Why do blacks suck at war?

They are always poorly organized,and even when they have better equipment and the numbers advantage they usually perfom horribly bad.

Other urls found in this thread:

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Toyota_War
en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_wars_involving_Libya
twitter.com/SFWRedditGifs

Lack of training

Blacks have had gangs in the USA for decades and not a single of these gangs have been exterminated yet by an opposition force.

Blacks are a clusterfuck when it comes to warfare as they barely strategize in fights thats why they shoot you but dont actually plan how the murder carefully leading to the ridiculous circumstances where a driveby shooting ends with NO ONE DEAD but MULTIPLE INJURED. Just as how they carelessly try to kill you they will also do this in war either mindlessly attack you or run away. Most african tribal wars had no strategy at all its just a game of who can get out with the least spears in their tribesmen.

You mean when most had stones and machetes at the most and we're largely undernourished peasants vs a highly trained and equipped militarized police and military population?

So basically they are not inteligent enough to realized how tactics and strategy work? Or they just dont value it.

Rhodesia had a blockade and outdated material,while the guerrillas got equipment and training from China,Cuba and the USSR. And they lost every single encounter vs the outnumbered and under equiped Rhodesian army. Equipment is not the answer. They are awful at war for a reason.

Blacks are all action but no thought even in their physical fights its nothing but pure instinct they are operating on and not actually planning their attacks. This easy killing mode is what african warlords saw value in african children or teenagers, simply teach the child to know that you click the trigger on anything that moves and you have a killing machiine on your hands. Most modern african conflicts are basically just pointing guns at eachother trying to hit one and other and no strategy at all. The only strategy is either from islamic insurgents or arab militants.

>exterminating gangs

Police is not the military you moron

Learn some street slang my man, opposition is long for opp meaning enemy street gang.

But ehy didnt they developed a proper military tradition. Even the celts,Iberians or Gauls developed military strategies of their own. Why do they just value physic and action over cunning?

No idea maybe it just worked for them all the time back in Sub Saharan Africa, they never had the chance to actually make war strategies since their enemies didnt do anything that wasnt unpredictable.

But someone may get the idea sometime,I dont know. It seems pretty stupid to me,that no one developed military tactics or something

>Why do they just value physic and action over cunning?
The Afro-American and African answers are different.
In Africa, agriculture was never a big deal. Social organization south of the Sahara did not require a true managerial class, like you would have in Mesopotamia or Egypt. Perhaps we ought to call it managerial talent (this is what the Samurai had: they were warriors, entrusted also with the maintenance of a bureaucracy) instead of "cunning."
Without the need to organize massive irrigation projects or anything like that, due to the easy availability of food in the sub-tropical climates, the managerial class-which would succeed only by being capable of controlling people, not by using force on them; remember that these are priesthoods or proto-priesthoods we're talking about in Mesopotamia, Egypt, even and especially China-had no place in this effectively preagricultural society, and so this society would not allow managers to emerge within it.
Meanwhile, the American negro is descended from these people, and also from their slave descendants. These people survived the Atlantic crossing not by being smart, but by being physically capable of being stuffed in a hold full of Africans for months, at sea, and surviving. Slave lifetimes were often not long, for fieldhands or anyone expected to do productive labor, and obviously household servants lived at the will of their masters.
So we see that even in America, no African managerial class emerged. A European managerial class emerged (i.e. the Catholic priesthood) at one point in history, and this is where the difference comes in. European culture was based around the notion that man is supposed to care for nature and save his own soul; it transitioned form the Catholic to the Protestant ethic in early modernity; but sub-Saharan Africa never attained a managerial class. Not even Islam could create one.

TL;DR it was division of labor and the distribution of natural resources in Africa

The ultimate point is: Management skills are not synonymous with tactical ability, but societies with established managerial classes tend to be more organized, and therefore socially select for "cunning" to a greater degree," than do classes without them.

And I guess we can also blame the welfare state for encouraging poor and stupid blacks to have more children so they can get more money from welfare.

What the actual fuck am I reading

If you guys want to learn more about the standing armies of some pre-colonial African states I can recommend some books on it

Medieval Africa, 1250–1800, 2001, eds. Roland Oliver and Anthony Atmore, Cambridge University Press.

The Art of War in Angola, 1575-1680, 1988, John K. Thornton, in Comparative Studies in Society and History, Vol. 30.

The Military System of Benin Kingdom 1440–1897, 2001, Osarhieme Benson Osadolor.

Warfare in Atlantic Africa, 1500–1800, 1999, John K. Thornton.

You can get all of these on JSTOR and a few are available on Amazon if you don't have access to JSTOR. Pretty expensive but you can't put a price on knowledge and such.

...

Ian smith did nothing wrong

Nobody is denying the existence of African armies in pre-colonial Africa. I think you missed the point of this thread, which was "Why can't modern blacks shoot straight or coordinate their gang wars?"

>Nobody is denying the existence of African armies in pre-colonial Africa.

They are, though. This thread is full of talk about "blacks" and "Africans", I was just replying to the people who were going down that route instead of talking about black american gangs.

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Toyota_War

/pol/ btfo. Also get this shitty thread off this board.

>Chad with Lybia vs Chad with France
What is your point?

The Chadians coordinated highly successful attacks against a much larger Libyan army.

Because we're talking about negroes. Negroes come from Africa.

With French aid. But still didnt know about it. Lybia military record seems pretty bad tho. en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_wars_involving_Libya

effectiveness in warfare is largely a function of technology and development.

you're asking why Africans don't have good military tactics and strategy when none of their countries are wealthy or developed enough to maintain or even set up a strong officer corps backed by institutions like military colleges and regular exercises.

it's just a stupid fucking question that's just race bait. Africans can make fine soldiers under proper leadership. modernization of a military is far more than just handing them modern weaponry.