Why is it that Asians and Africans have been able to attain independence from colonial powers but Native Americans and...

asia and africa had iron

The Africans had superior technology (metalurgy, optics, medicine) to what Europe OR even parts of Asia had for most of their history. They had a more materially complex society. They were way, way above anything the Americas or Australia had, except for the Mayans, who mostly died out centuries before Spain got there. Not to mention the heat from the sun and tropical diseases and landscapes which the Europeans were too weak to deal with.

Honestly the real question should be, how the fuck did Europe manage to hold on to Africa for as long as it did, or even, why didn't Africa colonize Europe in the 13th century when they were weak. But looking back at the past makes unlikely things (like colonization) seem inevitable.

Das rite nigga! We wuz advanced!

I knew people would respond with stuff like KANGZ and you can say KANGZ all you want and it's not an argument (and I'm not talking about Egypt either, the Egyptians weren't black). It's just a historical fact that Africa was more advanced than Europe almost up to the colonial era (although their conception of technology was qualitiatively, not just quantitatively different)

...

Up til the colonial era you son of a bitch. Cell phones didn't come in in the colonial era last I checked.

>Africa was more advanced than Europe almost up to the colonial era.

What in the ever loving fuck are you talking about ?

up till the colonial era europe had the roman empire, various celtic, germanic and slavic kingdoms, the greek city states and countless monuments testimony to their material technological and cultural advancement

with exclusion of several rock piles sub-saharan africa had nothing to show for in comparison to meso-america let alone europe

Because there were so few Injuns and Abos.

>sub-saharan africa had nothing to show for in comparison to meso-america let alone europe

You've never actually read up anything on pre-colonial Africa. that alone is very evident in your post.

except thats not true, africa is huge, parts were conquered by arabs and north africans way back, parts were too inaccesible, parts were developed and overpopulated even back in midieval times, some parts had developed urban cultures, some parts had whole civilisations and empires, some were based around trade routes and such, some had people living in mud huts and throwing sticks at each other, some places humans just went buttnaked and ate from trees, in most cases these all existed rather close by, medieval, bronze age and neolithic all separated by a couple dosen kilometers of mountain or swamp, exploiting and subjugating one another as these things go

this is part of why africa was the centre of the slave trade

>bronze age and neolithic

Lol Africa skipped the Bronze age. That's why the whole concept of a universal x age is not used by people in the field because each region had a different time and the neolithic was passed pretty much by every pat but like the few hunter gatherers..

Now any good books on medieval Africa by chance?

he's fucking right though. North African Arabs aside the continent was well behind Europe.

It wasn't only north Africa, western and eastern too. During the 19th century was the gap large enough.for powers to initiate the Berlin conference.

It's difficult to attain independence if your foreign ruler establishes himself in your home instead of ruling from far away.

Then actually post a pre-colonial african civilization and explain why it was more advanced you fucking prick

Low pop ma family

>As a rule, native African don't huff petrol

user, I...

The gap was probably much smaller during the High Middle Ages but even before the colonial period Europe was making large leaps ahead the rest of the world both culturally and technologically. Even the Middle East fell behind us after the Mongol Invasions devestated them.

>ITT one history major attempts to educate /pol/

Good luck bud.

>I read one book therefore I'm a history major

>all these retarded answers

Africa and Asia just didn't get settled by Europeans, since why would you move in your own people when there are already people there that you can use.

one is more than none

...

Non Australians don't realize how dumb the average boong is. The most advanced technology they have is the atlatl and dugout canoe.

I wonder what exactly happen and what was a cause for development of such customs.
Because these guys come from somewhere and unless they bring their customs with them something must happen.

>the only successful colonies are those which the native population is replaced by euros

really makes your nigs noggin

Abos really aren't people. I'd call for genocide but we all know what happens when aussies try to wage war on animals.

Demographics and differing disease environments. Too many Euro settlers, not enough Indigenous Australians or Americans left.

Though there are some exceptions in the Americas, Bolivia, Peru, and Mexico are pretty heavily indigenous, and Greenland (although it's not independent yet, just very autonomous and thinking about it) overwhelmingly so.

total isolation for 40 thousand years will do that to you.

Fuck off m8, us Tasmanians got rid of all ours.

Inevitably people are going to say it has more to do with geography/environment than genetics, so i'm just gonna get that out of the way and say it now.

Eurasia land mass had an East/West orientation which means domesticated animals and crops could be shared between cultures, the relative difference in climate wasn't as extreme moving East->West
Compared to Sub-Saharan Africa and Mesoamerica, where movement happened more North/South, which makes it harder to spread domesticated plants/animals because of more severe differences in climate.

Eurasia had far superior livestock to domesticate, most importantly horses and cows. Horses proved incomparably advantageous for trading and traveling and the spread of ideas, and eventually war.
The only livestock Africans could feasibly domesticate were elephants, which prove far more difficult and ultimately unrewarding. Mesoamericans had only llamas, which don't provide nearly the same benefits.

Eurasians also suffered drastic epidemiological effects from their livestock, resulting in much higher exposure to diseases like measles and influenza, which eventually bred a genetic resistance to the diseases (this later explains why America was ravaged by disease instead of settlers). They had to offset this with increased reproduction, and the aid of having cow milk allowed women to breastfeed infants while still having milk for their other young children. (possible(?) connection to demographic spread of lactose intolerance)

Also we see better temperate climates in nearly all areas of ancient civilization, the ability to easily trade with other settled farmers seems to be one of the greatest factors in the growth of civilization. Out of the 6 independently originating civilizations, they were all located in the fertile crescent, asian river valleys, and mountain/rivers of Peru.
Rivers played a key role in growing society, one of the reasons being facilitated trade along them, and being a better source of freshwater

We can also see that tropical climates were some of the most difficult areas to facilitate growth.
Also, this is a bit anecdotal but I find it interesting, the only cases of societies who practice cannibalism are all on tropical islands. Maori, Polynesia, Caribbean, islands off the coast of Africa, it wasn't observed to naturally occur in any natives outside of island dwellers aside from a potential reported incident in the Amazon.

Also to answer your question OP, Abo's and Native Americans didn't have a built in epidemiological defense mechanism the way Asia and Africa did with Malaria

During migration out of Africa, some humans traveled Southeast down the Asian coast, and finally reached modern day Australia, at the time of migration the sea level was so much lower than it is now that the Asian islands were actually a peninsula extended almost all the way to the Australian land mass. After the Last Glacial Maximum, the massive glaciers (at the time so large they prevented exploration into North Eurasia) began to melt, and sea level rose stranding many populations of humans on various islands that were once peninsula.

If you consider thisIt's not hard to understand that the stranded populations forced into the most drastic isolation would develop practices like that, especially if their access to protein was limited

The abbos have some of the lowest IQ's on the face of the globe.

Just pack your shit and leave man

That's the case for North American aborignals too.

>They invented the canoe and had teepees and lived in harmony with nature! So noble and creative!

It sucks what happened to them but natives were basically retards compared to Europeans.

implying amerindians aren't a scale more sophisticated than australian abos

you're talking about a people who never went past the stick user

Edgy.

Still people do only Agu Huga Chaga?
Why don't they use computers, go to school, have a job and still doo Agu Huga Chaga?

That's north amerindians.

South amerindians were pretty advanced. The amount of recently discovered shit they got is surprisingly similar to the Europe before the Renaissance.

That's ... not true at all, man. Many tribes in the Americas, north and south, practiced cannibalism -- some still do.

Because too many native americans died from diseases.

Which lead to the smaller numbers being easier to displace, not giving them room to grow as we advanced.

i can't even tell what the fuck the last part is, the grammar in this text is a worse atrocity than the murder-rapes it refers to.

It's also Psycho-history so it's a joke either way.

The Maya never died out. Theyre still around today in fact.

Mad nigger

No, they practiced human sacrifice, but cannibalism was rare. (Except the Amazon, but I mentioned that)

Human sacrifice was common in literally all paleolithic cultures and most early neolithic cultures, but cannibalism wasn't common

I'm talking about places where cannibalism is a regular culture practice.

Native Americans have and had a part in making the nations they inhabit. They're enfranchised, rebelling and gaining "self determination" would be pointless and any government they rebelled against very truthfully could say that they are provided a legal recourse tie achieve any change they want.

The afrocentrist troll surfaces again

Totally wrong. Mesoamerican civilizations were more advanced than anything in Africa.
I assume you're referring to the Ashanti or something?

You're saying Mayans were the most advanced society out of Mesoamerica is wrong too, you could argue it was the Incans. The Aztec/Mayan/Inca had all existed at the same time and there was relative crossover between their technology/civilizations.

South Americans had brain surgery, anesthetics, basic geometry, large sums and fractions, advanced astronomy, metallurgy, sea-faring ships, courts of law/judicial system, impressive architecture, polyphonic music, and generally more complex social structures than any African society.

Aboriginals were very sparse in numbers (actually declining and probably facing eventual extinction) and were extremely primitive.

Also they didn't even have anything close to a polity or a society beyond their immediate clan

>human sacrifice was common in literally all palaeolithic cultures

wat

gonna need some sources laddy

>especially after the various genocides

>Implying they were ever numerous

Hunter & Gather societies grow at absurdly slow rates. Aborigines were somewhere at a quarter of a million when Europeans arrived, even that is being generous.

>americans as advanced as renaissance europe
minus a proper practical writing system, steeds, Guns, sails and infraestructure past the bronze age

A lot of the things you said South America has Africa has too or something somewhat similar.

Natives became endangered
Abos were always a small population

Hard to muster a force when you don't have numbers and you are outgunned

For British North America and Australia? Primarily low numbers that were lowered further by disease, famine, and then ethnic cleansing. There were only 4-10 million people on ALL of what would become the USA and Canada pre-Colombus. By 1800, shortly after the USA gained independence, there were a mere 600,000 Natives in all of what would later be the USA, and even less than that in Canada.

Learn more.

>The Coosa city-states, in western Georgia, and the Caddoan-speaking civilization,centered on the Texas-Arkansas border, disintegrated soon after Soto appeared. The Caddohad had a taste for massive architecture: public plazas, ceremonial platforms, enormous monuments. After Soto’s army left,notes Timothy K. Perttula, an archaeological consultant in Austin, Texas,the Caddo stopped building community centers and began digging community cemeteries.
>Between Soto’s(1539)and La Salle’s(1682)visits, Perttula believes, the Caddoan population fell from about 200,000 to about 8,500—a drop of nearly 96 percent. In the eighteenth century the tally shrank further, to 1,400. An equivalent loss today in the population of New York City would reduce it to 56,000—not enough to fill Yankee Stadium. “That’s one reason whites think of Indians as nomadic hunters,” says Russell Thornton, an anthropologist at the University of California at Los Angeles. “Everything else—all the heavily populated urbanized societies-was wiped out” because diseases spread more quickly and easily through dense cities than hunter-gatherers.

>One reason is that Indians were fresh territory for many simultaneous plagues, not just one. Smallpox, typhoid, bubonic plague, influenza, mumps, measles, whooping cough—all rained down on the Americasin the century after Columbus. (Cholera, malaria, and scarlet fever came later.) Having little experience with epidemic diseases, Indians had no knowledge of how to combat them. In contrast, Europeans were well versed in the brutal logic of quarantine, even if it was their only real weapon against disease. They boarded up houses in which plague appeared and fled to the countryside. In Indian New England, Neal Salisbury, a historian at Smith College, wrote in Manitou and Providence(1982), family and friends gathered with the doctor/priestat the sufferer’s bedside to wait out the illness—a practice “that could only have served to spread the disease more rapidly.”

WE WUZ KANGZ N SHIT NIGGA

for America: because it was colonized much earlier.

Well a lot of African colonies broke free without any war or anything. That's how the world was reorganized after the war.

It's mostly a difference of setup for these countries.

"Colonies" in Africa and Asia were mostly "We're sending some people to manage our trade companies and squeeze wealth out of our beholdings".

Colonisation in Australia and America was "We're sending people here so they can settle down, build towns, and stay here".

When Asians and African colonies broke free, there were few whites around. There were white people settled here and who worked and were not just the local crown governor, but the population here was mostly the Natives minding their own business.

America and Australia quickly filled up with white people. Depending on what part of America, some Natives got integrated fairly peacefully, but it wasn't that good everywhere...

Australia and America became independant because they lost their common identity with their homeland and wanted to protect their own interests. Africa and Asia were decolonized part because of wars that were hard to win when your capital is weeks or months away by ship, part because the Europeans just let them go because the world had changed.

In Canada most of the "handouts" are guaranteed in the Indian Act which no government wants to touch

>It's just a historical fact that Africa was more advanced than Europe almost up to the colonial era

Sorry, no, you can't say that.

North-African Muslims were doing fine, from Egypt to Maghreb, that's for sure. Europe wasn't the center of the world by then, indeed.

But sub-saharan Africa was a backwater. It wasn't "dirt huts and people eating each other" everywhere as /pol/ would tell you to, but they were approximately as primitive as Mesoamericans. It was slightly better in the parts of West Africa where Islam had spread, since it slightly pumped up their technological advancement.

Ethiopia and the Swahili coast were slightly lagging behind the islamic homeland, but were still less advanced than Europe.

Change "Africa" by "North Africa" in your post and I'll let you have it.

The problem with the "Kangs" meme is that the overwhelming majority (if not the entirety) of Triangle Trade slaves were from West Africa and Kongo, which WERE primitive backwater. The muslims themselves knew it and were very happy to rob them of their gold for common wares.