Would Wakanda of been a reality?

No, but Sokovia, is a reality, they just didn't want to say the real name.

What the fuck is up with Veeky Forums

Is this the board where anything goes or what?

If anything there weren't enough killing each other

It's poorly moderated.
To be fair it's a slow board.

Not really

You mean by the Bronze Age.

>70-85iq
>bad impulse control
>low agency
>high time preference
No.

-85IQ
70-85 was exactly the score the average guy in the street in the British Empire circa 1850 had. Considered what we're talking about, I somehow suspect you are just sprouting racist memes.

Not THE most advanced, but you surely would see much more developed African nations all over. Like now-a-days South Africa but with (much less) strife.

WE

it'll probably be like south america at most. Not really great, but decent enough, appart from a few bad places here and there

Europeans on a whole were more advanced than SS Africans as much as 30,000 years ago.

Without whitey to bring that technology how the fuck are they going to be so advanced?

Serbia right

They did have trade and commerce with Europe though

Most likely.

Had the Brazilian African revolters been concentrated in southern Nigeria and assimilated and form cooperation with Igboid people; been able to be a main trading hub uninfringed by European meddling and secure the borders of what could have been Biafra without colonialism you would have the wealthiest, most advanced and most modern nation in Africa that could be on par with gosh I can't even say what to compare it to.

I guess it'd be a democratic religiously free multiethnic hub of English, Portuguese speakers with mostly Christian leanings and an extremely large number of western educated people running vast oil fields and manufacturing for most of West Africa and even Central Africa.

It'd be so damn influential on the continent and Atlantic Trade that I can't even guess or really fully even imagine it.

No because millenia old African tribadism prevents any form of progress.

Sageru

nah, the cultures were way too different. europeans focused on commerse and cooperation. this allowed people to change resources and ideas and become more tolerant of each other. african culture was more focused on family and tribe, there were less resources and less trade.

we wuz

>70-85 was exactly the score the average guy in the street in the British Empire circa 1850 had.
You mean "modern 85," right? Technically if both the brits and the blacks were average, they would both have 100's in that time period if IQ tests were available since 100 is by definition the mean.

>by the Neolitic

>No, the environment in Africa is far too hostile to confidently develop a society
Nope.Places like Zimbabwue are literally perfect places for civilizations to raise. It just happen to be inhabited by negros

Mali was a pretty rich trade empire, it wouldn't be a superpower or anything but without the Europeans it would at least suck less.

The general area, yeah. To be more specific, i'd say it's the Serbian half of Bosnia.

You're misunderstanding why the country was advanced. It wasn't because it escaped colonialism, it was because they've had more than two-thousand years (im guessing, I don't know when the country was founded) of enlightened rule by magically and technologically empowered Batman figures and the world's largest deposit of rareitanium.

Is this bait?

No, they would have been where they were before Europe went there, or fucked over by the Arabs instead.

Definitely not, but MAYBE they would be a bit more developed.

Who knows?

What we know is that Europeans conquered Africa when they were equivalent to the late Roman Republic in sophistication. We can't know for certain that they would have continued in the same direction as all other humans did, but it's a safe assumption.

>Europeans conquered Africa when they were equivalent to the late Roman Republic in sophistication.
Kek. Most of them didn't even enter the bronze age.

Negroes have historically been considered subhuman or animals, the few exceptions would be the ethiopians and the axum kingdoms which was influenced by the arabs. They were literally in the stone age and didnt know about the wheel at the same time europeans were using steam engines

Because they were already iron age you fool.

>Because they were already iron age you fool.
Kek

>By the time of the middle ages
Are you implying there was an african civilization more advanced than romans, greeks and even fucking minoans?

>Zimbabwe
>Perfect
>Lions, Malaria, warm af, thousands of miles away from other civillizations, not even coastal

>there were less resources and less trade.

Nigger what?
You know how much trade occurred on the continent?

Minoan is bronze age idiot.
Also progress isn't linear and uniform world wide as for example Africa skipped the bronze age entirely and went straight for iron.

Dumb fuck if you claim that Europe only began surpassing africa in the middle ages you imply they surpassed bronze age Europe.

>Lions
They existed in europe
> Malaria
Every region has their own snowflake of diseases
> warm af
Like Egypt,Persia or India.All primitive civilizations spammed in warm regions

Most of them were in the iron age.

If they are animals would it be okay to eat them?

Malaria is really severe though back then, Malaria is not something you can brush off. Also the tsetse fly.

Warm environments breed pests and warm environments vary by other factors.

Africa is either too easy to live in or too hard. Depending on which point I'm trying to make today.

>Carthage is yuropeeyan

>Like Egypt,Persia or India.All primitive civilizations spammed in warm regions

Like the people of the Nok valley.

And world history is like a Civilization game.

Sure. That's why Africans couldn't have used iron, because they never used bronze. Even though they did use iron, it must not have been true, because you MUST KNOW BRONZE FIRST.

>would Wakanda of
>Of
There you go. Anyways, Sub-Saharan Africans didn't even begin to go outside of their tribal structured societies and engage in the most primitive statecraft until 1000. AD. Even the most ass-backwards Europeans had figured that out by the Bronze Age.

You can't have trade and commerce if your starting point is no colonialism

>Carthage is sub saharian african

Really? The only way to engage in commerce is to conquer someone with something to sell?

By the middle ages there were African civilizations more advanced than the Minoans, definitely. Which Romans and Greeks are you talking about? Rome and Greece c. 300 BC? Or c. 300 AD?

It just happens they didnt have a writting system and didnt left behind ruins of the same magnitude and complexity as them.
IT JUST HAPPENS to be that way, no political motivation to overstimate African civilizations.

>It just happens they didnt have a writting system and didnt left behind ruins of the same magnitude and complexity as them.

Sure.

But then, writing was only invented once or twice. How often did Europeans invent writing? How well have European ruins lasted without any effort to maintain them?

>IT JUST HAPPENS to be that way, no political motivation to overstimate African civilizations.

I'm not overestimating them. Africa c. 1500 AD was roughly equivalent to Europe and the Mediterranean c. 500 AD. By the age of colonialism, they were closer in time, but further in development, from Europeans.

> How often did Europeans invent writing?
Ahem
>How well have European ruins lasted without any effort to maintain them?
You literally can take a hike in a random forest in north spain and find ruins of both celts and romans that nobody tended to and are still visible

Carthage were Phoenicians.Spaniards are closer to Carthageneans than 95% of Africans

Wouldn't say that. They were Phonecians and Berbers and genetics of Tunisia shows the first peoples in Tunisia migrated there were black.

The genetics of North Africa is very complex, their connection to Spain is a result of north Africans migrating north to Spain not that North Africans were originally white.

>Ahem

Once, then.

>You literally can take a hike in a random forest in north spain and find ruins of both celts and romans that nobody tended to and are still visible

The ones in Africa are often called natural formations that were not made by people.

>70-85 was exactly the score the average guy in the street in the British Empire circa 1850 had.
Well yes, considering the British Empire at that time had many non-white areas.

If you're talking about Britain, then that is false.

>70-85 was exactly the score the average guy in the street in the British Empire circa 1850 had.
The difference is that if you feed a British child from 1850 properly he will score the same as British kids now.
Proper nutrition doesnt solve African's low IQ, as you can see in America and those are 20% white on average.
>inb4 /pol/ pls go
I just keep an open mind.

Really? Malnutrition didn't have an impact on average IQ in Britain?

You don't think the IQ of Africans is affected by malnutrition? You say giving them proper nutrition wouldn't make a difference, wouldn't solve it?

>You don't think the IQ of Africans is affected by malnutrition?
Are you literally unable to read or at least be aware that black children are born in developed countries? yes proper nutrition helps but from 70 IQ to 85 (its should actually be lower if you sampled african americans without white heritage) does not make much of a difference.

I know. I'm wondering why you're implying improving their nutrition wouldn't increase their intelligence.

>yes proper nutrition helps but from 70 IQ to 85 (its should actually be lower if you sampled african americans without white heritage) does not make much of a difference.

That's one standard deviation on the IQ scale. You wouldn't bother helping your kid be one standard deviation smarter? This would be a waste of resources to you?

>I know. I'm wondering why you're implying improving their nutrition wouldn't increase their intelligence.
Not what I'm implying at all jesus christ I'm in med school I know how important it is dam well but a well fed african on average is still low IQ
>you wouldn't bother helping your kid be one standard deviation smarter? This would be a waste of resources to you?
The thing is what can a 85 IQ person do? if you help africans get well fed you are also helping them breed further, they are not my children they endanger the quality of life of my future children and their children as a matter of fact, the population explosion of Africa is more dangerous than global warming in my opinion.
But like I said I'm no /pol/tard, I support shipping every african over 100 IQ over the western world., but we cannot do much about the rest

They can do more than a 70 IQ person. Can't they?

This was enough for the development of native iron-working and agriculture in Africa before colonization.

>But like I said I'm no /pol/tard, I support shipping every african over 100 IQ over the western world., but we cannot do much about the rest

And you support shipping out all Europeans with lower than 100 IQ?

>This was enough for the development of native iron-working and agriculture in Africa before colonization.
I guess that progress was done by outliers not your average motumba.
>And you support shipping out all Europeans with lower than 100 IQ?
That's unrealistic, but yes I would if it were possible.

You never specified which part of Africa you retard. Carthage is an african civilization.

No they only meant British whites. They didn't give a shit about the colonials.

>The difference is that if you feed a British child from 1850 properly he will score the same as British kids now.

If he had current education yeah but back then no way. Education made a fuck ton of advances during the 1850's and now on top of new knowledge.

>the population explosion of Africa is more dangerous than global warming in my opinion.

Jesus Christ are you retarded?

>I guess that progress was done by outliers not your average motumba.

Lol no development was done by normal people in this regard world wide be regular people.

>Nigeria projected to reach 1 billion people in our life times
>Not the biggest time bomb on the planet
Are YOU retarded? overpopulation and global warming go hand in hand so african population explosion is a global warming issue and then you know damn well what massive migrations of barbarians caused in the past.

Lol the population right now does not even match the developed world pollution output.

What happens when Africans try to industrialize or when those hundred of millions of Africans show up at industriliazed countries?

Maybe if one ethnic group became apeshit and ethnically cleansed a huge chunk of land and managed to get a huge population ala China or ala France.

Most advanced nigger civilization wasnt even as advanced as 1000 B.C European civilizations and THIS WAS IN THE LATE A.Ds.

What?

Same thing that happens when every other place in the world does. It's not like they aren't industrializing or modernizing now.

Sure. But this was after tens of thousands of years of independent development. They were maybe 5-10% slower than Eurasians at the most.

no, because "surpassing" is a word requiring a context to have any meaning. surpassing in what? after you provide this context, it is only subjective that that context is how two groups should be judged against each other. africa has surpassed europe in birthrate, for example. whether you think that's good or bad, is subjective.

Not that much of an impact.

Then you're wrong. Victorians actually had a higher IQ than white britons today.

Ethiopia was never colonized and is doing alright. Very good for Africa, but not the most developed by any standard. Certainly won't be for the foreseeable future.

What the fuck are you smoking, Ethiopia is a starving shithole