Why African empire are so much less impressive than the rest ? They didn't write their history...

Why African empire are so much less impressive than the rest ? They didn't write their history, existed for a short amount of time only and didn't really have lasting effects.
Despite that, their existence is overblown by many people, who will say that Timbuktu library was the largest in the world, or that the walls of Benin were more impressive than the great wall of China. I'm also tired of the accusation of "Eurocentrism" from these people.

Other urls found in this thread:

healthpolicy.fsi.stanford.edu/sites/default/files/tsetse_working_paper.pdf).
youtube.com/watch?v=MkEqI3_J4xg
twitter.com/SFWRedditGifs

Agriculture brah.

Low agricultural yields mean less social complexity.

Also, Carthage was really impressive until they got raped in the Punic Wars.

Btw, why didnt Sub-Saharan Africa develop?

Yes, I didn't talk about north africa because my question is mainly about sub-saharian africa.

This has been done like several times a day since the board started.

The TL;DR is that the land isn't very well suited for primitive (ie no plows) agriculture, and it's physically quite isolated from the rest of the Eurasian land mass.

Yeah, of course this has nothing to do with the kind of people living there...

I don't think it's a coincidence that the people in the parts of the world that are the least suitable to civilization are the worst at civilization.

This is also true for Australian aborgines and the American Indians.

Whether evolution reinforces these traits or not is irrelevant to the source.

A late start to agriculture meant civilization had very little time to develop, if it developed at all.

Isolation, both from the rest of the world and between different African regions, meant civilization could rarely be adopted from elsewhere and didn't spread very far where it did.

The parts of Africa that did adopt civilization from elsewhere, like Ethiopia, Nubia or the Swahili Coast were as 'impressive' as any other peripheral part of world civilization. The West African civilizations that emerged independently emerged too late to move past a very 'archaic' stage (like no writing except where introduced by Islam).

You could compare Africa's development with that of North America; the ancient civilizations of Mesoamerica/Northeast Africa were isolated by desert from the Mississippi/Niger Valley where archaic civilization emerged on its own at a much later date due to a later rise of agriculture but had no time to develop, while even simpler cultures dominate in the rest of North America/Bantu Africa because agriculture was never introduced or was introduced much later.

>the land isn't very well suited for primitive (ie no plows) agriculture
This is pretty important considering plough-based agriculture was made impossible in most places by tsetse flies.

Agriculture never developed enough to the point where people could settle down.

I remember reading a story where people tried planting tomatoes in Africa wondering why it never worked and it turned out that the villagers were just fine at planting them, but the wildlife made farming fucking horrible, Hippos would rampage through the farmlands and eat all the crops and trample the crops with their feet.

Agriculture there is a shitshow.

The gold of Mali though is what drove the Renaissance.

They should've had killed encroaching wildlife. If they can't even protect their crops they don't deserve to be called a complex society.

Dude, you try killing a Hippo

They didnt invent the wheel

Sorry bub, but unless an entire race of people at some point enforced a strict eugenics program to breed for 'civilizability', the natural selective pressures for the period of time civilization has existed is utterly insignificant. 10,000 or so years may seem like a lot, but for a complex mammal with relatively low birthrates it's basically only been enough time to make us a couple inches taller maybe and some other minor changes. It took like 80,000 years (perhaps a bit less) just for us to have our noses get a little narrower and lose some melanin.

So you're telling me that despite the fact different races have very different physical and physiological features, it's impossible they also have intellectual differences?
Tard

Hippos and lions have nothing to do with anything. The only animal that really fucked over agriculture was the tsetse fly (healthpolicy.fsi.stanford.edu/sites/default/files/tsetse_working_paper.pdf).

The vast majority of Africans did farm and settle down. Agriculture just emerged at a much later date than in the Middle East and Europe, so there wasn't nearly as much time to develop civilization. Civilization doesn't just appear as soon as farming does, the oldest civilizations are 5000 years younger than the oldest agriculture.

How is it that ancient people's were able to kill or tame elephants and Africans can't kill a hippo?

Even prehistoric people's hunted wooly mammoths

That's not what he said you subhuman. He said there were no/insignificant selective pressures to make one people more or less intelligent than another.

>he

Stop falseflaging

Not only are you a paranoid obtuse idiot who can't comprehend that more than one person might think you're a moron, you don't even know the difference between 'samefagging' and 'falseflagging', you newfag piece of shit.

Fuck off.

>have very different physical and physiological features,

We don't have 'very' different physiological differences. We don't have even a fraction of what it would take for even the two most distinct races of people to be considered a sub-species.

>it's impossible they also have intellectual differences?

The human brain is far and away the most complex organ on the planet. It took billions of years just to advance from something like a squirrels brain to ours. You think less than 100k in absence of immense selective pressures is going to alter it to any degree worth even mentioning?

The physiological differences between humans are existent but minimal. It's said that if humans were dogs, that we would be the same breed with minor variations.

Aside from Australian aboriginals, I don't know what they are or how they got there.

reminder that the mosque was designed by the french and the natives couldn't even keep up proper maintenance on it.

>It's said that if humans were dogs, that we would be the same breed with minor variations.

Allow me to doubt that one

>tall people are a different race than short people because 'see how different they look!'

Honestly, with no memes?
I think its lack of trade/contact with other part of the world.
Europe itself was backwards and like Africa until they were integrated with the Romans.
Africa has a wealth of crops. Wheat, millet, Sorghum, peanuts, Cassava. They had excellent geography.

You consider these two people different "breeds" too?

An old, short man who probably suffers from malnutrition doesn't brove humans are that different than say a big, bulky Labrador compared to a short and thin Labrador with different fur colours.

>designed by the french
Wrong.

>In 1906, the French administration in the town arranged for the original mosque to be rebuilt and at the same time for a school to be constructed on the site of Seku Amadu's mosque. The rebuilding was completed in 1907 using forced labour under the direction of Ismaila Traoré, head of Djenné's guild of masons.From photographs taken at the time,[1] it appears the position of at least some of the outer walls follows those of the original mosque but it is unclear as to whether the columns supporting the roof kept to the previous arrangement.
>under the direction of Ismaila Traoré, head of Djenné's guild of masons.

>the natives couldn't even keep up proper maintenance
Wrong, they maintain it constantly. The original was destroyed because the town was invaded by jihadists who thought it was too flamboyant and let if fall apart.

You see how intensive cultivation of these crops didn't begin for a while?

This is because farming with plows and beasts of burden is a fundamentally different game than farming without them.

>Africa has a wealth of crops. Wheat, millet, Sorghum, peanuts, Cassava. They had excellent geography.

Variety does not equal quantity nor is this true for most of Africa. Another important factor is disconnect from the chain of civilisation between Mediterranean, Middle-east, India and Asia that was connected with Silk Road. Scandinavians were living in huts with barely functional agriculture and a necessity to raid for centuries after great civilisations rose and fell in Mediterranean, Middle-east, India and Asia. Yet you couldn't consider them somehow intelligently inferior due this.

The white man is normal sized though, it's the pygmy that's small
Still

>different size
>sifferent skin color
>different hair texture
>different skull structure
And probably
>different intellectual capacities

As much difference as between a Chihuahua and a German Shepherd

The problem with the land based approach to history is that it's overly deterministic and assumes the only or the only relevant variable is the sort of land and the sort of geography that people live in. Which, I'm not arguing they weren't important and that that didn't matter but the issue is that completely ignores the human factor, the human decisions, the great leaders, the collective identity and so on.

I don't think you can just reduce all human civilization to materialistic factors and call it a day.

Are you unironically trying to compare a fluke size difference between two person of the same races with the distictive and systematic racial shortness of pygmies?

Hippos are some of the most aggressive, violent animals on the planet, and their skin is ridiculously thick.
Elephants are largely peaceful creatures and easy to spook, and although they're big as hell their skin is really easy to pierce.

Don't talk about shit you don't know about. Hippos kill a fuckton of people even TODAY with GUNS around. Hippos would have been borderline invincible against a spear. It'd be like trying to kill a Grizzly with a pocket knife.

>They had excellent geography.
The rest of your post if fine but this just isn't true. The majority of the continent is either arid or infested by livestock-killing tsetse flies. The only really good land is in the highlands along the rift valley and some parts of West Africa.

>Europe itself was backwards and like Africa until they were integrated with the Romans.
Celts were more advanced in 500 BC than anything Africans had in 1800 AD.

Even with "late start" to say they couldn't have developed anything in 2,500 years is a bit much.

Phenotype differences between humans while seemingly extreme to you only represent a very small variation in genetics. There could be a bigger difference between two groups of tribes in Africa than a random African and a European.

That depends.

I think 90% of the time you're right, but there's a reason there was never a great Antarctic civilization.

It physically requires calories to do a lot of things with human societies.

As for modern African history, that would probably have been a lot better if the Reds hadn't come to power and shit all over the continent.

Is it a coincidence all great first civilisations started alongside of riverbed with floods when they were so isolated from each other?

Land alone isn't the cause for how human societies develop, as interaction, competition and culture also takes part but it can greatly limit the capacity and potential.

>>different size

Yes, tall people and short people exist. Correct.

>sifferent skin color
>different hair texture
>different skull structure

Yep, not complex differences either. Natural selection was able to alter geographic populations to the extent of a slight variation in cranial features and melanin production and even that took tens of thousands years.

>And probably
>different intellectual capacities

I already explained why this is retarded.

Consider this: Why were African colonies so incredibly crappy?

Europeans were establishing colonies in West African before the discovery of America.

By the 20th century, English Colonies in America had outstripped the Europeans themselves as a global power, and west africa was still a barren, lifeless shithole.

Even Australia managed to get it's shit together enough to be an actually productive modern nation, and that was colonized much later.


Were all the Europeans who travelled to Africa genetically inferior as well?

>There could be a bigger difference between two groups of tribes in Africa than a random African and a European.

Which can be explained by the fact Africans are the closest from prehistorical apes of all humans
They're literally the least developped humans on Earth
And according to which point reach tribe stopped developping, they can be closer from apes or from other humans
And given that evolution was stronger at the start, the tribes the closest from prehistorical apes are even farther from the most developped tribes than said tribes are from whiteys

>Yes, tall people and short people exist. Correct.

Keep acting like shortness isnt a racial trait among pygmies

English coloniists replaced the natives, and yes, many of those europeans were inferior because they weren't english. The English colonies flourished in africa.

That's utter bullshit though. The Iron Age Celts didn't have cities, states or writing, while parts of Africa had all of those well before 1800.

Agriculture was present in Northern Europe before 5000 BC and no civilization arose there until 5000 years later when the Romans invaded. Agriculture was present in West Africa by 2500 BC, and civilization emerged independently (in Southern Nigeria) after 3500 years by 1000 AD.

>muh metalwork
Pic related.

>Were all the Europeans who travelled to Africa genetically inferior as well?

Nope, they did pretty well and turned Africa into a decent place for the time they stayed there
Then decolonization happened and everything went back to shit

>Nope, they did pretty well and turned Africa into a decent place for the time they stayed there
Name one European colony that EVER managed to reach a level of development and economic potential comparable to Europe.

Also
>Then decolonization happened and everything went back to shit
Subsaharan Africa is doing better now than it ever did under European Rule.

South Africa.

>North Africa
>The Niger Delta
>Mali/West Africa
>Ethiopia
>The Great Lakes region

Neat, that does pretty much exactly coincide where the highest densities of population and civilization existed in pre-colonial Africa.

Are you retarded
Of course they couldnt equate Europe
You're comparing them to the US but the Africans colonies:

1. Mostly lasted from the mid-19th century to the mid 20th one
2. And more importantly, the locals werent replaced by white people.
That was the desicive factor in the US, Australia and Canada becoming so developped.
Africans colonies had a few white colonists trying to improve shit but still 90% of the country's popilation was made of Africans

>The grandfather effect exists

Ok. That's not going to explain Europeans having genetic intellectual superiority. Every major conventional 'race' of people were founded by massive waves of creeping migration by whole tribes over thousands of generations. It's not as though some tiny group of super intelligent Africans journied up into Europe and then populated it by themselves like is the probable case for some small, singular isolated tribe in one part of the world.

Until the blacks took over, of course

>Were all the Europeans who travelled to Africa genetically inferior as well?
Because African colonies never had very many Europeans. English never made more than 1% of the population, if that, in any of their African colonies besides South Africa and in pretty much all of them they only served as administrators, skilled workers and rulers not as regular inhabitants.

On the other hand Canada, US, Australia, New Zealand were all majority white colonies founded, ruled and inhabited by white Europeans.

Nigeria is currently 23rd in GDP (adjusted for PPP) in the world.

Kenya and Tanzania are on a comparable level to Bulgaria and Slovakia.

Ethiopia has had an 8% growth rate for the past half decade.

>Consider this: Why were African colonies so incredibly crappy?
youtube.com/watch?v=MkEqI3_J4xg

>Name one European colony that EVER managed to reach a level of development and economic potential comparable to Europe.
Canada, US, Australia and New Zealand are all literally richer and with better living standard than the UK.

Argentina, Chile and Uruguay are approaching Spain and Latin America in general has much more capital and larger economy than Spain.

Now try per capita

Also consider that Brazil has both a larger economy and population that Portugal, almost by an order of magnitude.

Funny how the common factor to all those is white people

That wasn't the question. We were talking about economic development. But, if you insist.

Equatorial Guinea is placed 36th, along with (90% black) Trinidad and Tobago at 35th. The Seychelles are at 46th.

Mauritius ranks 61st ahead of Mexico and Bulgaria, with Gabon just under Bulgaria.

Botswana is at 72, slightly under Iran and just over the world average.

Do we really have to have this thread EVERY DAY
are you really all newfags or just fucking /pol/tards
>niggers are dum
There now you can all go back to your containment board

A combination of a bad coastline for harbors isolation, lack of agricultural capabilities, and of the races living there contributed. Perhaps if given another 1000 years they couldve become relevant.

You definitely went with the smartest bet. Coincidentally, South Africa has a pretty different climate from the rest of Africa (which is why early settlement happened so soon compared to the rest of the place). But South Africa never even came close.

Let's take 1980 as a benchmark. In 1980 the gross GDP was 80 billion dollars, with a GDP per capita of $2,920. Great Britain's GDP per capita, by comparison was almost exactly $10,000 dollars, and despite being a smaller country, had a GDP total in excess of 700 billion dollars. Australia was near as dead even with Britain, and the U.S. had actually surpassed it even in relative terms.

You might say 'But niggers are driving down that number. That's true, but that also represents cheap ass labor added to the economy with value added. If you subtract them from the economy, South Africas development is even more mediocre, despite having a headstart compared to Australia.

And remember, in every key economic marker, South Africa has only gone UP since Apartheid ended, and no one would say South Africa is comparable to the U.S. or Britain today.

>Equatorial Guinea is placed 36th, along with (90% black) Trinidad and Tobago at 35th.

And yet their HDI is below fucking Ukraine
I guess all these Chinese factories that boost the economy dont improve the people as well unfortunately

>1. Mostly lasted from the mid-19th century to the mid 20th one
Gee, I wonder why. Guess the only viable answer is genetic inferiority of the colonists who went to Africa.

>Africans colonies had a few white colonists trying to improve shit but still 90% of the country's popilation was made of Africans
What, and you think in 1492, America had a white majority?

>What, and you think in 1492, America had a white majority?
The real question is: how rich would US and Canada be if whites were a minority and natives still made up the majority.

Hey there, calm down my black freiend
You least you presidents (for another few months)

These are African nations, not Europeans Colonies in Africa. The fact that African ruled nations are doing better than European Colonies in Africa (and European Nations) alone should be enough to discredited the genetic hypothesis.

But we're comparing European colonies in
Africa, to European Colonies elsewhere.

>Canada, US, Australia and New Zealand are all literally richer and with better living standard than the UK.

>Argentina, Chile and Uruguay are approaching Spain and Latin America in general has much more capital and larger economy than Spain.
Yes, this is exactly my point. And meanwhile, no European Colony in Africa ever reached such levels. If genetic inferirority is the reason for Africa's underdevelopment, then there needs to be a mechanism by which white colonists in Africa were ALSO genetically inferior, because their colonies failed so badly.

>Gee, I wonder why. Guess the only viable answer is genetic inferiority of the colonists who went to Africa.
The answer is WW2 and the rise of the US
European powers lost their redibility with the Suez Crisis and had no choice but to give up their colonies under the pressure of the US

>What, and you think in 1492, America had a white majority?
Not even sure what point you're trying to make
The US were always a majority white country, ruled by white people for white people
If you think their success is due to the few remaining natives in the plains or the slaves in the cotton fields, there is no hope for you

Go back to /pol/ faggot you are clearly here just to bait and annoy

>The fact that African ruled nations are doing better than European Colonies in Africa (and European Nations) alone should be enough to discredited the genetic hypothesis.

Too bad it's not the case then
Africa was much better under whites, many old africans admit it
And even the best African countries nowday (those with their economies boosted by China) still have an HDI inferior to the shttiest European nations

>Yes, this is exactly my point. And meanwhile, no European Colony in Africa ever reached such levels.
Are you literally not reading replies or what?

Canada, US, Australia and New Zealand are or were all overwhelmingly white when they became that rich and Chile, Argentina and Uruguay are Latin American countries with largest percentage of whites and lowest percentage of indigenous people.

Meanwhile not a single African colony ever had a large white population because whites were administrators and rulers not settlers.

Seriously, watch this

youtube.com/watch?v=MkEqI3_J4xg

>If
But that's begging the question. If other colonies were less successful, then yes, they'd be comparable to the European colonies in Africa. When the natives were a hindrance to Economic progress they exterminated them. Colonists in Africa had no moral distinctions European Colonists elsewhere.

You can't protest that African Colonists failed to develop on the whole, because they failed to develop in part.

I'm that case, you could look at Mauritius and the Seychelles, both in the Highly Developed listing for HDI.

>Yes, this is exactly my point. And meanwhile, no European Colony in Africa ever reached such levels. If genetic inferirority is the reason for Africa's underdevelopment, then there needs to be a mechanism by which white colonists in Africa were ALSO genetically inferior, because their colonies failed so badly.

Your retarded point has already been addressed there
The US, Canada, Australia, Argentin and Uruguay are colonies where whites settled en mass
You can't compare that with African colonies were very few whites ever lived
Colonies where white people remained a minority never amounted to anything regardless of the climate or the fertility of the land (Guyana, Iraq, Bengladesh...etc)

>Meanwhile not a single African colony ever had a large white population because whites were administrators and rulers not settlers.
There absolutely were settlement schemes all over Africa, and they failed. They never managed to develop to the degree of the Americas, Canada, the US, or Australia.

Since we've ruled out geography as a relevant factor, this must mean that European settlers in Africa were genetically inferior to European settlers in America.

And both not inhabited by black people but rather by a mongrel mix of them and Indians

>Too bad it's not the case then
Except in every single measurable way. HDI, GDP, Poverty Rates, Malnutrition, Illiteracy, all of them have gone down.
>Africa was much better under whites, many old africans admit it
Many old people admit life was better under the Soviets and the Norks. Reals > Feels.

>There absolutely were settlement schemes all over Africa, and they failed. They never managed to develop to the degree of the Americas, Canada, the US, or Australia.
Because Europe wasnt the same as in the 17/18th century when colonist were sent to the Americas, and therefore no enough people were found willing to go live in Africa

>Since we've ruled out geography as a relevant factor, this must mean that European settlers in Africa were genetically inferior to European settlers in America.
You seem to be legetimately intellectually inferior.
Are you African?
Well, I'll reply to you once more: there werent enough whites in Africa to develop it like it happened in America

>The US, Canada, Australia, Argentin and Uruguay are colonies where whites settled en mass
>You can't compare that with African colonies were very few whites ever lived
Again, this is putting the cart before the horse. It's well known that European settlements in africa were so economically backwards they failed to attract many settlers. This can only be explained by the genetic inferiority of the average European in Africa.

In the mid development, you have countries like Gabon, South Africa, Namibia, and quite a number of others.

>Because Europe wasnt the same as in the 17/18th century when colonist were sent to the Americas
Settlement in Africa began BEFORE the Americas.

>Well, I'll reply to you once more: there werent enough whites in Africa to develop it like it happened in America
Hurr, durr. This is like saying that the Russian Economy in the 18th century developed just as well as the British one: it just didn't have banks, or factories, or mines, or canals, or intensive agriculture.

You can't point as a symptom of poor development as a cause of poor development. America didn't start with 300 million white people. It grew to support that because the Europeans who arrived there created an inviting economic surplus, while the ones in Africa failed to do this.

>It's well known that European settlements in africa were so economically backwards they failed to attract many settlers. This can only be explained by the genetic inferiority of the average European in Africa.

Or it can be explained by the fact more attractive destination existed (like the fully developped US) than a place where everything had to be started from scraps?
At the time the American colonies were started, there were no other alternative for people wanting to flee Europe
But in the 19th century, the US (who were more than happy to welcome European migrants) made for a much better destination

>Settlement in Africa began BEFORE the Americas.

No they didnt
Don't confuse trading outposts with settlement colonies, faggot

africa had almost 0 population.
in fact, almost all the world did, outside some cities in southern europe, the near east, india, and china

there was no remarkable achitecture in most of the world.
why the hell would a bunch of tribals develop grand architecture like cathedrals.
when the most people you ever have settled in one area is a few hundred, the level of architectural development appropriate for your village's need and economy is huts and silos, not cathedrals, even if you're all geniuses.

Black people are just stupid and more disorganized. Black intelligence is a myth. Black failure is universal and all stories to place fault are fabrications. If you grew up around black people you'd easily see this.

We choose to lie to ourselves

> than a place where everything had to be started from scraps?
You think Columbus brought with him a fully industrialized economy?
America was more attractive then African settlements, because settlement in America worked.

>Why African empire are so much less impressive than the rest ?
Because they dindu anything notable.

Every other race on earth can create a cohesive society. Black people reside in places other than Africa and have failed in creating a cohesive society. Even Gandhi saw how un-industrious they were.

Empire of Dust is a good documentary to watch in relation to black failure. I grew up around blacks. They just lack something that keeps them from acting selflessly, from resolving petty conflicts non violently, and from making long term plans.

Even the most successful blacks are mixed and have white care takers. Like Obama or Mariah Carry

Every country given to the blacks has failed. Other races like the Indians, Chinese, and Arabs are more honest about black failure than white people. White people live in a fantasy land.

The colonies in africa were incredibly industrious until given back to the Africans. Even south africa is falling apart because of black leadership. It is the same reason Detroit is a shithole.

The reason why civilization never arose in Africa is because of its very hostile environment.

The reason why present-day africans can't into civilization is because they're dumb, which is also due to the hostile environment (there was no environmental pressure for selecting intelligence).

You're not addressing black failure in other climates and white success in Africa. The Aztec, Inca, and Maya all faced incredibly inhospitable climates and could create civilization.

The chinese are colonizing Africa currently and they will again show black failure.

Native americans have a higher IQ than black africans. They probably evolved their higher IQ when they were still living in the harsh environment of Siberia.

Blacks never developed a high IQ because there never was any environmental pressure which favored being intelligent. In fact the best reproductive strategy for blacks was to try to impregnate as many women as possible, which is still reflected today in their inability to remain monogamous in western countries.

Whites and asians thrived in Africa because they have high IQs.

>You're not addressing black failure in other climates and white success in Africa

He is though
His point his that African climate combined with evolution made blacks an inferior race

>Every other race on earth can create a cohesive society. Black people reside in places other than Africa and have failed in creating a cohesive society. Even Gandhi saw how un-industrious they were.
This is a complete non-sequitur. We're not talking about the blacks. We're talking about why Europeans failed to build functional societies in Africa.

>The colonies in africa were incredibly industrious
I'm sure you've got some statistics to back that up. We already saw that measured in GDP, even the most successful European settlement was less then an eighth the economy of a much smaller Britain.

but there's also the consideration of higher rates of childhood illness among african children, which loads on development and diverts resources from intellectual development.

blacks in the US are born from slaves that were tribals sold by other blacks, they might not be representative of blacks in general.

plus, africa has very little arable land. the last few hundred years of civilization presence in africa might not be enough to determine the potential of the subcontinent. Eurasian history was messy too, it might take a while for cultures to be ready for development.

>You're not addressing black failure in other climates
Of course I'm not. Why would I? That's completely immaterial.

>We're talking about why Europeans failed to build functional societies in Africa.

They didnt
Wh'en Europeans tried to build societies in Africa in the late 19th century, they succeeded (as much as you can with a 90% black society).
You keep basing your dumb logic on the false pretense that small outpost in Africa in the 17yj century were considered the same by Europeans as American settledment colonies

The reason why Europeans chose the Americans for their colonies wasnt the climate (Canada and Mexico have shit climate) but the fact it was far away from any other developped civilisation (like the Ottomans)

>but there's also the consideration of higher rates of childhood illness among african children,
What? If I were to take a guess I'd say Jews probably have the worst immune system out of any race because of the consanguinity, but they have the highest IQs.

>blacks in the US are born from slaves that were tribals sold by other blacks, they might not be representative of blacks in general.
Indeed, they're not representative. They went through around 100 years of "libertarian eugenics" following their liberation and before the creation of the welfare state, and in addition have about 20% of white ancestry, which makes the american black, with an average IQ of 85, the smartest black ethnic group in the world. Blacks in Africa are a full 10-15 points below in average IQ.

>plus, africa has very little arable land.
It has plenty.

>the last few hundred years of civilization presence in africa might not be enough to determine the potential of the subcontinent. Eurasian history was messy too, it might take a while for cultures to be ready for development.
Sure, I don't exclude the possibilty of Africa developing in 5 or 6 thousand years.