Couldn't the Mali or Ethiopians buy horses and cows and what not from Arab merchants?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.
That's just a coomer fantasy.
Zebras, Rhinos, and Hippos can't be domesticated for many reasons.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 bastardsCouldn'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.
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.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
Like i said in another post, why couldn't the Mali or Ethiopians just buy them from Arab merchants?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?
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
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.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.
You're asking for answers to a completely different question to what OP is asking.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.