Why is it that Europeans were able to advance their society and technology so far while Africans just stagnated and...

Egypt isn't Africa.

They didnt had a lot of idea exchange with other cultures due to their relative isolation. I meamn its no wonder the few sub-saharan civilization who did thrive ( for ecample mali or ethiopia) had much contact with other civilizations.

>Egypt is the only civilization in Africa
Once again, have you actually read anything about the history of Africa or have you only read posts on Veeky Forums regarding how "primitive" Africans are?

Enlighten me, Tyrone.

Because
1. Acess to a wider variety of donesticable animals and plants
2. Horizontal continent vs vertical continent. Meaning that crops that had successed in italy could be easily transplanted to spain.
3. They had access to a much larger amount of people. Meaning they had a more profitable trade and a higher rate of technological innovation than their more isolated counterparts.
4. Europeans weren't subjected to as much disease as the africans. Like malaria.

Basically this OP

Africa, or at least Sub-Saharan Africa was fairly isolated. Its geography is also very poor for Empire building. Notice that Europeans didn't colonize Africa's interior until after having industrial-era tech.

Not the other guy, but its pretty well known that sub-Saharan civilizations existed.

This is bullshit

Aztecs and Incans had vast civilizations while being relatively isolated

Africans are literally just dumb.

Literally the only invention to come out of Africa is peanut butter.

They were as technologically inferior as africans

I'm pretty sure central americans had been mashing peanuts for a while

Why do /pol/ shitters make this thread every 5 hours?

>have a writing system
>build massive stoneworks
>accurate astrological charts
>solid grasp of mathematics
>massive metropolis rivaling the largest cities in Europe
>irrigation systems
>paved roads

Alright.

>image.jpg

I wonder who could be behind this thread

wat

at least they had fucking agriculture

Wait. You don't think that the Africans had agriculture?

Uhhhh... You do realize this is Veeky Forums not /pol/ right?

How many times a day do we have this thread?

At least four.

Everytime /pol/ thinks they have a "legitimate" argument.

great argument

too many niggers

So you believe Africa didn't have agriculture? lol

another great argument

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bantu_expansion
unesdoc.unesco.org/images/0013/001338/133843e.pdf
There's nothing to argue. You're autistic.

What year is that map for?

DO NOT REPLY TO GORILLA THREADS

SAGE AND REPORT

DO NOT REPLY TO GORILLA THREADS

SAGE AND REPORT

DO NOT REPLY TO GORILLA THREADS

SAGE AND REPORT

DO NOT REPLY TO GORILLA THREADS

SAGE AND REPORT

not even /pol/ or him, but kill yourself

>Gojoseon
Stopped reading there

>2000 bc
Are you trolling?

Where da finns at?

Because of the environmental pressure.

There is no need to change your modes of production when hunting and gathering works fine. There is no need to create states when there is no competition for resources. And so on and so forth.

You should probably note that "works fine" means at least successful enough to not die out and go extinct, and not sending a man to the moon.

youre wrong

You're halfway there. Those environmental pressures also had a darwinian effect of not raising their intelligence, which is why africans can't catch up with the rest.

Why do white people consider themselves highly advanced and the pinnacle of intelligence?
If people in Africa really wanted all this bullshit they would've accepted it gladly, instead they were forced christianity by the sword, our languages etc.

>If people in Africa really wanted all this bullshit they would've accepted it gladly,

Aren't Africans among the most devout Christians in the world nowadays?

>ireland is in africa

>obvious /pol/ bait thread

Except black death and such

the irony is that /pol/ thinks in the same sort of selective historigraphical way that they typicallly accuse "nigs" of follwing

"crusaders dindu nuffin"
"we wuz vikings an shit"
"somebody of a different color moving into my neighborhood?? invasion"

Because some white people invented the computer, electricity and the phone, they see themselves as superior. When in reality they are dumb and unimportant, simply they claim the achievements of one person to justifythat the average white person is a genius.
They don't say Alexander Bell invented the phone, they say white men invented the phone.
It's 20th century mentality.

Because Africans are inferior. There, I'm black and I said this so discussion over.

>Why do white people consider themselves highly advanced and the pinnacle of intelligence?

Probably because they went to space

>I didn't say that, I said that Africans didn't develop at all, and I want to know why.
But they did. They had many civilisations.

>Nubians
See even in 2000bc blacks had civilisation while Europe was just tribes

They developed at the same rate as other human populations. Well, a few percent slower. Two thousand years behind after forty thousand years of independent development.

Not just that but almost all inventions are solutions to problems that they themselves caused.

Why would African people invent cell phones for example. They had no need for it in the midst of the jungle.

Essentially white people claim to be superior because they have more problems, while African societies functioned without problems for the most part of their history until white people invaded.

>Why would African people invent cell phones for example. They had no need for it in the midst of the jungle.
You can't just invent cell phones. Do you have any idea of how much needs to have been developed and discovered before you can even get the materials of a cell phone, never mind figuring out radio waves or even coming up with the concept. It's an insane impossible concept to people who've never known it.

Racists always think that everything occurs in a vacuum, that some people should just be able to clap and poof a car gets made.

because Europeans had to adapt to winter and evolved to be able to plan ahead for a whole year.
That's also the reason why north Europeans are smarter and economically more successful than southern Europeans

>That's also the reason why north Europeans are smarter and economically more successful than southern Europeans
Is that why northern Europeans were uncivilised barbarians for centuries while the med europeans were founding western civilisation?

>everything occurs in a vacuum
I am not sure who you are trying to attack because I was exactly arguing against that. In order for new technologies to emerge there has to be need for it. You can break it down to more basic examples if you like: why would hunter and gatherer invent agriculture when there are no economic means for it. Thus why would you invent new means of long distance communication when your social life limits itself to close proximities.

>economically more successful
How so?
Most African societies were subsistence based and self-sufficient and thus very successful in what they were doing.
If anything they were more successful in having equal standards of living, while western capitalism excels at creating poverty.

it's because it was way easier to kick off agriculture in the south.
Once the agricultural technology spread to northen Europe, they became far more powerful and relevant eventually, and continued to be to this day

That's what I am saying.
The black man got everything he needed from the nature, he had no needs to plan ahead and lived in the day.
Meanwhile, the white man experienced a harsh winter every year, if he wanted to survive, he needed the ability to plan ahead.
You can see this difference til this day, with people in the north beeing far more punctual and planning than the southernes

Ok sorry, I misunderstood.

>If people in Africa really wanted all this bullshit they would've accepted it gladly,
Yeah I'm sure Africans are deliberately choosing AIDS and starvation.

nah man don't call them out, I'm literally having a laugh with all these anti-/pol/ retards.

>bu-bu-but there's no need to invent cellphones

loving every laugh m8.

Except that's not true at all.

This place is like anti-/pol/ in terms of content, and it's even stupider.

I guess it's an accurate reflection of academia.

You know that learning is mostly stupid repeating of others man achievment ?
You are not a Pitagoras, yet you can understand and use something he discover.
Subsaharan africa got lesser connection to more populated area so they stagnated in adapting technology, besides not every technology developed in other climatic region can be adapted to subsaharan africa.

Yet they didn't have a fucking wheel. A WHEEL.

Mesoamerican civilisations are overall weird as they seem to be very advanced on theoretical level - mathematics, astronomy and medicine were decently advanced - yet the practical advances just... didn't follow. Wheel is one example but look at the other - they knew bows yet for whatever reason they've still used atl-atl alongside when hunting. It didn't make sense because there's basically nothing atl-atl could do better than bow(which is why it was replaced everywhere else in the world) yet Mesoamerican people used it commonly.

Going further south - Incas knew bronze yet their metallurgy was literally nonexistent as they didn't know how to prospect tin ore.

Not to mention that Mayan civilisation collapsed to the point where several hundreds years after the collapse almost nobody knew how to read their hieroglyphs, nobody knew who built the abandoned cities in the jungle etc. Imagine if 12th century Italians didn't knew what WRE was, it was that kind of complete collapse.

That was 20000BC

>Subsaharan africa got lesser connection to more populated area so they stagnated in adapting technology, besides not every technology developed in other climatic region can be adapted to subsaharan africa.
Subsaharan africa was in contact with the north african and middle eastern world. It was far less isolated than, say, the Americas. Yet the Americas developped far more advanced civilizations. How do you explain that?

>Yet they didn't have a fucking wheel. A WHEEL.
Neither did the ancient egyptians to be fair.

Not to mention the africans, who obviously didn't have the wheel.

The mayan collapse was no different from the IVC collapse.

The thing with native americans is that they basically got stuck in the "ancient civilization" stage. They were like Sumerians in terms of development.

>muh bell curve

>b-blacks don't have lower IQs, they just express their intelligence differently!

I dont believe america civilizations were really more advanced than african ones.

Show me a subsaharan african city on par with Tenochtitlan.

No, that inaccurate meme engraving of Loango does not count.

Besides - look at nigeria, lagos, botswana - they can adapt advanced form of governing and be quite succesfull in it.
They adapted communism and other leftist ideologies after colonialism, which caused they lagged behind, just like eastern europe.
I dont deny blacks are STATISTICALLY less inteligent than white person, but i believe than YELLOW people are slight more intelligent than white person - I just dont believe that was tha cause of their lag in "development".

> be /his tard boasting your superior knowledge to /pol tards
> fail to answer the proper

Plus, even admitting that the exchange between cultures are the key to everything, how is it possible that Europeans discovered and invented so much compared to the rest of the world?
Why Newton, Einstein, Galileo,Copernicus, Leibniz etc were all Europeans?

>Besides - look at nigeria, lagos, botswana
First of all Lagos is the capital of Nigeria. Secondly, Nigeria is a shithole. Finally, Botswana is basically a giant diamond mine, the government lets foreigners exploit their mineral resources in exchange for a share. There is no development beyond that. They are like a gulf country.

>I dont deny blacks are STATISTICALLY less inteligent than white person
Good then.

>- I just dont believe that was tha cause of their lag in "development".
It's a pretty good explanation.

Communism might explain the poor performance of african countries post-decolonization, but it doesn't explain Africa's very low level of development before colonialism.

>africa has no chance at good agroculture or good domesticated animals
>no need for bigger communities to gather wealth
>no big communities no big prehistoric cities
>advance stops there and since europe had good agroculture and good animals, they advanced

>how is it possible that Europeans discovered and invented so much compared to the rest of the world?
Because of the industrial revolution, invention became exponential. Once a few key things came into place, it became possible to invent everything. If you think about it the majority of inventions happened in the 20th century.

> Northern Europeans, aka Icelanders, Norwegians, Swedes, Finns, Danes
> more important than Italians, Greeks, Spaniards and more relevant

>no environmental pressure because lots of easily accessable land with easy living conditions
>no development of agriculture because spreading out was possible when population growth occured
>no fighting for resources because they just spread out
>no state building because they didnt have to fight for ressources
>no large scale conflicts because there were no states
>no technological advancement to gain advantage in large scale conflicts
>no science because no technological advancement is needed

>hurr why werent einstein or newton black durr

...

>Communism might explain the poor performance of african countries post-decolonization, but it doesn't explain Africa's very low level of development before colonialism.
It doesn't need explaining, your worldview needs altering. There's absolutely no reason the entire world should be at the same level at the same time. You might as well start claiming europeans are less intelligent than egyptians because while egypt was at its height euros were living in huts

nowdays, yes.

No, that's not true at all. It's not even true that Northern Europe is superior. It's western Europe that is superior today, and thats because they all had great access to the atlantic and the new world. The plague also put western europe ahead by crumbling peasantry, while in the east peasantry increased despite the plague.

Superior in what way?

Richer, better standards of living, happier people, more achievements.

>There are people on Veeky Forums right now who don't know that Africans have had agriculture and animal husbandry since long before European colonization

>There are people on Veeky Forums right now who refuse to acknowledge that there have been sub Saharan African civilizations with a high division of labour and large cities

>There are people on Veeky Forums right now who don't realize how hard it is to have a lasting empire in an area with extraordinarily high rates of parasitic infections before the advent of modern medicine

And they don't want to.

It'd absolutely destroy their self worth, in taking from other people's achievements who are incidentally related.

You forgot that the european culture was particularly well suited for these endeavors.

AYO HOL UP

So you are saying it's fine to live like an animal as long as you don't know a better life is possible?

Portugal has a higher standard of living than Sweden?

Is Portugal all of western Europe?

>Equal standards of living
Are you fucking retarded?
Open a book you count, just because the majority of people like kinda like shit it doesn't mean there is no elite.

>But muh tribes
Jesus christ. If you think that things are simple like "here is the chief. The only thing he gets more is some political power and an extra chick to bang" you need to stop watching whatever shitty disney movie it is you are watching, and get to reading.

How comes Spain and Portugal are so shit, despite beeing the first colonizers.
How comes that south France is poorer than the north?