So tell me Veeky Forums
Why has Subsaharan Africa lagged so fervently behind the rest of the world in terms of civilization, inventions, prosperity, etc. for most of history?
Sure, there were points in history in which they prospered, namely the Kingdom of Axum in Ethiopia and the Mali/Songhai Empires in West Africa. But that's as far as it goes, correct?
Why is it that Subsaharan Africa never developed as many noteworthy civilizations despite being a resource haven?
Cause they couldn't domesticate zebras
They didn't get universities up by turn 110.
Even pre-Columbus South America had a myriad of civilizations, notably the Mayan, Inca, and Aztec civilizations. In Peru, there are some archaelogical sites that might even predate the Pyramids in Egypt, and these are in areas that had almost no domesticated animals to speak of (other than llamas, of course).
Africa may not have been able to domesticate zebras, but they sure as hell had camels, chickens, pigs, lamb, goats, etc.
They're definitely not lacking in that department.
in the 20th century, lack of protein and malnutrition and political strife
Agriculture started and spread much later there than in Eurasia or the Americas, so they didn't have much time to develop complex civilizations except for a few in West Africa. Aside from some areas like Nubia, Ethiopia and the Swahili Coast they didn't have a lot of direct interaction with Eurasian civilizations, at least not until late in their history, so they could adopt civilization from outside like most places did.
Yes. But WHY did it get to that point?
My point is WHY did Africa lag behind so as to get colonized?
Colonization and Franc CFA
africans
inb4 get back to pol
White men destroyed their rich culture and progress. This is like murdering the parents and say why their child is an orphan.
We have this thread every fucking day.
When europeans started the slave trade africans societies were beginning feudalism. Then they went crashing into colonialism and nation-state building without any experience
They were subjugated by random bands of European expeditionaries
must have been pretty damn formidable and advanced
more like europeans paid warrior tribes for slaves
whitey can´t go into the deep bush
So did they colonize the continent or not, bubs?
not really until the late 19th century, except in South Africa
""""rich culture""""
So I guess they were colonized
you're having trouble forming a coherent thought my man
Are you telling me whites didn't run around in the jungle and capture wild Africans with oversized novelty butterfly nets?
Because its full of mentally retarded niggers.
>What were Mali empire, Ethiopia, Kongo etc.
They didn't needed to since they already had cows, goats, and donkeys.
How about in the 13th century libtard?
it's right above you
Lack of development throughout the whole medieval period due to the lack of domesticated animals for labor inputs.
The absence of historically lasting nation states also leads to an absence of a strong nationalist movement.
Poorly drawn borders and institutions have contributed to the inability to effectively govern. People just steal as much as they can before getting the boot out of office.
CGP grey get back to making videos.
To do with the peculiar climate and the sort of agricultural practices possible within that.
Civilisations build off that, you can't just skip steps.
Well you can, but it's not really the same thing - it's just tech acquisition.
South Africa is ruined; Chad and the Niger's Benin are practically spotless. CHAAAAAD
Blacks were ravaged by disease and mysteriously didn't really develop resistances over the millennia. That is why Africa remained scarcely populated shithole until European brought modern medicine in the late 19th century.
Most of them lived in isolation or at least at an extreme distance from trade or interaction with the outside world. Those that didn't (Ethiopia, Somalia, West Africa) always prospered in the times where they connected with outsiders and adopted their systems of writing, religion, etc. Trade = prosperity and the spread for ideas. Prosperity + new ideas = development.
But the ones that never really contacted with anybody or very little (central/South Africa, kongo) remained stagnant and developed very slowly. Only in the last 2-3 centuries has trade begun to really penetrate into Africa and foreign culture, religion, and writing started to take root. It takes time to develop, especially when you're that far behind and have such poor geography.
Africa will probably continue to play catch up in the next few centuries as long as global trade continues as it has. Africa is pretty resource rich so they can use that to kickstart their economy and get off the ground - they've done that since the colonial era and they're doing it now.
However, africa does face challenges. their demographics are crisis-level, and not in the way Europe or Asia's are. They're actually going to be overpopulated as hell soon. This combined with declining populations in Europe and East Asia either mean that lots of Africans will leave Africa, or lots of Africans will die.. Also, either way, labor prices are going to plummet and that will help Africa's economy as a good place to invest but hurt the African worker and cause unrest.
Another challenge is the HIV epidemic the OP shows. HIV treatment is really good and only getting better, but no one in Africa save the elite can afford it. Basically if humanitarian organizations don't pick up the slack, or the economy doesn't boom soon, they're fucked. And of course Malaria is a constant problem that isn't going away anytime soon. And they're just now recovering from the last cases of Ebola... Africa is very diseased.
This sort of turned from a history post into a geopolitical one but I think it helps you understand the tough but complex situation that Africa is in. It's not a complete shithole, but it might be on its way. It all depends on how global trade continues and if Africans migrate en masse to Europe and Asia.
massive genetic and cultural differences between subsaharans and most other people
they are just stupid mate, it's not PC but it's easy to notice if you have travelled extensively in Africa
yes, by outsmarting other africans and getting them to do their dirty work
are you implying that africa wasn't colonized?
never heard that argument before
Extreme isolation is why these humans have most dangerous hellholes in human history libtard?
Isolation is why no matter these humans exist there will always be a high rate of crime and poverty right libtard?
Isolation is why these humans who probably existed long before us invented absolutely jackshit in one of easiest places on earth for humans to thrive in?
Yh no blacks are violent fucking retards thats why Africa is shit.
Yes actually, it's because they're geographically isolated and have really shitty natural conditions. No inland waterways, lots of jungle, lack of trade and interaction, lots of deadly diseases, an abundance of mosquitos to carry those diseases. These all contribute to a shit tier living condition over time, and can be observed as fact by anyone right now. Only in the last two or three centuries has this begun to change as they catch up with the rest of the world, and even then they still have endemic problems like disease and shitty geography to deal with.
Of course I'm sure according to you it's because hurr durr niguurrs. Provide some evidence for whatever you're claiming or fuck off, this isn't /pol/ where feels are facts.
Did you know human civilizations developed in fucking Central Asia one of the most underdeveloped regions of the planet?
>muh mosquitoes
Inca has mosquitoes and so did Indians.
>muh disease
Every human group had diseases also most epidemics in Africa are due to the black retards EATING RAW INFECTED MEAT.
>muh lack of trade
This race thinks stealing is the default thing to do in life, trade is something that would never naturally arise in niggers.
>muh interaction
They could interact with eachother
>muh jungle
India and South East Asia civilizations took place in jungles with far less game than african ones.
Blacks are retards thats why they are behind.
the most likely explanation seems to be their genetic propensity towards low mean IQ:
ibc7.org
>Two single nucleotide polymorphisms (SNPs) whose associations with intelligence seem to be robust because they have been replicated in several independent studies were chosen as representative of intelligence increasing alleles.
>East Asian populations (Japanese, Chinese) have the highest average frequency of beneficial alleles (39%), followed by Europeans (35.5%) and sub-Saharan Africans (16.4%)
This also seems in line with the striking absence of negroid-african intellectual achievement amongst diaspora.
When two groups have equal potential but one is held back by societal oppression, one expects tehm to relatively quickly achieve proportionate representation in fields of academia.
This is what has happened in america with jews and east asians.
However blacks are extremely under-represented in fields of academia like the physical sciences, life sciences, computer science and mathematics even though all of the societal oppression preventing them from becoming professors which jews and east asians also used to face has not only been removed but blacks in america actually receive positive discrimination in academia.
But still there's only been one big name black mathematician in american history: the statistician Blackwell.
this and other evidence leads me to believe that the mean IQ of subsaharan africans is probably around 85.
African IQ is 65 user, remember the next time someone says a black is the same as you we are literally trying to support a terminally retarded group of humans.
>Extreme isolation is why these humans have most dangerous hellholes in human history libtard?
Central America and the middle east have worse.
>Isolation is why these humans who probably existed long before us invented absolutely jackshit in one of easiest places on earth for humans to thrive in?
Most of Africa was populated very recently. The transition from farming to urbanisation happened fairly quickly. Africa is far from the easiest place for humans to thrive for many reasons.
no but it's not sensible to compare countries with poor nourishment and poor education systems.
you need to look at how they perform when they're in 1st world countries with 1st world education systems
>This also seems in line with the striking absence of negroid-african intellectual achievement amongst diaspora.
Igbo, Yoruba and Ghanaians are among the highest scoring students in the UK, while Congolese and Caribbeans are among the lowest. Either educational attainment is not a reliable predictor or there is some other factor at play.
If you take it from the racial angle the igbos and yorubas are west africans who also have some eurasian admixtire whixh got proven while the congolese are a very pure population of africans that developed under itself for the most time.
>Central America and the middle east have worse.
Um no Sub Saharan Africa is the one dangerous region on planet earth.
>Africa is far from the easiest place for humans to thrive for many reasons
Africa is the homeland of homo sapiens, we have lived in that dump for over 100,000 years and you talk shit about it not being easy to live in?
>40 IQ points below white people is poor nourishment
How fucking retarded are you?
>poor education systems.
Nice meme, the non blacks in Africa countries actually do better than the niggers themselves in the education system. INFACT EVERY BLACK COUNTRY THE NONBLACKS ALWAYS DO BETTER THAN THE BLACKS.
I believe what you're referring to was a study into whether at age 16 uk pupils managed to achieve at least 5 GCSEs with grade C or above.
This is far from a good indicator of intellectual achievement. it's actuallya very low threshold to pass.
If you fail to get at least 5 GCSE's at that grade then you're a dumbass or have had an extremely disrupted education.
it remains embarrassing how few black people are capable of studying maths or physics.
I'm actually on your side, I'm just interested in making strong arguments rather than weak and shitty ones.
any time you make a weak argument it gives the opponent the opportunity to focus on it and neglect any of hte more valid things you say while holding up that weak argument as an example to discredit you
>when white europeans started the slave.
This is wewuz tier revisionism. There has always been a slave trade in history. White and Jewish Europeans expanded the slave trade.
>Did you know human civilizations developed in fucking Central Asia one of the most underdeveloped regions of the planet?
Yes, and the Central Asian countries, the -stans, have some of the worst GDP per capita in the world, right down there with the Sub-Saharan African countries. They're just as poor and underdeveloped, so clearly Africa is not an exceptionally bad case, is it?
>Inca has mosquitoes and so did Indians.
Yes, but did those mosquitoes carry malaria? That's the point, the mosquitoes carry deadly diseases, including the African strain of malaria which is a problem unique to Africa that stunts its development and hinders population growth.
>Every human group had diseases also most epidemics in Africa are due to the black retards EATING RAW INFECTED MEAT.
First of all: yes, every human population has dealt with disease. But no human population except sub-saharan Africans has dealt with the uniquely ruinous diseases endemic to sub-saharan Africa. I've already mentioned malaria, which is a bigger deal than you seem to think. Let me quote Disease and Mortality in Sub-Saharan Africa, 2nd edition:
>Recent bioinformatics analysis of changes in human ecology suggest that about 6,000 years ago, P. falciparum populations expanded rapidly in Africa and spread worldwide, coincident with human population growth and subsequent diasporas facilitated by the dawn of agriculture (Joy et al. 2003)
>This parasite has exacted a heavy mortality toll on Africa's population, evidenced by the selection for several human survival mechanisms, such as the genetic polymorphisms associated with red cell structure and function (Hill 1992).
>P. falciparum accounts for almost all the malaria mortality in Sub-Saharan Africa, and it is often stated that the continent bears over 90 percent of the global P. falciparum burden.
So in short, there was a time after the invention of agriculture when human populations were exploding and civilizations were able to bootstrap themselves. But in Africa, they didn't, because a mosquito-born parasite fucked them over. It continues to fuck them over today. This has never changed and is a problem unique to Africa, and a major reason why they never developed as well as the rest of the world.
>This race thinks stealing is the default thing to do in life
Give me a source, /pol/tard. We deal in facts here.
>trade is something that would never naturally arise in niggers
Except it actually did, it was just never widespread enough to facilitate the spread of culture and the development of native writing systems. Mostly because of geographical hindrances and stunted development due to other factors.
>That could interact with eachother
Actually, they largely couldn't. Especially the ones in Central and South Africa. African civilization, where it existed, was primarily based around a central empire, a tribe that subjugated other tribes and had a power base in a relatively prosperous city. Then further away from the city were tribes tributary to that tribe, then even further were tribes on the periphery, who may have only been tributary in name. Beyond that were other tribes. Often, the empires that dominated parts of Africa were separated by geographic distances which were filled with hunter-gatherer tribes or generally uncivlized or unknown peoples - or by wasteland like thick jungle, foreboding mountains, or desert. This meant that not only was Africa largely isolated from the world, but African civlizations were often isolated from each other, preventing large-scale trade and cultural exchange such as that which happened in the Mediterranean or Chinese worlds.
>Blacks are retards thats why they are behind.
Post evidence for this claim or stop making it. Saying things with nothing to back them up makes you the retard here.
>>Blacks are retards thats why they are behind.
>Post evidence for this claim or stop making it.
Benin was cool though among some other westafrican kingdoms. The ivory coast was a southeast asia tier region in some places during the renaissance.
Care to explain the uses an iron age farming village has for uranium and petroleum?
>chad
wot, no sugar?
>Have literally an entire board made, deleted, and RECREATED specifically to bitch about niggers as much as you want
>Always have to breach your containment board
This is why no one likes you, /pol/
This explains why much of Africa didn't adopt civilization from outside, but we also need to explain why civilization didn't arise independently like it did in Mesopotamia, Mesoamerica, China, etc. Well, it did arise in West Africa, but it didn't achieve any incredible heights there. I think the main reason is that agriculture arose so late there, only after 3000 BC in West Africa and after 1000 BC in Bantu Africa. Civilization usually doesn't arise until thousands of years after the emergence of agriculture in a region, and most of Africa simply didn't have those thousands of years. Only West Africa had enough time to develop independent civilization in places like Ife and Benin, but at that point they were only at an incipient stage in their development and there was no time to develop into something greater.
That said, it's futile trying to explain this stuff on Veeky Forums. Most of this board simply doesn't want to hear a coherent answer to the question, they just want to have their beliefs confirmed.
Everybody dislikes niggers, not only /pol/
Malaria is everywhere, from England pmj.bmj.com
bitching about how much you dislike niggers makes you /pol/, retard.
>Did you know human civilizations developed in fucking Central Asia one of the most underdeveloped regions of the planet?
yes, one of the largest and most important trading routes made central asia really undeveloped
i'm a lefty but fucking hate blacks
source, south african
they truly are a plague
anyone who says otherwise simply hasn't spent enough time among them
They lacked environmental challenges.
Egypt was a strip of like in a desert. Adversity coerces people to save and prosper.
I wasn't pointing to any particularly high attainment, my point was the discrepancies between black communities in the UK. Why are certain West Africans so high and Caribbeans so low, given the genetic differences between them are relatively small?
I'm not trying to compare anyone to whites because that would cause the argument to get out of hand.
>HIV treatment is really good and only getting better
Pfft.
who.int
Resistance in HIV
In 2010, an estimated 7% of people starting antiretroviral therapy (ART) in developing countries had drug-resistant HIV. In developed countries, the same figure was 10–20%. Some countries have recently reported levels at or above 15% amongst those starting HIV treatment, and up to 40% among people re-starting treatment. This requires urgent attention.
Increasing levels of resistance have important economic implications as second and third-line regimens are 3 times and 18 times more expensive, respectively, than first-line drugs.
Since September 2015, WHO has recommended that everyone living with HIV start on antiretroviral treatment . Greater use of ART is expected to further increase ART resistance in all regions of the world. To maximize the long-term effectiveness of first-line ART regimens, and to ensure that people are taking the most effective regimen, it is essential to continue monitoring resistance and to minimize its further emergence and spread. In consultation with countries, partners and stakeholders, WHO is currently developing a new "Global Action Plan for HIV Drug Resistance (2017-2021)".
No.
Various diseases keep whites at bay from colonizing Black Land.
Also this.
>Um no Sub Saharan Africa is the one dangerous region on planet earth.
Go and look up murder rates you idiot. CAR and North Kivu are dangerous, but even still only as dangerous as parts of Afghanistan, Syria or Iraq.
>Africa is the homeland of homo sapiens
Ethiopia is, but usually people aren't bitching about Ethiopia when they're bitching about Africa, rather Bantu-speaking areas or Guinea.
>we have lived in that dump for over 100,000 years and you talk shit about it not being easy to live in?
Most of Sub-Saharan Africa has only been populated by agriculturalists for 2500 years, give or take a few centuries. Before were pygmies and Khoi San.
I guess the guy is trying to say that selling slaves to the "white man" became normal in order to fund the feudalism.
>"liberals"
perspectives biased by morality and/or idealism
>"rightist"
perspectives biased by lack of erudition and anachronistic idealism
Every time.
>muh whites originated slavery
>muh genetic determinism
But at least you have independents like this
t. Khoisan scum who's butthurt that blacks and whites stole your land
very possible that there's both a better culture amongst ghanans and very possible that there's a kind of selection bias where ghanan immigrants are of middle class background ot begin with while black immigrants in the uk from say bermuda do not have that same selection bias as the threshold for immigration is much lower for them , since many carribean nations kept queen elizabeth as their monarch while ghana is a full republic
But why are Africans "Africans?"
So whats the answer?
Honestly I can't see a way they would be so bad off without saying they're inferior. In the medieval era it is dishonest to say there was no trade or opportunity of trade, and saying that there wasn't anyone to handhold them isn't really an excuse regardless. If Africa was isolated then you could say China and India were also isolated, and they far surpassed sub Saharan Africa. As well as with trade it isn't about having a direct line of trade, technology will still permeate, as seen with Japan's relationship with China.
Sub Saharan Africa has both draft and pack animals, many people forget that wild asses are native to the horn of Africa. With these advantages they failed to reach the heights even of the Native Americas, who if anyone has an excuse for lagging behind it's them. When you look at the pack and draft animals available to them, it is very limited, relying on one or two animals, and with no trade from outside Kingdoms. You can look at the advances they've made for mass crop production, they were not idiots, they took their bad situation and improved it. See: The three sisters.
The real killer to the liberal explanation is that sub saharan Africa isn't all desert, it is very arable land. Even CNN says that sub saharan africa has "600 million hectares of uncultivated arable land, roughly 60 percent of the global total." The land is farmable, but it simply is not being farmed.
Africa is in the trashcan not because of evil white colonists who gave them modern railroads and technology, it is not in the trashcan because it had no pack animals, it is not in the trashcan because the land isn't arable. So why is it? It is extremely intellectually dishonest to disregard a possible explanation because of your moral qualms. The only variable that differs from other areas of the world is the people inhabiting sub saharan africa.
This is false and you're a dumbass
Why do people post not.know shit about the subsistence history and traditions of West Africa go so quickly to intellect.
You're as lazy and dumb as the folks you yourself claim are.
>lol ur dumb
sick argument
ITT:
>every country of majority subsaharan-African descent worldwide is categorically shit
>there is essentially no exception
I think the burden of proof is upon the liberals to show that Africans are capable of modern developed civilization, not the inverse
Oh my God you really ate that ignorant of African Geography?
>Adversity coerces people to save and prosper.
This is such a shitty meme response.
Here is your proof, the glorius buildings of the future that doesn't exist in lands of white men.
>In the medieval era it is dishonest to say there was no trade or opportunity of trade
Which part of Africa are you talking about? Stop acting like it was the same everywhere. Those areas which had the most contact with the outside world and engaged in trade often did adopt ideas from outside, but those only cover a small part of the continent, as your own map shows.
>If Africa was isolated then you could say China and India were also isolated
India was not isolated in any way, and Chinese agriculture emerged about 3000 years before West African agriculture did, giving them a much longer period to develop into a major civilization. Chinese agriculture began around 6500 BC, and civilization began about 1500 BC, so it took 5000 years to develop civilization independently. Agriculture emerged in West Africa around 3000 BC, 5000 years ago. By Chinese standards civilization shouldn't have arisen at all, but it did in places like Nigeria. The same is true if you compare West Africa with Mesoamerica.
>it isn't about having a direct line of trade, technology will still permeate, as seen with Japan's relationship with China
It's not about trade but about contact and interaction. Japan was in contact with China and closely interacted with them, first through the medium of Buddhism and then through a more direct emulation of their civilization. Most of Africa didn't have contacts like that, except on the peripheries, where developments from outside were often adopted.
>Sub Saharan Africa has both draft and pack animals
So? I don't know why people keep acting like this is important. Like you said, Native Americans didn't need them to build civilizations, they just needed agriculture. Animals help with the spread of civilization (as they did in West Africa), but they're not a huge part of their rise.
>it is very arable land
Parts of it are, but most of it isn't. Large areas are just desert, but even in more fertile regions are or have historically been useless because of tsetse flies, which hinder the use of the plow across wide areas of the continent, preventing intensive cultivation, a problem unique to Africa. Pic related shows how agriculture is constrained to tsetse-fly free regions, leaving huge areas like the Congo nearly empty.
Read this; healthpolicy.fsi.stanford.edu
I'm glad you're actually addressing arguments, but you clearly don't know much about the regions you're talking about or how they developed over history.
An example of the effects of tsetse flies on development in Zimbabwe; the highlands, free of tsetse flies, were intensively cultivated and are dotted with stone structures build by the complex societies which emerged here. In contrast, the tsetse-fly infested areas are largely empty.
Bokoni agricultural terraces in northeast South Africa, part of a series of ruins running about 150km north to south left behind by intensive cultivation.
Do you understand the social institutions that have shaped west Africa society, labour and subsistence? Because with that response you clearly don't.
Also a lot of farming land is decreasing in quality due to overuse.
what
we live in the Post Truth era where kids just say what feels right to them and they HATE when some faggot egghead corrects them they have buzzphrases to hurl at these faggot eggheads like CTR SJW shill cuck etc etc
An entire generation has been lost to all logic and science.
>mali
Literally only famous for having a bunch of gold, capable of copying quran and hadiths, and having some kind of non-mudhut architecture
Thats alone is more than Poland and Hungary historical archievements combined.
>Truth is contrary to our nature, not so error, and this for a very simple reason; truth demands that we should recognize ourselves as limited, error flatters us that, in one way or another, we are unlimited.
I fucking love Goethe
>Poland
Kingdom with an advanced military and architecture in the middle ages on par with HRE which developed a huge amount of scientists, industry and intellectuals into the modern age, same for Hungary. Meanwhile WE WUZ GREAT CIVILISATION CUZ OUR KING SHOWED LOTTA BLING BLING IN MECCA
>developed a huge amount of scientists, industry and intellectuals
Name one.
Copernicus, Komensky
German and Czech. You're doing this on purpose, stop bullying Poland, both of you.
Bahahah. You'll probably try to call Maria Skłodowska-Curie French too, eh?
Did you ever think that maybe there are so many diseases and deadly things in Africa to keep the population down otherwise it would skyrocket? So when we give them aid and medicine obviously they are going to breed way beyond their means, unlike Europeans who despite being wealthy through their own accord will choose to have less kids.. Really makes you think (((R VS K gene selection))))
>one of easiest places on earth for humans to thrive in
Citation Needed
Even when you take those factors into consideration they still score lower than whites jews and asians, if there happens to be an outlier black with a high IQ there will in all likelihood be a regression to the mean in future generations due to genetics, there been alot of work done on this already you just won't look into it
The majority of criminals are around IQ 85 , lower than that and you are probably too dumb to commit crime and higher than that you are better off just getting a job. When you factor in differences in education and nutrition compared to sub saharan africa that leaves the average American black around IQ 85, which would explain why they commit disproportionate levels of crime compared to every other race
Additionally, having fertile land doesn't mean shit if there isn't a large and reliable source of water to go with it.
Relephant.