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

MaxPayne

kiwifarms.net
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.



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?
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.
 
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

ARE YOU PARTY ENOUGH!!!!
kiwifarms.net
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?
 

A Clockwork Soybean

kiwifarms.net
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.
 
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.



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?
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.
 
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

We have all the time in the world.
kiwifarms.net
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.
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.
 

Menotaur

kiwifarms.net
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

The capture of the last white wizard decolorized
True & Honest Fan
kiwifarms.net
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?
 

Menotaur

kiwifarms.net
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?
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

We have all the time in the world.
kiwifarms.net
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.
 
Top