the continent is full of harsh terrain and the only beasts of burden native to the area were the water buffalo. Most of the really good resources were further inland in said dangerous terrain.

Not even taking the IQ debate into account, Africa was fucked from the start outside of North Africa and certain coastal regions. 

Part of why the most advanced civilizations were in Europe and East Asia (and the Middle East) was due to two major things: A temperate climate/moderate terrain and easy access to beasts of burden like oxen and horses.

The Middle East had all of these except a hospitable climate, which is why all of the major Middle Eastern civilizations in ancient times tended to form near major rivers and fertile valleys. 

The Injuns had no beasts of burden (outside of llamas and alpacas in the Incan society) and no easy access to surface minerals outside of a few civilizations like the Aztecs and Inca (and even then, they preferred obsidian since it was more reliable for tools than gold or copper)

It doesn't help that most of the records of the indigenous peoples who lived north of the Rio Grande are spotty at best and rarely date back to a pre-Columbian era.

By the time the English landed in Virginia in 1607, North America was a post-apocalyptic wasteland thanks to diseases that decimated the majority of societies and forced those that survived into a more primitive state

North America in 1607 was basically like a real-life version of The Stand. The fate of the Natives was sealed the moment one of the crew members on the Santa Maria sneezed.


----------



## Carlos Weston Chantor (Mar 25, 2021)

Maybe they didn't want to live in a society


----------



## FUTUREMAN (Mar 25, 2021)

Syaoran Li said:


> easy access to beasts of burden like oxen and horses.


Like i said in another post, why couldn't the Mali or Ethiopians just buy them from Arab merchants?


----------



## Jabroni (Mar 25, 2021)

To put it simply, africa is much less suitable to form any kind of meaningful society on when compared to the wealth of resources and ideal climate in europe, asia or any other continent.


----------



## L50LasPak (Mar 25, 2021)

Guns, Germs and Steel advanced the theory that the number one reason Africa did not form societies on par with Europe and Asia is because the incidence and resilence of highly contagious diseases would kill off any population that grew too large. European and Asian cities up until fairly recently in history were fucking disgusting cesspools of filth, constantly frothing over with plague. In Africa the diseases are/were so hostile that keeping that many people alive in one place for long enough was impossible.

This theory makes sense to me personally. Combined with the hostile climate and lack of beasts of burden, you have a recipe for a whole continent that is just unable to thrive in vast numbers.


----------



## Syaoran Li (Mar 25, 2021)

FUTUREMAN said:


> Like i said in another post, why couldn't the Mali or Ethiopians just buy them from Arab merchants?



They actually did. Ethiopians did use oxen imported from elsewhere and the West African coastal cities famously traded slaves for horses, gunpowder, and booze.


----------



## Applejack is Best Pony (Mar 25, 2021)

DJ Grelle said:


> Ngl such overgeneralisations are pretty retarded
> 
> SSAfrica had societies on par with bronze age europe or late jomon japan or some of the precolumbians. It's not like there were no socities/cultures in SSAfrica. Think about the sahel kingdoms, the Kongo kingdoms or the states along the eastern coast. Africa is fairly diverse.
> 
> ...





Spoiler: Image










I dunno man. I'm no expert, but this is often called the greatest architectural achievement of the Sahel kingdoms. The original was built in the 13th century after Muslims had already shown up and spread Islam there (it's a mosque) and its current incarnation is from 1907. Maybe they weren't stereotypical spearchucking mudhut-dwellers, but this is still behind what Europe was doing at the same time, which was considered a Dark Age.


----------



## Pixy (Mar 25, 2021)

It is very much a case of  'if it ain't broke, don't fix it'. The systems each tribal group had in place prior to overpopulation was working for them, there wasn't a real need to push themselves to advance their society.

The same applies to Australia. All the indigenous groups had their own little "micro-countries" and their populations never grew beyond what the hunter-gatherer lifestyle was capable of supporting.

To call them 'backwards' would be misleading, considering they had superior knowledge of land management and co-existing with the ecosystem than the colonial settlers did. Stagnant, perhaps, would be more accurate, since it wasn't like they didn't have technological achievements unique to their societies.

Europe and Asia developed very differently to how Africa did, with frequent territorial conflicts being fought and their people's environmental conditions spurring on innovation.


----------



## Applejack is Best Pony (Mar 25, 2021)

Sackity said:


> It is very much a case of  'if it ain't broke, don't fix it'. The systems each tribal group had in place prior to overpopulation was working for them, there wasn't a real need to push themselves to advance their society.
> 
> The same applies to Australia. All the indigenous groups had their own little "micro-countries" and their populations never grew beyond what the hunter-gatherer lifestyle was capable of supporting.
> 
> ...


Sounds like you're basically just saying "they're lazy" in a way that makes it seem a lot more respectable. All people were hunter-gatherers at some point, and were stable enough to not go extinct; why did those people innovate and Africans didn't? This sounds like a cope.


----------



## Pixy (Mar 25, 2021)

Applejack is Best Pony said:


> Sounds like you're basically just saying "they're lazy" in a way that makes it seem a lot more respectable. All people were hunter-gatherers at some point, and were stable enough to not go extinct; why did those people innovate and Africans didn't? This sounds like a cope.


You're asking for answers to a completely different question to what OP is asking.


----------



## Applejack is Best Pony (Mar 25, 2021)

Sackity said:


> You're asking for answers to a completely different question to what OP is asking.


I don't think it's completely different, but I guess that's for the OP to decide.


----------



## A Spanish Inquisitor (Mar 25, 2021)

FUTUREMAN said:


> Couldn't the Mali or Ethiopians buy horses and cows and what not from Arab merchants?
> Or why couldn't they domestic the local fauna? Like Zebras, Rhinos, Hippos etc.



As to why they couldn’t buy horses, I imagine by the time Europeans came to Africa with horses to sell, they were already far more advanced than Africans so the sale of them still wouldn’t have allowed them to catch up in civilisation.

For domestication, some animals are harder and more dangerous to domesticate than others, I think people have tried Zebras, but they’re too wild iirc. Other animals are simply too vicious.


----------



## Afinepickle (Mar 25, 2021)

A Spanish Inquisitor said:


> I think people have tried Zebras


Zebras are straight up impossible to domesticate. They have two modes: 1. Pants shitting terrified 2. Murderous rage.


----------



## John McAfee (Mar 25, 2021)

A Spanish Inquisitor said:


> North American natives didn’t have horses


Apache, and Comanche were exclusively horse centric tribes.


----------



## Lemmingwise (Mar 25, 2021)

L50LasPak said:


> Guns, Germs and Steel advanced the theory that the number one reason Africa did not form societies on par with Europe and Asia is because the incidence and resilence of highly contagious diseases would kill off any population that grew too large. European and Asian cities up until fairly recently in history were fucking disgusting cesspools of filth, constantly frothing over with plague. In Africa the diseases are/were so hostile that keeping that many people alive in one place for long enough was impossible.



It's a book that starts with the presumption that every people is interchangeable and it's only circumstance of location that led to the results. Almost every claim in it is wrong.


_The unrivalled extent of the Eurasian landmass allowed the proliferation of many different civilisations, between which information could be exchanged allowing far greater cross-fertilization of cultures._

Wrong!
Europe is isolated from Central Asia by the Alps, the Urals, the Caucasus, the Russian Steppes, the Taiga and the Anatolian plateau.
East Asia is divided from Central Asia by the Thar desert the Himalayas the Gobi desert and the Tian Shan mountains.
Sub-Saharan Africa lies as close to the Fertile Crescent, regarded as the cradle of civilisation, as Western Europe and far closer than China.

_A diverse abundance of potential food crops is necessary in order for settled agricultural communities to flourish._

Wrong!
The Inca created a complex civilisation based on the cultivation of two food crops, the potato and maize. Large agricultural communities, like Cahokia in North America, flourished on the exploitation of maize. Western European agriculture was overwhelmingly based on wheat production, China's on rice.

The European biome contained a greater variety of domesticable crops than Africa and America and these crops were more nutritious.


_The European biome contained a greater variety of domesticable crops than Africa and America and these crops were more nutritious._

Wrong!
America had indigenous food crops which were more nutritious than European staples. Beans, corn, squashes and peanuts are superior to wheat and, if grown in rotation, create a self-replenishing agricultural cycle.
Far from having no viable indigenous staples, Africa had okra, rice, sorghum, millet, the bambara ground nut, black-eyed peas, watermelons and numerous gourds and tubers, as well as immensely useful plants such as the oil palm and the tamarisk. African slaves actually introduced rice cultivation to the United States. The standard refrence on this subject is, "Lost Crops of Africa".

_Eurasia had more domesticable large mammals than Sub-Saharan Africa or the Americas._

Wrong!
Africa has indigenous breeds of sheep, goats and cattle which were spread from the Sudan to the Cape by 200AD. The South Americans domesticated the llama. The North Americans, like the Aboriginals of Australia, almost hunted their domesticable mammals to extinction. Why didn't Europeans hunt horses, cows and sheep to extinction?

_Only urban civilisations can develop the levels of technological skill and social organisation required for military conquest._

Wrong!
The two greatest conquerors in history, Atilla the Hun and Ghengis Khan came from nomadic tribal civilisations. Rome was overthrown by nomads.


----------



## FUTUREMAN (Mar 25, 2021)

@Lemmingwise
So what reason was there for Africans for not developing advanced influential civillisations?


----------



## Cyclonus (Mar 25, 2021)

Because dey did not kno de wae.


----------



## Overachiever (Mar 25, 2021)

John McAfee said:


> Apache, and Comanche were exclusively horse centric tribes.


But only after reintroduction by European settlers. The first case of Amerindians actually riding horses was when the Spanish started giving them to Aztecs in the 16th century and they were adopted by North American tribes somewhat later. They were previously present on the continent but went extinct like 15,000 years ago. I can't remember the exact reason I was taught but Wikipedia says they died either due to Climate Change or overexploitation by humans.


----------



## A Spanish Inquisitor (Mar 25, 2021)

John McAfee said:


> Apache, and Comanche were exclusively horse centric tribes.


Been a while, but horses aren’t native to America, so they could only have been horse centric after settlers arrived in the 16th century. Not enough time to build a whole civilisation.


----------



## MaxPayne (Mar 25, 2021)

Lower IQ, lower impulse control. Higher time preference. Higher frequency of the MAOA warrior gene 


A substantial amount of the human genome has been subjected to natural selection since the races diverged. Source: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1317879/


Over 2000 genes have been subject to recent (post out-of-Africa) evolution. Source: http://www.nytimes.com/2010/07/20/science/20adapt.html
Melanin concentration may directly correlate with aggression. Source: http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0191886912000840
Germanic/Nordic people have lower time preference than any other group. Source: http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=1481443
Africans have higher rates of a gene associated with violence. Source: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1913922/

Also interesting on the subject of different racial groups having different admixtures of proto human DNA



			https://twitter.com/robertsepehr/status/1374881908513927168?s=19


----------



## User names must be unique (Mar 25, 2021)

Racism, Not the racism of white outsiders but Africa's own racism and crab mentality. Take a look at the ethnicities of some African countries Nigeria alone has about 250 recognized ethnic groups most tracing their lineage to prehistory. Not only is there conflict between ethnic groups but whenever there's a problem in the country people don't rally for the country but around their own ethnic groups. 

Imagine if England constantly had squabbles and uprisings from the multitude of Celtic groups, Angles, Saxons, Jutes, Frisians, Normans, etc.  They'd never have amounted to shit.


----------



## Applejack is Best Pony (Mar 25, 2021)

User names must be unique said:


> Racism, Not the racism of white outsiders but Africa's own racism and crab mentality. Take a look at the ethnicities of some African countries Nigeria alone has about 250 recognized ethnic groups most tracing their lineage to prehistory. Not only is there conflict between ethnic groups but whenever there's a problem in the country people don't rally for the country but around their own ethnic groups.
> 
> Imagine if England constantly had squabbles and uprisings from the multitude of Celtic groups, Angles, Saxons, Jutes, Frisians, Normans, etc.  They'd never have amounted to shit.


You're not wrong about the tribal squabbles of negroes, but regarding England: it's easy to say this in hindsight because the Anglos genocided all of the people who weren't on board with being their subjects.


----------



## Spooky Doot Skelly (Mar 25, 2021)

L50LasPak said:


> Guns, Germs and Steel


I read this shit and it is so dumb. Almost everything the guy says in the book is misinfo


Afinepickle said:


> Zebras are straight up impossible to domesticate


lmao no


----------



## Idiotron (Mar 25, 2021)

Based on what I've read, the soil is harder, dryer and not as good for crops as the European and Asian soil.
The animals they naturally have there aren't good for farming.
The weather is also bad for farming or at least not as good as in Europe and Asia.
That's more than enough reasons because you need to be able to mass produce food in order to have a stable society.


----------



## soy_king (Mar 25, 2021)

FUTUREMAN said:


> Like i said in another post, why couldn't the Mali or Ethiopians just buy them from Arab merchants?


The Sahel kingdoms and tribes in those areas have strong horse cultures and had fairly well-developed societies (for Muslims at least). The Hausa, Fulani, Borno, etc. were centralized kingdoms with good cavalry. Hell, the Sudan kicked British and Egyptian ass for 13 years before they were defeated. 

As to the other nations not having horses, horses can't survive in the jungle, as they're highly susceptible to tropical diseases like sleeping sickness and the tsetse fly. Zebras are too skittish too domesticate.

SS African culture did have cattle and made them the primary currency throughout their societies. It's how ex President of South Africa Jacob Zuma could purchase his 10th wife for 20 cattle.


----------



## User names must be unique (Mar 25, 2021)

Applejack is Best Pony said:


> You're not wrong about the tribal squabbles of negroes, but regarding England: it's easy to say this in hindsight because the Anglos genocided all of the people who weren't on board with being their subjects.


Only the celtic leadership and soldiers, the majority of civilians were just assimilated or moved east. There's plenty of cultural and genetic evidence that suggests the Anglo Saxon "invasion" was a lot less bloody than historians used to think.


----------



## Applejack is Best Pony (Mar 25, 2021)

User names must be unique said:


> Only the celtic leadership and soldiers


...So, everyone who resisted them. That's what I said.


----------



## Lemmingwise (Mar 25, 2021)

MaxPayne said:


> Melanin concentration may directly correlate with aggression


That's a pretty weak statement. What even is the point of the word "directly"?

I may directly be in the same country as a terrorist.



FUTUREMAN said:


> So what reason was there for Africans for not developing advanced influential civillisations?



I think it's the wrong question.

History is filled with extinct species and people. The better question is, why didn't africans go extinct like other people and species? Why do they thrive without influential civilisation? Why was the subjugation of the americas so much more succesful than that of africa?


----------



## Spunt (Mar 25, 2021)

The answer is actually cats. Cute kitty cats:

The reason settled civilisation as we know it flourished in the Nile, Tigris and Euphrates valleys and not in sub-Saharan Africa is because those places were _less_ hospitable (to mankind at the time), not more. The floodplains of big rivers in hot, dry climates are very fertile, but only for part of the year. As a result it's almost impossible to sustain any meaningful number of hunter-gatherer people or nomadic herders in those areas because people and their animals would just starve during the winter. Whereas places like the Serengeti have year-round grassland due to the wet climate and volcanic soil, so you can herd your cattle and goats all year provided you keep moving, and enough wild animals and plants that you can hunt and gather, again provided that you keep moving so you don't bleed the land dry.

To take advantage of desert flood plain soil, you need proper agriculture. You need to stay in a fixed place to tend crops, then you need to store those crops in the dry season. This forces massive technological innovation - irrigation, architecture, feeding, organising and deploying people to make all this happen, a proper army to defend a fixed point because you can't just run away when enemies draw near. You need government, generals, military tactics, a bureaucracy, trade - all the things that make civilisation possible as we know it.

It wasn't laziness or stupidity that meant the sub-Saharan populations didn't do that - it was a lack of necessity. A goat herder on the Serengeti doesn't need crop rotation in the same way I don't need a car that burrows under the ground. It would be a waste of resources to develop one, unless we were forced to live underground by our environment at some point. They were fine the way they were, and were not forced to develop new tech the way their Nile cousins were. Long-term, of course, this fucked them over because urban civilisations were far more efficient at warfare, technology, industry, trade and building big populations, which resulted in these civilisations stomping all over tribal ones 90% of the time that they met. The times when the nomads won (the Huns, the Mongols), they could only sustain success by conquest, pillaging the products of more advanced civilisations to maintain their momentum. Their entire way of life was a pyramid scheme. Once they had no more lands to conquer (or their run of victories was halted), they either fell apart (the Mongols) or were forced to urbanise themselves (the Goths and Visigoths).

And civilisation needs cats. When the proto-Egyptians first started storing grain for the dry season, they came across a new and massive problem - vermin. If mice and rats get into your grain stores, they will breed to plague numbers and cause famines. Vermin control is essential for civilisation.

Cue kitty.

The local Saharan desert cats suddenly found a new source of tasty, tasty mice and moved in with the humans. The ancient Egyptians took this as a sign of favour from the Gods, who were sending them these cute, friendly, furry pest exterminators to prevent their grain stores from being destroyed and literally keep them all alive. This is why the ancient Egyptians literally worshipped cats. They venerated the cat-headed Goddess Bastet, and families would mummify their cats on death when they couldn't afford to do this to their own relatives. The penalties for harming cats in ancient Egypt were generally harsher than the penalties for murder, and in context this was for a really good reason.

Pictured: the saviour of civilisation and bane of spear-chuckers everywhere:


----------



## FUTUREMAN (Mar 25, 2021)

Lemmingwise said:


> I think it's the wrong question.
> 
> History is filled with extinct species and people. The better question is, why didn't africans go extinct like other people and species? Why do they thrive without influential civilisation? Why was the subjugation of the americas so much more succesful than that of africa?


Humans are resilient?


----------



## MaxPayne (Mar 25, 2021)

Lemmingwise said:


> That's a pretty weak statement. What even is the point of the word "directly"?
> 
> I may directly be in the same country as a terrorist.
> 
> ...





> *We review animal studies that have found darker pigmented individuals average higher amounts of aggression and sexual activity than lighter pigmented individuals. We hypothesize that similar relationships between pigmentation, aggression, and sexuality occur in humans. We first review the literature on non-human animals and then review some of the correlates of melanin in people, including aggression and sexual activity. Both within human populations (e.g., siblings), and between populations (e.g., races, nations, states), studies find that darker pigmented people average higher levels of aggression and sexual activity (and also lower IQ). We conceptualize skin color as a multigenerational adaptation to differences in climate over the last 70,000 years as a result of “cold winters theory” and the “Out-of-Africa” model of human origins. We propose life history theory to explain the covariation found between human (and non-human) pigmentation and variables such as birth rate, infant mortality, longevity, rate of HIV/AIDS, and violent crime.*





> *In 40 species of wild vertebrates, darker pigmented individuals are more aggressive and sexually active. ► Cross fostering studies and pharmacological dose manipulations establish the role of the melatonin system. ► We review the human literature within and between populations and find similar relationships with pigmentation. ► Darker individuals average higher levels of crime, sexual activity including HIV/AIDS, and lower IQ.*


----------



## Applejack is Best Pony (Mar 25, 2021)

@Spunt 

Your toxoplasmosis is showing.


----------



## Lemmingwise (Mar 25, 2021)

FUTUREMAN said:


> Humans are resilient?


Well not all humans, that's my point, there are plenty of extinct people. But sub saharan africans? Still here and not even in danger of extinction.


----------



## Pocket Dragoon (Mar 25, 2021)

This is a very informative podcast about the fall of the Songhai & destruction of Timbuktu.  I had no idea it's sacking & burning was like a sub-Saharan version of the Library of Alexandria fire.  Also, their war barges/castles for riverine warfare & use of horses was surprising.

Fall of Civilizations - Songhai


----------



## FUTUREMAN (Mar 25, 2021)

Lemmingwise said:


> Well not all humans


?
EDIT: I just realised that i mistook 'well' for 'we're'. I should probably get my eyes checked soon....


----------



## Lemmingwise (Mar 25, 2021)

FUTUREMAN said:


> ?


https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Extinct_ethnic_groups


----------



## FUTUREMAN (Mar 25, 2021)

Lemmingwise said:


> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Extinct_ethnic_groups


I mean these guys were still humans, extinct or not.
Anyhow, i think we're getting a bit off-topic.


----------



## Lemmingwise (Mar 25, 2021)

FUTUREMAN said:


> I mean these guys were still humans, extinct or not.


But not resilient.


----------



## FUTUREMAN (Mar 25, 2021)

Lemmingwise said:


> But not resilient.


Sucks to be them. 
What I meant was humanity in general, not literally every human.


----------



## Ughubughughughughughghlug (Mar 25, 2021)

Umm, they did?

The Sahel, the Horn, the Cape, the coast of Congo, the Great Lakes, and the East Coast all had societies of agriculturalists with organized governments, militaries, and priesthoods, iron working, shipbuilding, monumental architecture. Malians had universities.

After European contact, Africans began integrating gunpowder and other new technologies. A Sahelian army of the 1800s - pre-colonization - would have had artillery complements.


----------



## FUTUREMAN (Mar 25, 2021)

Ughubughughughughughghlug said:


> Umm, they did?
> 
> The Sahel, the Horn, the Cape, the coast of Congo, the Great Lakes, and the East Coast all had societies of agriculturalists with organized governments, militaries, and priesthoods, iron working, shipbuilding, monumental architecture. Malians had universities.
> 
> After European contact, Africans began integrating gunpowder and other new technologies. A Sahelian army of the 1800s - pre-colonization - would have had artillery complements.


Any links or pics?


----------



## Merried Senior Comic (Mar 25, 2021)

Because they're niggers.


----------



## Citizen Lain (Mar 25, 2021)

Lemmingwise said:


> Why was the subjugation of the americas so much more succesful than that of africa?


I'm not an expert by any means, but I think disease definitely played a role in this case. There are several cases of entire Indian tribes dying off from diseases introduced by Europeans. This is why the Caribbean is filled with black Africans today and not red Indians. In Africa, meanwhile, the opposite happened. You had white settlers suffering the most from diseases the natives had largely adapted to. If not for this, there would probably be far fewer blacks in Africa today.


----------



## Ughubughughughughughghlug (Mar 25, 2021)

Lemmingwise said:


> That's a pretty weak statement. What even is the point of the word "directly"?
> 
> I may directly be in the same country as a terrorist.
> 
> ...


90% at least of Indians died of plague. North American Indians also had sophisticated societies ("chiefdoms," proto-kingdoms at a Neolithic technology level which practiced monumental architecture - snake mounds - complex government, institutionalized religion, urbanization, social stratification, etc.). Some was seen from archaeology, some recorded by the Spanish explorers. When the English explored the American South, they found a completely different landscape than the Spanish, as opposed to the Spanish who showed up and conquered shortly after in Mexico and Peru. The chiefdoms had collapsed and entirely new tribes had formed out of refugees from the massive migrations of people, many of whom had fused not so much because of violent breakdown but because their societies were no longer large enough to be viable separately. They reverted, in a lot of cases, abandoning social stratification, monumental architecture, etc. to settle into an even more basic lifestyle. Diet became increasingly dependent on hunter-gathering since ecological pressures from agriculture were lessened.

Colonists would often find land that was mysteriously perfect for farming, no trees or stones cluttering it up. What they didn't realize at that time was that those were farms of Indians long ago dead of plague.

America was hit with an Apocalypse in 1492 and the Europeans conquered its ashes. Africans were long exposed to Eurasian disease. If Indians had the same resistance then America would be as red now as Congo is black.


----------



## Ughubughughughughughghlug (Mar 25, 2021)

More evidence of African intelligence, the system of dikes that they used to run rice plantations both in the homeland and in America. They built locks and irrigation systems which they would use to seasonally flood and drain rice fields. It was engineering on a level as impressive as anything else, agriculturally, the Old World did. That the public thinks Africa is bushmen ooga-boogaing in the jungle eating monkeys is more the fault of media never portraying anything about the continent's history rather than any actual failing on their part.


----------



## L50LasPak (Mar 25, 2021)

Lemmingwise said:


> It's a book that starts with the presumption that every people is interchangeable and it's only circumstance of location that led to the results. Almost every claim in it is wrong.
> 
> 
> _The unrivalled extent of the Eurasian landmass allowed the proliferation of many different civilisations, between which information could be exchanged allowing far greater cross-fertilization of cultures._
> ...


I only picked one arguement out of the book, that of the continent's (rather indisputably dangerous) diseases, and you didn't mention anything about it in this post.


----------



## MadStan (Mar 25, 2021)

There wasn't a need to - simply put.  The environments out of Africa fostered evolution towards humans that would require greater intelligence to survive - simply put. they were harder environments to live in and required different skill sets beyond hunting.

That's not meant as a slight against Africans. They evolved in that environment with other traits suited to the environment - skin color, different body types, different mental skills.


----------



## Lemmingwise (Mar 25, 2021)

L50LasPak said:


> I only picked one arguement out of the book, that of the continent's (rather indisputably dangerous) diseases, and you didn't mention anything about it in this post.



You didn't pick one; you had beasts of burden, climate and disease.

I think climate is a bit ridiculous, as if countries with 3-4 months of winter with not being able to grow anything are somehow a superior climate to all the different climates that are found in africa. 

Beasts of burden has already been addressed.

And yes, disease played a part, but then europe was also completely destroyed by black plague, so we just have to handwave these away?


----------



## MadStan (Mar 25, 2021)

Lemmingwise said:


> You didn't pick one; you had beasts of burden, climate and disease.
> 
> I think climate is a bit ridiculous, as if countries with 3-4 months of winter with not being able to grow anything are somehow a superior climate to all the different climates that are found in africa.
> 
> ...


Well hang on a second - climate is important.  In Europe they would die if they didn't develop advanced techniques for clothing - so this meant needles, tanning, measuring - skill.  They were stuck in caves when it was freezing so they didnt just have to have fire, they had to vent it also. They were stuck in caves for days or weeks at a time - so art, socialization, laws of a sort to get a long in confined spaces.  Meat curing because there wouldn't be any meat otherwise...

Climate deeply impacts evolution - in fact more so than any other factor.

In Africa the ability to run marathons and track pray would be more important where as in Europe perhaps setting traps was more important to get food.  In Africa you didn't need to develop sophisticated clothing, in Europe you had to.  In Africa food was dangerous but plentiful - in Europe it would come and go leading to storage problems.

The same climate was in Australia (Aboriginals) and they were on par with Africans in development and further behind - although sadly, they are a group with a record low IQ, which is just the way it is.


----------



## L50LasPak (Mar 25, 2021)

Lemmingwise said:


> And yes, disease played a part, but then europe was also completely destroyed by black plague, so we just have to handwave these away?


For the record, disease was really the only one I leaned heavily on. The other two I paid lipservice to. Europe was destroyed by the plague infrequently in its entire history, with the incidences being very far apart. There were other plagues, but none quite on that scale. Its worth mentioning that plague isn't native to europe either, and some of the others throughout history such as the Roman Plague of 590 are also presumed to be Asian in origin. They're a relatively rare occurence, burning themselves out comparatively quickly. They hedged Europe and Asia's populations when they were already thriving though. I think Africa is different.

The diseases in Africa are so hostile to even small groups of people that I would go as far as to say that they directly encouraged both behaviorally learned and instinctive antisocial tendencies in the entire African population. This is a continent where too much social interaction can and most likely will lead to your death even to this day, so it stands to reason that a human population in that region would develop according antisocial behavior to counteract it. Its as if the very idea of civilization itself gives these people a bad feeling, probably because in the millenia that have passed congregating in the numbers we're seeing would have meant certain festering death.

Guns, Germs and Steel of course did not word this theory quite as harshly as I did, merely saying that the spread of African diseases "prevented" the congregation of large populations.


----------



## Lemmingwise (Mar 25, 2021)

Menotaur said:


> In Africa the ability to run marathons and track pray would be more important where as in Europe perhaps setting traps was more important to get food.


I get that we have to be somewhat broad in our statements to compare such large groups, but the value of running marathons is not a universal valuable trait in the entire continent of africa (or even the entire sub-saharan africa). Which is also why not every african people are good at it.


----------



## MadStan (Mar 25, 2021)

Lemmingwise said:


> I get that we have to be somewhat broad in our statements to compare such large groups, but the value of running marathons is not a universal valuable trait in the entire continent of africa (or even the entire sub-saharan africa). Which is also why not every african people are good at it.


But you get the point - environments foster traits.


----------



## Lemmingwise (Mar 25, 2021)

Menotaur said:


> But you get the point - environments foster traits.


Of course it does, but that is pretty much a statement opposite to Diamond's thesis.


----------



## MadStan (Mar 25, 2021)

Time periods are vital to any discussion about why different groups emerged as they did; when they did.  I tend to view the human evolution over the last 100.000 years as a whole rather than just the last 5000 as of vital importance. Certainly, the genetic traits of humans globally saw little change from what they were in the genetic pools until real exploration started.

The question as to why they evolved recently so differently has a vast number of factors - so no per se argument with Diamond right now - again depending on what time period we view.  However, from a genetic point of view the stone was pretty much cast up to about 8,000 years ago and with the advent of technologies since then it would lead to obvious winners and losers.  There were very distinct differences with physical attributes and mental.

The stone was cast some time ago, and the result was almost inevitable.  IQs are not identical across various groups,  and neither are physical traits - for all the right reasons so to speak.

The question the original poster proposes could have an insinuation that Sub-Sahara Africa was primitive by Eurasian standards for not developing as they did because we see them as advanced; but the more interesting question isn't really why they didn't, but why Eurasia HAD to in order to survive.  It wasn't  really optional.


----------



## FUTUREMAN (Mar 26, 2021)

Menotaur said:


> The question the original poster proposes could have an insinuation that Sub-Sahara Africa was primitive by Eurasian standards for not developing as they did but why Eurasia HAD to in order to survive.  It wasn't  really optional.


Huh i didn't think of it that way. 
So what made the old worlders start a civilisation?


----------



## Lemmingwise (Mar 26, 2021)

FUTUREMAN said:


> So what made the old worlders start a civilisation


They wanted to eat in winter.

Some historic questions have weird answers, like "why did we start slavery?" has the answer "they felt bad about killing all their enemies"


----------



## Godbert Manderville (Mar 26, 2021)

Lemmingwise said:


> They wanted to eat in winter.
> 
> Some historic questions have weird answers, like "why did we start slavery?" has the answer "they felt bad about killing all their enemies"



Yeah, I'm pretty sure that's not why slavery came into existence. Why kill those you can force to work and fuck instead.


----------



## Lemmingwise (Mar 26, 2021)

Godbert Manderville said:


> Yeah, I'm pretty sure that's not why slavery came into existence. Why kill those you can force to work and fuck.


I thought a thread where we barely mention IQ when talking about this was about sharing make belief opinions that sound nice in our heads.


----------



## Niggernerd (Mar 26, 2021)

Niggers stole my nigga mufasas pridelands


----------



## Godbert Manderville (Mar 26, 2021)

Lemmingwise said:


> I thought a thread where we barely mention IQ when talking about this was about sharing make belief opinions that sound nice in our heads.



To contribute something tangible, I've thought on this topic sometimes and I've tried to come up with non-genetic factors such as heat or domestication or disease. But each of these elements is present in areas of the world that did 'make it'. There are plenty of impressive ancient civilizations occupying the blistering tropics that have as many or few domesticated animals as SS-Africa and are also rife with mosquitoes and such. It never stopped them

SS-Africans are the oldest peoples. SS Africa has as many resources as every other continent. All things being equal they should have industrialized first. They did not. Perhaps it is precisely because the distant ancestors of the rest of us mongrelized with Neanderthals and other close relatives that they came out ahead of the purer SS-Africans. Hybrid Vigour is a thing, after all.


----------



## FatalTater (Mar 26, 2021)

Mansa Musa was an interesting guy. Emperor of Mali and considered to be the wealthiest person in history. Unfortunately his kids couldn't get their shit together and the empire crumbled.

I blame the youth for all the world's problems based solely on this one instance.


----------



## Marissa Moira (Mar 26, 2021)

FUTUREMAN said:


> Like i said in another post, why couldn't the Mali or Ethiopians just buy them from Arab merchants?


Probably because they already had slaves so why would they need pack animals?


----------



## Johan Schmidt (Mar 26, 2021)

Something weird happened to humans when we moved out of Africa; and subsequent bands of humans that bred with other human species that were hanging on around in Europe before they went extinct also brought waves of change down through to Africa. Pretty radical changes as well, things like more abstractions in art, two story buildings, rapid advancements in technology.


----------



## Lemmingwise (Mar 26, 2021)

I do think it's likely that neoteny played a considerable role. It's not just the evolutionary pressures on the people that moved to different locations, it's also which people were more likely to move and discover new territory. 

Humans are a rather neotenous ape to begin with. More curious and playful, more likely to view other species as being comparable to their own, less territorial, the way youthful mammals differ from adults. It's probably why humans really populated the world after the ice age, because wanderlust was suddenly an advantage rather than a risk, with how underpopulated the world had become.

And I think non-SS africans do seem to differ from africans in the same way; we take longer to mature, we are less territorial, we are more likely to view other species (or races) as our own or being comparable to us.


----------



## wtfNeedSignUp (Mar 26, 2021)

About the whole beasts of burden thing, couldn't they just have imported them? Like the last two millenia nobody traveled from the middle east of Africa and told them about the advantages of mutton? Also fix me if I'm wrong, but isn't the ground if Africa fit for agricultural development? Shouldn't have that become the norm rather than hunting?


----------



## Techpriest (Mar 26, 2021)

Godbert Manderville said:


> To contribute something tangible, I've thought on this topic sometimes and I've tried to come up with non-genetic factors such as heat or domestication or disease. But each of these elements is present in areas of the world that did 'make it'. There are plenty of impressive ancient civilizations occupying the blistering tropics that have as many or few domesticated animals as SS-Africa and are also rife with mosquitoes and such. It never stopped them
> 
> SS-Africans are the oldest peoples. SS Africa has as many resources as every other continent. All things being equal they should have industrialized first. They did not. Perhaps it is precisely because the distant ancestors of the rest of us mongrelized with Neanderthals and other close relatives that they came out ahead of the purer SS-Africans. Hybrid Vigour is a thing, after all.


Well one of the big things is the climate and the location. You might go 'but egypt' - Egypt is in one of the most reliable floodplains on the planet, the floods of the nile were super regular and helped immensely. 

The Congo river is another major river system. Why didn't it get a huge unified civilization like Egypt?

Well, for starters, the Congo is a bitch of a river. It's hard to travel it, it has rapids and cataracts all over the place, its floods aren't super regular, and it's very remote - it's hard to get to the Congo from Europe or the middle east - trade to the Congo would take an immense amount of time, and ancient ship building could only take you so far. The Sahara is an immense natural barrier to cross, and going around it to reach West and South Africa is not easy. What fueled a lot of Mediterranean civilization was the sea and trade along the sea or other routes. Waterways are natural highways for trade, and Africa was involved with quite a bit of trade - in east Africa that is. Ethiopia was a major player in world trade for a very long time, sitting close to the Red Sea and a natural hub for traders trying to get deeper into africa for ivory, gold, furs, etc. Trade creates a feedback accelerating loop. Every new thing you get speeds up your development if you can use it and if you're close to someone else you trade your stuff and ideas they might like (such as the wheel) and the pace accelerates over time. A lot of Africa was not in contact with the rest of the world, or another big solid hub of settled civilization like China, India, Europe, the Middle East. Sub Saharan africa was geographically a nightmare to reach compared to almost everywhere else on the Eurasian/African supercontinent. You had to sail, or cross one of the worlds largest deserts - or traverse some of the most intense brush on the planet. 

Africa also has a rain problem. Every other continent has a big, large mountain range which casts rain shadows and helps regulate the general distribution of rainfall. Africa... doesn't really have that. Agriculture without steady rain fall or regular flooding is not easy to sustain on a large scale prior to modern irrigation and industrialized farming. Without reliable, large scale, organized agriculture, you don't get the luxury of being able to have super hyper specialized members of your society early on - you know, like engineers, or scribes. Subsaharan Africa didn't really pick up writing until later on, as they never needed to pick up writing. Without a huge hyperspecialized hierarchical society that needs to keep lots of records of what goes where and what resources to distribute, writing doesn't really develop. You have to rely on oral tradition - and bad luck in one generation can have some cascading effects. 

That said, African metalsmiths were absolutely fantastic at their job, especially their iron smiths. There's traditional African forge furnaces that can reach temperatures well outside the reach of the rest of the world until the 1800's, and what they could make with those is just pure art really. Metal tools are all over Africa, same with jewelry, accessories, etc. etc. 



wtfNeedSignUp said:


> About the whole beasts of burden thing, couldn't they just have imported them? Like the last two millenia nobody traveled from the middle east of Africa and told them about the advantages of mutton? Also fix me if I'm wrong, but isn't the ground if Africa fit for agricultural development? Shouldn't have that become the norm rather than hunting?


It is and it isn't. There's plenty of spaces once cleared that were pretty suitable, but people worked much of those, and large scale land clearing efforts were slowed down by the simple lack of need for more farmland in many places - the population isn't high enough for it, or what they've got already is working fine on sustaining them. There's also some diseases which do a real number on lots of animals, and people infected by it. Animals not native to the area get hit the hardest by it. And by hard, I mean 'are going to fucking die'. So importing animals wasn't always an option. 

"What about domestication?"

Good luck. It was really random chance that got us horse domestication - wild stallions and mares will bite and kick and happily kill people - zebras are smaller, just as aggressive, and not the best pack or labor animals. Of the animals in Sub Saharan Africa suitable for domestication, the only one is really the African elephant - but as it's big, the males are very aggressive, and also move in large herds, this isn't easy. And good fucking luck taming a cape buffalo or a hippo. 

Also, agriculture was very, very widespread in Africa. It's just as I mentioned before, the climate and geography of sub saharan africa really doesn't allow the super intense farming on one plot of land you got elsewhere. You had to move around occasionally, simply to follow where you could actually grow your crops as the rain patterns shifted. Herding lifestyles were not uncommon either, but by no means was that the default for every community in Africa.


----------



## biozeminadae1 (Mar 26, 2021)

Godbert Manderville said:


> To contribute something tangible, I've thought on this topic sometimes and I've tried to come up with non-genetic factors such as heat or domestication or disease. But each of these elements is present in areas of the world that did 'make it'. There are plenty of impressive ancient civilizations occupying the blistering tropics that have as many or few domesticated animals as SS-Africa and are also rife with mosquitoes and such. It never stopped them
> 
> SS-Africans are the oldest peoples. SS Africa has as many resources as every other continent. All things being equal they should have industrialized first. They did not. Perhaps it is precisely because the distant ancestors of the rest of us mongrelized with Neanderthals and other close relatives that they came out ahead of the purer SS-Africans. Hybrid Vigour is a thing, after all.


They couldn't have industrialized. The inwards of Africa were basically unlivable until the 19th century.


----------



## Lemmingwise (Mar 26, 2021)

biozeminadae1 said:


> They couldn't have industrialized. The inwards of Africa were basically unlivable until the 19th century.


The african coast is a larger landmass than the entirity of europe (if you count most of russia as part of asia, which is about as unlivable anyways).

This image gives a good idea of approximate sizes.


----------



## Techpriest (Mar 26, 2021)

Lemmingwise said:


> The african coast is a larger landmass than the entirity of europe (if you count most of russia as part of asia, which is about as unlivable anyways).
> 
> This image gives a good idea of approximate sizes.
> 
> View attachment 2032048


That's a really shitty map projection. There's also a large chunk of african coast that is desert, just straight up desert.


----------



## Lemmingwise (Mar 26, 2021)

Techpriest said:


> That's a really shitty map projection. There's also a large chunk of african coast that is desert, just straight up desert.


Every map projection is shitty; Peters no more so than Mercator that people are familiar with and a good shock to the system. Comparing sizes is much more accurate in the Peters projection, if I'm not mistaken, but teach me more if you're a map afficianado or expert or whatever.


----------



## FatalTater (Mar 26, 2021)

Several countries tried to colonize Africa and failed, too. English, Dutch, French... 

Can a whole continent be cursed?


----------



## biozeminadae1 (Mar 27, 2021)

Lemmingwise said:


> The african coast is a larger landmass than the entirity of europe (if you count most of russia as part of asia, which is about as unlivable anyways).
> 
> This image gives a good idea of approximate sizes.
> 
> View attachment 2032048


Siberia is much more fertile than it seems. It's just that communist and post-communist shithole Russia is yet to take advantage of it. There's also the fact that the land has been habitable since before the 19th century, unlike inner Africa.

And while the coasts are large, you have to factor in the availability of fresh water and fertile land, which would have been relatively difficult to acquire. Those people that would make cities or proto-cities would still have been largely isolated as well, limiting trade and thus ideas of technological progress.


----------



## Helvítis Túristi (Mar 27, 2021)

To the people bringing up the admixture from other hominid species, the Sub-Saharan Africans are not pure. .5% of their DNA comes from neanderthals and 2%(if I remember right) came from an archaic unknown hominid species.  Take that for what you will.


----------



## Techpriest (Mar 27, 2021)

Lemmingwise said:


> Every map projection is shitty; Peters no more so than Mercator that people are familiar with and a good shock to the system. Comparing sizes is much more accurate in the Peters projection, if I'm not mistaken, but teach me more if you're a map afficianado or expert or whatever.


It’s more accurate but the polar distortions make Europe look smaller than it actually is. Europe is about 1/3rd the size of africa. The Gail-Peters projection suffers the same problems every cylinder projection does.


----------



## Grand Wizard Wakka (Mar 27, 2021)

Not on-par only because African society surpassed those in Asia and Europe.

You albinoid devils ever hear of Wakanda?


----------



## Ughubughughughughughghlug (Mar 30, 2021)

Okay, for the smooth brains who keep disliking my comments, what specifically do you dislike? Me giving an answer that’s not “lol nigs dumb”?


----------



## ClownBrew (Mar 30, 2021)

Ughubughughughughughghlug said:


> Okay, for the smooth brains who keep disliking my comments



I'm not one of those neggers but I think I know what might be racking up those disagrees.

You go off on really long winded and smug lectures without actually telling anyone where you get any of your info. Then you make bitchy remarks at anyone who dares to talk back. You are doing everything sane people hate about both leftos and academics.

I'd be much more open to believing you about Wakanda if you could say it more neutrally and then* prove* it.


----------



## Lemmingwise (Mar 30, 2021)

Ughubughughughughughghlug said:


> Okay, for the smooth brains who keep disliking my comments, what specifically do you dislike? Me giving an answer that’s not “lol nigs dumb”?


You got like 2 or 3 dislikes. At that scale you can message them and ask.


----------



## Haim Arlosoroff (Mar 31, 2021)

Low IQ: Blacks are too dumb, lol
Midwit IQ: The nations of the world developed according to their geography.  The largest climatic zones extend east to west and not south to north, and so it follows that the ideal plants for human cultivation grow apart and differentiate within the same climatic zone but separated by vast distances allowing for the maximum farming viability in the random genetic variation.  Having become a farming civilization, the densities and sedentary lifestyles allow for labor specialization much as with the plants.  Africa lacked the large amount of plants suitable for farming, and so herding and hunter-gathering persisted. 

Eventually the technological growth from specialized labor refining their fields leads tools from Stone to natural metals like Copper to alloy metals like Bronze.  Unfortunately Bronze is a social limit for it is made of Copper and Tin, and while Copper is prevalent Tin is not.  While there are a few sources of Tin in Central Asia, namely in Uzbekistan, Tajikistan, and Afghanistan, that show signs of having been exploited starting around 2000 BC, the Bantu culture of Zimbabwe are known to have actively mined, smelted and traded tin between the 11th and 15th centuries AD.

Whilst terrestrial iron is naturally abundant, its high melting point of 1,538 °C (2,800 °F) placed it out of reach of common use until the end of the second millennium BC. Tin's low melting point of 231.9 °C (449.4 °F) and copper's relatively moderate melting point of 1,085 °C (1,985 °F) placed them within the capabilities of the Neolithic pottery kilns, which date back to 6000 BC and were able to produce temperatures greater than 900 °C (1,650 °F).  A process called a bloomery was used to produce small amounts of iron which was a pit or chimney with heat-resistant walls made of earth, clay, or stone. Near the bottom, one or more pipes (made of clay or metal) enter through the side walls. These pipes allow air to enter the furnace, either by natural draught or forced with bellows. An opening at the bottom of the bloomery may be used to remove the bloom, or the bloomery can be tipped over and the bloom removed from the top.  These however produced about 1 lb of low quality iron with a huge waste product called pig iron, which bronze age civilization didn't think was mostly worth it.  This led to a long period from 3300–1200 BCE of civilization which stagnated until environmental disasters coupled with mass migration forced the surviving civilizations to adopt into the Iron Age or be destroyed.  Africa was largely free of the environmental damage and the marauding bands of Italians(?) called the Sea Peoples.

The result of poor plants with which to farm, early metals to mine, and a lack of cultural competitiveness between tribes and eventually nations there would never have arisen any societies on par with eurasian ones.
Galaxy Brain IQ: The races of the earth are mere breeding populations with a shared sense of destiny.  Without a fertile soil to florish and a virile competitive collection with nations around it,  no area of the world could have developed such a people which could have boldly stepped into the world stage as a competitor and all nations would be as backward as the black given the same homeland.  Africa mothers and breeds its races only into dumb highly material peoples, so not even the wheel was invented until late 19th century.


----------



## Slap47 (Mar 31, 2021)

Lemmingwise said:


> History is filled with extinct species and people. The better question is, why didn't africans go extinct like other people and species? Why do they thrive without influential civilisation? Why was the subjugation of the americas so much more succesful than that of africa?



Barely edited autism screed.

How did the pilgrims fight back the overwhelming hoards of savages and prevail? How did a couple of hundred mercenaries conquer an empire all by themselves?  The answer is that they did not. The overwhelming majority of native peoples were wiped out by diseases like smallpox, measles, and plague. Most of the pre-19th century conquests were made possible exploiting the structures of prexisting centrally planned empires and sheer numbers.

The initial English conquests relied heavily on divide and conquer during hard times. When the pilgrims found the Wampanoag they were decimated by disease from traders, surrounded on all sides and looking for an ally. The Wampanoag allied with English and they worked together to create a thriving community and commit genocides against shared enemies. The English began to outnumber the natives through their insane 16 kid families  and conflict arose as the ancestors of the initial settlers found themselves no longer feeling indebted to the natives for protecting them.  Similar stories happened in most other colonies.








						Mystic massacre - Wikipedia
					






					en.wikipedia.org
				




The Spanish conquistadors also exploited hard times. The Aztec and Inca empires were insanely powerful, but also centrally planned states surrounded by enemies. Cortez found literally hundreds of thousands of warriors willing to fight alongside him (some of these tribes hated the Aztec so much that they were Spanish loyalists until its end in the 19th century). Cortez crippled the Aztec state by capturing their emperor and the most successful part of his conquest was him coming back after spreading a healthy dosage of smallpox during his initial rampage. However, disease's affects are best shown with the Inca. An Incan emperor died of a plague he got from traders and the Inca did their traditional ritual of parading his corpse across the entirety of the empire and letting local leaders touch it. Another Incan emperor died and this caused a civil war that just so happened to happen alongside Pizarro's arrival.








						Tlaxcala (Nahua state) - Wikipedia
					






					en.wikipedia.org
				











						Inca Civil War - Wikipedia
					






					en.wikipedia.org
				




After the 17th century the English could rely on sheer numbers and the Spanish on controlling the systems set up by the prexisting empires. The English had overwhelming numbers, and that made all of the difference. By the the 1650s tribes had whole armies armed with guns and western natives had been riding horses for more than century. This numbers issue was not helped by tribes like the Iroquois going on a rampage that decimated  most native populations. The Spanish barely governed their insanely huge empire.  In most viceroyalties they let petty kingdoms exist basically untouched well into the 1750s. Minor efforts to weaken these kingdoms through the Bourbon reforms lead to rebellions that threatened the long barely profitable empire.  Much of the Spanish empire was natives kings being allowed to do whatever they want with a small tithe and governors using the prexisting labor systems of the fallen empires to fill mines.


			https://www.jstor.org/stable/1184207?seq=1
		









						Cacique - Wikipedia
					






					en.wikipedia.org
				




The African stories are similar, but with them technology plays a much bigger role. Sure the slave trade decimated populations and fueled wars around guns, slaves and distilled spirits... but, even with that the Africans still had strong states, economies and professional armies. African story is pretty simple - Europeans just gunned down the core of professional warriors ruling the empires and seized control of prexisting slave/feudal economies. Sure the Africans had guns, but they weren't being sold the best guns, 19th century gun boats or cannons.








						Sokoto Caliphate - Wikipedia
					






					en.wikipedia.org
				




*Side Story*
What's particularly interesting about the American empires is that they had support from non-white subjects because those subjects saw the empires as a source of protection.
The actual rebellions that lead to Independence in Latin America were lead by Crillo white elites who were tired of the Peninsulares elites who thought themselves better. The natives often sided with Spain to preserve the traditional order. The same happened with the United States as a major part of that rebellion was the British trying to restrict settlement to keep the colony manageable. Most NA tribes sided with the British for both the Revolutionary War and War of 1812. The turncoats who sided with the colonizers in Africa also held strong with the Europeans and in some cases still do.








						South Africa's Zulu king, civil rights group to form farming partnership
					

(Corrects headline in Oct. 9 story to show AfriForum is a civil rights group, and clarifies the group's mandate in the sixth paragraph.)




					www.reuters.com


----------



## Lemmingwise (Mar 31, 2021)

Slap47 said:


> African story is pretty simple - Europeans just gunned down the core of professional warriors ruling the empires and seized control of prexisting slave/feudal economies. Sure the Africans had guns, but they weren't being sold the best guns, 19th century gun boats or cannons.


This is mostly true for the americas as well; the selling of older guns.

I do think IQ plays a role that such a strategy was even possible; it certainly didn't or could've worked in China or Japan.


----------



## Techpriest (Mar 31, 2021)

Lemmingwise said:


> This is mostly true for the americas as well; the selling of older guns.
> 
> I do think IQ plays a role that such a strategy was even possible; it certainly didn't or could've worked in China or Japan.


No, the reason it didn’t work there was because there was a monolithic state with a monopoly on the goods the Europeans wanted. This monopoly was guarded to the hilt. The difference between the armies of the Qing and European powers wasn’t that different until around the late 18th century, and the states were able to limit the amount of information the Europeans could access regarding them.

Theres a fantastic book on the Opium War and the lead up to the whole affair, Twilight of the Imperium, that covers a bunch of the factors that led to the start of the century of humiliation and the European involvement in China.


----------



## Bosmadden (Mar 31, 2021)

Coping white man answer: because Africans have an average IQ of 70, only Aussie Abos are dumber, and they're like really dumb motherfuckers

Midwit knownothing answer: Africans can literally pick fruit off the ground. There's no need to strive and work to survive harsh winters. Black men are smart that way.

Truth: The Kangz in Africa were all Wakandans back in the olden times. They had space ships and hover cars and shit. Then the first white man appeared. He suffered from a terrible genetic condition robbing him of melanin and dropping his IQ down to 130 from the average African's 250. Being God fearing people the Africans took pity on him, and instead of killing him on sight for being an abomination, they let him live (big mistake). Despite being very dumb the white man started recruiting more of his kind and before you know it destroyed all the cool space ships and ran off to the Caucus mountains or else face the wrath of the black man. However Africa never really recovered and despite the 250 IQ all the Africans had to live in mud huts and eat their own shit for a pastime.


----------



## Yinci (Mar 31, 2021)

FUTUREMAN said:


> And by Africans i mean the sub-saharan kind.


I don't think any society is truely real and is just a total physiological figment no matter how may times we draw it on a map. People live where they live and do what they do and the more of them you can tax the bigger you oh so great historical empire is.


----------



## Cool Dog (Mar 31, 2021)

FUTUREMAN said:


> And by Africans i mean the sub-saharan kind.


Big detail, I dont even consider africa as a single continent since with the sahara in the middle we're basically talking 2 effectively separated continents given the size

In ancient times it was easier to go from europe all the way to china through central asia than to cross the sahara or navigate around it, it was that big of a barrier

Subsaharans were for most of history essentially separated from the rest of mankind once the ice age ended and the sahara went from being another savannah with some lakes in the middle to the huge ass deathtrap is has been for the last 10000 years or so, and it only got worse every year since then. Its a desert as big as western europe

Contact is a big thing and being isolated like subsaharans were is a major handicap. Consider northern europeans got into the iron age but never figured out writting until the romans arrived. Meanwhile the mayans and aztec did get writing but were barely getting into the bronze age when the spanish arrive and had to fight them with stone clubs

On a side note did any subsaharan tribes ever got past the stone age? the bronze age? talking pre-contact here


----------



## stares at error messages (Mar 31, 2021)

'Africans' are dumb and lazy. Germans, English, and Japanese are all workaholics who love working more then they need to survive. Africans will bate while files cover their anorexic bodies waiting for the king or lord or what ever ruler to feed them for free. As a natural result Subsaharan African leaders are very resilient in the face of the starving masses.

_If you too dumb to farm or hunt you are too dumb to live._


----------



## Citizen Lain (Apr 2, 2021)

FatalTater said:


> Can a whole continent be cursed?


Yes. Just look at Australia.


----------



## Yinci (Apr 2, 2021)

stares at error messages said:


> 'Africans' are dumb and lazy. Germans, English, and Japanese are all workaholics who love working more then they need to survive. Africans will bate while files cover their anorexic bodies waiting for the king or lord or what ever ruler to feed them for free. As a natural result Subsaharan African leaders are very resilient in the face of the starving masses.
> 
> _If you too dumb to farm or hunt you are too dumb to live._


Kinda just my own reply but also a criticism talking about how Asians and Whites somehow work harder than Africans and Latinos. For me I see the Industrial world as it's own think and is spread from Siberia to the Island of Japan where the Japanese government was able to make it's people utilize it. China was highly conservative and over populated and prevent the spread of industrialism into Asia. Africa is a desolate but full of civilizational history on it's frontiers, Just nothing significant like in Europe or Asia.

I hate this point White Supremacist make becuase they want to controll me to increase the population of white people and I spit in that efforts face.


----------



## Lemmingwise (Apr 2, 2021)

Yinci said:


> Kinda just my own reply but also a criticism talking about how Asians and Whites somehow work harder than Africans and Latinos. For me I see the Industrial world as it's own think and is spread from Siberia to the Island of Japan where the Japanese government was able to make it's people utilize it. China was highly conservative and over populated and prevent the spread of industrialism into Asia. Africa is a desolate but full of civilizational history on it's frontiers, Just nothing significant like in Europe or Asia.
> 
> I hate this point White Supremacist make becuase they want to controll me to increase the population of white people and I spit in that efforts face.



You don't need to be a whale supremacist to want whales to not go extinct. I don't want african pygmy's to go extinct either, but the bantu will probably slowly make them extinct.

What do you mean with african frontiers? Things like the dutch building settlements there?


Also I think you need to watch this and think about this.


----------



## jje100010001 (Apr 2, 2021)

biozeminadae1 said:


> Siberia is much more fertile than it seems. It's just that communist and post-communist shithole Russia is yet to take advantage of it. There's also the fact that the land has been habitable since before the 19th century, unlike inner Africa.
> 
> And while the coasts are large, you have to factor in the availability of fresh water and fertile land, which would have been relatively difficult to acquire. Those people that would make cities or proto-cities would still have been largely isolated as well, limiting trade and thus ideas of technological progress.


Problem with Siberia is that until the 19th century, it was hard to get to, and is still hard to get to in this day. Things may get better once the polar ice recedes, but that's still a long ways off, and logistics will still be rather problematic in Siberia (long distances to Russian consumer/production base).

Plus the fact that it's a massive stretch of cold, dark, untamed, mosquito-ladden forests and wetlands (the area is very poorly drained), and you can see why colonization is limited- there just weren't enough people to throw at it until the forests were cleared, the stumps pulled, and the swamps drained (excess population was better suited towards colonization projects closer to the core territories)- same thing with the Canadian boreal belt- there are pockets of fertile lands, but the seasons are just too brutal for most people to want to have a go at it.

Today, Canadian, Russian, and Chinese demographics today are no longer conductive towards any massive colonization efforts, and environmental movements would likely attempt to restrict any further development as well. IMO the most promising use of these lands would be as grazing grounds for cattle, rather than for intensive agriculture.

I guess one of the ironies would be that these forests were once mostly steppelands, until the megafauna were hunted to extinction.


----------



## Governor Jeb Bush (Apr 2, 2021)

I would assume a poor climate and just pure chance. If you look at where most ancient civilizations thrived a lot had a good weather cycle, were near water and were kind of well connected. 

Some places in Africa are quite remote and always hot with barely any rain, even a thousand years ago.


----------



## biozeminadae1 (Apr 2, 2021)

jje100010001 said:


> Problem with Siberia is that until the 19th century, it was hard to get to, and is still hard to get to in this day. Things may get better once the polar ice recedes, but that's still a long ways off, and logistics will still be rather problematic in Siberia (long distances to Russian consumer/production base).
> 
> Plus the fact that it's a massive stretch of cold, dark, untamed, mosquito-ladden forests and wetlands (the area is very poorly drained), and you can see why colonization is limited- there just weren't enough people to throw at it until the forests were cleared, the stumps pulled, and the swamps drained (excess population was better suited towards colonization projects closer to the core territories)- same thing with the Canadian boreal belt- there are pockets of fertile lands, but the seasons are just too brutal for most people to want to have a go at it.
> 
> ...


Yeah, the Deep South was also and in fact still is, a swamp land with mosquitos. Why did Americans colonize it successfully? Because they didn't have a ruling class that absolutely hated the people it was supposed to rule(lead) and they didn't have communism.

China has a huge population, although it's aging. Conquering Siberia from the Russians wouldn't be difficult for them. I don't see any environmentalists doing something in China or Russia.


----------



## jje100010001 (Apr 2, 2021)

biozeminadae1 said:


> Yeah, the Deep South was also and in fact still is, a swamp land with mosquitos. Why did Americans colonize it successfully? Because they didn't have a ruling class that absolutely hated the people it was supposed to rule(lead) and they didn't have communism.
> 
> China has a huge population, although it's aging. Conquering Siberia from the Russians wouldn't be difficult for them. I don't see any environmentalists doing something in China or Russia.


The thing about the Deep South is that it has far better weather + the Mississippi which basically allows transportation through the middle of the continent without any real infrastructure.

IMO invading Russia opens way too many cans of worms, especially if Mongolia + the ‘Stans exist as softer targets. Plus the Chinese can anyways just buy out African lands from under its inhabitants’ noses and just import its own citizens to run the farms, which it currently is keen on doing.

Siberia is too far off in the future to be a productive settleable territory for any sort of projected needs.


----------



## stares at error messages (Apr 2, 2021)

Yinci said:


> Kinda just my own reply but also a criticism talking about how Asians and Whites somehow work harder than Africans and Latinos. For me I see the Industrial world as it's own think and is spread from Siberia to the Island of Japan where the Japanese government was able to make it's people utilize it. China was highly conservative and over populated and prevent the spread of industrialism into Asia. Africa is a desolate but full of civilizational history on it's frontiers, Just nothing significant like in Europe or Asia.
> 
> I hate this point White Supremacist make becuase they want to controll me to increase the population of white people and I spit in that efforts face.


It seems you don't like White Supremacist dogma. Japanese had a hard working and industrious culture dating back to the Heian period, if not before. They might not have had factories from the industrial revolution, but they still were organized and investment-in-future driven. The observation that Europeans are some how better for being Europeans and not for putting in more hours is simply ridiculous. Not starving to death is obviously not just a European thing considering that most other people groups out side of Africa manage it. It's really revolves around something that Africans lack. It really doesn't matter the cause because it could be any number of things such as it being too hot in Africa for Africans to expend the heat producing brain power to realise that planning for one's future and putting in the extra hours now is well worth the time spent. Really we could get quite silly with all the possibilities. Maybe it's melanin magic or low IQs or lack of interest or depression or subconscious suicidality or extreme narcissism that compels them to believe that they shouldn't have to lift a finger for their own survival. It really doesn't matter and it would be too expensive and unprofitable to do the science needed to find the correct answer. To the lay observer Africans are just lazy, where ever they may be found.


----------



## Cat Phuckers (Apr 3, 2021)

Just a foreword: I am more familiar with Southern Africa, West Africa, and the West African diaspora than any other Black regions. I am not very aware of East or Central African politics, and therefore cannot give examples of civilizations that independently met Western standards in those regions if any do exist.

I'd say a couple of nations did get somewhat close, but only after independence so idk if that counts. Nigeria, Liberia, Haiti, and Ghana were all quite nice countries from what I can tell when they first gained independence, with Ghana continuing to be very stable up until even now, and the others  having a conflict/coup every decade or so. In certain regards and at certain times, they had Western-adjacent systems and economies, but are not now nor have they ever been Western. Part of the reason these two nations have had relative success is because there was international agreement on the legitimacy of their sovereignty, and the West was excited to trade with these nations, fund their political, social, and economic ventures, and do business with them.

A good example of a nation run by Black Africans that initially had a lot of success is Haiti. The West African inhabitants of Haiti murdered the French (many of whom were the strongest advocates for Black rule in Haiti) in a horrifying antiwhite genocide that has since been forgotten by many. Despite this, Haiti was accepted by European nations and America and had a long period of success and maintained systems of economy and government that were undeniably Western up until later on. A good example of what happens when a fledgling African nation gets on the Western worlds' bad side is Zimbabwe. I hate Zimbabwe's current government, yet I believe that if it weren't for sanctions, that the Zimbabwean people would have a society far better than they do now. I would never advocate for their sanctions being lifted because I don't feel the people of Zimbabwe deserve it, but I am using Zimbabwe to prove that success in an all-Black nation seems partly contingent on whether the White man gives the people gibz, recognizes the nations as legitimate, and creates vague guidelines to enforce Western values from afar.

The only example of a Western nation run by Black Africans I am aware of would be Liberia. American Mulatto descendants of free slaves, later mixed with West Africans, darker African-Americans who arrived in a second exodus to Liberia, Afro-Caribbeans, Sierra Leonean Kriol, and a fuckton of other African diaspora groups that are never mentioned, are the main ethnic groups that comprise the ethnic conglomerate known as the Americo-Liberians. I believe that Liberia was in touch with Western ideals because it was founded by people who were half-White, had Western educations, were accepted by the Western world as the rightful inheritors of a legitimate nation, were intimately familiar with the workings of American society. Liberia's legacy was upheld for about 150 years by peoples who became less and less White as time went on, but always had significant White admixture and often had been educated in American Universities. This nation was not perfectly Western, however, and the prevalence of ritual murders, slavery well into the 1900s, corruption, and other degenerate behaviors are evidence of that. As for nations that didn't meet the Western standard of society, I'd say that it is partly because the people of Sub-Saharan Africa are just incapable without Western assistance and are not cognitively or morally anything like Western peoples. Post-coup Liberia is a good example of this. Essentially, the Americo-Liberians promised to grant equal treatment to the indigenous Liberians, and did grant them many rights, but were afraid (and rightfully so) that indigenous Liberian rulers would not act according to the standards of the Americo-Liberians, who only made up 5% of the nation's population at their height and were only relevant to Liberian politicians because they were the only people allowed to vote, run for office, and dictate policy. While not giving indigenous Liberians the right to wield political power, Presidents William Tolbert and William Tubman paved the way to equality by refurbishing infrastructure, granting many Americo-Liberians suffrage and the ability to run for office (only if they converted to Christianity, learned English, and became Westernized to the fullest extent a fully-Black jungle savage could), creating jobs, stamping out discriminatory business practices, instituting a hut tax to encourage indigenous Liberians to move into more developed areas, and much more. Eventually, President Tolbert appeared to have made a mistake, and details are scare, but this is how it appears to have gone. Tolbert and his party members introduced a bill to increase the price of rice substantially, the reason for this being to increase the wages of farmers and encourage them to keep their jobs instead of moving to the cities. Although it was never passed, many Liberians feared that they would be unable to eat, and that the President's move was motivated by greed because he had several rice farms and was therefore seen as attempting to increase profits. There were protests across Liberia, and they were peaceful until a gang of "backstreet boys" (low-class thugs) joined and the protest turned into a riot. A degenerate rapist Krahn supremacist named Samuel Doe and his posse took advantage of the chaos, viciously murdered President Tolbert and his cabinet (rest in peace), took over the country, and ruled with an iron fist until another gang of indigenous Liberians led by Prince Johnson invaded the Executive Mansion, cut Doe's ear off, and Johnson ate his flesh as his crew beat Doe to death on camera (there's footage of this online, and it's quite nasty). After this, a slightly less awful President, Charles Taylor came to power, but was eventually driven out of the nation during the 2003 civil war as the violence ended in Liberia and moved into neighboring Sierra Leone. After a legitimate government was restored through a short transitional government, an era of peace and stability was initiated by none other than Ellen Johnson Sirleaf, who surprise surprise, had a White grandmother and a very Western uprising. Do you see the pattern now? Now former football star George Weah is the current President of Liberia, is perhaps the only fully-indigenous President to have not made a complete mockery of the people of Liberia. What's remarkable and unique about President Weah is that he, compared to all other indigenous Presidents, has so far been without significant scandal during his, apart from him advocating for violence against a political opponent, the allowance of dual citizenship, and the removal of the controversial "Negroes or persons of Negro descent" citizenship clause, slamming it as "racist".

You have to have a specific set of ideals to create Western civilization, and I'd say that most non-Western peoples by and large have different ideals and seem to be incapable of harboring Western ideals. I believe these ideals to be partly environmental, but also significantly genetic. Furthermore, I would even go so far as to say that most non-Western peoples, Black Africans included, don't actually want Western civilization. They want all of the benefits that come with living in a Western nation, but more often than not (with a few notable exceptions), they abhor the systems and ideals that are prerequisites for Western civilization. It's like wanting to have a lot of water on hand but not wanting to build a well, or wanting to have a steady income and a decent wage but refusing to work. The White or yellow man can build the well for you and give you a job with a decent income, but you have to let the White man partly take control of your assets, which Africans do not want but the leaders of most African nations have accepted and are now becoming very Westernized (Ghana being the most notable nation to fully embrace Westernization, practically giving away citizenship to African-Americans and other diasporans so their Western educations can be put to use in building the country.

*TL;DR Race is real and Black people aren't Western or Asian so they cannot have Western or Asian civilization without enforcement of Western ideals against the will of the people, a steady flow of Western financial aid, or Western leadership.*

And speaking of different civilizations/countries and how they appeal to different groups...

*OBLIGATORY REPATRIATION SHILLING*
Many African diasporans in the West find themselves uncomfortable living in a society that isn't of their design and being surrounded by people who don't behave like they do, and who aren't them. They may not understand these feelings until they realize that this is because they are trapped in Western civilization, which was made to suit Western morality and needs and cater to White people, the rightful inheritors of Western civilization. If you're an exceptional African-American or other diasporan of West African descent who wants a sun-kissed Ghanaian kween instead of having to dodge baby-trapping ratchet sheboon hoes in the hood (lol), hates stereotypical niggers and want to be surrounded by a more refined people, is interested in discovering your roots, or wants to build a paradise in your ancestral homeland, and you're reading this (I know there are some Black Kiwis out there), you can get away from the trashy niggers you've undoubtedly realized you're surrounded by and start anew in a country whose inhabitants will accept you as one of them and where you can contribute far more than in any other place. Reminder that money goes way farther in West Africa and a poor African-American is a rich West African. You may find that you have far more in common with West Africans than your fellow Black diasporans, as has happened to many who have returned to their home. Ghana is definitely the best choice because it is a well-developed nation that has launched a program called Year of the Return specifically to encourage repatriation and is offering a lot of incentives to those who move there, but there are other nations with decent accommodation for diasporans. Just make sure to research Ghana, the Gambia, Senegal, and other exceptional West African nations before you actually make the move.



			https://repatriatetoghana.com/
		



			https://www.yearofreturn.com/


----------



## Cat Phuckers (Apr 3, 2021)

Yinci said:


> Kinda just my own reply but also a criticism talking about how Asians and Whites somehow work harder than Africans and Latinos. For me I see the Industrial world as it's own think and is spread from Siberia to the Island of Japan where the Japanese government was able to make it's people utilize it. China was highly conservative and over populated and prevent the spread of industrialism into Asia. Africa is a desolate but full of civilizational history on it's frontiers, Just nothing significant like in Europe or Asia.
> 
> I hate this point White Supremacist make becuase they want to controll me to increase the population of white people and I spit in that efforts face.


Why don't you want the White population to increase? What's so sinister about that? Are you just an antiwhite who wants to see the population stagnate or even decrease as the rest of the world slowly overtakes us and the Western world is erased (which is what's happening now)? Also it's not about what group is hard-working, it's about the fact that we're not the same and cannot coexist in the same civilization. The motivations of people like me, who you slander as "White supremacists" are as simple as protecting our own people from being victimized and prioritizing our wellbeing instead of constantly harming ourselves to appease antiwhites for crimes we've never committed. Asking to be treated with dignity does not in any way necessitate the victimization of any other groups. If the idea of a happy White guilt-free Western world makes you feel uncomfortable, then you are necessarily antiwhite and shouldn't be taken seriously because there is no legitimate justification for antiwhiteism.


----------



## CapricornusRex (Apr 3, 2021)

Cat Phuckers said:


> *TL;DR Race is real and Black people aren't Western or Asian so they cannot have Western or Asian civilization without enforcement of Western ideals against the will of the people, a steady flow of Western financial aid, or Western leadership.*



Where are your paragraphs? This would be worth reading if you used them. 



On topic. It's hard to really lump ALL of Sub-Saharan Africans together, as many of the nations mentioned here aren't really Sub-Saharan. Mali, Songhai and Ethiopia are Sahara adjacent, with much of Mali and Songhai being IN the Sahara Desert. You effectively have entirely different worlds when comparing West Africa, NW Africa, East Africa, Central Africa, SW Africa, S. Africa. Etc. etc. etc.. Ethiopia has more in common with Egypt and Nubia than they do other Sub-Saharan Africa due to proximity and their contact with the Romans and Arab world.

Even when discussing North Africa the Egyptians viewed themselves as an entirely different shade than the Carthaginians and other NW African people as the Egyptians painted themselves darker than them (Egyptians dark brown, Carthaginians light, Romans lighter. I believe there are pictures that show Nubians as basically pitch black.).

One thing to note about most of those Northern African empires such as Mali, Songhai, Ethiopia, who had SS African complexions, they also had Islam and Christianity to be the backbone of their societies. So now you have to ask if religion played a prominent role in the success of those three nations. Then look at North Africa.. who were successful and how faithful were they? We know the Egyptians were very very religious, and so little is known about Carthage it's hard to determine just how much faith and worship mattered to them. How about the Berbers pre-Rome?

Ethiopia is probably the greatest "What if" story of Africa that we have a full history of. What happens to Ethiopia if the communists never fuck the country up?

PS. Fuck jiggers. If you don't know what they are, don't look it up because it might make you sick. Damn things make children's feet look like hooves from the damage they do.


----------



## Syaoran Li (Apr 3, 2021)

Godbert Manderville said:


> To contribute something tangible, I've thought on this topic sometimes and I've tried to come up with non-genetic factors such as heat or domestication or disease. But each of these elements is present in areas of the world that did 'make it'. There are plenty of impressive ancient civilizations occupying the blistering tropics that have as many or few domesticated animals as SS-Africa and are also rife with mosquitoes and such. It never stopped them
> 
> SS-Africans are the oldest peoples. SS Africa has as many resources as every other continent. All things being equal they should have industrialized first. They did not. Perhaps it is precisely because the distant ancestors of the rest of us mongrelized with Neanderthals and other close relatives that they came out ahead of the purer SS-Africans. Hybrid Vigour is a thing, after all.



As others have pointed out, the bulk of Africa's best resources are further inland and the interior regions of Sub-Saharan Africa are a very harsh region that at best can only support small tribes and clans without industrial technology.

Most of the more advanced kingdoms and city-states in Africa were on relatively milder terrain and almost always along coasts and the major trade routes.


----------



## furūtsu (Apr 3, 2021)

Cat Phuckers said:


> Just a foreword: I am more familiar with Southern Africa, West Africa, and the West African diaspora than any other Black regions. I am not very aware of East or Central African politics, and therefore cannot give examples of civilizations that independently met Western standards in those regions if any do exist.
> 
> I'd say a couple of nations did get somewhat close, but only after independence so idk if that counts. Nigeria, Liberia, Haiti, and Ghana were all quite nice countries from what I can tell when they first gained independence, with Ghana continuing to be very stable up until even now, and the others  having a conflict/coup every decade or so. In certain regards and at certain times, they had Western-adjacent systems and economies, but are not now nor have they ever been Western. Part of the reason these two nations have had relative success is because there was international agreement on the legitimacy of their sovereignty, and the West was excited to trade with these nations, fund their political, social, and economic ventures, and do business with them.
> A good example of a nation run by Black Africans that initially had a lot of success is Haiti. The West African inhabitants of Haiti murdered the French (many of whom were the strongest advocates for Black rule in Haiti) in a horrifying antiwhite genocide that has since been forgotten by many. Despite this, Haiti was accepted by European nations and America and had a long period of success and maintained systems of economy and government that were undeniably Western up until later on. A good example of what happens when a fledgling African nation gets on the Western worlds' bad side is Zimbabwe. I hate Zimbabwe's current government, yet I believe that if it weren't for sanctions, that the Zimbabwean people would have a society far better than they do now. I would never advocate for their sanctions being lifted because I don't feel the people of Zimbabwe deserve it, but I am using Zimbabwe to prove that success in an all-Black nation seems partly contingent on whether the White man gives the people gibz, recognizes the nations as legitimate, and creates vague guidelines to enforce Western values from afar.
> ...


I WANT to read this, but holy fucking shit you need to format your posts better. That massive block of text is an eyesore.


----------



## Mnutu (Apr 3, 2021)

You can criticize the post-modernists for many things, but they were right about this; you shouldn’t expect western values from non western people. You shouldn’t hold up Western values as the objectively superior choice because there cannot be an objectively superior choice. It is only ever subjectively superior, and by all accounts, western civilization is the best only when practiced by happy westerners.

All this to say that, no shit sub-Saharan Africa never achieved a similar level of success. It’s nothing like us culturally. It was at its best comparable to the Inca or Aztec. Still worth remembering, but not emulating.


----------



## Godbert Manderville (Apr 3, 2021)

Syaoran Li said:


> As others have pointed out, the bulk of Africa's best resources are further inland and the interior regions of Sub-Saharan Africa are a very harsh region that at best can only support small tribes and clans without industrial technology.
> 
> Most of the more advanced kingdoms and city-states in Africa were on relatively milder terrain and almost always along coasts and the major trade routes.



What resources are needed to build civilization on par with the Greeks and Romans? Wood and stone, bronze and iron ore, freshwater, farmland, and coastal fisheries. And we know not all are required together as the Greeks were notably farmland poor. SS-Africa is a huge place. I'd expect half a dozen areas that had all these things, as easily accessible as they were to other builders of ancient civilizations. Are we really saying there was not even _one_ such favourable location in the entirety of SS-Africa?

In fact, we know for absolute certain that there was such a location that could have birthed an ancient African civilization of note - the Niger river valley where the medieval empires of Mali and Songhai were based. But these were late arrivals to the scene, when the ancient civilizations of the rest of the world had long gone or were at deaths door. And their predecessor - the Empire of Ghana - doesn't really seem to get going until the Muslim Arabs make contact. Was it the salt the Arabs sold that brought about this flourishing, or was it their culture and religion?


----------



## Techpriest (Apr 3, 2021)

Godbert Manderville said:


> What resources are needed to build civilization on par with the Greeks and Romans? Wood and stone, bronze and iron ore, freshwater, farmland, and coastal fisheries. And we know not all are required together as the Greeks were notably farmland poor. SS-Africa is a huge place. I'd expect half a dozen areas that had all these things, as easily accessible as they were to other builders of ancient civilizations. Are we really saying there was not even _one_ such favourable location in the entirety of SS-Africa?
> 
> In fact, we know for absolute certain that there was such a location that could have birthed an ancient African civilization of note - the Niger river valley where the medieval empires of Mali and Songhai were based. But these were late arrivals to the scene, when the ancient civilizations of the rest of the world had long gone or were at deaths door. And their predecessor - the Empire of Ghana - doesn't really seem to get going until the Muslim Arabs make contact. Was it the salt the Arabs sold that brought about this flourishing, or was it their culture and religion?


It’s how navigable the rivers are. The Niger River is not akin to the Nile. It isn’t a straight shot and it runs a course in an unusual arc, surrounded by desert. The Niger delta is less navigable than the Nile delta. It’s also almost completely isolated from the mediterranian. While there was travel around the Sahara, it wasn’t on the level of that in the Mediterranean. It wasn’t able to come under the domination of any one power for a long time, and didn’t get to the population densities of either the Congo or the Nile river.


----------



## Lemmingwise (Apr 3, 2021)

Cat Phuckers said:


> Just a foreword: I am more familiar with Southern Africa, West Africa, and the West African diaspora than any other Black regions. I am not very aware of East or Central African politics, and therefore cannot give examples of civilizations that independently met Western standards in those regions if any do exist.
> 
> I'd say a couple of nations did get somewhat close, but only after independence so idk if that counts. Nigeria, Liberia, Haiti, and Ghana were all quite nice countries from what I can tell when they first gained independence, with Ghana continuing to be very stable up until even now, and the others  having a conflict/coup every decade or so. In certain regards and at certain times, they had Western-adjacent systems and economies, but are not now nor have they ever been Western. Part of the reason these two nations have had relative success is because there was international agreement on the legitimacy of their sovereignty, and the West was excited to trade with these nations, fund their political, social, and economic ventures, and do business with them.
> A good example of a nation run by Black Africans that initially had a lot of success is Haiti. The West African inhabitants of Haiti murdered the French (many of whom were the strongest advocates for Black rule in Haiti) in a horrifying antiwhite genocide that has since been forgotten by many. Despite this, Haiti was accepted by European nations and America and had a long period of success and maintained systems of economy and government that were undeniably Western up until later on. A good example of what happens when a fledgling African nation gets on the Western worlds' bad side is Zimbabwe. I hate Zimbabwe's current government, yet I believe that if it weren't for sanctions, that the Zimbabwean people would have a society far better than they do now. I would never advocate for their sanctions being lifted because I don't feel the people of Zimbabwe deserve it, but I am using Zimbabwe to prove that success in an all-Black nation seems partly contingent on whether the White man gives the people gibz, recognizes the nations as legitimate, and creates vague guidelines to enforce Western values from afar.
> ...





furūtsu said:


> I WANT to read this, but holy fucking shit you need to format your posts better. That massive block of text is an eyesore.



Here, I reformatted. There was only so much I could do, I didn't break up the long run-on sentences for example. I added some headers, but left the text intact. I put the call for black people to move to west africa under a spoiler.


Cat phuckers said:

*Foreword*

I am more familiar with Southern Africa, West Africa, and the West African diaspora than any other Black regions. I am not very aware of East or Central African politics, and therefore cannot give examples of civilizations that independently met Western standards in those regions if any do exist.


*International legitimacy*

I'd say a couple of nations did get somewhat close, but only after independence so idk if that counts. Nigeria, Liberia, Haiti, and Ghana were all quite nice countries from what I can tell when they first gained independence, with Ghana continuing to be very stable up until even now, and the others  having a conflict/coup every decade or so. In certain regards and at certain times, they had Western-adjacent systems and economies, but are not now nor have they ever been Western.

Part of the reason these two nations have had relative success is because there was international agreement on the legitimacy of their sovereignty, and the West was excited to trade with these nations, fund their political, social, and economic ventures, and do business with them.


*Black African success and failure examples*

A good example of a nation run by Black Africans that initially had a lot of success is Haiti. The West African inhabitants of Haiti murdered the French (many of whom were the strongest advocates for Black rule in Haiti) in a horrifying antiwhite genocide that has since been forgotten by many. Despite this, Haiti was accepted by European nations and America and had a long period of success and maintained systems of economy and government that were undeniably Western up until later on.

A good example of what happens when a fledgling African nation gets on the Western worlds' bad side is Zimbabwe. I hate Zimbabwe's current government, yet I believe that if it weren't for sanctions, that the Zimbabwean people would have a society far better than they do now. I would never advocate for their sanctions being lifted because I don't feel the people of Zimbabwe deserve it, but I am using Zimbabwe to prove that success in an all-Black nation seems partly contingent on whether the White man gives the people gibz, recognizes the nations as legitimate, and creates vague guidelines to enforce Western values from afar.


*Liberia*

The only example of a Western nation run by Black Africans I am aware of would be Liberia. American Mulatto descendants of free slaves, later mixed with West Africans, darker African-Americans who arrived in a second exodus to Liberia, Afro-Caribbeans, Sierra Leonean Kriol, and a fuckton of other African diaspora groups that are never mentioned, are the main ethnic groups that comprise the ethnic conglomerate known as the Americo-Liberians.

I believe that Liberia was in touch with Western ideals because it was founded by people who were half-White, had Western educations, were accepted by the Western world as the rightful inheritors of a legitimate nation, were intimately familiar with the workings of American society. Liberia's legacy was upheld for about 150 years by peoples who became less and less White as time went on, but always had significant White admixture and often had been educated in American Universities.

This nation was not perfectly Western, however, and the prevalence of ritual murders, slavery well into the 1900s, corruption, and other degenerate behaviors are evidence of that. As for nations that didn't meet the Western standard of society, I'd say that it is partly because the people of Sub-Saharan Africa are just incapable without Western assistance and are not cognitively or morally anything like Western peoples. Post-coup Liberia is a good example of this. Essentially, the Americo-Liberians promised to grant equal treatment to the indigenous Liberians, and did grant them many rights, but were afraid (and rightfully so) that indigenous Liberian rulers would not act according to the standards of the Americo-Liberians, who only made up 5% of the nation's population at their height and were only relevant to Liberian politicians because they were the only people allowed to vote, run for office, and dictate policy.

While not giving indigenous Liberians the right to wield political power, Presidents William Tolbert and William Tubman paved the way to equality by refurbishing infrastructure, granting many Americo-Liberians suffrage and the ability to run for office (only if they converted to Christianity, learned English, and became Westernized to the fullest extent a fully-Black jungle savage could), creating jobs, stamping out discriminatory business practices, instituting a hut tax to encourage indigenous Liberians to move into more developed areas, and much more.


*Liberian history*

Eventually, President Tolbert appeared to have made a mistake, and details are scare, but this is how it appears to have gone. Tolbert and his party members introduced a bill to increase the price of rice substantially, the reason for this being to increase the wages of farmers and encourage them to keep their jobs instead of moving to the cities. Although it was never passed, many Liberians feared that they would be unable to eat, and that the President's move was motivated by greed because he had several rice farms and was therefore seen as attempting to increase profits. There were protests across Liberia, and they were peaceful until a gang of "backstreet boys" (low-class thugs) joined and the protest turned into a riot.

A degenerate rapist Krahn supremacist named Samuel Doe and his posse took advantage of the chaos, viciously murdered President Tolbert and his cabinet (rest in peace), took over the country, and ruled with an iron fist until another gang of indigenous Liberians led by Prince Johnson invaded the Executive Mansion, cut Doe's ear off, and Johnson ate his flesh as his crew beat Doe to death on camera (there's footage of this online, and it's quite nasty). After this, a slightly less awful President, Charles Taylor came to power, but was eventually driven out of the nation during the 2003 civil war as the violence ended in Liberia and moved into neighboring Sierra Leone.

After a legitimate government was restored through a short transitional government, an era of peace and stability was initiated by none other than Ellen Johnson Sirleaf, who surprise surprise, had a White grandmother and a very Western uprising. Do you see the pattern now? Now former football star George Weah is the current President of Liberia, is perhaps the only fully-indigenous President to have not made a complete mockery of the people of Liberia. What's remarkable and unique about President Weah is that he, compared to all other indigenous Presidents, has so far been without significant scandal during his, apart from him advocating for violence against a political opponent, the allowance of dual citizenship, and the removal of the controversial "Negroes or persons of Negro descent" citizenship clause, slamming it as "racist".


*Requirements to create western civilisation*

You have to have a specific set of ideals to create Western civilization, and I'd say that most non-Western peoples by and large have different ideals and seem to be incapable of harboring Western ideals. I believe these ideals to be partly environmental, but also significantly genetic.

Furthermore, I would even go so far as to say that most non-Western peoples, Black Africans included, don't actually want Western civilization. They want all of the benefits that come with living in a Western nation, but more often than not (with a few notable exceptions), they abhor the systems and ideals that are prerequisites for Western civilization. It's like wanting to have a lot of water on hand but not wanting to build a well, or wanting to have a steady income and a decent wage but refusing to work.

The White or yellow man can build the well for you and give you a job with a decent income, but you have to let the White man partly take control of your assets, which Africans do not want but the leaders of most African nations have accepted and are now becoming very Westernized (Ghana being the most notable nation to fully embrace Westernization, practically giving away citizenship to African-Americans and other diasporans so their Western educations can be put to use in building the country.

*TL;DR Race is real and Black people aren't Western or Asian so they cannot have Western or Asian civilization without enforcement of Western ideals against the will of the people, a steady flow of Western financial aid, or Western leadership.*

And speaking of different civilizations/countries and how they appeal to different groups...



Spoiler: Black man come live in Africa!



*OBLIGATORY REPATRIATION SHILLING*

_Many African diasporans in the West find themselves uncomfortable living in a society that isn't of their design and being surrounded by people who don't behave like they do, and who aren't them. They may not understand these feelings until they realize that this is because they are trapped in Western civilization, which was made to suit Western morality and needs and cater to White people, the rightful inheritors of Western civilization.

If you're an exceptional African-American or other diasporan of West African descent who wants a sun-kissed Ghanaian kween instead of having to dodge baby-trapping ratchet sheboon hoes in the hood (lol), hates stereotypical niggers and want to be surrounded by a more refined people, is interested in discovering your roots, or wants to build a paradise in your ancestral homeland, and you're reading this (I know there are some Black Kiwis out there), you can get away from the trashy niggers you've undoubtedly realized you're surrounded by and start anew in a country whose inhabitants will accept you as one of them and where you can contribute far more than in any other place. 

Reminder that money goes way farther in West Africa and a poor African-American is a rich West African. You may find that you have far more in common with West Africans than your fellow Black diasporans, as has happened to many who have returned to their home. Ghana is definitely the best choice because it is a well-developed nation that has launched a program called Year of the Return specifically to encourage repatriation and is offering a lot of incentives to those who move there, but there are other nations with decent accommodation for diasporans. Just make sure to research Ghana, the Gambia, Senegal, and other exceptional West African nations before you actually make the move._


https://repatriatetoghana.com/
https://www.yearofreturn.com/


If it's still unreadable... there is only so much an uneducated white man can do to decypher wakanda hieroglyphs.

It was also pretty racist for capitalising "Black" and "White", but using no capital for "yellow". Since I am also racist, I left that unchanged.


----------



## american_amadan (Apr 3, 2021)

Lemmingwise said:


> practically giving away citizenship to African-Americans and other diasporans so their Western educations can be put to use in building the country.


I had a chick friend in college who was mixed race (white mom, dad from west Africa). I met her dad once and could tell while he was very proud to be black (nothing wrong with that) he hated African-Americans. I've heard this is also prevalent with native Nigerians when they go to the UK or US. They pretty much view black Americans as spoiled brats. It's easy to see why. The girl was based and you could tell where she got it from. I understand why Ghana wants to do this, but it's a disaster waiting to happen. Your average Ghana resident does not want some guy from America (who has no real understanding of Africa) coming in to tell them what to do. It'll turn into a blood bath just like Liberia.


----------



## Lemmingwise (Apr 3, 2021)

american_amadan said:


> I had a chick friend in college who was mixed race (white mom, dad from west Africa). I met her dad once and could tell while he was very proud to be black (nothing wrong with that) he hated African-Americans. I've heard this is also prevalent with native Nigerians when they go to the UK or US. They pretty much view black Americans as spoiled brats. It's easy to see why. The girl was based and you could tell where she got it from. I understand why Ghana wants to do this, but it's a disaster waiting to happen. Your average Ghana resident does not want some guy from America (who has no real understanding of Africa) coming in to tell them what to do. It'll turn into a blood bath just like Liberia.



Honestly, I was so surprised seeing black people in US and Canada; very different from my experience with the black people I knew. So unapproachable and aggressive.

Well, until I became a kind of substitute teacher and saw all corners of the Netherlands; then I knew it wasn't THAT different from average blacks in Netherlands either, including some of the teachers.

Looking back; the black people I knew were black people in a sea of non-blacks; they were making a hard effort to fit in. That's always tough and painful. Though at least unlike the non-blacks in a sea of blacks in some other areas, they weren't frequently beaten or stolen from.


----------



## american_amadan (Apr 3, 2021)

Lemmingwise said:


> Honestly, I was so surprised seeing black people in US and Canada; very different from my experience with the black people I knew. So unapproachable and aggressive.
> 
> Well, until I became a kind of substitute teacher and saw all corners of the Netherlands; then I knew it wasn't THAT different from average blacks in Netherlands either, including some of the teachers.
> 
> Looking back; the black people I knew were black people in a sea of non-blacks; they were making a hard effort to fit in. That's always tough and painful. Though at least unlike the non-blacks in a sea of blacks in some other areas, they weren't frequently beaten or stolen from.


Are you Dutch? My parents are Irish so I've spent a ton of time in the UK and Ireland. I've met a lot of different black people in both Dublin and London, they seem to be more down to earth, understanding about Europeans and their gripes with the migration crisis. It's a different world from America. When I was 20 years old and stupid a black Londoner sat me down in a bar and explained how the entire English football system worked. It got me into soccer in general, now I love it. 

I work in law in a bigger American city so I am around black lawyers/defendants/judges, everything. You really see two sides of black America in that context. I've always said, at least in America, black women judges are ruthless to black defendants. White judges will give a black guy his 5th chance, the black judges won't. Black America is a really strange subculture. Money and influence changes everything. Wealthy blacks in America don't put up with any shit, it's why you see poorer blacks call them Uncle Toms. 

I was always interested in how a European would view African-Americans. It's much different than blacks in Europe and I think the Europeans have a really bad sense of what it's really like here. Europeans would start running when they saw the hood in America.


----------



## Lemmingwise (Apr 3, 2021)

american_amadan said:


> Are you Dutch? My parents are Irish so I've spent a ton of time in the UK and Ireland. I've met a lot of different black people in both Dublin and London, they seem to be more down to earth, understanding about Europeans and their gripes with the migration crisis. It's a different world from America. When I was 20 years old and stupid a black Londoner sat me down in a bar and explained how the entire English football system worked. It got me into soccer in general, now I love it.
> 
> I work in law in a bigger American city so I am around black lawyers/defendants/judges, everything. You really see two sides of black America in that context. I've always said, at least in America, black women judges are ruthless to black defendants. White judges will give a black guy his 5th chance, the black judges won't. Black America is a really strange subculture. Money and influence changes everything. Wealthy blacks in America don't put up with any shit, it's why you see poorer blacks call them Uncle Toms.
> 
> I was always interested in how a European would view African-Americans. It's much different than blacks in Europe and I think the Europeans have a really bad sense of what it's really like here. Europeans would start running when they saw the hood in America.


Yes I am, no secret.

I think it's changing. You can see how american style social justice is expanding its influence, particularly in cities like Amsterdam that have considerable Critical Theory type education. But also through media and netflix. In that sense, we are becoming more like america. In the Netherlands two of the notable examples are that there is an increase in celebration of christmas and decrease in celebration of sinterklaas, which is one of the three fathers of the american christmas tradition (we mostly just gave the name, santa clause, the rest is from england and sweden). The other notable example is that people say "white" ("wit") instead of "blank", which is the way dutch people call light-skinned people (much like the french do).

I don't think black america is that strange a subculture. It really isn't that different from black brazil, black amsterdam. It has some difference from african countries, because the inter-black rivalry is more clearly established between ethnic groups.

In any case what you describe is pretty much what I'd expect.

I don't have too much experience with american blacks or canadian blacks, just a couple of surface level experiences. It's one of the few times where I saw people I wanted to socialise with and I was just apparently thoroughly unwelcome. That's completely different from african countries, where black people will generally wave and smile (and point at you) whenever they see white folk (and kinda nudge their fellow to look at the white monkey).

The couple I've met who travelled here from the US have generally been really nice people, but when people are tourists they are not the same and it's a pre-selected group.

PS. What do you mean with them being more down to earth? In what way?


----------



## mr.moon1488 (Apr 3, 2021)

There's a lot of overthinking in this thread when the answer is easily observable by simply looking at blacks residing in modern western countries.  On the rare occasion you see a black person who doesn't behave like a nigger, he's absolutely made into a pariah by his kinsmen to the point at which he must associate with non-blacks in order to have a social life.  The only reason he has this option is precisely that he resides in a white country.  In a society of nothing but blacks such as Sub-Sahara Africa, he will not simply be a pariah, but rather an easy target.


----------



## Lemmingwise (Apr 3, 2021)

mr.moon1488 said:


> There's a lot of overthinking in this thread



When there are taboos you can't talk about; questions remain unanswered. It's like not being allowed to use the number 1 and prove why 1+1=2. Any solution is going to be overly complex.


----------



## Ughubughughughughughghlug (Apr 3, 2021)

Lemmingwise said:


> Honestly, I was so surprised seeing black people in US and Canada; very different from my experience with the black people I knew. So unapproachable and aggressive.
> 
> Well, until I became a kind of substitute teacher and saw all corners of the Netherlands; then I knew it wasn't THAT different from average blacks in Netherlands either, including some of the teachers.
> 
> Looking back; the black people I knew were black people in a sea of non-blacks; they were making a hard effort to fit in. That's always tough and painful. Though at least unlike the non-blacks in a sea of blacks in some other areas, they weren't frequently beaten or stolen from.


I have experience dealing with Blacks and with Africans. The Africans are like gods, very smart, hard-working, good manners. Better than 99% of the Whites. The Blacks were more varied. It's mostly self-selection, I think, that our African immigrants are the cream of the crop, but even when you hear stories about peasants/tribesmen from Africa they tend to say how welcoming the people are.

In interactions with Blacks in the rural South I've tended to find the young men and old men alike to be very gregarious, friendly, warm, and the same is true of the old women, but young Black women tend to have a very harsh, cold way about them. I think it might be motivated by bitterness because the Black men are all chasing White women and White men don't care for them, generally.


----------



## Lemmingwise (Apr 3, 2021)

Ughubughughughughughghlug said:


> even when you hear stories about peasants/tribesmen from Africa they tend to say how welcoming the people are.


When you're not online, people tend to make things sound nicer because it's a way to signal they themselves are good people. Maybe I did that in that post too, looking back.

I also saw africans on the street, practically bones over skin, nobody giving a fuck, it was almost impossible to get a basic good meal except in the countryside and you had to have armed guards basicly everywhere you slept. They were also vicious to animals of all types. They thought of birds only as things to shoot, adults enjoyed throwing rocks at defenseless dogs and puppies. I'm saying the africans in africa were approachable, happy people. I didn't say they were good people.


----------



## Voltekka (Apr 3, 2021)

One word; bantu. 

The bantus are one of the most retarded ethnicities of humanity. They destroyed the most prosperous empires of Africa with their tribalistic tendencies, have poor ability to plan ahead in comparison to other ethnicities, and its cultural norms are one of lazyness and opportunism. You can still see those norms on modern African Americans, group of which has 80% or so of their lineage tracing to the bantus. 

They fucked the entirety of Sub-Saharan Africa, and overall, helped devolve Africa 5,000 years back.

Don't blame black people. They were replaced by the Bantu.


----------



## Toolbox (Apr 3, 2021)

Marissa Moira said:


> Zebras, Rhinos, and Hippos can't be domesticated for many reasons.
> 
> Water Buffalo possibly could have.


Is this really true? How does their behavior differ that much from horses?


----------



## Lemmingwise (Apr 3, 2021)

Voltekka said:


> One word; bantu.
> 
> The bantus are one of the most retarded ethnicities of humanity. They destroyed the most prosperous empires of Africa with their tribalistic tendencies, have poor ability to plan ahead in comparison to other ethnicities, and its cultural norms are one of lazyness and opportunism. You can still see those norms on modern African Americans, group of which has 80% or so of their lineage tracing to the bantus.
> 
> ...


I don't know too much about this, so correct me if I'm wrong. But aren't the Bantu so succesful in spreading because they were more agriculturally focused compared to the groups they competed with and could therefor field more people when it came to blows and otherwise just outpopulated competing groups? As well as having iron tools and weapons to compete generally with stone tools and weapons?


----------



## Voltekka (Apr 3, 2021)

Lemmingwise said:


> I don't know too much about this, so correct me if I'm wrong. But aren't the Bantu so succesful in spreading because they were more agriculturally focused compared to the groups they competed with and could therefor field more people when it came to blows and otherwise just outpopulated competing groups? As well as having iron tools and weapons to compete generally with stone tools and weapons?


The fun stuff starts from there. They stole stuff from places they sacked, and used the Genghis Khan method of pillage, rape, and burn to great effect.


----------



## Techpriest (Apr 3, 2021)

Toolbox said:


> Is this really true? How does their behavior differ that much from horses?


They’re smaller and just as nasty as wild horses, so they’re objectively inferior as beasts of burden. Oh, and they’re even MORE social than horses, so good luck getting a fertile female away from the herd to get breeding populations going. Domesticating horses was honestly the greatest random chance of all time, and humans weren’t competing with lions, leopards, African wild dogs, hyenas, and cheetahs for the same resource in Europe.


----------



## Toolbox (Apr 3, 2021)

Overachiever said:


> But only after reintroduction by European settlers. The first case of Amerindians actually riding horses was when the Spanish started giving them to Aztecs in the 16th century and they were adopted by North American tribes somewhat later. They were previously present on the continent but went extinct like 15,000 years ago. I can't remember the exact reason I was taught but Wikipedia says they died either due to Climate Change or overexploitation by humans.


Camels were also present in the Americas for quite a long time before going extinct around 13k years ago.

https://eartharchives.org/articles/...nd-in-yukon-redraw-species-lineage/index.html
This species was known as "Camelops" and had diverged from old world camels some 12 million years before that. There were a lot of animals that could've been exploited, it's just that people either got to the areas they were present at the wrong times, or didn't know to breed them and simply killed them off.


----------



## Ughubughughughughughghlug (Apr 3, 2021)

Lemmingwise said:


> When you're not online, people tend to make things sound nicer because it's a way to signal they themselves are good people. Maybe I did that in that post too, looking back.
> 
> I also saw africans on the street, practically bones over skin, nobody giving a fuck, it was almost impossible to get a basic good meal except in the countryside and you had to have armed guards basicly everywhere you slept. They were also vicious to animals of all types. They thought of birds only as things to shoot, adults enjoyed throwing rocks at defenseless dogs and puppies. I'm saying the africans in africa were approachable, happy people. I didn't say they were good people.


That's a good point.

The thing that stands out in my mind about Africans is stories about how in some cultures, mostly East African ones, people will carry mats with them, and when they encounter somebody on the road they'll often lay out their mat and sit down and have a long discussion. I have little use for the custom of asking people how they're doing as an empty greeting (I find it dishonest) and those cultures (if the story is true at all) are like an extreme version of the opposite. Big waste of time, probably, inefficient, but welcome in its contrast to what we know.


----------



## Lemmingwise (Apr 4, 2021)

Ughubughughughughughghlug said:


> That's a good point.
> 
> The thing that stands out in my mind about Africans is stories about how in some cultures, mostly East African ones, people will carry mats with them, and when they encounter somebody on the road they'll often lay out their mat and sit down and have a long discussion. I have little use for the custom of asking people how they're doing as an empty greeting (I find it dishonest) and those cultures (if the story is true at all) are like an extreme version of the opposite. Big waste of time, probably, inefficient, but welcome in its contrast to what we know.


Sounds like a noble savage idea. I never saw it happen in Ethiopia, nor even a single "long discussion". People were pretty social, but I saw more activity based things; playing cards, playing football, throwing rocks at dogs. The only long discussions I saw / experienced was with americans, british and other europeans. Of course there is a language barrier, but I think I would have noticed/recognised long discussions between them.


----------



## Ughubughughughughughghlug (Apr 4, 2021)

Lemmingwise said:


> Sounds like a noble savage idea. I never saw it happen in Ethiopia, nor even a single "long discussion". People were pretty social, but I saw more activity based things; playing cards, playing football, throwing rocks at dogs. The only long discussions I saw / experienced was with americans, british and other europeans. Of course there is a language barrier, but I think I would have noticed/recognised long discussions between them.


Think it was some people more in the Kenya/Tanzania area, but you're probably right, probably made up to being with.


----------



## Eggplant Wizard (Apr 4, 2021)

Water Buffalo are deadly as hell. Domesticating them is out of the question. Heck the sheer number of fauna in the area that has a pre-set “this is how you ruin a human’s life” method packed into their instincts is enough on its own to make settling a chore.

Other than that they didn’t get gunpowder until well after other societies had it, so there was no grand equalizer of force that could be used. Combine that with the fact that the European nations were fighting each other constantly until they finally stopped long enough to try colonizing instead. War always leads to innovation with the tools available, so war involving cannons, guns, fortresses and ships will lead to much larger strides than war with spears, swords, shields and the like.


----------



## Techpriest (Apr 4, 2021)

Eggplant Wizard said:


> Water Buffalo are deadly as hell. Domesticating them is out of the question. Heck the sheer number of fauna in the area that has a pre-set “this is how you ruin a human’s life” method packed into their instincts is enough on its own to make settling a chore.
> 
> Other than that they didn’t get gunpowder until well after other societies had it, so there was no grand equalizer of force that could be used. Combine that with the fact that the European nations were fighting each other constantly until they finally stopped long enough to try colonizing instead. War always leads to innovation with the tools available, so war involving cannons, guns, fortresses and ships will lead to much larger strides than war with spears, swords, shields and the like.


Even then the Africans fought like hell for independence. The Zulu weren’t the only ones who fought back.


----------



## Toolbox (Apr 4, 2021)

Eggplant Wizard said:


> Water Buffalo are deadly as hell. Domesticating them is out of the question. Heck the sheer number of fauna in the area that has a pre-set “this is how you ruin a human’s life” method packed into their instincts is enough on its own to make settling a chore.
> 
> Other than that they didn’t get gunpowder until well after other societies had it, so there was no grand equalizer of force that could be used. Combine that with the fact that the European nations were fighting each other constantly until they finally stopped long enough to try colonizing instead. War always leads to innovation with the tools available, so war involving cannons, guns, fortresses and ships will lead to much larger strides than war with spears, swords, shields and the like.


Do you really think it's impossible to domesticate any mammal with enough time and dedication? Somehow we got wolves to work with us.


----------



## Lemmingwise (Apr 4, 2021)

Toolbox said:


> Do you really think it's impossible to domesticate any mammal with enough time and dedication? Somehow we got wolves to work with us.


Central africa has the basenji domesticated dog.

There are also a number of areas in africa where wild dogs seem to have evolved along a similar path as domesticated dogs did (selection for non-aggression towards humans), because it allowed them to smooch off of humans and cower when threatened by humans.

Such is a theory I once read anyways, before I autisticly checked sources.


----------



## biozeminadae1 (Apr 4, 2021)

Cool Dog said:


> On a side note did any subsaharan tribes ever got past the stone age? the bronze age? talking pre-contact here


Sahal kingdoms.



> Eggplant Wizard said:
> 
> 
> > Water Buffalo are deadly as hell. Domesticating them is out of the question. Heck the sheer number of fauna in the area that has a pre-set “this is how you ruin a human’s life” method packed into their instincts is enough on its own to make settling a chore.


In 1000 BC, lions existed in Haemus, Anatolia, Caucasus, and the Levant, and Mesopotamia. By  Late Antiquity they were fucking extinct. Blacks should have focused more on killing carnivores.


----------



## Slap47 (Apr 4, 2021)

Lemmingwise said:


> This is mostly true for the americas as well; the selling of older guns.
> 
> I do think IQ plays a role that such a strategy was even possible; it certainly didn't or could've worked in China or Japan.


The difference is that it was far more profitable to exploit the existing Chinese state. It was utterly corrupt, and incapable of resisting.

One thing that made Europe great is that it was not dominated by a single state that could become utterly corrupt and incapable. It was dozens, if not hundreds of competing states.



Ughubughughughughughghlug said:


> I have experience dealing with Blacks and with Africans. The Africans are like gods, very smart, hard-working, good manners. Better than 99% of the Whites. The Blacks were more varied. It's mostly self-selection, I think, that our African immigrants are the cream of the crop, but even when you hear stories about peasants/tribesmen from Africa they tend to say how welcoming the people are.
> 
> In interactions with Blacks in the rural South I've tended to find the young men and old men alike to be very gregarious, friendly, warm, and the same is true of the old women, but young Black women tend to have a very harsh, cold way about them. I think it might be motivated by bitterness because the Black men are all chasing White women and White men don't care for them, generally.



American-Africans are insanely successful despite not arriving rich like other minority groups. The middle-class from countries like Nigeria, Kenya, and Ghana are insanely hard working and respectable.

The exception is Somali-Americans and South-African Americans who have rejected African-American ghetto culture by bringing over their own tribal/gang stuff.


----------



## StraightShooter2 (Apr 4, 2021)

I'm not sure that the OP is true; for that matter, historically Eurasia has not always been at the "top" to begin with. In ancient and Medieval times, other regions such as Arabia and China were at times ahead of the Europeans culturally and technologically.


----------



## Techpriest (Apr 4, 2021)

StraightShooter2 said:


> I'm not sure that the OP is true; for that matter, historically Eurasia has not always been at the "top" to begin with. In ancient and Medieval times, other regions such as Arabia and China were at times ahead of the Europeans culturally and technologically.


If not for the absolute anarchy happening in India during the 1600’s, I’d have put good money on them industrializing first.


----------



## Schway (Apr 4, 2021)

Techpriest said:


> They’re smaller and just as nasty as wild horses, so they’re objectively inferior as beasts of burden. Oh, and they’re even MORE social than horses, so good luck getting a fertile female away from the herd to get breeding populations going. Domesticating horses was honestly the greatest random chance of all time, and humans weren’t competing with lions, leopards, African wild dogs, hyenas, and cheetahs for the same resource in Europe.


Observe, the impossible made possible:



Zebras can be domesticated just fine. If the argument is that they're worse than horses than yeah, an animal that's been selectively breed for riding and drafting is better at riding and drafting than an animal that wasn't, big whoop.

Here's the Przewalski's horse, the exact genetic details are not clear on whether it had been domesticated for a short while and then went feral again or never domesticated but they almost certainly represent a closer image to what the ancestral horse looked like than the modern horse does:



Looks like a zebra doesn't it? The coloring made to blend in especially, in fact it's now thought that coats of the modern horse were bred to be more uniform so to make it easier to spot in the field (Or because humans thought it was nicer). It's very likely the non-domesticated horse had stripes and other more zebra-ish patterns over it.

You can see from this that the non-domesticated horse was likely pretty similar to the non-domesticated zebra, yet someone had to start domesticating them and keep it up long enough for the selection to kick in. Zebras aren't magical undomesticable animals, and likely they are not any more difficult to handle than the ancient horse. 

You'll have to look somewhere else for a reason Africans didn't domesticate Zebras.


----------



## Eggplant Wizard (Apr 4, 2021)

Toolbox said:


> Do you really think it's impossible to domesticate any mammal with enough time and dedication? Somehow we got wolves to work with us.





Schway said:


> Observe, the impossible made possible:
> View attachment 2057608View attachment 2057611View attachment 2057612
> 
> Zebras can be domesticated just fine. If the argument is that they're worse than horses than yeah, an animal that's been selectively breed for riding and drafting is better at riding and drafting than an animal that wasn't, big whoop.
> ...



It is possible, but you need both the infrastructure to keep them fed, the ability to pull animals away from the pack, and keep them with you until you can domesticate them and the ability to defend your new collection of tasty treats from predators. Europeans in those photos had guns, construction knowledge, and supply lines. Therefore they could easily fill those requirements. 

That is why wolves were easy to domesticate. They eat meat scraps we don’t want, they will stick around us because we are now “food dispenser of the gods”, ignoring their former pack maybe bringing a few extra friends even, and when it is time to throw down, they’ll fight alongside us. Wolves were already suited for the pack tactics that humanity was already using and feeding them was and still is easy. Herd animals like zebras…you need auxiliary things that literally may not cross your mind depending on your situation.


----------



## Lemmingwise (Apr 4, 2021)

Techpriest said:


> If not for the absolute anarchy happening in India during the 1600’s, I’d have put good money on them industrializing first.


The caste system, much like slavery, is a strong deterrent against industrializing.



StraightShooter2 said:


> I'm not sure that the OP is true; for that matter, historically Eurasia has not always been at the "top" to begin with. In ancient and Medieval times, other regions such as Arabia and China were at times ahead of the Europeans culturally and technologically.


When people say eurasia, I think they mean britain, to morocco, to saudi arabia, to thailand, to japan. Is that a wrong assumption?


----------



## Techpriest (Apr 4, 2021)

Schway said:


> Observe, the impossible made possible:
> View attachment 2057608View attachment 2057611View attachment 2057612
> 
> Zebras can be domesticated just fine. If the argument is that they're worse than horses than yeah, an animal that's been selectively breed for riding and drafting is better at riding and drafting than an animal that wasn't, big whoop.
> ...


Try catching a zebra without using a horse. Try catching enough zebras to maintain a herd, and get those zebras used to being herded. Consistently do this for generations. Suddenly you see the issue. Domestication of the horse was luck, and happened in an area and time when there wasn’t the abundant predators that populate the areas where zebras are.


----------



## Lemmingwise (Apr 4, 2021)

Eggplant Wizard said:


> It is possible, but you need both the infrastructure to keep them fed, the ability to pull animals away from the pack, and keep them with you until you can domesticate them and the ability to defend your new collection of tasty treats from predators. Europeans in those photos had guns, construction knowledge, and supply lines. Therefore they could easily fill those requirements.
> 
> That is why wolves were easy to domesticate. They eat meat scraps we don’t want, they will stick around us because we are now “food dispenser of the gods”, ignoring their former pack maybe bringing a few extra friends even, and when it is time to throw down, they’ll fight alongside us. Wolves were already suited for the pack tactics that humanity was already using and feeding them was and still is easy. Herd animals like zebras…you need auxiliary things that literally may not cross your mind depending on your situation.


It also might not cross your mind if you're dumb.

Afticans did domesticate dogs, btw. But then again, so do baboons.


----------



## Bosmadden (Apr 4, 2021)

Techpriest said:


> Try catching a zebra without using a horse. Try catching enough zebras to maintain a herd, and get those zebras used to being herded. Consistently do this for generations. Suddenly you see the issue. Domestication of the horse was luck, and happened in an area and time when there wasn’t the abundant predators that populate the areas where zebras are.


You need to have the ability to build coral fencing. Then you need to be able to scare your horses inside the fencing. Then you need someone crazy enough in your tribe to break the animal. It’s not complicated


----------



## TitusOvid (Apr 4, 2021)

If Africa was more livable White people would have colonized it earlier and it would be like the Americas today.


----------



## MadStan (Apr 4, 2021)

I jumped off this thread by page 5 but I notice the same odd arguments are popping up again talking about developments within the last thousands years.  That is almost akin to describing African Americans within the last 100 years as being representative of all blacks going back thousands of years - it is not.

The genetics were fundamental and key and locked in by 2000 BC at least.  You probably could have taken Roman technology to a 2000 BC African continent and the technology would have been lost within a generation. 

Asian's make incredible fighter pilots, and fast acting and thinking - different brains.
Blacks make gifted hunters and have other spatial traits of brain function lacking in whites.
Jews have sophisticated regions of the brain ideal for calculations.
Javanese women - off the charts intelligence.
Aborigines from Australia - not bright at all.
the list if pretty big

Different brains.

Even within each race we will find brilliance and sheer stupidity. Neil Degrasse, then there is Will Smith. Stephen Hawking, then there is half the population of Oklahoma.

Clearly, Africans have survived Africa for millions of years and are clearly well adapted for their environment,  A fat jew thrown into Africa 2000 years ago probably would do NOT well.  An African of 2000 years ago thrown into Iceland is probably going to die.  This is even with some assistance - different brains and different physical characteristics to suit their environment.

You could take a handful of average Americans today and thrown them into Africa 2000 years ago and they would probably die pretty quickly. Couldn't make a tool, couldn't build a hut...dead. But throw me into the Outback and I will take an aborigine with me to ensure I live. Take me to Wall Street and I will take a Jew. Want to win basketball game, gimme a black. Want to win baseball, I'll take a white dude.

This idea that modern civilization is somehow some advantage over a more primitive appearing culture is in itself a rouse.  It is as if just because the breakthrough happened with language and written language there is this strange idea that it was meant to happen at all or was destined - it was not.  Probably going back 400,000 years we've had the general intelligence for language and written words and technology - but it is a combo of factors that give rise to advancement. In all liklihood the end of mankind will likely be brought about through its societies and technological developments, whereas if we stayed in Africa we'd probably go on another million years.

I could take the words smartest parents, give me a new born that had a potential for 190 IQ and give the new born baby to a wildling family to raise... and come back 20 years later. I won't find the next Nobel Prize winner, I will find a human being barely recognizable as even human; making grunting sounds and attacking me with branches and rocks.

We are always 1 generation from going back 400,000 years in advancement. Don't forget it.


----------



## Schway (Apr 4, 2021)

Eggplant Wizard said:


> It is possible, but you need both the infrastructure to keep them fed, the ability to pull animals away from the pack, and keep them with you until you can domesticate them and the ability to defend your new collection of tasty treats from predators. Europeans in those photos had guns, construction knowledge, and supply lines. Therefore they could easily fill those requirements
> 
> Herd animals like zebras…you need auxiliary things that literally may not cross your mind depending on your situation.



This is why I included the bit about the pre-domesticated horse. All of those things were true for it as well, and it was successfully domesticated and by people who didn't have access to guns and modern construction knowledge/supply lines.



Techpriest said:


> Try catching a zebra without using a horse. Try catching enough zebras to maintain a herd, and get those zebras used to being herded. Consistently do this for generations.


I don't think I will, instead I will take foals whos parents were killed(maybe by me) and raise them instead so they bond to me. Maybe I'll take the ones that are too wild and don't bond well and slaughter them for meat while using the ones that are calmer and more obedient for drafting and riding. This is just one of many ways ancient peoples domesticated animals.



Techpriest said:


> Suddenly you see the issue. Domestication of the horse was luck, and happened in an area and time when there wasn’t the abundant predators that populate the areas where zebras are.


I don't really see the issue. I'm not making the argument that it's easy to domesticate a wild animal, I'm saying it's a smart move that pays off and that zebras are no more difficult than the pre-domesticated horse.

I'm not sure I understand the argument about how the horse was a streak of random luck. To me it seems akin to saying that everyone who made some big achievement was lucky, sure there was luck there but there needs to be dedication, skill and capability to exploit that. We're talking about thousands of years here, are you really saying there was no opportune moment for the zebra to be domesticated in all that time?


----------



## Cat Phuckers (Apr 4, 2021)

furūtsu said:


> I WANT to read this, but holy fucking shit you need to format your posts better. That massive block of text is an eyesore.


Yeah, sorry. There are paragraphs there, but I forgot to put a space between each one. I'll fix it. It's kind of a spergy post anyways.
EDIT: Somebody beat me to the chase, but I edited the original post anyways.


----------



## Techpriest (Apr 4, 2021)

Schway said:


> This is why I included the bit about the pre-domesticated horse. All of those things were true for it as well, and it was successfully domesticated and by people who didn't have access to guns and modern construction knowledge/supply lines.
> 
> 
> I don't think I will, instead I will take foals whos parents were killed(maybe by me) and raise them instead so they bond to me. Maybe I'll take the ones that are too wild and don't bond well and slaughter them for meat while using the ones that are calmer and more obedient for drafting and riding. This is just one of many ways ancient peoples domesticated animals.
> ...


Yes. First off, even if you have ONE semi-domesticated foal, that's not really enough to start a breeding population. you need more. You need to repeat this process again and again. Now, you also need to defend said herd against lions, hyenas, leopards, cheetahs, wild dogs, and random chance. On top of that, you need those zebras to be able to socialize with a population of wild zebras without joining that herd and returning to you, or catch more for yourself, either way this isn't super easy. Zebras are very, very aggressive, way more than horses. They will happily attack people, biting and kicking and even killing an adult human. Zebras are notorious for injuring zookeepers. Even wild horses aren't that aggressive! Imagine trying to keep something like that captive. It's hard, dangerous, and really not worth it.

Zebras also have a massive avoidance tendency towards humans, which sort of makes sense - we evolved in a similar area, and we hunted them for a long long time. They also have a big avoidance tendency since they evolved in a landscape dominated by big predators. Zebras also have a very different social structure compared to bovines or domestic horses. Rather than a stricter hierarchy around a dominant male, it's very fluid. This sounds like a benefit but it really isn't. Essentially, any zebra can try and become the lead of the herd, so rather than just needing to tame a few animals you need to tame many, many, many animals. As in, an entire herd, and even then that might not work out. 

EDIT: The reason why I say it's luck is we have evidence that there was short term domestication of some wild horse species, that then reverted back to being wild very quickly - that's Przewalski’s horses. This species is very closely related to domestic horses, which tells us a lot - firstly, that it wasn't a single event that got us the domestic horse. Second, that there were likely plenty of failed attempts to get domestication started  of horses that failed for whatever reason. One was lucky enough to stick.


----------



## The Curmudgeon (Apr 4, 2021)

It varied. The Sahelian kingdoms and other parts of West and Central Africa had a modest Iron Age to medieval level of civilization. The Horn of Africa and Swahili Coast also had a medieval level because of their interactions with Arabs. Ethiopia was sufficiently stable and developed compared to many other Sub-Saharan African nations. What really raises questions for me is this: Despite the fact that many West and Central African kindgoms and tribes benefited from the Columbian Exchange, they didn't really utilize this advantage to modernize their nations. Same thing for the Swahili Coast and the various sultanates on the Horn of Africa. They traded with Arabs, the Indians, and even the Chinese for centuries, yet they also fell behind and failed to modernize.

When the Scramble for Africa happened around the end of the 19th century, none of those nations were able to stop any Europeans from invading and conquering with the lone exception of Ethiopia.


----------



## A Welsh Cake (Apr 4, 2021)

It’s too hot in Africa.
I know when I got overheated I get either tired or cranky.


----------



## Cat Phuckers (Apr 4, 2021)

A Welsh Cake said:


> It’s too hot in Africa.
> I know when I got overheated I get either tired or cranky.


Absolute simpering pussy.


----------



## Ted_Breakfast (Apr 4, 2021)

This thread is pure tricknology.


----------



## Schway (Apr 4, 2021)

Techpriest said:


> Yes. First off, even if you have ONE semi-domesticated foal, that's not really enough to start a breeding population. you need more. You need to repeat this process again and again. Now, you also need to defend said herd against lions, hyenas, leopards, cheetahs, wild dogs, and random chance.


Yes, and in the steppe you need to do the same with the pre-domesticated horse against wolves, bears and random chance.


Techpriest said:


> On top of that, you need those zebras to be able to socialize with a population of wild zebras without joining that herd and returning to you, or catch more for yourself, either way this isn't super easy. Zebras are very, very aggressive, way more than horses.
> They will happily attack people, biting and kicking and even killing an adult human. Zebras are notorious for injuring zookeepers. Even wild horses aren't that aggressive!


Firstly I think you're overstating the aggressiveness of zebras, secondly truly wild horses are aggressive, most likely just as aggressive as Zebras. The problem is that what most people think of as wild horses are just untamed members of the domestic horse subspecies that's already been selectively bred to be tamer.


Techpriest said:


> Imagine trying to keep something like that captive. It's hard, dangerous, and really not worth it.


The people of the Euroasian Steppe thought otherwise and posterity seems to prove them right.


Techpriest said:


> Zebras also have a massive avoidance tendency towards humans, which sort of makes sense - we evolved in a similar area, and we hunted them for a long long time. They also have a big avoidance tendency since they evolved in a landscape dominated by big predators.


Again, I see no reason to believe they have a significant difference between the zebra and the pre-domesticated horse. For what it's worth Horace Hayes(that's his wife on the zebra I posted above) in his book says that the greatest difficulty in taming a zebra is that they're cunning:



Spoiler: Quote



We must bear in mind that the greatest difficulty in subduing zebras is their extreme cunning in refusing, under ordinary circumstances, to exhaust themselves by " playing up," which horses do in a way that would make a zebra smile. I found it expedient with this powerful animal to make her lie down until she arose submissive and quiet to be ridden without any trouble. The younger zebra evinced very little desire to assert her authority. Jess, however, was far less trouble to break in than a Mountain zebra stallion which I made quiet for my wife to ride in Calcutta, probably because my Calcutta pupil had only been in captivity a short time.





Techpriest said:


> Zebras also have a very different social structure compared to bovines or domestic horses. Rather than a stricter hierarchy around a dominant male, it's very fluid. This sounds like a benefit but it really isn't. Essentially, any zebra can try and become the lead of the herd, so rather than just needing to tame a few animals you need to tame many, many, many animals. As in, an entire herd, and even then that might not work out.


Where are you getting this? From my understanding the three main species of Zebra have dominant males, the mountain zebra has a standard one male and a harem structure, plains is much the same but multiple families can come together into large herds like baboons do.

The grevy's zebra is the closes to what you're saying where males establish a territory and monopolize females that enter them. Grevy's zebra has a very small territory compared to the other two.

Again, even if we accept your idea of taming a more fluid social structure being more difficult, which I don't think there's any reason to(I believe you'd need to tame every animal anyway), zebras don't seem to differ much from horses.


Techpriest said:


> EDIT: The reason why I say it's luck is we have evidence that there was short term domestication of some wild horse species, that then reverted back to being wild very quickly - that's Przewalski’s horses. This species is very closely related to domestic horses, which tells us a lot - firstly, that it wasn't a single event that got us the domestic horse. Second, that there were likely plenty of failed attempts to get domestication started  of horses that failed for whatever reason. One was lucky enough to stick.


That doesn't follow.  There being multiple events that got us to the domestic horse contributes more to the idea that it was determination and skill rather than lucky chance.
Of course it sometimes failed(or was just abandoned), seems like it succeeded plenty as well. How does this attribute the thing to chance more than capability?

It's suggested that the domestication happened in multiple areas simultaneously as opposed to just one place that spread out. This again makes the idea of a freak random event less likely.

You seem to be arguing both that the zebra was uniquely untamable compared to the horse and that it was a freak event that ended up having the horse tamed. You should pick one.

If you see every people as interchangeable I suppose you inevitably have to go into the weeds like this.


----------



## Techpriest (Apr 4, 2021)

Schway said:


> Yes, and in the steppe you need to do the same with the pre-domesticated horse against wolves, bears and random chance.
> 
> Firstly I think you're overstating the aggressiveness of zebras, secondly truly wild horses are aggressive, most likely just as aggressive as Zebras. The problem is that what most people think of as wild horses are just untamed members of the domestic horse subspecies that's already been selectively bred to be tamer.
> 
> ...


Wolves and bears are not exactly what I'd call the most aggressive predators, bears especially. Wolves can be, but wolves aren't as dangerous to humans as you'd think. Meanwhile, having a nearby herd of zebras is basically going to attract every single large predator in the savannah. And those predators are very, very willing to tangle with humans for food.

Grevy's Zebra has very fluid structures regarding how herds are formed, with essentially dominant and subdominant males declaring a territory, and trying to monopolize the females within said territory. The structure of any given herd can change very quickly as young males move around, females enter and leave areas, etc. etc. That's the most likely kind of zebra to attempt to domesticate, as they're the largest - which is why I mentioned them as the default zebra for domestication. They're the best candidate, and are located around the Horn of Africa. If there was any species of zebra that would get domesticated, it'd be Grevy's zebra. They weren't.

I don't think you get how hard zebras are to capture, and just how aggressive zebras really are - even wild horses aren't as aggressive as zebras. The Eurasian horse didn't evolve in an environment of super predators. The zebra did. They're targeted by every single predatory species around them, and there's a lot MORE of those predators than there was in Eurasia. And we were among those predators, don't forget that, and we were among those predators for a much, much longer time than we were preying on horses in Eurasia. Zebras injure more zookeepers than any other animal - and these are zebras often raised in captivity. Trying to tame even a zebra foal isn't super easy. Imagine how much harder it would be if you weren't familiar with raising horses?

And it wasn't a freak event that got us horse domestication, it was lucky events - events that were just not possible for those in Africa compared to those in Eurasia, due to the aggression of the zebra and abundance of predators - us among those predators. It's luck that one of those domestication attempts stuck, as horses aren't exactly super useful to have until you have the cart, compared to cows. Multiple domestication attempts and one success tells us that keeping horses was very difficult and groups that had achieved it sometimes decided it just wasn't worth the effort - or got wiped out despite having horses. A less aggressive zebra is a herd animal that attracts predators without being able to as easily defend itself or flee. Then there's the issue of - 'well we've got them, what do we do with them?' Meat and hide are great and all, but when the animal is a bitch to get and breed in captivity, and doesn't offer benefits other animals you might have do offer, well, then it's just not worth it.


----------



## Lemmingwise (Apr 4, 2021)

Techpriest said:


> Zebras injure more zookeepers than any other animal


I found this claim hard to believe, but there is some evidence that this indeed is the case.

It led me along other things to this: https://theconversation.com/why-zebra-refused-to-be-saddled-with-domesticity-65018

Particularly this I found funny:

_They can be savage biters and possess a “ducking” reflex that helps them avoid being caught by lasso. Familiarity with human hunter gatherers may also have fostered a strong avoidance response in the zebra._

Essentially they let zebra's evolve to be better at thwarting humans, lol.

Supposedly anyways, this is just some surface level reading.


----------



## Thomas Highway (Apr 4, 2021)

I hate the Deep Thoughts subforum.


----------



## Lemmingwise (Apr 4, 2021)

DSM-IV said:


> I hate the Deep Thoughts subforum.


Zebra hater.


----------



## XYZpdq (Apr 4, 2021)

Beautiful Border said:


> Trying to domesticate a Rhino or a Hippo would be a retarded idea. Hippoes in particular are total bastards


yeah afaik hippos are basically like muscovy ducks that will fucking kill you


----------



## Schway (Apr 4, 2021)

Techpriest said:


> Grevy's Zebra has very fluid structures regarding how herds are formed, with essentially dominant and subdominant males declaring a territory, and trying to monopolize the females within said territory. The structure of any given herd can change very quickly as young males move around, females enter and leave areas, etc. etc. That's the most likely kind of zebra to attempt to domesticate, as they're the largest - which is why I mentioned them as the default zebra for domestication. They're the best candidate, and are located around the Horn of Africa. If there was any species of zebra that would get domesticated, it'd be Grevy's zebra. They weren't.


If their social structure makes them so hard to domesticate then they're by default not the most likely species to get domesticated. Even with that in mind I think the effect of their social structure on taming could go either way, they still bond as foals and most likely any difference in behavior when being tamed is inconsequential. I believe Hayes found the mountain Zebra to be the hardest to break.


Techpriest said:


> I don't think you get how hard zebras are to capture, and just how aggressive zebras really are - even wild horses aren't as aggressive as zebras. The Eurasian horse didn't evolve in an environment of super predators. The zebra did. They're targeted by every single predatory species around them, and there's a lot MORE of those predators than there was in Eurasia. And we were among those predators, don't forget that, and we were among those predators for a much, much longer time than we were preying on horses in Eurasia.


Again, I don't think there's good reason to think that the ancient zebra was more aggressive  than the ancient horse. You could turn that argument on its head by pointing out that Zebras show aggressive responses to smaller predators like wolves or wild dogs, and flee from big ones like lions because fighting them is not effective. As there are no lions in the steppe you could conclude that the aggressive behavior would work better there and hence the ancient horse was more likely to be more aggressive. 


Techpriest said:


> Zebras injure more zookeepers than any other animal - and these are zebras often raised in captivity. Trying to tame even a zebra foal isn't super easy. Imagine how much harder it would be if you weren't familiar with raising horses?


I assume the reasons for that are that zookeepers often aren't as careful with zebras as they are with obviously dangerous animals like lions. It's also easy to assume that Zebras act just like the domestic horse and get a nasty surprise.


Techpriest said:


> And it wasn't a freak event that got us horse domestication, it was lucky events - events that were just not possible for those in Africa compared to those in Eurasia, due to the aggression of the zebra and abundance of predators - us among those predators. It's luck that one of those domestication attempts stuck, as horses aren't exactly super useful to have until you have the cart, compared to cows. Multiple domestication attempts and one success tells us that keeping horses was very difficult and groups that had achieved it sometimes decided it just wasn't worth the effort - or got wiped out despite having horses. A less aggressive zebra is a herd animal that attracts predators without being able to as easily defend itself or flee. Then there's the issue of - 'well we've got them, what do we do with them?' Meat and hide are great and all, but when the animal is a bitch to get and breed in captivity, and doesn't offer benefits other animals you might have do offer, well, then it's just not worth it.


Freak event/Lucky event same difference. We're spinning in circles here but those multiple attempts resulted in multiple successes and presumably some failures or abandonments(It could very well be that they found a better breed to domesticate ect.) so it's not one lucky event that occurred. Obviously something about the people in europe/asia made them think it was worth the effort, and for reasons I already pointed out you can't attribute it to the ancient zebra being worse for domestication than then ancient horse.


----------



## Papa Adolfo's Take'n'Bake (Apr 4, 2021)

This is about as much of a response I feel like acknowledging this thread with:


----------



## Techpriest (Apr 5, 2021)

Look at your geography. The reason Grevy's Zebra is the one most likely to be domesticated is that it's the largest variety and common in the horn of Africa, somewhere where there's a lot of settlements of size up and down the coast, and lots of interaction with the Middle East - in between them and the plains zebra, Grevy's just is going to be more appealing due to the size. Hayes experience with breaking zebras needs to be thrown out the window as it isn't relevant to the greater question at hand.



> Again, I don't think there's good reason to think that the ancient zebra was more aggressive than the ancient horse. You could turn that argument on its head by pointing out that Zebras show aggressive responses to smaller predators like wolves or wild dogs, and flee from big ones like lions because fighting them is not effective. As there are no lions in the steppe you could conclude that the aggressive behavior would work better there and hence the ancient horse was more likely to be more aggressive.


That's the thing though - zebras do fight lions. They're actually not ineffective at fighting lions. They're known to kill lions. They run first, then if something gets close, they fucking kick at it, much like other horse species. Lack of larger predators actually means you need to fight back less, and while aggression is still incentivized, it's more for show. For zebras it's the difference between survival and death. Zebras are so cranky and ornery because they're not one of the megafauna - they're the prey of lots of large predators and anything that could be a predator that approaches needs to be dealt with. Wild horses are not as aggressive, and never were as aggressive. 



> Freak event/Lucky event same difference. We're spinning in circles here but those multiple attempts resulted in multiple successes and presumably some failures or abandonments(It could very well be that they found a better breed to domesticate ect.) so it's not one lucky event that occurred. Obviously something about the people in europe/asia made them think it was worth the effort, and for reasons I already pointed out you can't attribute it to the ancient zebra being worse for domestication than then ancient horse.


Alright, you want me to simplify things for you here? Alright then. Let's go through the list. 

- Zebra are aggressive and dangerous to handle, and are much more used to avoiding humans and the huge variety of predators after them. 
- Ancient Eurasian Wild Horses were larger, had fewer natural predators, and hadn't evolved alongside humans. They weren't by pure instinct going to see them as a threat. 
- Even then, Eurasian Wild Horses are still aggressive, but the level of aggression was almost certainly lower. Their level of wanting to simply run the fuck away was also lower
- The abandoned foal hypothesis for taming into a breeding population only works out when the adopted foal isn't risking getting killed by loads of predators, or by random wild males if it is a male, in a fight over territory/mates. Taming =/= domestication. And even with a tamed male, you need tamed females too, otherwise those might fuck him up.
- Zebras have been taken into captivity throughout history, by many different peoples. Despite this, none of them attempted domestication. 
- Domesticating zebras was not going to offer as many rewards as domesticating the horse to the people around them. Zebras would have only been useful for their meat and hides, which you can get by hunting them anyway. It's safer to hunt them than to domesticate them. For horses and cattle, this was also true at the start to a degree, but they were decent pack animals without going too far into domestication. Zebras just aren't big enough for that to be a valid option, and milking them wouldn't be easy.


----------



## Jan Ciągwa (Apr 5, 2021)

I'll just point out that Europe was extremely lucky. Compared to rest of Eurasia, Europe is the north-western Middle of Nowhere for once. Europe barely dodged being razed to the ground by the Mongols, then barely survived the Black Death - and the social change spearheaded by lots of people dying was beneficial in the long run! Then Europe was lucky to discover the Americas before overpopulation became _too_ much of a problem.

Europe's luck ran out with WW I, when a whole genetic stock of a generation was thrown into a meatgrinder, and they did it AGAIN during WW II. It strikes me that Europe's success was an abberation in the grand scale of history...


----------



## Lemmingwise (Apr 5, 2021)

kuniqsX said:


> Europe's luck ran out with WW I, when a whole genetic stock of a generation was thrown into a meatgrinder, and they did it AGAIN during WW II.


People often say this, but look at population graphs, even population graphs of young people only, and if you remove the years, it's impossible to detect WW II, so insignificant is the effect on population that the wars had.

Also, the important parts of europe were razed by mongols; the northwestern parts of europe weren't anything of note in that time.


----------



## Jan Ciągwa (Apr 5, 2021)

Lemmingwise said:


> People often say this, but look at population graphs, even population graphs of young people only, and if you remove the years, it's impossible to detect WW II, so insignificant is the effect on population that the wars had.
> 
> Also, the important parts of europe were razed by mongols; the northwestern parts of europe weren't anything of note in that time.


A lot of human potential got lost in both wars; Tolkien survived - how many of his peers didn't?
So many young and bright people were ordered to die, it broke the demographics and effectively defanged the population.

Mongols razed Kievan Rus (which was a barbarian threat to Central Europe anyway) and parts of Poland and Hungary (and Hungarians were barely above steppe nomads who razed Germany but 200 year ago, and managed to actually repel Mongols for a while) before Ogedei croaked; they did not sack France or the Iberian Peninsula which would be a complete disaster.


----------



## biozeminadae1 (Apr 11, 2021)

Toolbox said:


> Do you really think it's impossible to domesticate any mammal with enough time and dedication? Somehow we got wolves to work with us.


It's thought that the domesticated dog did not come from the wolf, rather it is its own species from the canid family.



kuniqsX said:


> A lot of human potential got lost in both wars; Tolkien survived - how many of his peers didn't?
> So many young and bright people were ordered to die, it broke the demographics and effectively defanged the population.
> 
> Mongols razed Kievan Rus (which was a barbarian threat to Central Europe anyway) and parts of Poland and Hungary (and Hungarians were barely above steppe nomads who razed Germany but 200 year ago, and managed to actually repel Mongols for a while) before Ogedei croaked; they did not sack France or the Iberian Peninsula which would be a complete disaster.


How was Kievan Rus a threat? The Eastern Slavs kept most of the turko-mongol hordes at bay. They were effectively a wall of flesh defending Central Europe. The only country they significantly fucked was Bulgaria.



Techpriest said:


> If not for the absolute anarchy happening in India during the 1600’s, I’d have put good money on them industrializing first.


How? Industrialization happened in England, because the country had few people and due to climatic events - the Mini Ice age. England had at that point had a developed statehood. Geography also plays a part - England can defend its island territories, due to the seas. This allowed for an uninhibited technological progression. The Indian states had barely ever defeated its invaders.



Menotaur said:


> I jumped off this thread by page 5 but I notice the same odd arguments are popping up again talking about developments within the last thousands years.  That is almost akin to describing African Americans within the last 100 years as being representative of all blacks going back thousands of years - it is not.
> 
> The genetics were fundamental and key and locked in by 2000 BC at least.  You probably could have taken Roman technology to a 2000 BC African continent and the technology would have been lost within a generation.
> 
> ...


The Human species isn't even 300 000 years old by some estimates. What's this "millions of years" bullshit?


----------



## Techpriest (Apr 11, 2021)

biozeminadae1 said:


> How? Industrialization happened in England, because the country had few people and due to climatic events - the Mini Ice age. England had at that point had a developed statehood. Geography also plays a part - England can defend its island territories, due to the seas. This allowed for an uninhibited technological progression. The Indian states had barely ever defeated its invaders.


India was one of the primary sources globally for finished manufactured goods in the 17th century. And that was without large scale manufacturing techniques that would catapult the British and other European powers ahead in the 18th century. The absolute anarchy of India is the only thing that kept this from happening, helped along of course by various European powers fucking around in the subcontinent. India was as much of a thunderdome as Europe, something people like to forget about. The collapse of the Mughal empire happened at just the right time for industrialization to be strangled in the crib on the sub continent.


----------



## mitzi (Apr 11, 2021)

John McAfee said:


> Apache, and Comanche were exclusively horse centric tribes.


Not to forget they're responsible for the Appaloosa horse breed.


----------



## MembersSchoolPizza (Apr 11, 2021)

Ughubughughughughughghlug said:


> America was hit with an Apocalypse in 1492 and the Europeans conquered its ashes. Africans were long exposed to Eurasian disease. If Indians had the same resistance then America would be as red now as Congo is black.



Can't help but feel like this ignores an external element: The Europeans themselves.

While Africa has some _resources_ Europeans valued, and definitely lead to some colonies to try to exploit that, your average European didn't, and doesn't, want to live in Africa. It's ecologically unfriendly to your average European. About the only place that really attracted Europeans in any major number was down near the southern tip, where the ecosystem and climate got somewhat less awful.

North America, though? Hell no. Europe _wanted_ North America. It was like an "empty" (as far as Europeans were concerned) version of Europe. Yeah, a little different, but close enough to home as to be desirable. Hence the flood of willing settlers from virtually all over Europe.

Without the massive depopulation from disease, taking North America would have been bloodier, but I think the end result would have probably been very similar.


----------



## Imadeanaccounttoseedoxes (Apr 11, 2021)

Techpriest said:


> - Zebra are aggressive and dangerous to handle, and are much more used to avoiding humans and the huge variety of predators after them.
> - Domesticating zebras was not going to offer as many rewards as domesticating the horse to the people around them. Zebras would have only been useful for their meat and hides, which you can get by hunting them anyway. It's safer to hunt them than to domesticate them. For horses and cattle, this was also true at the start to a degree, but they were decent pack animals without going too far into domestication. Zebras just aren't big enough for that to be a valid option, and milking them wouldn't be easy.






You're just giving cope after cope. We know they can be domesticated because whites have done it repeatedly. They can be ridden and they can drag wagons. Look at least as useful as donkeys to me. The ball is in your court to prove that your copes were the calculations and reasons niggers came to and avoided domestication as a result. Breed the strongest and most loyal Zebras in many generations and you would have a decent animal


----------



## Techpriest (Apr 11, 2021)

Imadeanaccounttoseedoxes said:


> You're just giving cope after cope. We know they can be domesticated because whites have done it repeatedly. They can be ridden and they can drag wagons. Look at least as useful as donkeys to me. The ball is in your court to prove that your copes were the calculations and reasons niggers came to and avoided domestication as a result. Breed the strongest and most loyal Zebras in many generations and you would have a decent animal


Try catching one without using a horse and get back to me. Domestication does not equal taming. You can tame just about anything.


----------



## Imadeanaccounttoseedoxes (Apr 11, 2021)

Techpriest said:


> Try catching one without using a horse and get back to me. Domestication does not equal taming. You can tame just about anything.


This is fucking retarded. This monumental leap for our people is right there if only we could catch it. LMAO. The horse was domesticated multiple times. Other races managed to catch different sub-species of horses and domesticate them repeatedly


			https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0015311
		



> We found a panmictic Late Pleistocene horse population ranging from Alaska to the Pyrenees. Later, during the Early Holocene and the Copper Age, more or less separated sub-populations are indicated for the Eurasian steppe region and Iberia. Our data suggest multiple domestications and introgressions of females especially during the Iron Age.


You've not proved they can't be domesticated, only coped. Almost anything that can be domesticated, especially if they're easy to tame, which the Zebra is, see the Point of the Horse. 

The Soviets domesticated foxes as late as the 1960's with no problem at all. If you can tame Zebras to the point where they allow themselves to be ridden fairly easily, then there is no reason to think you wouldn't be able to domesticate them


			http://www.floridalupine.org/publications/PDF/trut-fox-study.pdf
		



> At seven or eight months, when the foxes reach sexual maturity, they are scored for tameness and assigned to one of three classes. The least domesticated foxes, those that flee from experimenters or bite when stroked or handled, are assigned to Class III. (Even Class III foxes are tamer than the calmest farm-bred foxes. Among other things, they allow themselves to be hand fed.) Foxes in Class II let themselves be petted and handled but show no emotionally friendly response to experimenters. Foxes in Class I are friendly toward experimenters, wagging their tails and whining. In the sixth generation bred for tameness we had to add an even higher-scoring category. Members of Class IE, the “domesticated elite,” are eager to establish human contact, whimpering to attract attention and sniffing and licking experimenters like dogs. They start displaying this kind of behavior before they are one month old. By the tenth generation, 18 percent of fox pups were elite; by the 20th, the figure had reached 35 percent. Today elite foxes make up 70 to 80 percent of our experimentally selected population. Now, 40 years and 45,000 foxes after Belyaev began, our experiment has achieved an array of concrete results. The most obvious of them is a unique population of 100 foxes (at latest count), each of them the product of between 30 and 35 generations of selection. They are unusual animals, docile, eager to please and unmistakably domesticated


----------



## Techpriest (Apr 11, 2021)

Imadeanaccounttoseedoxes said:


> This is fucking retarded. This monumental leap for our people is right there if only we could catch it. LMAO. The horse was domesticated multiple times. Other races managed to catch different sub-species of horses and domesticate them repeatedly
> 
> 
> https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0015311
> ...


To achieve true domestication, you need a breeding population. Zebra are already hard to catch. European Wild Horses were easier to catch than Zebra, as I’ve established multiple times. To get a steady domestic breeding population, you need to do this a lot, and also defend the herd. As I’ve mentioned before, the zebra herds would have been a net detriment to any population that managed to even get started on domestication. Why? Because zebra herds attract predators. All the big nasty predators of Africa and oh boy oh boy there’s a fuckload of them. So not only have you taken a massive risk to capture these animals that offer only moderate benefits to your survival at this stage, you’re also taking another even larger risk - bringing predators in close to you. Lions are dangerous, so are leopards, and the main survival strategy of the zebra is numbers, because without large numbers they’re lunch. They can fight and kill predators but unlike the wild horse which can and do kill the fuck out of wolves and other smaller predators by virtue of sheer size and strength, zebra are not the ones with the advantage here.

So congratulations, your group of herding nomads has expended a great deal of effort in the early stages of domestication of an animal that is very ill tempered, hard to obtain more of to grow the herd, and attracts large predators to you. This is not a net benefit. On the Eurasian steppe, there weren’t large hyper predators to attract. There were wolves, sure, but those weren’t that difficult to deal with and they already had practice warding them away. 

Horse domestication in the Eurasian steppe happened with peoples who had small domesticated animals already, which they’d picked up from settled peoples on the edges of the steppe. Capturing a horse was hard, and because of all the failed domestication attempts we see in the archeological record, not always a strategy that lended itself towards cultural survival and continuation of domestication. That so many of them tried and failed should stress to you how difficult and how lucky the domestication of the horse actually was. Of the many groups that tried, the vast majority failed. And that was with an animal easier to catch and tame than the zebra. Remember too that domestication takes millennia of successes, especially in large animal with long gestation periods - like horses and zebras.

“Zebra are easy to tame” is misleading as they really aren’t. Domestic horses aren’t easy to tame either. Zebras are easy to tame for people who are used to dealing with horses because of a culture that has had the horse for millennia and spent absurd amounts of time learning to do this. Try taming a zebra without this knowledge and you start to see why so many groups that tried to domesticate the horse failed at it. Taming an animal that can easily kill you with a kick isn’t easy or fun. “But they still did it!” Yes, that is true but look at all the failures, in an environment almost completely optimized for domesticating the horse.

Zebra have spent 2 million years as the preferred prey of lions. They don’t want to be the preferred prey of lions so they’ve evolved behaviors to make them super skittish and aggressive as hell when captured. Wild horses haven’t spent the last 2 million years as the preferred prey of several large apex predators that could hunt them down on their own. While behaviorally and physically they’re similar, adaptations of the zebra to avoid being lion food makes it hard for them to be domesticated.


----------



## Sprucefrost (Apr 12, 2021)

Europeans are Gods chosen people, thats why. You can point to some genetic mutations that made whites more intelligent but very little research has been conducted on it. Also fuck that jew jared diamond and his dumb book


----------

