Africans couldn't do civilization

We have this thread everyday, Africans are idiots thats why they never amounted to much besides a few shithole kingdoms with architecture more primitive than Mycenean Greece.
The simple fact the Maya made a jungle civilization froms scratch is amazing. Also Indians have been making civilizations in the jungles since their inception.

Zebras aren't worthwhile doemsticates. Their closest genetic relatives the Donkey were and those were domesticated in Nubia and Eritrean/Somalia around the end of the Neolithic Subpluvial along with cattle of mixed Eurasian and African lines.

Please enlighten me on amazonian jungle civilizations that are above Benin-tier.

How did an unsophisticated people build this?

Nilo civz where no where near the size and glory of Rome

>Jared Diamond
>white supremacist admirers
u wot m8. Everytime I've seen someone defend Jared Diamond it's been from the multi-culti, negro-apologist angle. I've always seen white supremacists blast Diamond as a nigger-apologist.

Just because you can, doesn't mean you should. Zebras don't act the same ways as horses, and are extremely unpredictable. Zebras also don't respect an authority structure the same ways horses can.

That image was probably made in an extremely cherry-picked way, to not show the poor sod who had his face turned into jelly after a zebra kicked it in.

domestication doesn't mean taming

I'm pretty sure that if you leave his descendants in the wild then you'd have to start over from scratch while a so called "wild horse" will know it's master again after it's been broken no matter how many generation it's been in the wild

basic stone structure

beatifully carved but not anymore advanced then the pyramids or stonehenge

>Jared Diamond and his white supremacist admirers

Geographical determinism flies in the face of white racial supremacy you fucking asshat, it's basically an admission that white success is a product of their location and not them just being biologically superior.

That's the subtropics. I'm not that user but subtropical is different than True tropics aka Equatorial.

The only equivalent is Papua New Guinea, Amazonia and Island Southeast Asia.

Thais and Khmer were quite close to the technologically advanced chinamen, and the Maya had some good farmland (Well, better than African jungle)

>and not them just being biologically superior.
>just
lol

Maya were Equatorial and they didn't deal with striga.

Also the history of humans in humid tropic Equatorial Africa is very recent and only with the advent of banana adoption in East Africa via Southeast Asian Mariners hitting Tanzania, Uganda, Kenya 3-5kya

Weren't

diamonds entire theory is about how only the enviroment matters and not the genes

he spends chapters sucking papua cock in his book and those guys are the niggers out of africa

Those people domesticated the banana, taro, sugarcane, breadfruit and coconut.

Europeans didn't domesticated shit.

Also Papuan society now is a result of European actions, the introduction of sweet potato via Portuguese fucked up the Highlands for centuries.

are you really trying to claim that Papuans were more advanced than Europe

who is their Isaac Newton?

who is there Carl Gauss?

This is bait I hope. Most leftists are strongly against geographic determinism. As for Diamond he is a hack and his book is garbage. He tries to answer difficult questions, but in doing so simplifies issues and topics to the point of being wrong. This is compounded by his use of out of date information and poor understanding of topics within anthropology. Fans of his book like to say it is just sour grapes among academics, but his fans are the same sort of people who think colonialism was justified.

You CANT domesticate zebra, which is why no one to this day ever has

Individuals can be tamed, but thats not at all the same thing

>tries to claim that Papuan society is more advanced than Europe

>yet then goes on to claim Papuan society today is effected by Europeans

but i thought you said Papuans were more advanced, so how did they get BTFO by Europeans then?

I'm stating that the very basis of supposed European Civilization is rooted within the Middle East and that the most grounded and foundational development that characterized Babylon and China, the Aztecs and Inca were not found in Europe.

All and All Europeans are merely the beneficiaries of other populations works and especially Northern Europeans who were backwater folks until about 5-6 hundred years ago.

I thought Zebras weren't suited for it
Any people who live close to them in a modern setting though?

Literally donkeys are the closest relatives and those were conducive to domestication

let me guess? mohammed?

muslim golden age got there from the greeks, not the babylonians, they expanded on it

only later and in lesser means did those same concepts apear in europe and they actually did shit with it

europe conquered the world with it, europe ows but a few roots from outside of europe, the entire world ows it's prosperity to europe

that's a fact, there's no if's and but's to it

Do some fucking research you aspie
loc.gov/rr/scitech/mysteries/zebra.html

The basis of European civilization is rooted in the destruction of Aboriginal European populations. Your language, your writing, your religion, everything comes from non-eurasian sources.

The foundations of the Greeks and Romans is rooted within non-eurasian knowledge bases. Their very foundation is like the rest of Europe tethered to the traditions and intellect of Western Asian peoples.

There is no worming out of this, without Western Asians Europeans would be like Aboriginals without agriculture, mounts or any Hallmark of civilization.

What the fuck happened to muzzies anyway? They were bretty close to making the jump forward before us and then they just sort of... stopped

Donkeys are the cutest fucking things.

Mongols and resurgence of orthodoxy.

Literally the reason why civilization started in mesopotamia is because its too easy to produce food, they did nothing productive after that, it didnt take long at all for the greeks to out pace them

You mean Muslim orthodoxy yeah? If so, can you rec me some shit about the rise and fall of the Islamic Golden Age?

some people say it's the mongols but they were already past the golden age by then

the truth is that it's in their faith and in the koran, muhammed's victory led to it's eventual defeat

bassically christians mostly accept that the bible has been composed of many parts which can contradict each other, the bible is the word of god as written down by mortal men working from memory what their fathers told them what people who knew jesus had told them and men can make mistakes

not so with the koran, mohammed was just a man according to islam but hos words were recorded and those words are seen as the literal word of god

there is no doubt in islamic theology that the koran is correct, they can wiggle within the words but no further then that

so when islamic scholars ran into facts counter to the koran they couldn't place them somewhere, christians could go "oh, I guess this is wrong then, or just metaphor" no, they're stuck

for example, I've never ever met a muslim who believes in evolution for the simple reason that the koran makes it impossible

>nothing productice
en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Babylonian_mathematics

Negros don't have the iq.

there's not a simple scrap of evidence that greek civilization is based upon mesopotamiam civilizations, it's as proposterous as claiming that since egypt, maya and thai civilizations build pyramids that they're somehow related

Moors were proxies.

Evolution is wrong though, ESL-kun.

Unfortunately, no. Not my area of interest, and I only happened upon that because of a lead-in to pre-Modern history.

Greek mathematics and astronomy have their roots in Mesopotamian mathematics and astronomy.

It's clear that low sub-Saharan IQ doesn't exactly lend itself to complex civilization. But it's hard not to be an 'environmental determinist' either way in a sense since certain environments and societies select for certain attributes which will influence their later development and so on. It's just that some environments and societies select for people that can also do better in other environments, far removed from their own. Still getting lucky though.

Do you even know what "Eurasia" is? The Near East/West Asia is part of it. Either way, it's true that without complex sedentary societies emerging in the Near East and East Asia, we wouldn't have gotten anywhere.

The Near East definitely had a very important influence on the Greek world. Read Burkert's The Orientalizing Revolution, for example.

I'm a phoneposter so that one time using Eurasians was a slip of the typing, I meant non-european it auto corrected sense I type non-eurasian a lot I guess

Angkor Wat is the largest religious building ever complex AND it acted as a giant water storage system which allowed them to survive droughts that would have otherwise collapsed their civilization.

The Khmer were absolutely sophisticated

That's true overall but Greek and Babylonian methods also diverge quite a bit, you could call them parallel to an extent since the
'Babylonian tradition' also continues in Hellenistic times alongside the 'Greek tradition'. I recommend Neugebauer's A History of Ancient Mathematical Astronomy for an overview of some of that.

>It's clear that low sub-Saharan IQ doesn't exactly lend itself to complex civilization

Why are they low IQ?

No one has read GG&S. Just canned lines and that's it.