Let's be honest here, geographic determinism is more right than wrong...

>North America had no developed civilizations despite having a similar climate and resource abundance as East Asia and Europe
If geography was really the primary factor in how societies develop, the American Indians should have had mighty, technologically advanced empires.

But they were still stone age peoples despite all the advantages their environment provided.

They lacked domesticated animals, so ideas and technological innovations moved slower.

>but this anti colonial and frankly rude notion that the accomplishments of the west can't be ascribed to western superiority but instead the superiority of their spawn point is outrageous.

It's not outrageous, many major inventions came from other cultures. It was just appropriated and built upon. They didn't live in a bubble.

This.

Divergent evolution is an obviously observable thing. Stop denying it. Are you going to pretend that niggers don't look different to Norwegians now?

They look different. They can breed together. So same species.

Do you honestly think if you came from 20 generations of people living in the Sahara desert that you'd be fair skinned and blonde haired?

i always laugh when people say Italians and Greeks are "white"

not on my watch

>Ashkenazi Jews
>whites

hold your horses

>>North America had no developed civilizations
>American SW pueblo cultures
>Pueblo Bonita
>Cahokia, Mississippian mound culture
>Haudenosaunee Confederation

North Americans had dogs for hunting, but yes no livestock or pack animals. Wild horses and hogs after European introduction.
South America, llamas. could not be rode, but were pack animals. Inca did not have plows or wheels. Tainos in the Caribbean trained parrots to help them hunt smaller birds.

I see, geography is why the arabs like to marry their cousins, and why the indians shit in the streets
Europeans, with their months-long, well below zero winters have truly been blessed by nature.

Also, Rhodesia was the breadbasket of Africa but Zimbabwe is starving. Hmm, the weather must have gotten a lot worse or something. Poor Mugabe and the niggers, mother nature is keeping the black man down

>>North America had no developed civilizations
>>American SW pueblo cultures
>>Pueblo Bonita
>>Cahokia, Mississippian mound culture
>>Haudenosaunee Confederation
Falling in the native propaganda meme, they wasn't civilizated peoples despite having much better environments than the Aztecs and Incas.

>They can breed together. So same species.

That doesn't mean the people are the same though bro. H. Sapiens and H. Erectus and Neanderthals could all interbreed but they were different as fuck behaviorally and physically.

Why have libtards gotta deny science so much? It's infuriating. Just accept different races are different. Do you think the fact Ethiopians are so good at marathons is PURELY down to training and environment?

>/pol/ reads "Sure it's not the only thing,"
>interprets it as "heh it's all environment"

This is your brain on fascism.

>>interprets it as "heh it's all environment"

But that's literally what Jared Diamond's argument is. Haven't you ever read GG&S? Incidentally even most of the "racists" who promote a genetic understanding of behavior fully acknowledge the huge role environment also plays on our behavior. Even Rushton was clear about this.

The only 100% determinists are those who refuse to believe that disparities in outcome can be down to group level genetic differences.

>fascism

Stop being a Veeky Forumsfaggot and defining anything to the right of Foucault as fascism.

>But that's literally what Jared Diamond's argument is.

Is OP Jared Diamond?

>/pol/ reads OP
>in response to the OP, attacks the argument of Jared Diamond

>many major inventions came from other civilizations
ftfy

He didn't say Ashkenazi Jews were whites, he said they were the greatest catalysts for human sophistication that the sum total of the rest of our species.

>It's insulting
>It's outrages
No, it is what it is - fact.

The Congo is abundant in resources, but those resources are valuable pretty much only for a already developed and industrialised civilisation.

The reason why civilisation developed first on the Nile, Indus valley and Mesopotamia, is because those areas were rich in fertile land and domesticatable animals. Not diamonds.

Since the areas I mentioned were rich in these qualities, an abundance of food could be accumulated and STORED (you can't store foraged foods, because you need to be on the move), which allows other people to focus on things such as tool creation.

You mentioned Jared Diamond, you should know this. I feel like you're denial of his theory comes more down to the fact that it wounds your pride, than it being flawed in its logic and analysis.

>Compare if you will, the economies of pre colonial, colonial, and post colonial zimbabwe. The land isnt the problem, the people are.
>Compare the economies of pre-Roman, Roman, and post Roman Britain. The land isn't the problem, the people are.

The flaw in your logic is that you're assuming that the problem is their genes, when in actuality it's their culture that is the problem. Celtic, and later Saxon, culture had its problems and Africa has its own too.

I have worked in Africa in the past, and what you'll notice that TNCs will do there is hire a lot of women, because the women work WAY harder, but are refused good jobs usually. The men are pretty useless a lot of the time because they have both a bad education and a shitty work ethic due to resentment of the people hiring them.

>and domesticatable animals

But Sub-Saharan African had domesticable animals, many of which they either hunted to extinction or never even bothered to try and domesticate (e.g. the Ostrich).

>when in actuality it's their culture that is the problem

Culture isn't some magic word, it's just what people produce. Hence, yes, culture is of course related to genes.

In before I trigger you programmed spiel about humans are "too complex" for silly things like genetics and mendelian inheritance.

>a shitty work ethic due to resentment of the people hiring them.

lol at this roundabout rationalization.

Imagine being a race so insulated from criticism that you can be a lazy faggot at work and some libtard will defend you and criticize your employer for reprimanding you for being a lazy faggot instead.

Liberalism really is just a complete inversion of reality.

>I feel like you're denial of his theory

My denial of his shitty theory is because he 1. Pretends the land barriers of sub-saharan Africa are significantly more intractable than any other significant land barrier that serious agriculture permeated through (eg the himalayas) and that he's so obsessed with geographical determinism he comes up with bizarre theories like "China lacked a convoluted coastline for dissidents to hide out in, that's why they never developed anti-authoritarianism".

What the fuck is wrong with leftists, asides from being jew stooges?

Huge culture of running long distances and a diet that meshes well with it. Also unlike other areas higher then Ethiopia they have longer flat areas and not mountainous. I'm pretty sure an Andean natives in South American mountains that are so high up it's hard to conceive a child or a Sherpa had access to the same flat land to do running in they could perform on par.

You're denying that genes play a big role over this?

researchgate.net/profile/Yannis_Pitsiladis/publication/225064362_Kenyan_and_Ethiopian_Distance_Runners_What_Makes_Them_So_Good/links/54abb5f90cf2bce6aa1d9b69.pdf

Why are leftists genetic denialists when they mock christians for being creationists?

>Celtic, and later Saxon, culture had its problems

Still do too.

>many of which they either hunted to extinction

Source. Also why domesticate Ostrich over fowl for food? Also you can't or rather shouldn't ride Ostriches, it's really bad for their backs.

The Sahara isn't unpassable idiot. It's just not worth it. Why spend manpower and resources traveling up or down the Sahara when the stuff you can get out of it through trade and conquest is minimal as fuck. That's why stuff came in as low trickle and the difference in the people above and below it grew as the North had more exposure to different people.

That's why when there was a way to go around it PEOPLE DID. You know why Ethiopia and Nubia did well? They had a way to contact people outside the continent to bypass the barrier and conduct rade and knoweldge transfer, that's why Nubians and Aksum became Christian. when Ethiopia lost it's only Christian trading partner it declined because lol who will they trade with, the surrounding people who offer nothing?

You're aware that the precursors to today's equus subspecies started to be domesticated like 10,000 years ago and looked absolutely nothing like today's horses right?

The problem with this "no domesticable mammals" theory is that Diamond isn't actually aware of what was and what wasn't available to Africans circa 10,000 BC.

The Sahara actually was vastly more easy to cross a few thousand years ago than it is today, much less desertified, as was a lot of the Middle East.

>You know why Ethiopia and Nubia did well?

Did they really though? They never really achieved much of any note.

user read again I'm saying that mountainous people can do the same thing but they don't have the environment or running culture to work with just like how Black American athletes were thought to be total shit until they had the resources to be able to compete and the avenues to do so.

>"The climate change at [10,500 years ago] which turned most of the [3.8 million square mile] large Sahara into a savannah-type environment happened within a few hundred years only, certainly within less than 500 years," said study team member Stefan Kroepelin of the University of Cologne in Germany.

So a super long time ago.

>But Sub-Saharan African had domesticable animals, many of which they either hunted to extinction
Sauce, i'm interested. I'm pretty sure hunting animals to extinction is a fairly common thing to do, among all races.

>never even bothered to try and domesticate (e.g. the Ostrich).
The ostrich has only been domesticated in the last 150, and is only SEMI-domesticated due to how aggressive they are. Chicks and adolescents are relatively docile, but adults are aggressive; this makes domestication (if you have limited technology and resources) a pointless exercise. Zebras are the same, for that matter, as are North American Bison.
thoughtco.com/who-really-domesticated-ostriches-169368

>Culture isn't some magic word, it's just what people produce. Hence, yes, culture is of course related to genes.
Culture is HEAVILY linked to the environment and lifestyle that humans develop in as a society. It would be intellectually dishonest for you to deny this, since you're obviously not a stupid person. Why were the cultures of Northern Europe, such as Germanic and Celtic cultures, so indulgent in barbaric practices such as human sacrifice yet Mediterranean cultures rarely partook? One might make the observation that the climate of the Mediterranean made the standard of living of those that lived in it much higher due to how abundant food and trade was...

>In before I trigger you programmed spiel...
Am I speaking to a child?

>Imagine being a race so insulated from criticism that you can be a lazy faggot at work and some libtard will defend you and criticize your employer for reprimanding you for being a lazy faggot instead.

What are you talking about? Are you saying I excuse or defend laziness. I said the opposite ffs.

You barely even addressed most of what I said, fix up.

>tfw africans managed to make iron for a bit around 300bc but just used it to make muh dik weapons (literally) rather than plows

What's up with the Apefreakan American ITT?

and even during the green periods (since it was desert then green then desert again) once the Sahara dried up people retreated to the areas reaming good places to live within the Sudanese Sahara and people returning to the Nile river starting the Pharonic society so it (the sahara) became unsustainable

>Zebras are the same, for that matter

Not him, but see: - Saying something isn't domesticable because it's too aggressive is too simplistic. Give it a few thousand years and you absolutely could do it.

>Culture is HEAVILY linked to the environment and lifestyle that humans develop in as a society.

Yes, yes. Geography shapes people, and it also shapes the evolution of people. This is obvious from just comparing a Norwegian to a Nigerian. This is what you don't seem to grasp. It's a positive feedback loop for certain kinds of behavior.

>Hence, yes, culture is of course related to genes.

Genes isn't some magic word either. A culture isn't a direct expression of genes. Culture is produced, sure, but it is also reproduced. Someone isn't counter-cultural because their genes are different.

This is beside the other user's point anyway, which is not that genes and culture are related but that primarily an ability or willingness to work the land is cultural, rather than a genetic intelligence or something.

Foreigners coming back to Africa in order to work the land with their knowledge is not the same as establishing a civilization on that unworked land from the ground up, i.e. getting enough population density to necessitate any urbanization, trade, stratification, etc. This is something (proven) impossible to do on land that only allows for band or tribe societies living directly off it.

Compare this to Vinland as well -- medievalists.net/2013/11/why-did-vinland-fail/ -- the problems presented by this case were largely overcome by Europeans in the 16th century by their development and their culture rather than their genes.

Institutions also play a role. Success breeds success, especially so if a country is like 'hey we can get medals for our country if we get really good at this one thing'. Is there something in Eastern European genes that makes them better gymansts?

>Genes isn't some magic word either. A culture isn't a direct expression of genes. Culture is produced, sure, but it is also reproduced. Someone isn't counter-cultural because their genes are different.

I'm not sure what you're babbling on about here. I don't disagree with any of it. We seem to agree but then when anyone suggests genes play a meaningful role in predicting human behavior and you start ranting aimlessly.

>but that primarily an ability or willingness to work the land is cultural

That is debatable. Some people lack the necessary genetic time-preference to actually orientate themselves for long-term goals. They'd rather just eat the seeds than plant.

>This is something (proven) impossible to do on land that only allows for band or tribe societies living directly off it.
>proven

I think there's been enough reasonable criticism of Diamond in academia that we can't simply take you for granted here.

>by this case were largely overcome by Europeans in the 16th century by their development and their culture rather than their genes.

That's colonization of a hostile environment. It's different to being a hunter-gatherer nig in a comparatively serene one. The real issue with Vinland is that they couldn't bring settlers over quickly enough.

>They never really achieved much of any note.

How does one either prove or disprove this lol. What is 'of note' to you? They had a functional society.

Yes, institutions play a role, but the fact remains that at every world athletics championship (olympics included) for the past few decades, every single winner of the 100m has been black, and many of those from undeveloped countries.

There's no easy way around this without reference to genes.

Perhaps people aren't all exactly the same, and the clear differences you see with your own two eyes aren't some optical illusion that the gods are playing to test your faith in liberalism?

I'm not a leftist.

>Shall we just accept that genes play an important role over human behavior and athletic ability?
>Yes. I can accept that.
>But here are some other things that matter.
>And here is something else.
>This is important. It is more important than genes. But genes are still important.
>This other thing is also more important than genes.

Just admit you think genes play a negligible role rather than glibly pulling this whole "I think genes are important too!" routine.

If you want to start from the position genes are irrelevant to build a civilization, we can start from that position and deconstruct your assertion.

If things like intelligence and various dexterous athletic abilities are not genetic, then how did human beings evolve them in the first place?

>Is it any coincidence that the longest civilizations in Africa (Egypt, Nubia, Ethiopia) are ALL on the path of the Nile? These all involved heavy black population btw so race has nothing to do with it.
>These all involved heavy black population
>race has nothing to do with it

Look how not racist OP is guys! Surely he is deserving of our praise and admiration, now that we know his views are virtuous, as we ourselves have been told that they are virtuous, by people who tell us that their views are virtuous, so OP must be virtuous, right?

>Saying something isn't domesticable because it's too aggressive is too simplistic. Give it a few thousand years and you absolutely could do it.

That's besides the point though; Civilisation developed easiest in places such as the Levant, because they had animals such as cattle and sheep, which were much better suited to be domesticated by early farmers, than say a fucking ostrich.

It's not so much a "could you", but a why would you; Bison and ostriches are only semi-domesticated with today's tech and understanding, how and why could you even expect a neolithic human to even try?

Top soils are thin user plows fuck that up in most places because Africa has a thin top soil-in a ton of places

>Not him, but see: - Saying something isn't domesticable because it's too aggressive is too simplistic. Give it a few thousand years and you absolutely could do it.

They don't have future sight user. Why do you think people will just know 1000 years that making fat horses also gives them a better back.

>Is there something in Eastern European genes that makes them better gymansts?

East Euro friends tell me that those countries heavily invest in those sports and their athletes.

>many of those from undeveloped countries.

False most come form America or the Caribbean. Also most whites just gave up.

>Bison and ostriches are only semi-domesticated with today's tech and understanding

This is a metaphorical sleight-of-hand. Uncastrated male cattle are also only "partially domesticated" by these standards.

Rhodesia is literally home to some of the best soil on the planet you dumb nig.

>We seem to agree but then when anyone suggests genes play a meaningful role in predicting human behavior

Because we barely have any real idea on genes themselves. Genetics and stuff dealing with the brain is still extremely unknown.

>False most come form America or the Caribbean.

Caribbean is not developed. Least of all fucking Jamaica.

>Also most whites just gave up.

Terrible argument. You don't believe it has anything to do with genes? There are tons of non-blacks who train for the 100 meter dash, that French kid a few years back for example. For them they're lucky to break to the 10 second barrier at all.

>it also shapes the evolution of people
In some ways, such as with higher-red blood cell count among ethiopians due to a high-altitude, among other things.

I'm not too convinced that a difference in genes has effected rates of technological and social developments among people such as subsaharan Africans to Southern Europeans. (historically superior to Northern Europeans - coming from a britbong)

This is mostly because of how poor the evidence is, and how it seems to contradict the theory surrounding it.

Compare the supposed average IQs of India and Nigeria - exactly the same, but note that the former country is doing a lot fucking better than the latter when, and historically always has been. I've lived in London for most of my life - multiculti central - and I have failed to notice a difference in intelligence between the two ethnicities, if that counts for anything.

>Because we barely have any real idea on genes themselves.

Do you know what a GWAS is? We can determine heritability pretty accurately now.

>Genetics and stuff dealing with the brain is still extremely unknown.

So not only is this an argument from silence. It's a bad one. Even the most basic livestock farmer understood that mendelian inheritance was a thing. Perhaps he couldn't have given a proper scientific explanation, but at least he didn't actively deny that organisms pass down physical and behavioral traits to their offspring like moronic niggers such as you do.

How does it feel to be so politically brainwashed that you're dumber than a Neolithic farmer?

>babbling
>ranting aimlessly

Cute, but you're mischaracterising my position and obfuscating your own. I'm not 'ranting aimlessly' in response to some assertion that genes and behaviour are related. I know they are, just that saying 'genes are related to culture' doesn't say much about the extent. It's an ambiguous argument made by someone who is trying to cover up that they don't know much about that which they are discussing. Hence you attacking me rather than the argument presented. Keep your responses logical.

>I think there's been enough reasonable criticism of Diamond in academia that we can't simply take you for granted here.

It's some standard anthropology that has nothing to do with Diamond.

>That's colonization of a hostile environment.

I wonder how one conceives of a 'hostile environment' if that person doesn't believe environment factors into human development. The aboriginal population seemed to have little problem with adapting to the 'hostility'.

Oh wait, no, it seems your argument is something else entirely:

>The real issue with Vinland is that they couldn't bring settlers over quickly enough.

So which was it, a hostile environment, or that it wasn't hostile and they couldn't bring settlers over fast enough? Do you not agree that ocean travel had advanced to a considerable degree between the failure of Vinland and European colonialism?

>This is a metaphorical sleight-of-hand
No its not, it's a scientific term to denote an animal that is "semi-domesticated".

Please, look: en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_domesticated_animals#Semidomesticated.2C_routinely_captive-bred.2C_or_domestication_status_unclear

>Rhodesia is literally home to some of the best soil on the planet you dumb nig.

Not really. ONl a few areas it's decent and most o those areas were stripped from Blacks, given to whites then said whites receiving a fuckton of farming support and modern tech+fertilizer from their government. It's only called good because it's like Europe's farmland and people eating up Rhodieboo sentiments.

Are you an actual Englishman or a non-white? I'm also from London - white, raised here, but not English.

>Compare the supposed average IQs of India and Nigeria - exactly the same, but note that the former country is doing a lot fucking better than the latter when, and historically always has been.

There are various reasons which may account for this, not least of which is the standard deviation present within both population groups. Pockets of high-IQ populations will be able to bolster growth to a much greater extent than those with an stdev that clusters around the mean.

>and I have failed to notice a difference in intelligence between the two ethnicities

Immigrant populations aren't necessarily reflective of their home countries. Not just because of a different environment but because they often come from wildly different social strata.

Good contribution to the debate, at least a 7/10.

>There's no easy way around this without reference to genes.

Who said reality was easy to understand? The fact is that genetics -and other factors- all contribute to this 'clear difference' you see, only you are content with taking it at face value.

I've never once stated that people are the same. Learn to read.

>blah blah liberalism

You're a true orator. I'm surprised people didn't concede defeat after your first post.

>It's some standard anthropology that has nothing to do with Diamond.

Not him but it is naked geographical determinism.

>So which was it, a hostile environment, or that it wasn't hostile and they couldn't bring settlers over fast enough? Do you not agree that ocean travel had advanced to a considerable degree between the failure of Vinland and European colonialism?

It was both.

>stripped from Blacks

Bantu niggers in Rhodesia 1) weren't even native and 2) never even farmed in the first place.

>receiving a fuckton of farming support and modern tech+fertilizer from their government.

Rhodesia was a breadbasket long before industrial/synthetic fertilizer was even a thing mate.

Nigger.

You're the one stating that genes are more important than other factors, I've only suggested there is more to the results than genetics. You're understating their importance, I'm not overstating it. For someone who observes 'clear differences' in something as complicated as race you seem to struggle reading basic sentences.

So what is is about Eastern European gymnastics genes anyway?

>The fact is that genetics -and other factors- all contribute to this 'clear difference' you see, only you are content with taking it at face value.

Every single contestant in the final of the men's 100 meter dash in the past 5 or so olympics has been black.

This isn't some accident. It is reflective of genetic potential. The fact blacks in general have been receiving better support for said athletic potential is only making this dominant more pronounced.

>You're the one stating that genes are more important than other factors

I believe they're more important for certain factors, like intelligence, where there's clear evidence.

For every other broad-level behavioral trait (e.g. aggression) I take the standard sociobiological approach people like Turkheimer have talked about: It's 50/50 until we have clear evidence.

>Bantu niggers in Rhodesia 1) weren't even native

But they are though they've been there for a very long time.

2) never even farmed in the first place.

They did though how are you so stupid not to get this if you know anything about Africans in that area.

>Rhodesia was a breadbasket long before industrial/synthetic fertilizer was even a thing mate.

Can you post your source and compare it to other colonies or states in Africa and the world in that period?

>Not him but it is naked geographical determinism.

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sociopolitical_typology

this is the truth and nothing but the truth

y'daddy a nigger, bitch

Just to put it out the whole reason Rhodesia is called a breadbasket is because the sanctions fucked up it's industry so all they had was farming.

>Actual Englishmen
I'm white, but "Englishmen" barely means anything in terms of race. My mum was born in Liverpool, but she's fucking obviously Irish even though she couldn't name any Irish family. I feel English, and I am white. I hope that answers your question.

>standard deviation present within both population groups. Pockets of high-IQ populations will be able to bolster growth
Where are the pockets of high-IQ populations within a nation? This seems like speculation.

Isn't it more reasonable to point out that one area has a huge number of domesticatable animals and crops native to it, is strategically located, whereas the other is lacking in positive attributes?

Ocham's razor states that the hypothesis that relies on the least amount of assumptions is most likely the correct one, and I feel that Jared Diamond's is that exact one.

So how about them gymnasts

I think there is at least something to be said for the fact that the northern heartland of China is all a massive plain with few geological barriers, that makes uniting it by force easier than Europe.

People in all continets completely isolated one from another, came to the same conclusions and developed the same, with completely different conditions.

>but "Englishmen" barely means anything in terms of race

I disagree, it's as meaningful as any other ethnicity.

>Where are the pockets of high-IQ populations within a nation? This seems like speculation.

It is "speculation" to suggest a heterogeneous empire-state of over a billion has a pretty wild standard deviation of intelligence? Seems like common sense to me.

>Ocham's razor states that the hypothesis that relies on the least amount of assumptions is most likely the correct one, and I feel that Jared Diamond's is that exact one.

What's your take on Jeremy Corbyn and Tony Blair?

>Northern heartland

China's wealth was always in the South. The North is comparatively barren and inhospitable.

It also doesn't explain WHY they would want to unite around such an idea. What held China together was its homogeneity in terms of overarching identity, that is something that goes beyond geography.

>I disagree, it's as meaningful as any other ethnicity.
"English", by ethnicity, barely exists. When someone says they're English, what they mean to say is that they're a mixture of English, Scottish, Irish and Welsh. This is besides the point, however.

>It is "speculation" to suggest a heterogeneous empire-state of over a billion has a pretty wild standard deviation of intelligence? Seems like common sense to me.

My apologies, I misunderstood you.

I think it is inaccurate to say that India is heterogeneous. Although there slight racial differences between Punjabis and Tamils, they're obviously marginal. India is a cultural melting pot rather than a racial one.

Regardless, you need evidence to say which ethnic groups instigated the most amount of growth, and then some kind of intelligence test among its current population to verify your hypothesis.

Until then, I'm going with geography being the main factor in why India has been so wildly different from Nigeria throughout human history.

I think Jeremy Corbyn is far too unwilling to compromise, and arrogant, so he will never be truly successful as a politician. His politics are also pretty outdated.

Blair is a deluded fuckwhit, but so am I because he fooled me twice.

Why do you ask?

>I think it is inaccurate to say that India is heterogeneous.

You're wrong.

>"English", by ethnicity, barely exists.

And you're a racist idiot.

>here are vast swathes of that continent blessed with all sorts of abundances
Funny how they always say this but can never name specific "abundances".

Is this Trump speak?
>Africa has so many resources you wouldn't believe.So many! People come up to me all the time and they say wow look at all of Africans abundances! Africa should have so many civilizations because of all their abundances! But they don't! SAD!

>You're wrong.
Why?

>And you're a racist idiot.
How?

>Why?

I'd guess it's because you're completely ignorant about India.

>How?

By stating racist and idiotic things.

>Rhodesia has great soil, that means geography doesn't affect anything
>Completely ignore all of the other aspects of geography such as distance to trade routes, native crops, weather cycles, navigable rivers which flood regularly.

Also it is hilarious that rhodesaboos claim that "the blacks didn't do anything with this breadbasket" even though that area gave rise to one of the only settled civilizations of that area (pic related) which probably arose entirely due to the good soil characteristics.

India is not very hetero-genous, it's diversity comes in culture not genes. London is more heterogenos than India.
>pic related.

Stating that "English" is not a race is a pretty accurate statement to make, since there has been so much migration within the British isles for literally thousands of years. This is why people who live in England, like myself, don't call themselves "English", we say "British" because we live in the melting pot of the isles.

Was there ever even a English Race? I'm pretty sure Europeans are categorised as Northern, Southern, and the same being for the Slavs.

was meant for you

laughed

>thousands of years before "superior" white people?
I'm sorry, what year is it? I'm not even trying to do some CURRENT YEAR bs, but why bother comparing who were the winners and losers thousands of years ago? Compare who are the winners and losers NOW (hint: they tan easily)

>so indulgent in barbaric practices such as human sacrifice yet Mediterranean cultures rarely partook?
Oh Hahahahaha now I know you're just some ignorant fucking idiot. I mean, you must have never heard of the Colosseum or the Brazen Bull to believe Meds were never ""Barbaric""
Seriously though, that post gave me a hearty laugh, thanks user

It cracks me up whenever people post that fucking wall everytime they try to reference ""Great"" Zimbabwe. I mean, it's THE SAME FUCKING WALL everytime! Apparently niggers' claim to fame is 1 (one) bland fucking wall. Meanwhile, you look at age-old ruins of European, Chinese, Indian, or Meso American cultures, and you can still see the ingenuity of their architectures, even as ruins. But Niggers are so pathetic the existance of a wall is hailed as a great achievement. Eh Oh El

Taking the obvious bait

Great Zimbabwe was just one of numerous stone masonry sites produced by the kingdom of Zimbabwe.

>And you're a racist idiot.
Wow, that certainly isn't an argument
I'm surprised YOU haven't conceded defeat yet!

No, look at the name: GREAT Zimbabwe. I just looked at the Wikipedia page out of curiosity, and there is nothing "Great" about it. It might have been impressive had it been constructed in the year 3000 BC, but it was constructed in the 11th century. By then you already had MUCH more impressive constructions in other parts of the world, the site in Africa would have been completely unremarkable in comparison.
I wasn't really even referring to your Rhodesia bait anyway, I just meant in general how pathetic it is when people intentionally lower their standards in every way when it comes to Africa.
>numerous stone masonry sites produced by the kingdom of Zimbabwe.
Whoopdie fucking doo, do they get a medal for not being complete fuck-ups like the Abos or Congolese?

>it's outrageous and rude to say that my race isn't inherently superior
Go fuck yourself.