It's a "Africa is an easy continent the only reason it didn't develop was because hurrdurr niggers" thread

>It's a "Africa is an easy continent the only reason it didn't develop was because hurrdurr niggers" thread
Can we get some actual discussion on reasons why it didn't develop, especially in the Jungle? things like soil quality, how the weather affects the growing season, navigable trade routes, diseases, etc.

It didn't believe because it didn't develop. What is this magical concept of mandatory development that you have? Do you not realise that humanity existed for 250,000 years in the stone age? So Africans begin civilisation 2000 years after the Middle East and Europeans, why is this such a shock and horror when it took a quarter of a million years to reach that point to begin with.

Simple, they didn't actually need agriculture.

Because Africa is indeed an easy continent.

...

I mean there's a reason why South Africa was so popular for colonisation. Colonists tend to be farmers and most of Africa is either total desert, rainforest, or poor savannah where only hardy plants grow.

>Colonists tend to be farmers
Duh.
There is no civilization without agriculture, friend.

>Botswana could become a farming powerhouse in the future
BASED BOTSWANA BEATS THE BAITERS AGAIN

there was a longass fucking time where nothing developed. what in the fuck do you even think you are arguing.

Reading comprehension level: kindergarten

Or they'll just strip-mine it, and spend the cash on leather and metal studs.

the entire line of argument is retarded, not just the /pol/itical version.

there isn't some kind of an expected timeline for civilization. there's some stupidly long time of hunter gatherers not develping shit and then the extremely short part at the end where people actually learn things.

>mfw people treat CURRENT YEAR as the end of history

Who says some Chinese scientists won't just genetically modify the Africans and make a race of superhumans? WHO'S LAUGHING NOW FUCKERS

First off, you and everyone else who makes these threads every single day is operating under a false premise. History is not like a game of Sid Meier's Civilization. Societies don't develop down a linear path with the end point being identical to industrialised western system, so it's entirely pointless to ask why a culture or group of cultures "didn't develop." You can only try to ascertain why the developed the way that they did, and what factors were at play in shaping their historical lifestyles.

there are a variety of reasons as to why much of Africa lives in poverty, and why their societies have perhaps not had the same scale of tangible scientific or cultural output of other regions. One important thing to recall is that wide scale industrialisation in the western world is a relatively recent and rapid process, and that it was occurring at the same time that African nations were being exploited and colonized, something that has hampered the process into the modern day. Agriculture was the major occupation of European people for much of history, as it is in Africa now, and the comparison between the two continents is only more shocking because of frankly revolutionary developments over the last few centuries.

Civilization either grows independently or is introduced from somewhere else. The parts of Africa that weren't isolated from Eurasia did adopt civilization, as in Sudan and Ethiopia, and later on in the Swahili Coast. The isolated parts of Africa, including the West, Central and Southern parts were isolated for most of their history (West Africa only really came into contact with North Africa after camels were introduced in the 1st millennium AD). The only way civilization could emerge in these places was independently.

Civilization only emerged independently in other parts of the world thousands of years after crop agriculture was introduced into those regions. Some developed faster than others, and plenty of places never developed it at all, but nowhere developed it instantly. In sub-Saharan Africa crop agriculture began in the Sahara around 2500 BC, spread across West Africa around 2000 BC, and spread across Central and Southern Africa during the Bantu migrations after 1000 BC. This was a very late emergence of agriculture compared to Eurasia and the Americas. Areas which might have supported civilization like the Great Lakes regions (agriculture after 500 BC) and Zimbabwe (after 200 BC I think) had no time to develop civilizations, though they did have complex chiefdoms like the builders of Great Zimbabwe.

In terms of other developments such as cultural expression, several things are important to note- for one, every culture has different artistic ideals, so asking why African groups never had a artist like Michelangelo or a composer like Bach is pointless. There are various forms of African art, such as dance, that are highly complex and developed.

Secondly, food security has a lot to do with he sheer volume of it. besides arid conditions and dangerous tropical diseases in parts of the country, Tsetse flies have a huge impact on agricultural output. They hugely hamper the ability of harnessing draft animals, and as a result massively reduce agricultural output. Since a surplus of food is one of the chief prerequisites for the development of a devoted artisan class, this greatly hampered the development of urban elites or other groups so vital to the development of European or Asian cultures. No one has time to be a philosopher if everyone is needs to farm.

Only West Africa had enough time to develop civilization, which they did in the Sahel in the late 1st millennium and Nigeria after 1000 AD, both probably encouraged by the growth of trade but not directly derived from North African civilization (only much later did the Sahel adopt Islam). These civilizations were impressive in their own ways but were at a very early and archaic stage in their development, comparable maybe to the Olmecs or Shang China, and didn't have much time to spread or develop like the Eurasian and American civilizations did. Plus, since they built in mud and wood (the most suitable materials in their environment) not much has survived from them, making them often seem unimpressive. But the incredible art of Ife and Benin is easily comparable with that of any other civilization at the same stage in its development, and early accounts of the region attest to a fairly well developed civilization.

There are some things that confuse me though; like why did civilizations emerged in the western Nigerian rainforest but not in the east or in the Congo beyond. Of course, the emergence of civilization isn't an inevitability, but it seems strange that two neighborhood regions with similar climates would develop so differently. Maybe its something to do with the soils or with their relations to the Sahel.

OP here. I was trying to mock the people who claim it's because of blacks. I know there is disparity, I wanted to discuss the environmental factors. Sorry for not clarifying.
>tfw not born in time to chill with the afro-chinese hyper race

Oh look, it's the 400th edition of this dumb ass thread.

I have a better thread topic. Given the state of Africa today, would a sympathetic or self aware neo-colonialism be the solution?

>Administrators from around the world and technocrats rule africa while teaching a generation of the natives lessons on soft infrastructure and modern governance?

Not only is it the solution, the Chinese are already on it. Fucking nigs just can't catch a break.

>“Education, sir, is the development of that which is. Since the dawn of history the negro has owned the continent of Africa—rich beyond the dream of poet’s fancy, crunching acres of diamonds beneath his bare black feet. Yet he never picked one up from the dust until a white man showed to him its glittering light. His land swarmed with powerful and docile animals, yet he never dreamed a harness, cart, or sled. A hunter by necessity, he never made an axe, spear, or arrowhead worth preserving beyond the moment of its use. He lived as an ox, content to graze for an hour. In a land of stone and timber he never sawed a foot of lumber, carved a block, or built a house save of broken sticks and mud. With league on league of ocean strand and miles of inland seas, for four thousand years he watched their surface ripple under the wind, heard the thunder of the surf on his beach, the howl of the storm over his head, gazed on the dim blue horizon calling him to worlds that lie beyond, and yet he never dreamed a sail! He lived as his fathers lived—stole his food, worked his wife, sold his children, ate his brother, content to drink, sing, dance, and sport as the ape!

“And this creature, half child, half animal, the sport of impulse, whim, and conceit, ‘pleased with a rattle, tickled with a straw,’ a being who, left to his will, roams at night and sleeps in the day, whose speech knows no word of love, whose passions, once aroused, are as the fury of the tiger—they have set this thing to rule over the Southern people——”

Thomas Dixon

Mods: I'm merely quoting an author. His views do not necessarily reflect mine!

reminder that only a few regions developed advanced civilizations on their own: Egypt, China, Mesopotamia and the Levant and the Indus Valley. the rest of the world basically learnt civilization from contact with those people. greek civilization started to develop from contact with levantine states and Egypt, South-East-Asia from China and the legacy civilizations of the Indus Valley etc.

really, Africa is more of the norm, not the exception. they were isolated from those civilizations until quite recently, so most of the continent never left the stone age.

>things like soil quality, how the weather affects the growing season

Much of sub-Saharan Africa contains some of the most fertile and resource rich land on the world, so knock those ones off.

If you want the plain truth, Africa didn't develop because of the Sahara, which as the planet's biggest desert is not the most appealing for trade roots. And hey of that desert, isolated tribes and jungles containing only madness.

Europe only developed because it had trade with china and could steal all of China's ideas. Africa was nowhere on the Silk Road.

To the makers and shakers of the ancient world, this didn't sound like that much of a value proposition.

And when you finally got trade to open up in Africa via the Portuguese and others, it was largely manifested in an exploitative relationship rather than a constructive one. That's the way of the world after all.

Sorry for typos

>Europe only developed because it had trade with china and could steal all of China's ideas
It's amateur revisionist hour, only on Veeky Forums.

>it was largely manifested in an exploitative relationship rather than a constructive one.
Same in South America. Sad, really, there was and is a great deal of potential in those places, but colonization fucked it up.

original pasta. DO NOT STEAL.
t. Italian

Why do these threads always list every possible reason under the sun except for the lower iqs found in African populations? Seems disingenuous desu

Fuck off kike

I watch animal planet all the time

Africa looks like a comfy jungle with some patches of savanna here and there

Because they're brainwashed with the idea of tabula rasa and the supposed equality of mankind.

Saying Africa is like what it is on TV is like saying Feudal Japan was just like Ninja scroll.
Also, there are flies, disease carrying mosquitoes and parasites fucking everywhere.

oh look, /pol/ is here.

It is a reason, just not as significant as the others. If you want to see how Africa would be if they had contact with the outside world, see Meso-America/South America

The top reason? Lack of interaction with other cultures and people.

Africa is huge. Sub-Saharan alone has more than twice the land mass as all of Europe combined. They were blocked off to the north by the fuck-huge desert, with only ports along the coast being the only place to interact with other people. And even then, it was mostly in the north, and a some in the north east.

East and south Africa didn't have access until ships could circumvent Africa's horn, but even then, it was easier to transport goods over land from Alexandria, over to the red sea, where they could get to India once a year.

Not only that, Sub-Saharan Africa is isolated by it's own terrain. It was difficult for humans to expand in Africa, as Africa is where humans (and other primates) evolved. There are parasits and insects that can ONLY breed using humans as hosts. Meaning it's harder to spread in Africa, because not only the diseases and insects, but the megafauna.

Whereas Asia and Europe had the silk road and the Mediterranean Sea, along with the entire coast along the south side of Asia. This brought the most interaction, and thus more ideas and technology spread throughout that region.

>never invented a wheel
>never developed a writing system
>to this day consistently scores lower on IQ tests
>"HUR DUURR THEYRE NOT DUMB ITS LITERALLY EVERY OTHER REASON"

Average IQs over a full standard deviation from the norm isn't as significant as other factors? On what planet?
>If I ignore the budding field of genetics, it will go away.

>sub-Saharan Africa contains some of the most fertile land

sauce? i find it hard to believe, since most of the continent is rainforests, savannas and deserts, not very ideal for farming. sure, tropical Africa has the ideal climate to grow fruits, but to sustain a large civilization, you need some high-calorie grains like wheat or rice.

>A study (1999) by Capron and Duyme of French children adopted between the ages of four and six examined the influence of socioeconomic status (SES). The children's IQs initially averaged 77, putting them near retardation. Most were abused or neglected as infants, then shunted from one foster home or institution to the next. Nine years later after adoption, when they were on average 14 years old, they retook the IQ tests, and all of them did better. The amount they improved was directly related to the adopting family's socioeconomic status. "Children adopted by farmers and laborers had average IQ scores of 85.5; those placed with middle-class families had average scores of 92. The average IQ scores of youngsters placed in well-to-do homes climbed more than 20 points, to 98."

Is it putting the cart before the horse?

All of those play a role in the development of the stupidity of the nigger, or more so the non-development, and at the most stagnation, of their collective intellect and culture.

Just because it isn't their fault that they didn't develop doesn't make them on par with the rest of civilized humanity. They're objectively dumber and violent.

No. Hence why I brought up Meso-America and Latin America. The Native IQ certainly isn't comparable to Europeans or Asians but they still built an advance society because they had a suitable environment to built it on not to mention being smarter than Africans. Africans on the other hand content not only with low IQ but complete lack of contact with Eurasia which if anything could tell you, is where civilization influenced one another.

It contains some, but mostly to the south. Not all of It is fertile and even if it is war prevents us from getting a better analysis.
>genetics=IQ
what the fuck? And how do you know the IQ is lower? What testing has been done?

Why does nobody ask this about Siberians or Amazonians or US Native Americans?

Because Siberians are considered "white" and Amazonians fall under "Mesoamericans" so that's a convenient excuse to dismiss them, saying that they did develop civilization and that black people are just dumb.
Also I think it's more agreed that Native Americans not having beasts of burden or livestock animals really hurt their development.

Twin studies unrelated to race have proven that roughly 60-70% of IQ is inherited. Of course any idiot could have told you that, anyone whose ever been around children can tell you that even prior to schooling not everyone is equally as intelligent. Also there has been plenty of IQ testing, both in the United States and in Africa, and plenty of research done on this subject.

In the United States for instance, there is a 15 point gap in average IQ between blacks and whites, the existence of which is not in dispute, only the cause.
No. Because as said its not an "either or" on whether its genetics or environmental factors that influence IQ. It is both.

The most likely reality is that Africans not only have a genetically lower IQ, their potential IQs are reduced by their poor environment [which is created by their shitty IQs. Its a vicious cycle. Though even in ideal conditions, they would still be simpletons on average. Note that 'average' part. There are genius Africans, just as their are retarded whites and east-Asians].

yeah it has absolutely nothing to do with the convenient location right in the middle of the most profitable trade route of its time

Easy

Just test a few dozen students from bumfuck nowhere, disregard the higher scoring students to fit the narrative, and then apply those findings to 25 other countries with no questions asked

Bonus points for using insane retards from a foreign asylum

US native americans get attacked all the time for this. it is used as a justification for taking the land from them

Americans may evoke similar arguments to justify early colonization, because right of conquest doesn't hit the right cords nowadays.

Some Brazilians up to this day justify displacement of Amazonian peoples through dehumanization. Their forests are being chopped and will be turned into pastures for cheap beef.

Sure pal. Its a conspiracy. All studies into IQ over the last few decades were forged to make Africans look dumb. Clearly it can't be that the information is correct, and that is why the suck hard at civilization.

There has not been a single study where the mean iq between races has been equal.

You're objectively shitting up this board.

how do you race-realist explain the fact that Ethiopia has some of the lowest IQ-s in the world? aren't they supposed to be not even real niggers? they actually have a lot of caucasian blood and were historically known to be the most advanced civilization black african civilization.

this btw

Already happening.
>afro-chinese hyper race
How horrifying.

Divine fallacy

>How do you explain an African country with very high admixture historically being very successful.

Did you think about this question before you asked it?

What are races?

How the hell is what I said in any way the divine fallacy? The fact is that no study has been done that shows the various races equal in average IQ. In fact, they have consistently shown quite the opposite.

The only way you can ignore this, is to do what you did, namely, to appeal to some form of conspiracy.

>Average IQs over a full standard deviation from the norm isn't as significant as other factors? On what planet?
>>to this day consistently scores lower on IQ tests
There isn't a single legit IQ test to prove that.

>well-to-do homes put more emphasis on schoolwork
>thus, more emphasis on academic testing
>being surprised that people who have done more testing and taken that testing more seriously do better in a test environment

The tests for IQ are all crap because any two individuals react to a testing environment differently from each other, and being in the proper mental space is the most important thing to take and pass tests.

>How do you explain an African country with very high admixture and historically being very successful having extremely low IQs
Can you read?

Sierra Leone currently has an average IQ of 91

Did they magically stumble upon a mini Europe?

What's dumb is there was a native American Civilization, the mississippian civilization. It collapsed, but diseases were hitting natives so hard in the early 1600s by that point there was no way they'd recover.

why do they have such a low IQ if they have a very high admixture?

A race is a sub-species of Homo Sapien, sub-species being defined as

"a category in biological classification that ranks immediately below a species and designates a population of a particular geographic region genetically distinguishable from other such populations of the same species and capable of interbreeding successfully with them where its range overlaps theirs"

There is some debate among realists over exactly how many subspecies should be used as a method of classification.

Observe the increasing loss of composure from the /pol/fag

baby don't hurt me

>Sure pal. Its a conspiracy.
The fact that Richard Lynn manipulated data and generally fucked his international IQ comparisons completely is not a conspiracy, it's not even up for debate.

That there is a strong correlation between IQ and GDP or HDI is not up for debate either.

Except you know, all of them.

He should start spouting US crime statistics and posting in all caps any minute now.

Fuck off kike

It was because they mixed with the most savage niggers of Congo

That I do not know. Is the current population of Ethiopia the same as the population when the country was at its height? That would be where I would start with that.
I saw it, and how you went on to the other idea, I just found it funny that despite the contradiction in them being formerly great at civilization compared to their very low IQs now, that your argument began by basically saying "Yeah one of the few places Africans had civilization is where they were part Caucasoid."
>science hurts my feelings

So you're saying there's 42 races?

More like hyper face.

Observe the smug redditor defending subhuman apes

The only reason we don't have solid evidence is because the Jews will NEVER allow further research into Racial Purity

>mfw racial purity was the accepted science for like a century but nobody ever came up with a shred of evidence for it

Because any mention of iq triggers half a dozen people for and against it, and any discussion of other factors is drowned out.

I'm not sure race should be considered equivalent to "ethnic group". Broader classifications are probably possible, such as the model used in forensic anthropology [Caucasoid, Negroid, Mongoloid], or more recent models based on degrees of admixture with other species of the genus homo.

Ethiopia had contact with Eurasia, resulting in being both genetically related to Eurasians and adopting Eurasian civilization. Being related to Eurasian didn't result in their civilization. Being in contact with them did. You don't seem to understand the difference between causation and correlation.

>they mixed with the most savage niggers of Congo

do you have any source on that, or did you just pull it out of your ass to save face?

Except your theory of it being cultural reasons doesn't accord at all with our new understanding that a significant portion of IQ [roughly 2/3rds] is genetically determined.

What if we just created a virus that killed anyone with an IQ under 100?

It'd rid the world of niggers, poos, mudslimes, greaseballs, debnts, gypsies, spics, injuns, and eastern "Europeans"

>That I do not know. Is the current population of Ethiopia the same as the population when the country was at its height?
No, I don't think you understand. If "Africans" are the stupidest "race" (nevermind that some experts consider Ethiopians and Somalians shouldn't be grouped with Bantu genetically), Ethiopians (and Somalians) should be the smartest Subsaharan populations since they are the least genetically African and have the most admixture with higher IQ races. Instead they are poor and dumb as shit.
The past population doesn't even matter, it's not like ancient Ethiopia did anything more impressive or intellectually challenging than modern Ethiopia does.
How do you explain this?

not to mention 50% of western Europe.

>Lets kill most of the world's population, thus crashing the planet's economy.

Not a good plan. Instead, we should simply wait till science advances to the point where we can increase the average IQ through genetic engineering.

Well this thread went to shit. See you next thread, where we discuss killing all the /pol/tards.

Blacks have no excuses user they have been in Africa longer than we white people have even existed on this rock and yet we still beat them by millenia in technology and social structure. Look at the humans in North Africa that formed the first civilizations why couldnt the blacks in sub saharan africa do so for fuck sake Egypt was literally caused by ONE FUCKING RIVER.

Uh, they did

Mountains of it

Aryan studies flourished, phrenology, and eugenics were making great strides

Siberians live in a giant snowstorm so I think it's understandable

READ THE FUCKING THREAD YOU NIGGERLOVER

Actually the past population matters extremely. If I am arguing that genetics plays a large role in IQ [and I am, and that is what the science seems to support], then the question of whether ancient Ethiopia and modern Ethiopia are of the same 'stock' is of paramount importance. I can't even begin to attempt to interpret your argument until I know how the population has drifted, genetically speaking, since antiquity.

>Not a good plan
But why? Morality isnt a logical argument btw.

What are you fucking trying to say? Ethiopians have low IQs, but they had civilization because they were intermixed with Caucasians, but being mixed with Caucasians didn't give them high IQs, but high IQ is the only reason they could have had civilization, even though they didn't have high IQs? You aren't making any sense.

it does though. for one, it doesn't automatcally mean that races have vastly different iq. also, 2/3 is a lot: it still means that other factors can add or take away 33%, which is less then the different between the avarages of most African and European countries.

Because Egyptians were copper-skinned middle easterners, not black Africans. Of course, that answer is too obvious for some in this thread, so clearly the answer is systematic oppression.

Bantu is not a synonym for all africans

>implying that a lack of contact amongst civilisations gives you time to develop

You forget, the celts were still running around naked in the forests and had limited contact with other civilisations.

You forget south east asians/ East Asians were still using swords and bamboo while western civilisation was developing greater forms of weaponry.

Notice a pattern?

>IQ tests
Yes IQ tests are a clear indicator of intelligence that's why this girl is so much smarter than Hawkins or Einstein plz buy our test goy

and Africans live in a giant mosquito storm. No seriously, it practically snows insects there, way more than any other rainforest country. I'm shocked people can even tolerate that climate.
>Blacks have no excuses
I recognize this typing style!

>muh feelings

Anyone less intelligent than 100 IQ deserves death

They serve no purpose but to consume and make life harder for smarter races

>phrenology
I'm past the point I can tell irony from genuine opinions.