Why does this continent have no scientific or mathematical achievements

Probably climate and disease.

>Africa
>Egyptians
>A people so autistic their most famous achievement are being really good at stacking rocks in an orderly fashion
>No mathematical achievements

Because it's not part of their culture, dummy

>What is Ancient Egypt

>mf

Harsh winters far North and South of the equator forced those civilizations to evolve to plan ahead for when food was sparse and shelter was needed to stay warm.

Africa is so close to the equator that there was not as much natural selection for only strong planner surviving; shelter didn't need to be good (a shitty mud and grass hut will do) and farming and storing food in preparation for winter wasn't necessary.

Math and science probably have their roots in mankind's ability to plan for the future, which is an abstract rationalization kinda like math equations are.

KANGS

Wow just wow your eurocentric worldview is sickening! everyone knows that dung- oriented architecture reached its literal epoch in sub Saharan Africa! Plus the pneumatic cow milking! havent you seen those videos where the little african children blow up cows anuses to get milk?? Truly masters of the "rim technique"

Maybe they had no need for it.

>China and India who were also both isolated?
Yeah nigga, those two great trade routes that end in Chinkdom and gut through India sure makes them Isolated.

Dude, Pythagoras and other early philosophers went to Egypt to study natural and supernatural philosophy. It was the cool thing to do.

t. Skinny Nerd who can barely open a Pickle jar

I recently found out Africa had a smaller population than Europe in 1950 which is remarkable considering the size of both. It also had a smaller population than NA and Asia. What caused the population boom in recent years? Also Cotton learned about inoculation from his African slave who learned it while living in West Africa so there is at the least that.

spoiler that shit nigga this is an sfw board

China and India weren't isolated.

Access to modern medicine and increased crop yields on the continent.

>Harsh winters far North and South of the equator forced those civilizations to evolve to plan ahead for when food was sparse and shelter was needed to stay warm.
>Africa is so close to the equator that there was not as much natural selection for only strong planner surviving; shelter didn't need to be good (a shitty mud and grass hut will do) and farming and storing food in preparation for winter wasn't necessary.

That's complete idiocy in 3 ways because it's completely ignorant of climate in general, climate in Europe and in Africa alongside jsut plain old ignorance.

Malaria. Also there isn't much time to circle jerk over philosophy when you're worried a lion pride might decide to drag off half of your village in the night.

>but im curious as to how much mathematics the egyptians discovered

Going by architecture it was superior to the Greeks and Romans, who were notoriously bad at abstract math, compared to Persia or India.

Borders were not as defined as they are nowadays idk how you came up with the notion that China and India were at all isolated nations. I mean who invented paper?

NTDs, forbidding climate, shitty soil, lions and shit.

It was impossible for Africans to get a civilization off the ground.

>thinly disguised /pol/ bait thread

They do, its pretty well established. The debate is over why and how accurately it actually reflects natural intelligence

>NTDs
Not everything in Africa is tropics. Southeast Asia and India also had NTDs.

>forbidding climate
Africa is not homogenous, it was no more forbidding than other climates in the world.

>shitty soil
Not even remotely true. Bantus could cultivate crops in South Africa and West Africa has some god-tier soil.

>lions and shit
Nonsense, what is this even supposed to mean?

Africa below the South was simply too cut-off from other civilization developments. And like most places in the world apart from the Great 5, did not generate an advanced civilization on their own in isolation.

*Below the North

Necessity is the mother of invention. There isn't as much need for innovation in the tropical zone. It's humanity's original home. A more low-IQ lifestyle is perfectly viable, and honestly better suited.

Elaborate efforts to develop thought and academics would be a waste of time.

The short answer is Colonialism, things had been more or less static since forever until the Europeans arrived. People who don't like the fact there are so many africans have only their ancestors to blame desu.

I'm not racist but I seriously think this is the reason

Science and mathematics aren't achievements, they're trashy memes.

this is some nice bait OP

>There isn't as much need for innovation in the tropical zone.

The problem is that many civilizations developed around this zone as well.

Africa also doesn't see any development in their the tropics or far South away from it.

The obvious implication is obvious, but we must abandon Occam's Razor in order to not go down a route that leads to undesirable discourse, or so says the current PC culture in academia.

>occams razor is right because muh fedora
Archaic-minded empiricists top kek

atleast half the time Veeky Forums turns it into an okay thread.

Obviously since OP mentioned separation from the Greek/Arab world they meant sub-Saharan Africa.

You're on a history board. Can you at least avoid posting in topics you don't know anything about?
Africa has had civilizations. Not the highest tiers of civilization in the entirety of humanity but if that's you're metric then nobody is really human but Romans, Greeks, Chinese, British, and the US.

A modern 21st PC definition of civilization can mean anything, so isn't a relevant term. For example, written language was considered a hallmark, but what later removed in order to please the PC culture that was brewing.

There is no written language in any of the African civilizations below the Horn of Africa. If that is not a red-light to you then I don't know what is. The ecology and geography of Central and South Africa is not so inhospitable that we wouldn't see ANY signs or forms of a civilization that would at least have a written language.

Why do you think writing is the hall mark of a civilization?

Are you gonna ask why pic related don't have much achievements under their non-existent belts either?

The answer is just evolution. If you overcome what you've been indoctrinated with you'll see it, it's not a racism thing its just how nature made them.

>things had been more or less static since forever until the Europeans arrived

Are you fucking retarded? No place in the world is static.

>any subjects that make me feel uncomfortable or question my narrative MUST be from pol.. Huh

>in any of the African civilizations below the Horn of Africa

Why exclude the Horn of Africa? Also you do know Arabic based scripts were used in West Africa? Multiplie West African languages were written in those scripts unless those don't count because "it's arabic letters"

>why did they lack behind China and India who were also both isolated?

Yeah don't answer this thread seriously.

> Why do you think writing is the hall mark of a civilization?
what is education, mercantilism (book keeping),ect.

This thread again? We've had the same thread like 3 times this week.

why is writing/education important? Europe got to where it was now despite for most of history the vast majority of the population was illiterate.

Because EVERY civilization had some form or written communication, even if it was just pictographs.

We see written language in Indus Valley, Ancient China, Old Egypt, Sumeria, etc.

That is how the '4 Great Civilizations' idea came into being. THAT is why they are taught in school history books. Those were all the earliest evidences of written communication. The origination of academy, the sciences, humanities, literature, etc. It indicates the maturation and pinnacle of basic specialized labor, with people who are not even involved directly with labor at all, but studying abstract concepts. You might as well be asking why books are important.

Humans living in shitty mud-huts and animal-hide tents was common throughout the world, even during those times. But we would not consider them civilization. For the record I don't consider either Europeans or Sub-Saharan to South Africans civilized for the majority of +5000 years of human civilization. Both of them were in shit, unenlightened conditions until someone taught them. Europeans had the Mediterraneans, most Africans unfortunately didn't have anyone until the age of colonialism.

Without a written language information cannot be accurately passed down. So the level of complexity of society and technology remains stagnant. The only difference between us today and 6000 years ago, is that we have books and other modern media to tell us what happened for the span of human civilization and achievement before we were born. That is how we progress. Without it we would be nothing.

>Because EVERY civilization had some form or written communication,
Isn't that just circular reasoning
>Only collectives that had a form of written communication are civilization because I define civilization as having a written form of communication
You're going to have to do better, buddy.

>Without a written language information cannot be accurately passed down.
>Implying because something is written it's accurate
Whoa man so you mean to say Christianity, Islam, Hinduism and Buddhism are ALL accurate?

>You're going to have to do better, buddy.

That was the old-school definition, and the only proper one that honestly matters. It was changed in order to make the term meaningless so that everyone could now be 'civilized', it is like changing the BMI index for obesity and pretending everyone is now fit.

>Whoa man so you mean to say Christianity, Islam, Hinduism and Buddhism are ALL accurate?

Yeah, your strawman is retarded. You can't actually be this fucking stupid to think that the term accuracy in this context refers to objective truth.

>That was the old-school definition, and the only proper one that honestly matters. It was changed in order to make the term meaningless so that everyone could now be 'civilized', it is like changing the BMI index for obesity and pretending everyone is now fit.

Not really. The current one is pretty good at what it encompasses
BMI is utter shit because you can be health as fuck but have an atrocious BMI or the reverse.

>It was changed in order to make the term meaningless so that everyone could now be 'civilized',

or because it doesn't fit with your particular set of beliefs?

>and the only proper one that honestly matters.
So you're saying the proper definition is the one that has the fatal flaw of being circular?

Read that distraction quote by Toni Morrison.

>or because it doesn't fit with your particular set of beliefs?

No, because you are retarded or purposefully misconstruing my point because you no better counterargument. Written information is the only way to accurately pass down information, the alternative, oration, is shit and highly limited. That is why I can read up on Gilgamesh, but not anything from that time period from Africa south of Egypt.

Only societies that have a written form of communication can be civilized.

Writing is a good thing but it isn't necessary. There are many civilizations that did a lot of things without it.

>So you're saying the proper definition is the one that has the fatal flaw of being circular?

Please don't use terms you don't understand. You do not seem to have the slightest clue as to what you are talking about.

>There are many civilizations that did a lot of things without it.

So give me some examples.

Because they have a low average intelligence.

I love the argument of "isolation". Explain the Incas, then.

> written language was considered a hallmark,
>Because EVERY civilization had some form or written communication
>That was the old-school definition, and the only proper one that honestly matters

Don't get upset just because you're a brainlet who can't logically justify your beliefs without resorting to fallacies.

A civilization that if collapsed would pretty much disappear since unlike in them iddle East/NA/Europe there's not other group to pick up the pieces or surrounding you as well as splintering being unlikely.

Could you rephrase your post to make it understandable?

>built dung houses
>human sacrifice
>lots of rape
> fire maybe?

I'm not that poster, but he clearly quantifies what the traditional definition of Civilization. ie having written language be a fundamental component, and then uses in that context when referring back to it. While also rejecting any definition that states otherwise.

There is a brainlet here and it is you.

You literally have no evidence of that. Just playing hypothetical fallacies in order to support you flawed belief. We call this grasping at straws.

This is the real answer. Africans are low-IQ and mentally incapable.

>Not being able to comprehend changes in context

This guy got it pretty right: This guy is a buttblasted poster that has some emotional investment in trying to justify Africa as ''''civilized''' either because he is African or is just retarded.

>Can't name a single one

Jesus fuck you are stupid.

>Why does this continent have no scientific or mathematical achievements

Is there a reason they should?

>why did they lack behind China and India who were also both isolated?

Most Arab knowledge was just hand-me-down from India. The 'Golden Age' is a fucking meme, pushed during the 20th century to establish pan-Arab, pan-Muslim belief.

>Is there a reason they should?

From a population perspective they should at least have something.

But from a collective-IQ perspective it makes sense they have nothing.

I have nothing against Africans, but they have been demonstrably proven to have lower-IQ. Even when adjusted for income and environment. They have to be race-mixed several times over before they are capable of achievement.

Still jacking off over IQ?

> They have to be race-mixed several times over before they are capable of achievement.

But Africans have done achievements though.

>but he clearly quantifies what the traditional definition of Civilization. ie having written language be a fundamental component, and then uses in that context when referring back to it.
So it's circular
You retard I literally asked why writing is a hallmark of civilization and you only replied "because all civilizations have writing"
Literally circular reasoning.

I'm lmaoing at you idiots who are so biased it has blinded you.

>But Africans have done achievements though.

Human civilization is roughly ~5000 years old at least.

In that time-span give me some achievements. We can talk in relative terms, so it need only be significant for its time period.

Much technology requires an economy to support it. There is no use knowing about arches and flying buttresses if you have a very low population density for example.

>You retard I literally asked why writing is a hallmark of civilization and you only replied "because all civilizations have writing"

Now you are just pretending to be retarded. I CLEARLY stated:
>Without a written language information cannot be accurately passed down. So the level of complexity of society and technology remains stagnant. The only difference between us today and 6000 years ago, is that we have books and other modern media to tell us what happened for the span of human civilization and achievement before we were born. That is how we progress. Without it we would be nothing.

Which is why writing systems were considered to be fundamental to civilization, until PC culture took over and it became ''''offensive'''' to suggest any one culture could be considered as lacking civilization. Then you went off on some random tangent.

I was talking about more recent times but honestly a lot of places in the world didn't contribute much in the past.

Are Incans not a civilization?

The Incans had pictograph writing. Similar, but not exactly the same as the cuneiform of the Sumerians or hieroglyphs of Eygpt, but enough to ascertain aspects of their civilization and culture.

Still not writing. Quipu's were for storing numbers

>but honestly a lot of places in the world didn't contribute much in the past

I am not talking about contribution. I am talking about general achievement. Chinese and Egyptians both discovered irrigation independently, that is an achievement. Indians created the place-holder decimal numeric system, a derivative of which we still use today. That is a contribution, but still also an achievement.

>But Africans have done achievements though.
I can't think of a single sub saharan african achievement.

Surviving this long, perhaps?

Wait, so are we now saying that the Incas suck? I thought we were all wrong and eurocentric for thinking that the Incas were perhaps more primitive?

PS: the Incas were a billion times more advanced than niggers.

First of all that is written communication.

Secondly, on their walls and buildings they had scratched pictograph stories and messages. It was not a fully standardized written language, rather a precursor, but was still a form of written language.

>So the level of complexity of society and technology remains stagnant.
Lol no.
You don't need writing to increase in technological complexity before a certain point ( around industrial era technology ) and guess what, none of the "great" civilizations have met that point other than the one we're living in now. The vast majority of technology, trades, and technique were passed down word of mouth and direct training.
>complexity
99% of societies complexity is unwritten. Tell me were it is written why spitting is considered impolite, or why men wearing skirts is frowned upon. Most of societies written laws were are just previously unwritten cultural rules. Hell, it's even how new laws are decided upon. Writing isn't necessary or fundamental at all, it just makes it easier and enforcement more consistent.
>until PC culture took over and it became ''''offensive'''' to suggest any one culture could be considered as lacking civilization.
Why do stormsjws have such victim complexes?

despite coming up with no writing system Incans still did well.

>Surviving this long, perhaps?

The spread of AIDS is an achievement in of itself I suppose.

Africans didn't do well, didn't have written language, and don't have any achievements.

Collectively speaking, they are worthless.

Like that other user said, the Incas had a pictograph system.

Hey, isn't one of the new afrocentrist claims that we had pictogramz n sheeit in Nigeria or something? You're shooting yourself in the foot.

It's as if mother nature is trying to send a message...

Statistically speaking, you are worthless.

>being this butthurt

I apologize, but you obviously don't respond to anything other than emotional responses.

It is clear you have a strong emotional attachment to the subject at hand, and the discussion would be better of pushed back until you do some honest reading.

But you are in all likelihood insignificant to society.
If you want to use significance as a metric for anything, why not apply it to yourself?
I'm not disagreeing that collectively speaking Africans provide no utility to you or myself.
But I'm also saying that's a dumb way to view things because you're also worthless from a greater perspective.

>But you are in all likelihood insignificant to society.
Sure.

>If you want to use significance as a metric for anything, why not apply it to yourself?
This is a retarded statement. I'm talking about groups here, not individuals.

Although the funny thing is, I can think of single individuals who have contributed more to humanity than every single nigger who has ever lived (Newton, Einstein, Tesla, etc.)

Yeah OP apparently has never heard of the Silk Road.

>Although the funny thing is, I can think of single individuals who have contributed more to humanity than every single nigger who has ever lived (Newton, Einstein, Tesla, etc.)
And this matters why...?
Are you somehow implying that your genetic proximity to them makes you greater than every single nigger who has ever lived by association?

>And this matters why...?
Because it shows that whites are superior to niggers *as a group*.

This is especially important considering the demographic changes we are currently experiencing, with a dwindling white and east asian population and an exploding nigger population.

The fact that niggers will make up 50% of humanity by the year 2100 should be of grave, grave concern to everyone. It is very unlikely that such a negroid world could sustain the levels of high civilization which we enjoy today.

>Are you somehow implying that your genetic proximity to them makes you greater than every single nigger who has ever lived by association?
No, I pride myself in my achievements, not my race.

The idea that "le evil racists" think that niggers are inferior because they want to feel better about themselves is completely false.

In fact, I'm not even white.

They didn't stack enough points into development.