Why didn't Africans ever establish any society on par with the ones in Eurasia? -
- Thread starter FUTUREMAN
- Start date
- Highlight
- #2
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
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
kiwifarms.net
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.
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
kiwifarms.net
- Highlight
- #4
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
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
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.
Last edited:
Because the white man came and decimated African culture out of fear that they would be wiped out by the BBC menace.
That's just a coomer fantasy.
Marissa Moira
kiwifarms.net
Zebras, Rhinos, and Hippos can't be domesticated for many reasons.
Water Buffalo possibly could have.
Beautiful Border
kiwifarms.net
Trying to domesticate a Rhino or a Hippo would be a retarded idea. Hippoes in particular are total bastards
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.
- Highlight
- #11
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.
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.
Maybe they didn't want to live in a society
Like i said in another post, why couldn't the Mali or Ethiopians just buy them from Arab merchants?
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.
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.
They actually did. Ethiopians did use oxen imported from elsewhere and the West African coastal cities famously traded slaves for horses, gunpowder, and booze.
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.
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.
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.
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.
