Assume there is an alternate history in which the Whites setled in Africa and Blacks setled in Europe

Assume there is an alternate history in which the Whites setled in Africa and Blacks setled in Europe.

Would there be any difference ?

>"the geography played a large role in the development of civilizations " Jared Diamond .

>alt history

so fiction?

...

Blacks did settle in Europe and became white eventually.

Yes. Africa would actually become a super power and Europe would be a third world country.

Well, black people would eventually become whites and white people would eventually become blacks. Pure and simple natural selection.

>Wide noses and dark skin are favorable in hot climates
>Narrower noses and light skin are favorable in cold climates

>Having to deal with unpredictable weather and agriculture, whites become more intelligent
>Living in relative prosperity but with very few staple crops, blacks are selected for agression rather than intelligence

And in the end nothing changes. Maybe instead of Spain we get the Kingdom of Wewuzia ruled by House Dindu and certain historical things would go differently (the Wewuz empire rules all of Western Europe for thousands of years) but in the end Africa and Europe would not switch roles.

It's not a question of environment or genetics, because the environment influences genetics.

arabs conquer europe

Africa would be a white paradise with a thriving economy and high culture.

Europe would be a brown liberal shithole with high crime and low quality of life. So basically the same as it is now.

No, like this person said
Geography shapes genetics, and geography is destiny.

With what exactly is Europe's geography superior to Africas? Expect the fucking Sahara desert in which no one lives.

eurasia
>horizontal, more conducive to trade, few sharp transitions in climactic zones
>mostly temperate
>domesticable animals
>river valleys in temperate, hospitable zones

africa
>vertical, difficult for trade, passes through climactic zones
>extremes of jungle, desert, Savannah
>river valleys embedded in jungle
>a gorillion parasites and diseases

The most hospitable regions of Africa are actually the most arid, and accessible by warm-water ports in the Mediterranean. See: Egypt, Libya, Morocco

>Horizontal.
>Easy
>Between Europe and East Asia theres the shitshow that is Central Asia and the ME

>Between Europe and East Asia theres the shitshow that is Central Asia and the ME
It's mostly a political shitshow. The Middle East is highly hospitable. After all, this is where the earliest civilizations arose, as well as the first instances of agriculture. Agriculture was exported from Mesopotamia, or the area between the Eufrates and the Tigris. The fertile crescent leads to India and China, with the mountainous regions of Persia being the only remotely difficult to pass through region. And even that isn't exactly horrible, considering how many people historically lived there.

You are only mentioning the worse of the one side and the best of the other. There is much more than that.
Besides, what you said is actually confronting the previous posts, i don't know if you wrote any of them but still.
Which meant that the harder you have it the more creative you start to be and find solutions and you get innovative which leads to some progress.

I just can't accept your saying that africans in the savannah had it worse than the north europeans for example living in a constant winter.
Central and South Africa aren't that bad as a climate and geographicly.

>>"the geography played a large role in the development of civilizations " Jared Diamond .
Jared Diamond didn't invent this fucking idea, it's been obvious to everyone since the ancient Greeks and probably everyone long before. Jesus christ this fucking board and its fucking memes.

Europe has a temperate climate which allowed for the introduction of agriculture from the Near East at an early stage, while most of Sub-Saharan Africa is tropical and needed to develop its own agriculture at a much later period. The Mediterranean acts as a highway that connects Europe with the Middle East and hence the wider Eurasian world, tying Europe's development with the wider development of civilization across Eurasia that had been ongoing since before 3000 BC. Europe's geography also promotes it's own inter-connectivity. So, civilization that developed in the Middle East spread to the Mediterranean, which spread to Western Europe and continued to develop in all of those places. Intellectual and technological advances made anywhere in Eurasia quickly spread around because of the inter-connectivity ensured by the Mediterranean, Silk Road and Indian Ocean trades as well as the existence of sprawling empires on Eurasia's horizontal axis.

Most of Africa was isolated from these developments; Ethiopia and Nubia took some part in them, and later on the Swahili Coast and Western Sudan got involved too, but only at a very late stage. What's more, Africa lacks interconnection because of its north-south axis and extreme environments, so that developments in one area didn't spread to other areas, and even in the areas that were connected the late emergence of civilization meant there wasn't much time to spread. When civilization did emerge in places like Mali and Nigeria it was still thousands of years behind Eurasia and had very little chance of 'catching up', especially with the Islamic and European slave trades impeding development.

Blacks become white and whites become black eventually.

>I just can't accept your saying that africans in the savannah had it worse than the north europeans for example living in a constant winter.

Northern Europeans did nothing impressive before AD.

whites would develop slower in Africa and blacks would develop slower in Europe because skin type adapted to climate. I guess blacks would have it worse in Europe (at least in Northern Europe) because the lack of sunlight, combined with their dark skin would cause a deficit in vitamin D, weakening their immune system.

Pretty much this.

Yeah whites would probably been richer from the resources in Africa such as gold and salt

there would be a lot of skin cancer.

>Narrower noses and light skin are favorable in cold climates

Not narrower noses. Bigger nose ridges which were better heated air when inhaled compare to low nose ridges.

>Living in relative prosperity but with very few staple crops, blacks are selected for agression rather than intelligence

Wut?

Are you stupid, narrower nostrils are a result of cold climate.

>the north europeans for example living in a constant winter.

Lol no.
The water in North Europe pretty much makes it much more temperate then other areas at the same latitude who had no coast or body of water near them.

>When civilization did emerge in places like Mali and Nigeria it was still thousands of years behind Eurasia and had very little chance of 'catching up', especially with the Islamic and European slave trades impeding development.

Those areas were pretty good and on par/close to it during the middle ages.

>"the geography played a large role in the development of civilizations " Jared Diamond .

He meant in forging the races
Black inferiority was initially caused by geography, but with thousands of years of evolution, it's basically genetic now

If you took current blacks and current whites and swapped their continents, Africa would become prosperous and Europe would become a shithole

If you took prehistorical chimps and put a group in Europe and another one in Africa, they'd evolve differently for thousands of years until the ones in Europe become superior whites and those in Africa become inferior blacks

>domesticable animals

Your post is entirely right but please stop with this Jared Diamond meme. His book isn't historically accurate and represents and ideology that has been abandoned by academia for decades.

ZEBRA
E
B
R
A

They weren't, at all. They had cities and states and in some areas writing and brilliant art, but there was nothing close to the same level of economic, intellectual or technological development of contemporary Europe. The southern Nigerian civilization (Yorubas and Benin) only emerged around 1000 AD and was only really comparable with other similarly young civilizations like the Shang Dynasty or the Indus Valley. The civilizations of the Western Sudan were influenced by Islam so they were a bit more 'intellectually' advanced, having literacy and scholars, but even then was only a marginal part of the Islamic world and beyond that literate Islamic culture they were no more advanced than the Nigerians.

>Having to deal with unpredictable weather and agriculture, whites become more intelligent
>Living in relative prosperity but with very few staple crops, blacks are selected for agression rather than intelligence
Nigger 45000 years a fucking blip on an evolutionary scale

>there is an alternate history in which the Whites setled in Africa and Blacks setled in Europe

But europeans cannot be black, their skin is adapted to the environment, same thing for africans. Look at how many australians have skin cancer

"black" is part of phenotype

if "whites" settled in africa they would be black

please kill yourself and never, ever, ever post on this board again you complete and utter retard

he's obviously a /pol/ack so youre wasting your time

Whites would've become blacks and blacks would've become White.

WE WUZ COMPOSERS N' SHIET

Youre right about skin tone.

But not nose shapes or intelligence. lmao, the intelligence one proves you are stupid while still being white. Africa was much more unpredictable. Europe was very stable and had less disease to adapt to until agriculture exploded. Blacks also didn't live in prosperity in Africa, the land is very difficult to farm and they were all isolated and there are diseases and insects that basically lay eggs in ONLY humans.

You are so fucking retarded jesus christ you are a shame to white people everywhere.

the dude said Europe has more unpredictable weather than Africa.

He's obviously a retard with African brain genetics.

>Well, black people would eventually become whites and white people would eventually become blacks. Pure and simple natural selection.
What does this mean, exactly?

That Europeans in Africa would eventually 'regress'? They'd end up with lower IQs?

>If you took current blacks and current whites and swapped their continents, Africa would become prosperous and Europe would become a shithole

No shit would be fucked up because people suddenly losing their homes and being teleported to a place they have no idea of and all sovial systems collapsing and governments being fubared.

>Would there be any difference ?
You understand they got slaves because people literally couldn't do the work, not because they were lazy - they literally could not, death, heat stroke and what not.

So if you replace the roles, the end result would be vastly different, as with most of these shitty fantasy threads.

Nice quads

You faggots realize that Africa natively has cattle correct? I don't mean buffalo, I mean actual fucking cows. The largest fucking cattle breed on earth comes from West Africa for shits sake.

Until the agriculture practiced there led to a degradation in soil fertility due to the careless application of irrigation ditches and destructions in wartime, yeah. According to some scholars, this played a major role in the downfall of this whole region. Europe has it somewhat better with the possibility to conduct rainfed agriculture.

Anthropogenic climate change, gets you every time

Evolutionary scale when talking about a change in species is very long. Evolutionary scale when talking about changes in population traits less so. That starts at around 16 generations. For most of human history people had their first kid sometime around age 17 to 23. The oldest age mark in the pre-modern age to start having children is the English cottager class ( they were the very poor of the rural areas) at 27.4 years of age. Lets round that to the nearest whole number for 27. That makes for in traits changes in a slow reproducing population to take about 432 years.

So how does this match up with a real case of population trait change? It took about 320 years for the black death to go from a 40% mortality rate of the total population to a 5% mortality rate of healthy victims and a inflection rate of about ~12% of the population.

>africa was much more unpredictable
ice ages for $100 david