Central & Southern Africa

The Celts had the wheel, advanced systems of agriculture, domesticated animals, etc.

Niggers didn't even have these things in the late 19th century.

Great Zimbabwe was built by non-black slave/gold traders.

The "Bantu" region is fucking huge. To say that the whole thing didn't develop is ridiculous. There were plenty of city states founded on the Swahili speaking east coast due to the increased level of trade during the 1200-1600s. Some of these were founded by Arabs, and Europeans, but others were independently founded most notably Mombasa.

On the other side there was also the Kingdom of Kongo and the city of M'banza-Kongo. Loango is another example.

Mombasa was apart of the Kilwa Sultanate which was ruled by Persians, Arabs, and Europeans.

>Kingdom of Kongo and M'bzana-kongo

TOP FUCKING KEK

The Kingdom of Kongo was catholic and could have developed if it wasnt colonized.
Otherwise the terrain is too harsh, the resources too scarce, and overall the land and peoples are older, much harder to lebinsraum them into a united polity beyond a tribe due to a horrendously long oral history.

It also was isolated from technological advances through trading.

With all those combined its no surprise they didnt develope on their own. The closest one being Zanzibar but thays because of Omanis

>Heck most of Europe was backwards and primitive prior to widespread Romanization
Isn't kind of idiotic we're going to call the iron age Celts "backwards and primitive" yet think Songhai or Mali were great empires despite having a lower level of development than those Celts like 1500 years later?

It was eventually a part of the Kilwa Sultanate, but it was not founded by the Kilwa Sultanate. They gained control of the city later.

>TOP FUCKING KEK

Are you implying that M'bzana-kongo was a collection of mud huts, or...

I think it's a bit ridiculous to say the the Celts had a higher level of development when they didn't even utilize writing.

Sauce

I wouldn't say so. Mapangubwe was one of the most developed iron age city states in a sea of nothing in that region, which is not insignificant.

Neither did the Incas and they were also leagues advanced compared to Mali, your point?

one significant reason is that the mean IQ of subsaharan africans is 80-85 even when they're raised in a 1st world education system with a western diet.

in subsaharan africa with very poor education and bad diet the average IQ is in the 70s

so they have too few intelligent people and too many stupid people to build anything.

the intelligent people realise it is hopeless to try and build something when everyone is so fuckng retarded so instead they just steal as much as they can which is why SS africa is a cesspit of corruption

Well then, I'd say you need to specify "development" better, because the way you're throwing it around seems somewhat random. The Mali and Songhai were much more urbanized than the Celts, with much better architecture, and a much more sophisticated government systems. How are you weighting these aspects in relation to advantages that the Celts have in order to come to the conclusion that they were more developed?

Google the Lemba people.

The standards of iq testing are constantly getting higher. An iq in the 80s is equivalent to an iq near 100 by the standards of the 1910s. Also there are ethnic groups in Africa that boast a higher iq than 80.

Metallurgy, architecture, military, economic stratification etc. Mali was largely a shithole and their entire economy was a single guy getting infinitely rich off of single export (slaves).

blah blah blah
>western diet
is in fact worse than natural diet.
>IQ
a measurement system designed to measure th eabiltty to wrangle math and chemistry which useful to the first world -- less so in hunting and foraging.

Fuck out Franz Boas

>this misunderstanding of the (F)Lynn effect.
Hilarious.

I guess our IQs will all be 250 in 100 years!

developed in a different way
cultural hierarchy is something only retarded poltard believe in so leave that behind entering this board

or die in cancer

>cultural hierachy
Is made legit the same way societies develope hierachy: Violence and sucess

Here's what happens in a multiracial country where racism hasn't been institutionalised for centuries.

Forgot the source, sorry. Same as pic related.

fake

sub saharan iq is 70 and they're all black so go fuck yourself retard. of course only the elite nigs will go to bermuda

The name of the study is literally on the image, why don't you look it up instead of just claiming it's fake because it doesn't fit your agenda?

Pic related is the proportion of pupils with an African background achieving five A*-C at the GCSEs exams compared to the national average in the UK. See how they rank higher.
Source: Key Stage 4 attainment by pupil characteristics in England, 2011
(Lingala speaking parents are more likely to have French as a second language rather than English, hence the disparity).

Now if you're willing to accept the fact black immigrants in the UK aren't representative of the actual Subsaharan African population (which is very true imo), you should have no problem admitting the other Africans scoring lower at the IQ tests despite being raised in a 1st world education system aren't either.

>sub saharan iq is 70
You missed the point here, we were talking about the gap when they're raised in a decent education system and with a western diet.
Besides if you really believe it's 70 you lack critical thinking. Pic related.

>of course only the elite nigs will go to bermuda
I believe they were brought there as slaves from the XVIIth to the XIXth century, just like the African Americans in the U.S., which is what makes the study so interesting. Why are you here if you're not interested in history?

actually the whites and blacks are almost completely mixed but choose different designations. that's why you get relatively equal iq amongst ethnic bermudans. also a lot of the original blacks were free slaves meaning that they had higher IQ to seek work elsewhere

also, diet and education only get you so far. iq is 70% heritable based on meta-analyses of over 14 million mono/dizygotic twin pairs involved in dozens of decades-long longitudinal studies. training effects do not last more than a few months, and do not result in IQ increases over 10 points (SD 15)

Watch the movie "Empire of Dust"

Nowhere in the equator birthed impressive civilisations because the jungle is shit. The only exception is the Andes, being a mountain range. And in Africa south of the equator is more desert, the eastern coast unsurprisingly developed the most.

>measurement system designed to measure th eabiltty to wrangle math and chemistry which useful to the first world -- less so in hunting and foraging.
So you're suggesting that IQ tests measure exactly what it takes to develop and maintain a civilization? Interesting take on things...

Life is easier in the tropics. It's like living in the garden of Eden. You don't need to plan for your own survival past the end of the day, let alone eight months through winter. The environment there selects for strength, not intellect. People who evolved in the tropics are thick as shit.

>actually the whites and blacks are almost completely mixed but choose different designations.
The argument sounds ridiculous, but I'd still like to read more on that, do you have any source?

Also, the heritability of IQ is relevant for populations that aren't affected by diseases, among others. Pic related.
By the way, if we're talking about the same studies:
>the general figure for the heritability of IQ, according to an authoritative American Psychological Association report, is 0.45 for children, and rises to around 0.75 for late teens and adults.
Correct me if I'm wrong, but nearly all the sets studied by Lynn for his studies on IQ were children and young teens. This plus the fact his results are biased.

Also, genuine question, what does that mean for the IQ to be 70% heritable? Cause obviously it's not 70% of the score, so by how much can an IQ vary with a 30% environmental difference?

>People whose parents have enough intelligence and agency to move to the UK do better than their bush nigga bredren back home

What a shock

It would have been smarter from you to just read the second part rather than commenting right away

Kingdom of Kongo is such an interesting phenomenon. I mean they were essentialy a failed state, just barely better than any other Independent African nation at the time, by the time Portuguese took it in late 19th century.

But the fact that for so long you had fully native functional, european type late-feudal kingdom (down to the court structure or governance) in middle of Africa is just fascinating to me.

I wonder if there is some decent interesting reading on it? I wonder what their military looked like.

>Esther Kamatari
lmao
Sorry I had to post that somewhere

Loango seemed quite decent

Actually the latest thinking is that Quipu were a lot more complex than previously assumed and do in fact constitute writing.

>Also there are ethnic groups in Africa that boast a higher iq than 80.

Sure, but not among the Bantu

>the proportion of pupils with an African background achieving five A*-C at the GCSEs

that's an arbitrary measure. it counts a student who gets 9 A*s exactly the same as a student who only got 5Cs

when you actually look directly at IQ in the UK, this is what you see.

white: 100.9
black african: 94.0
black carribean: 93.4

I suppose you can quibble over whether the UK's scores are more representative than the USA's but it's still significantly lower

>but it's still significantly lower
No, an IQ of 94 is perfectly normal and far from 80-85 as was saying.
If we assume the sets are representative, it's quite easy to show that even in the UK, black people and white people don't exactly have the same way of life, though the difference is obviously way more subtle than it is in the US.

It would have been interesting to see the breakdown by ethnicity (at least Congolese vs Nigerians) though.

>perfectly normal

for an individual, sure. for a mean average in the UK, no it is not.
having a lower mean Iq like that means that the proportions of blacks who will have IQs of over 130, 140, 145 ,etc. will be many many times lower than whites and the difference in proportion will increase dramatically as you look at higher IQ ranges.

those slavic and balkan countries you posted, they aren't western european, first world education systems. when people from teh balkans and eastrn europe are raised in say the UK or USA, the mean IQ is indistinguishable.

>those slavic and balkan countries you posted, they aren't western european, first world education systems
What about Ireland, Luxembourg and Portugal? What about Lithuania and Latvia, that have a very decent education system? And what about the Irish travellers in the UK, are they genetically much more different than the Irish or is it some kind of environmental factor that for some reasons wouldn't apply to the black population?

That map doesn't actually show IQs. It shows IQs "corrected" with PISA scores.
Now you may want to ask "where's the evidence that pisa scores are highly correlated with IQs?".
There isn't, Lynn's a fraud.

Jesus, how did this guy even manage to get a PhD at Cambridge?

>Finland highest
Confirmed azn genes
>Turky lowest
No ones surprised

Why are Nazis obsessed with the Bantu?

Never the Mande, never the Akan, never the Hausa, never the Mossi, never the Dogon, never the Nilotes, always the Bantu

Fuck off Herbert Spencer

Niggers.

>whats Great Zimbabwe

...

ETERNAL BANTU MENACE

...

One of many Zimbabwes scattered across southern Africa. Also most thing you see that remain are the ruins

That is the stupest thing I have ever heard.

>iq is 70% heritable based on meta-analyses of over 14 million mono/dizygotic twin pairs involved in dozens of decades-long longitudinal studies.

So the DNA in twins is nearly the same? What does that have to do with your point?

Mostly because of the lack of agriculture, which is neccessary for permenant settlement. At one point, the Bantu actually did try to practice animal husbandry with cows, but quickly learned they were putting more resources into the animals than they were getting out and so went back to hunting. The Maasi actually continued using cows, but instead of killing them, they bleed the cow out, drink the blood and then let it heal, providing them with a lving, breathing source of food. For some reason, other Bantu tribes didn't learn about this technique.

That's bullshit the Lemba did not build the Zimbabwes it was the Shona.

Maasai aren't bantu speakers retard.
Also cattle rearing is massive across bantu speaking areas.

But that's fucking wrong.

The fringes of Europe also had thousands of years of trade contacts with the "civilized" world at that point. Even the backwater that was northern Europe was hardly isolated in the early days of civilization, with goods from Egypt making their way all the way to Scandinavia (due to the amber trade).

Trade is a massive influence to the development of civilization. And, while Europe, North Africa, and Asia were fairly accessible to ancient traders, Africa was not. The civilized world was bounded on the south by largely inhospitable regions - the Sahara, Arabian desert, and the fairly arid Horn of Africa. If you look at cultures that did develop early in Africa, like the Kingdom of Kush, you'll see that it formed on one of the few accessible routes into sub-saharan Africa. Even so, it lacked the exposure to the markets that Egypt had, so it couldn't exactly flourish as much.

IIRC, trade routes didn't really penetrate into Sub-Saharan Africa like they did in Europe until well after the Bronze Age collapse. Even then, routes were limited to the east African coast and the trans-saharan routes that allowed Mali and similar kingdoms to flourish. And while you do see civilization pop up near these trade routes, by then the rest of the Old World had a several millennia head start.

>Great Zimbabwe
>the Zulus

Holy fuck, you don't know what you're talking about at all

Piss off

blacks tend to also have lower iq than whites

The Zulus are famous solely for being the quintessential spearchucking African tribe.

I'm glad you read all that and still felt the need to add that unique insight.

Even then the claim they didn't have those things by that time is weird depending on your definition of "niggers" "subsaharan" and which east african IQ chart someone references. I referring to the wheel.

this. the gallic tribes encountered by Caesar were in a state of development very similar to the classical greece polis. read comentarii de bello gallico dammit

no u

you guys do realize that Guns Germs and Steel is widely discredited

>Niggers didn't even have these things in the late 19th century.
Is this some kind of misdirection?

For one, they were extremly tribal and had a strange mix of patriachalic and matriachalic lineage that made it very hard to centralize. Every time somebody tried to build a proper central government and actually succeed in uniting all the factions, it all fell apart after his death. See: Kingdom of Kongo under Afonso.

Similarly, they had no uniting religion and Islam and Christianity reached them very late. Again, this made centralizing harder.

And finally their enviroment isn't bad enough to force them into a planning society (like egypt with thr Nile) but also not good enough to naturally let them live in abundance.

>>Great Zimbabwe

Literally smaller than a football field. Not even a village, just a stop-over for travelling merchants.

>Zulus

Africa's Sparta was as technologically and culturally backwards as Greece's Sparta was.

Not that faggot but learn how to read. Identical twins raised apart in very different circumstances nonetheless have very similar iqs in adulthood.

>IQ fags

>ITT liberals and leftists damage controlling black underachivement with muh environment and muh isolation memes

Both sides do like to claim they didn't have agriculture or whatever when it's convenient.

This thread is/was about South africa vs west and east africa. East Africa has lower IQ than west africa.

you're right, it's much safer and less complicated to be a trumpanzee wallowing in self-assured ignorance

What a load of horseshit.

>unironically calling people you disagree with "nazis"