Why did Africa not advance before Europeans came?

Yes they did.

Advance how?

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trans-Saharan_trade
I bet you think Arabs didn't have shittons of African slaves either, right?

What is Egypt?

civilizations dont 'advance' linearly. There are different cultures in different parts of the world. Africa not being as technologically advanced as Europe doesn't make it worse; it just makes it different.

What information could be included in a high school curriculum on African history course?

Because real life isn't Civ or some Paradox game and civilizations don't have tech trees and technologies to research

No not really.
Slave trading is not what you call ideal interactions.

and that correlates directly to when Africa started to develop some serious civilisation.

hmmmm

Their imperial seed Carthage was not a nice people and animal based kind of thing. So they did not get miraculous powers of economy and military and got sacked by Rome. Because instead of developing their continent, Africa, they wanted to conquer Rome by this megaloman expedition trough the Alps.

You can't touch someone without being touched yourself

Much like the German tribes in their interactions with Rome

Dinduism.

Spoiled by tropical environment acquiring provision was never taxing enough to change course, it was a lateral move.

You forgot the UNESCO General History of Africa volumes.

>hotbed of disease
>constant droughts
>literally a giant plateau
>regular coastline
>no native staple foods
>nigh unnavigable rivers

Gee whiz, what a paradise

Not him but honestly I don't know.
Like do a world history class but honestly in many schools history is the first thing that goes down.

Exactly all reasons to be r-selected
They didn't have to put up with winters or environmental (ans genetically incorporated) stimuli demanding foresight.

Oh God you are applying r/k theory to people bro?

>Human origins
>Egypt, Nubia, Axum, Libya, Carthage
>Bantu expansion
>Malagasy arrival in Madagascar
>Arrival of Islam
>Rise of sahelian empires
>Berber emirates
>Mamluks
>Ethiopia
>Islamic conquest of Nubia
>Rise of Bantu cities and kingdoms
>The slave trades
>Slaver kingdoms
>Colonization and it's after affects

Just a rough idea

>muh noble savage

This is just nice to remember Carthage's whoring with doing anything other than becoming a nice people and animal based land. The whole of Africa.

It is even most interesting for black people in the U.S. or elsewhere.

Did you read my post?

Europe was a temperate paradise

In Africa people who could not prepare for the dry season died

First the Royal African resources and producing capabilities, like any civilisation has, were used to move the Roman empire.

After that nothing happened with this for the Africans themselves.

So the Europeans came.

And now still nothing is really happening with it for the Africans themselves.

You materialists keks don't even take evolution to its fullest extent?

What are you even saying?

Bon appetite eating his dinner tonight!

What can he have in return? That old plastic tub?

Or would they become this genocidal murder machine?

the only proper response to such an imbecilic argument is: WE WUZ KANGS N SHIEET

I'm done

The whole "why did X not advance" threads are missing the point.

Sub-Saharan Africa is fucking huge. Both Americas are huge. Siberia is huge. Australia is huge.

Civilization was not the norm.

It happened in a handful of places and tended to spread from there. It's not like people's all over Eurasia suddenly figured out civilization. Some places civilized, notably in the Fertile Crescent, Egypt, India, and China, and then the technologies and arts they developed spread.

Most of the world is pretty isolated. Civilization spread throughout Eurasia because it was easier to connect with than the rest of the globe.

Because sub-saharan Africa had everything the people needed to survive with the tools they had at their disposal at the time.

There was no need to build advanced civilizations since they had all the food, warmth and water needed to survive.
In fact, they were far more advanced than us to this day considering they can live without depleting all the natural resources in the area or hunt the game out of existence. They were pretty much living in harmony with mother nature while our overpollution and hunting is slowly killing the planet.

A lot is happening in Africa. It may not be good, but it is interesting. Also, Africa is getting more peaceful and the AU is actually developing some power.

1980-2010 Africa is pretty much like reading about the Middle Ages. Tribalism and religious extremism. Shamanism and magic still play a role in politics. Cannibalism. An epic plague (AIDS). Endless internecine wars with shifting factions, and full out genocides.

Africa in the 1990's particularly was about as apocalyptic as a region gets. It makes the wars in the Middle East look tame in comparison.

I read Things Fall Apart and am well versed in African history.

The reason they did not advance is mostly due to their genetics. In case you haven't noticed, they are black. Blacks in our society don't work, and a spear-chucking monkey doesn't have much work ethic either.

No work=No civilization

You are overestimating the bandwidth of that trade.

Deja vu

Well north africa did advance, but I guess your talking about the rest of it (some parts of the rest did create some type of civilisation, but nvm).
I thought the reason was always quite simple, they had no need to advance as they were living in the climate the human body was designed to inhabit, while other groups of humans (that left Africa) had to adapt to their new enviorment, bringing technological advancement

>Because sub-saharan Africa had everything the people needed to survive
Then why was pastoral agrarianism the norm throughout the entire continent apart from the San and the Twa
>They were pretty much living in harmony with mother nature
Then why was urban living found on every part of the continent? West, North, East and West?

The people that settled in Europe for example, had to come up with new ways of getting food and other necessities in the harsher climate. Necessities that the people left in Africa could get by just hunting and gathering. All of this obviously very simplified

>Necessities that the people left in Africa could get by just hunting and gathering.
But there were barely any hunter gatherers in Africa. There were some in the extreme centre of the Congo jungle and some in Kalahari desert and what is now South Africa, but that's it. Everyone else farmed or reared cattle.

How was Europe more "harsh"?

It's a lush fertile green land once teeming with wild game and fruit

You are being genocidal in your words. Here from a local clean situation they did make it work

emmanuel.tv/

Winters. Its why the Asians whose ancestors had an even greater glacial influences have flatter facial features to keep heat as well as more foresight as a population than whites.

>there are no extreme climates in Africa

...

Still a more tolerable climate to be homeless in

It's actually godawful just like everywhere else.

And what sort of behavior would have incentive? Being nomadic perhaps? You can't really build a civilization when you have to be shifting around look at Jewry for instance.

>they had no need to advance as they were living in the climate the human body was designed to inhabit
Just because a species evolved in a certain part of the world doesn't mean there aren't other places where they'd be more prosperous if they were to somehow get there.
>An invasive species is a plant, fungus, or animal species that is not native to a specific location (an introduced species), and which has a tendency to spread to a degree believed to cause damage to the environment, human economy or human health.
Mankind is an invasive species.

Hey /pol/

Are you saying people didn't live in home or shelter in Africa?

Stormfag go

...

Seems you forgot about that period when the Roman empire had significantly advanced construction techniques and philosophy while Arabs were still backwater tribes in the desert.

Europe fell into somewhat of a technological slump after the empire fell, and interaction with the middle east did help rouse them out of it, but they weren't primitive savages, and many of the advancements that pulled Europe out of the dark ages were done entirely without middle eastern interaction, like the Ottonian renaissance.

>Seems you forgot about that period when the Roman empire had significantly advanced construction techniques and philosophy while Arabs were still backwater tribes in the desert.

>There is literally no one living in the middle east who is not an arab and there never has been

Animals have better mudhuts

Winter was a simple matter of wearing fur and building fires

Not rocket science

I doubt prehistoric europeans has the need to maintain water resources during droughts

Doubtful that animals are capable of building typical african compounds

Animals can't build mudhuts user although a few animals use mud to construct their habitats but no mud huts which aren't a bad thing at all..

Oh look, an environmentalist who thinks native Africans lived in magical nature tribes.

>they were far more advanced than us to this day considering they can live without depleting all the natural resources in the area or hunt the game out of existence.

Wow, they're starving because they can't distribute food properly, so advanced!
Also, Europe had sustainable environments in the middle ages, it was only around the industrial evolution that things really started to get out of control.

India has a higher ratio of malnutrition than Africa

30 below keeps riffraff out

That's completely out of context that refers to North Dakota (I think) and the homeless.

>I read things fall apart

Yea so did everyone else for summer reading in 8th grade

Read "Green Land, Brown Land, Black Land" by James McCann if you wanna read into Africa's environmental history. He talks about how much of Africa's recent environmental degradation is due to European incursion vs. the long history of native African's influence on the human landscape.

What do you mean by advance?

just read guns germs and steel it's all you need to know :^)

I see these threads all the time. I'm still trying to figure out what they would define as an advanced civilization.

Sub-Saharan Africa simply developed in a different manner than other places. Advancement isn't a linear path that leads to A, then B, and finally C.

Bait

Africa is doing a good job advancing now guys

Angola's GDP was literally 98% oil exports and the other 2% was copper manufacture. Obviously with the oil price crash they're having a hard time right now and they had nothing to fall back on.

José Eduardo dos Santos is a total idiot and corrupt as fuck. Not developing any industry hurt the country super hard.

This and relatively harsh climate barriers, including deserts and jungles.

t. Salty African

What a wonderful economic mind that dictator must of had. Really understood the concepts of free markets it seems.

Are the moorish and ottoman invasions ideal?

...

> aves existed 100 million years ago

fuck, /pol/ is retarded

notice the environment of the himba woman? do you really think deforestation of near xeric environments is the best thing? Like do you realize how dumb you are.

That background sure looks like it's ripe with resources to build a sprawling city. /sarcasm/

>/sarcasm/

What's wrong with that?

Kek

Can we all just realize that different races have differing IQs? Black Africans have the second lowest IQs out of any race. Aboriginal Australians have the lowest. They didn't develop civilizations or any real form of technology because blacks simply have low IQs and that's not just me being racist, that's backed up by hundreds of studies on intelligence in Africa. Why are most of the predominately black areas in the US crime infested blighted neighborhoods? Because they are too stupid to know how to build communities. Of course there are exceptions to the rule as there obviously are intelligent blacks but they are few and far between.

Iq by country

Kill yourself /pol/ we address this every fucking day
Go the fuck away already, you are not welcome, and neither are these daily threads

Areas of Africa did kick off very successful civilizations. the big names being Egypt and Carthage, with very rich farmland and short trading distances to places like Italy, the Levant, Greece, and Anatolia, Northern Africa saw some of the time's most advanced states.

Even the Swahili states on Africa's East coast found relative success based on the sufficient farmlands of Kenya and ready-access trade routes through the Red Sea/Persian Gulf.

What damned the rest of the Continent is mainly lack of arable land and dense geographic barriers.

Rainforest is not ideal for cutting the trees and placing crops, the soil just doesn't cooperate with human hands tilling it for growth, and the forests themselves as well as the Sahara desert were immense shields that prevented peoples from having ready access trade with other people-groups.

There were caravans that would brave the deserts and set up outposts like Timbuktu and Gao, but these were just barely enough to create a lifeline for trade that Mali and the Songhai used to create working empires.

Other than that, crossing the rainforest was impossible, making West and Central Africa essentially doomed with no viable communication with the outside world and no arable land to grow a working food supply with.

They didn't need to "advance" to survive. The land provided everything they needed.

They didn't have to build giant cities because they followed the food.
They didn't have to use advanced agricultural practices because all the food was right on the land, etc etc

Why did Gaul not advance before Romans came?

How did Sumer become among the first to develop civilization when Iraq has an average IQ of 87?

Why didn't Scandinavia civilize for another two millennia when Sweden and Norway have IQs that are 13 points higher?

Here are some suggestions, feel free to add yours:
>The data is biased
>The data is invented
>The data was only valid at the very moment the tests were taken, that's to say a long time after Mesopotamian civilizations
>Developing a great civilisation doesn't require a specific average IQ
>IQ doesn't mean anything