Why Native Americans and Australian Aborigines were not as technologically advanced as Europeans?

Less competition. European peoples lived close to eachother and had to compete militarily for scarse resources. This gave each of them a technological advantage

>these replies
Not sure but I think aussi hour might be even worse than american hour

>Australia
>no firearms
This is like Doom without guns.
Was miracle they still here.

Nigger why do you need a gun to kill a spider

*shits pants*
becoos the europo is superiore to the dindoo

I've seen worse theories

This is sadly exactly how it happened. Except the ones in the forest said, 'man I hate snakes, lets burn this shit down'

abos are dumb, end of story

To be fair it really is. There are records of some of the more exotic mega fauna still being around when they were there and perhaps even some stranglers when the first explorers turned up.
Thing is though, their solution was to burn it all down. They didn't really bring up their A-game, they just mutually assured their destruction with that of the bunyip.

>Native Americans
Aztecs had developed philosophies and Incans had complex state capitalism

They didn't have a social system emerge that allowed them to trick/coerce other cultures into trading in their natural capital for a virtual wealth that has no basis in reality, but can be used to trade for real items.
European technological advancement was fueled by the resources of other cultures, and still is today. And it will last forever, because we can now destory all of our own natural wealth and make a profit to buy else's. We can move from coral reefs, to rainforest, to desert to pelagic fisheries, funneling it all into suburban supermarkets along the way. It's the perfect system and will surely last forever.

bye bye commushit

I'm not a communist you mong.
Fuck off with this capitalism v communism false dichotomy bullshit

Australia didn't have anyone to really trade with and there fore get new ideas the way Asia, Europe, and Africa did, but I genuinely don't get this for the Americas. Did Americans not have cross-continental trade? Did South and North America not interact?

>I'll just go with the easy explanation instead of looking for an actual reason thats why I belong to da white masterrace hehe

if you want meme answers

They did, that's how the bronze got from the Andes to Mesoamerica. The spaniards witnessed it, they captured an inca raft heading north to trade.
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pre-Columbian_rafts

why would they be? it was simply a coincidence that eurasians advanced above stone age. technology isn't something that is in your genes.

>Mere coincidence my friend :^)

What I wanna know is why no other advanced civilisation decided to colonise Australia before the British did.

Natives had no horses, Abos are literal subhumans on the otherhand like all tropical brown skinned homo sapiens.

They hunted Moa. Google that shit.

>tropical brown skinned homo sapiens

Wut?

There is no such thing as a subhuman you fucking /pol/tard. You guys are literally retarded.

What about the tropical, brown skinned, native Americans, you godamn dumbo.

Man they just don't give a fuck.

There is almost something enviable about being so simple that such basic living is sufficient to be satisfied in life, just some dump of a hut and some dead kangaroos and you're set for the day.

>The spaniards witnessed it, they captured an inca raft heading north to trade
sauce

You used to be able to buy machine guns over the counter, no muss no fuss

Those were the days .

lol triggered as fuck

stay salty, shitskin

As I said, literally retarded, since muh skin color is the only explanation you can come up with

Europe is not a continent, its connected to Asia where most of the ideas and inventions came from. America was isolated

Abos are dumb as fuck. Thats not me being /pol/ that is a fact. Take Gypsies, illegal Somali refugees, and inner city blacks, and mix them together and you get an abo.

Natives just seemed slow. Mesoamericans had agriculture, some animal domestication, basic metal working, art, etc. However the whole make the sun rise with murder thing held them back. Remove that feature from history and they may have been on par with China during colonial times.

someone I don't like said this once = it's wrong!

I heard that native australians had some form of trading contact with indonesians

When aboriginals had access to ideal situations we have clear examples of mass works being built to gain in trade and long the settlement.

We know this because in the very well water and fertile regions of Victoria came about we have some of the most sedentary and prosperous groups in all Australia. Quite frankly innovation comes only after lowest needs are more than meet to at least some specialist castes or subgroups.

Maslow's Hierarchy of needs.
Trepangers came later and even they recognized Australia as they knew it wasn't worth settling.

Other than the incorporation of Allah in aboriginal myth, small pox, minor blanda and tamarind trees the Indonesians didn't leave much on the more formidable parts of the continent

There has been evidence of small huts being constructed, but thats abiout the extent of it - as well as no suitable animals for domestication mabye their Denisovan dna had something to do with it too.

We had better guns, germs and steel

Necessity is the mother of invention and then you go from there.

it says on the link

This

Also, while it sounds like dumb SJW revisionism, when you are comparing isolated landmasses, technology isn't linearly developed.

The native americans (speaking for all of the Americas, not just north america) were way behind in metalurgy, but in regions of central america and south america, were more or less on par or better then most of europe in terms of architecture and stoneworking, and were able to devlop cities rivaling european ones without metal tools or any sort of hourse or mules to move supplies.

When the aztecs built the 5th most populated city in the world to that level only in 200 years, with it being on a lake with a huge amount of aquaducts, causeways, dykes, and palaces with zoos, aquariums, and gardens, all without metal tools or pack/work animals, it's really hard to argue that they weren't ahead or at least devolping more rapidly then eurasiafrica.

It's also worth noting that humanity orignated in africa, of course, so the movement of populations to the fertile crescent and the devolpment of agriculture happened sooner then people getting to the americas and indepdently devolping agriculture there: IIRC, agritculture only got going in the americas around 5000 BC

As for the North americans and abbos, no clue.

Have you ever researched Mesoamerican empires or Anthropology in general?

It's a combination of geographic isolation and ecology, Eurasian trade routes allowed ideas, culture, and technology to flow more openly.

Considering their isolation, the South American Natives made some pretty impressive civilizations.
>metallurgy, ceramics, textiles, art, polyphonic music
>domestication of maize and other crops over centuries, large crop diversity, irrigation systems, canals, a few domesticated animals
>some of the greatest architecture in history, engineered stonework able to survive for centuries without mortar through earthquakes and volcanic events
>seafaring ships for use in trading/fishing/military/transport
>one of the three locations in the world where a writing system developed independently
>astronomy, a sophisticated calendar, systems of mathematics, able to at least calculate large sums and fractions, some elements of geometry
>court system, system of laws. well organized markets, education system, political alliances/military
>advanced medicine, able to perform various surgeries, including skull surgery, and developed anesthetics

If it wasn't for their isolation they almost certainly would have advanced much further than they did.
Their glorification of death/human sacrifice is pretty unfortunate. but the more I've read about it, the less barbaric it seems in comparison to some other old world practices. in a way it's sort of fascinating, their theology determined their status in the afterlife based on how they die. they believed that death by sacrifice was the highest spiritual honor possible (next to death at infancy, or death of mother in childbirth), you become an idol of god(death) when you are sacrificed, in a way its a philosophy that allows them to conquer & rationalize death. the implementation was definitely brutal though exaggerated

The north americans remained nomadic hunters longer than the natives in the south, living off bison and such. So it definitely took them longer to develop agriculture, it's estimated around 4000-5000 BC, but the natives in the southern highlands started farming earlier than this.

because it's a fucking desert filled with venomous giant spiders and snakes. literally only reason the british colonized it anyway was because they wanted some far-away shithole to dump their trash.