If race and IQ are irrelevant or don't matter because we're all equal...

If race and IQ are irrelevant or don't matter because we're all equal, can someone explain why Africa still hadn't invented the wheel by the time Europeans were conquering the world?

How can anyone realistically believe that all races are equal in ability?

Other urls found in this thread:

en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Great_Zimbabwe#
en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kingdom_of_Zimbabwe
twitter.com/SFWRedditGifs

>Muh wheel
Did it ever cross your mind that they had no need for it? What benefit would a circular shape bring to a bunch of nomadic pastoralists and/or hunter-gatherers? They also didn't have horses to domesticate to drag a cart with wheels which is what makes them most useful in the first place, and don't fucking post a Zebra smart arse

They are just not, looking at it realistically and how people evolved, africa really lack something, I dont know what. And no its not because evil whitey colonised a good bit of it for a few decades. They had a lot of time before that nothing happened that is worth mentioning except insanely brutal tribal warfare and slave trade among those tribes. (africans were the first to sell other africans off btw)

You know, we didnt exactly "need" the wheel either but we still got the idea and followed through with it. Africans on the other hand didnt.
That has to say something.

Does that mean that Germanics are a different race from Romans? They were living in tribes while romans were conquering the world.

erm, it would allow them to transport anything and everything thereby shortening the amount of time they spend moving an large quantity. Also, every single nation that ever progressed invented the wheel, roughly around the same time, regardless of where in the world they were.
The Africans didn't invent anything else did they? They couldn't farm the crops or mine the gold, diamonds, uranium or platinum that they have plenty of.

The europeans also never invented the wheel. It was brought from out east lile most of European civilization. The real question is why did the eastern mediterean civ fail to spread far into subsaharen Africa.

>They had a lot of time before that nothing happened that is worth mentioning

One nation invented the wheel, ever. It was the Ukraine, and it just spread from there.

Is that really the thesis you want to go with? "Ukrainians are the only people capable of creating a civilization."

Well, even if I changed the statement to: most civilisations adopted the wheel easily except Africa, it still remains the same. They didn't progress in any form. As a civilisation they were stuck thousands of years behind the rest of the world until the colonialists arrived.

>They had a lot of time before that, nothing happened that is worth mentioning

The wheel has been invented twice. Once in central Asia and once in Mesoamerica. Europeans didn't invent the wheel either.

No, the Proto-Indo-Europeans invented the spoked wheel and spread it both east and west. While a completely solid disk was in use in the Middle-East and East Asia by Sumerians, the Egyptians, and the Chinese before the spoked wheel came along the PIE did indeed invent the spoked wheel. So, yes, the ancestors of what would go on to become Europeans did indeed invent (a form of) the wheel completely on their own.

>The real question is why did the eastern mediterean civ fail to spread far into subsaharen Africa.
For the same reason that nobody went south of the Sahara until Arab slavers started to get curious and desperate: The Sahara is an insurmountable wall of desert that was absolutely uncross able until Arabs brought their desert faring traditions and camels out of Arabia. And no, you cannot go east past Somalia, that area is filled with bloodthirsty pirates and tribals. And no, you cannot go west along the route Hanno took, until Europeans invented advanced ocean faring techniques and technology you'd be stuck either making the voyage by rowing or using the specialized boats of the Mediterranean which could not stand the rough seas of the open Atlantic.

>They had a lot of time before that nothing happened that is worth mentioning

>They had a lot of time before that nothing happened that is worth mentioning..

>They had a lot of time before that nothing happened that is worth mentioning....

>What are the Swahili city states?
>What is Mali?
>What is Ghana?
>What were the Sahara trade routes?
>What is the Great Zimbabwe civilization?

And of course, >muh' Europeans
Kind of funny how none of the six original river valley civilizations were in Europe. It's almost as if people have equal potential, but are affected heavily by their environment.

Nice bait thread btw

>They had a lot of time before that, nothing happened that is worth mentioning

>They had a lot of time before that nothing happened that is worth mentioning

Arabs != Blacks

Africa is a underdeveloped savage land and it will always be. Anything else doesnt work there.

All you pseudo "niggerlovers", pardon my french, typical americans indoctrinated by the media.
Have you ever been to Africa? Do you know how the locals tick mostly? Its like handling a whole continent full of overgrown 12 year olds with no concept of causality. Of course not everyone is like that but absolutely most of them are like that.
If i have money i drink beer until it runs out, when it runs out i drink water.
oh shit i forgot i needed food and clothes for my baby. well... tomorrow is another day.

thats the actual african for you, they dont think longer than 5 hours ahead. I worked for foreign aid groups in Mali, Mozambique and Ethiopia.
Ethiopians have the most civilized vibe to them. The rest consisted to 80% of said 12 year old overgrown children who want want want and then get mad when they fuck up. every. fucking.time.

is that something special?

Swahili are primarily of Bantu origin though with some Arab mixture. The vast majority of them are black.

Zimbabwe? Do you mean Rhodesia? Because Zimabwe is a total mess since the blacks took it from the whites and destroyed the farmers.

No, he meant the original Zimbabwe from the Middle Ages.

>southern african civilisation in the middle ages

is this some kind of meme? i'm being serious here.

en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Great_Zimbabwe#

en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kingdom_of_Zimbabwe

Retard.

They weren't even able to document the construction of the monument. Europeans had to do it for them.

But, I must say it seems like it was a great achievement. Does it make them a great civilisation though? No. Nothing came of it.

>If race and IQ are irrelevant or don't matter because we're all equal

Equal in value doesn't mean equal in competence moron.

Human equality is about the strong not smashing the weak just because they can, not about how easy it was for you to get a PhD.

>africa has less water sources available to humans than other inhabited regions
>1% dehydration roughly decreases brain capacity by 4%
>there are fewer opportunities to plant crops and sheit
>less resources mean less extra energy and less down time to come up with SCIENCE
>water sources were further apart, coastal regions had less contact surface over waterways
exchange and developement of knowledge is slowed down that way.
it's not only a matter of what is available, but also to what degree.
compare to the mediterran areas and the indian subcontinent, where the first breakthroughs in trade, philosophy and science were made.

also keep in mind the way how technological progress is made, as it is roughly exponential like the last 20 years showed. a development stunt of 10.000 years is extremely small compared to the age of humanity, but it is extremely significant with how things develope.

>1% dehydration
top kek

Also, African has the most fertile land in the world and an abundance of natural resources. How come whitey was able to turn Rhodesia and South Africa into agricultural powerhouses which suddenly changed when the africans took it back from them? Did the african continent suddenly have more water when whitey arrived?
Fascinating stuff.

The problem with this "humanitarian" view is that after a while, you'll be surrounded by 70 IQ machete wielding savages, and no amount of "kumbaya" will prevent them from raping and murdering you.

The funny thing is that it most probably was an arab trading post.

does that mean that race and IQ are important ie that they do matter in terms of competence?

many people outright deny this and cry ''racism''

If you have a strong understanding of history, you'd realize the futility of your logic. The Ancient Greeks went centuries without written language prior to contact with the Phonecians. Many Germanics were on par with much of Africa prior to Roman contact. Just like anything else, "Europe" is not something that was created in some kind of a timeless vacuum but rather the result of a millennia of various influences. Subsaharan Africa has always been relatively isolated from the civilized world but even despite that, they achieved respectable levels of social complexity on par with what many Europeans had prior to influence from the Near East. (Iron working, architecture, and so on).

Pic related is as equally fallacious as the africa hate but since it's directed at Europeans, I imagine you'll understand why. Great civilization is not some spontaneous development of static groups on a linear path. It's the result of continuous blending of various inputs.

like improved watering methods that were made possible through technological advancements.
and an already higher standard of education that the white man also derived from home, and passed onto those who could afford it (which are mostly his descendants. no free education and no enforced standard of education for everyone)

Allow me to retort.

First off, even those savage "germanics" were thousands of years ahead of sub saharans in terms of technological development. Sub saharans pretty much never developed any civilizations, save for some petty kingdoms founded by berbers in the sahel and by arabs on the east african coast. Germanics, on the other hand, had complex trading networks, irrigation, the wheel, etc.

The idea that "continuous blending" is what creates great civilizations seems absolutely baseless. The isolated Anglos developed a far greater civilization than the very mixed Ottomans.

HOW COME GERMANICS WERE THE NIGGERS OF ANCIENT TIMES AND 2000 YEARS LATER THEY WERE THE MOST SOPHISTICATED

>They had a lot of time before that nothing happened that is worth mentioning

Nice berber civ.

if that is true, where did it all go wrong? Africa today is the most impoverished continent on earth. every single country is rife with massive corruption and dictorship or pseudo-dictators. If they were once a prosperous people how can it be that nothing was carried over from generation to generation? how did they suddenly become so violent and uncivilised?

The average distance a woman walks in Africa to collect water is 3.75 miles (6 km). Now, in Africa, communities of any language have no shortage of this domesticated animal called "woman."

Surely, there have to be more efficient ways to transport it than on a woman's head. What if I told you said animal could be dragging carts?

>petty kingdoms founded by berbers in the sahel and by arabs on the east african coast.
Mali, Ghana and several other kingdoms were not founded by Arabs or Berbers dude, they were indisputably blacks. Likewise with Swahili, they were primarily of Bantu stock and they had impressive trade networks. This was accomplished through influence.

Look at your world today. Your numbers come from Arabs who got it from Indians. Democracy and countless works of philosopophy originated from the Greeks who were illiterate fo centuries prior to contact from Phonecians. Christianity is a product of Greco-Roman-Judaic blending. Algebra has its roots in Persians and Arabs as well as Babylonian history if you go back far enough. Literally nothing is created in a vacuum.

>Mali, Ghana and several other kingdoms were not founded by Arabs or Berbers dude, they were indisputably blacks
I disputably disagree. There is no evidence that either of these kingdoms were 'native', on the other hand there is plenty of evidence that they are foreign in origin. Them being foreign was the standard opinion of academia until that opinion became too "problematic".

>Look at your world today. Your numbers come from Arabs who got it from Indians. Democracy and countless works of philosopophy originated from the Greeks who were illiterate fo centuries prior to contact from Phonecians. Christianity is a product of Greco-Roman-Judaic blending. Algebra has its roots in Persians and Arabs as well as Babylonian history if you go back far enough. Literally nothing is created in a vacuum.
I agree, but Africans were not living in a vacuum. Why did the Greeks, Arabs, Indians all develop their little contributions, whereas the various african ethnicities didn't?

>I disputably disagree. There is no evidence that either of these kingdoms were 'native', on the other hand there is plenty of evidence that they are foreign in origin. Them being foreign was the standard opinion of academia until that opinion became too "problematic".

So are all the nordic kingdoms, they are all We wuzzing Romans and Greeks. Who cares.

What? No, I was implying that those various kingdoms were founded by invaders. Nordic kingdoms weren't founded by Roman invaders.

It's sad the mental hoops trying to rationalize the failure of blacks makes some people go through.

Whats really sad is are those mental hoops racists go through ("Those kingdoms were not ACTUALLY black") because they have nothing else they are proud of except their skin color.

Stating facts is not jumping through mental hoops. You sound like a butthurt nog.

We have primary sources that talk about the black inhabitants and leaders of these kingdoms. Do you really believe that there is an academic conspiracy in place fabricating documents?

>I agree, but Africans were not living in a vacuum
Yes many of them were. And as soon as groups did start communicating with the outside world, you see a corresponding amount of native development. Also, it goes without saying that "Africa" and "Africans" are hugely anachronistic terms. The continent is huge and talking about hem as though they're a single group of people is pretty inaccurate.

Because ancient Africans didn't need wheels, or any other tools for that matter. They used their minds to move things and could even fly. I ain't bullshittin you!

>Moving arbitrary definitions so they fit your racist views
>"IM STATING FACTS PEOPLE"

You sound like a butthurt racist white guy.

>We have primary sources that talk about the black inhabitants and leaders of these kingdoms.
Primary source written in arabic by arab scholars?

>Yes many of them were.
No, they were living on the same continent of Africa. With that logic, why did Eurasia not form a "vacuum", but Africa did? More excuses.

"Africa didn't have kingdoms"

Now we sit and wait for the racists to show up to declare all these kingdoms "not black because they didn't look and behave like my racist image of blacks".

/pol/tards are fucking parasites

>Moving arbitrary definitions
What did he mean by this?

of course i forgot the picture

>Mali
>not native

Ibn Battuta on Mali

>Thus I reached the city of Malli [Mali], the capital of the king of the blacks. I stopped at the cemetery and went to the quarter occupied by the whites, where I asked for Muhammad ibn al-Faqih. I found that he had hired a house for me and went there. His son-in-law brought me candles and food, and next day Ibn al-Faqih himself came to visit me, with other prominent residents. I met the qadi of Malli, 'Abd ar-Rahman, who came to see me; he is a black, a pilgrim, and a man of fine character. I met also the interpreter Dugha, who is one of the principal men among the blacks. All these persons sent me hospitality-gifts of food and treated me with the utmost generosity--may God reward them for their kindnesses!

>The blacks possess some admirable qualities. They are seldom unjust, and have a greater abhorrence of injustice than any other people. Their sultan shows no mercy to anyone who is guilty of the least act of it. There is complete security in their country. Neither traveller nor inhabitant in it has anything to fear from robbers or men of violence. They do not confiscate the property of any white man who dies in their country, even if it be uncounted wealth. On the contrary, they give it into the charge of some trustworthy person among the whites, until the rightful heir takes possession of it. They are careful to observe the hours of prayer, and assiduous in attending them in congregations, and in bringing up their children to them.

>On Fridays, if a man does not go early to the mosque, he cannot find a corner to pray in, on account of the crowd. It is a custom of theirs to send each man his boy [to the mosque] with his prayer-mat; the boy spreads it out for his master in a place befitting him [and remains on it] until he comes to the mosque. Their prayer-mats are made of the leaves of a tree resembling a date-palm, but without fruit.

>group of people x turned out less advanced than group y
>therefore group x was inherently worse
wow OP, i'd like to see you use this metric in action. If you get bad grades, is it because you have the "bad grades" gene?

Africa is a tall continent, with varying temperatures and flora zones, There are mountains and deserts and jungles and plains and savannas. Eurasia on the other hand is a wide continent with mostly plains and steppes, So irrigation, architecture and farming techniques that are used in China can be used in France as well, on the other hand, Africans would have to be more creative since even just West Africa has varying regional climates and flora and fauna.


Also Sub Saharan Africans have a lower IQ since they didn't have the need to prepare for winter.

Kek

So the claims of an arab traveler visiting centuries after the establishment of the dynasty is irrefutable proof?

I have a question, why did the Malians start speaking arabic, using arabic script, and practicing Islam?

Africa had lots of kingdoms. But they never had a true empire. So the actual question should be why Africa never formed a huge empire like China, India, Persia, Rome, etc. The reason for that is simply because subsaharan Africa is not well suited for that. There are no river deltas that can sustain a city of tens of thousands that would be the base of a rising empire. Also, the kingdoms were located significantly further away from each other than in the middle east, northern India or China, so exchanging technologies and conquering neighbouring kingdoms was significantly harder.

>I have a question, why did the Malians start speaking arabic, using arabic script, and practicing Islam?
Why did Ancient Greeks adopt Phoenician script? Why did the Europeans start using Arabic/Indian numerals? Why did the Japanese adopt Chinese culture? Why did Germanics start practicing Christianity? Giving and taking influence from each other is how humans progress.

The Jews obviously faked this

> while Europeans were conquering the world
And that's your measuring stick for which civilization is best? Which group of people has the biggest rock to beat the other guy over the head with?

Well you won. You can now raise the temperature of a city to the surface of the Sun. You can destroy your entire hemisphere in less time than it takes to order a pizza.

And, in rolling your fancy wheels around, you've done more damage to the environment than thousands of years of Africans living in harmony with nature. Eventually, your own vanity will make your continent unliveable.

Congratulations. You must be so proud.

How exactly are the anglos isolated? They've been COLONISED for centuries by Latins, Vikings, Franks, etc.

Technological progress is mainly achieved through that idea of continuous blending and necessity. Being given plentiful resources makes life easy already, and doesn't exactly encourage you to find ways to improve life

In those cases, it is a case of adoption, here it is a case of complete acceptance of a foreign culture.

Greeks may have adapted the phonecian script, but they still spoke greek, invented their own version of the script, and maintained their culture.

On the other hand there is nothing African about Timbuktu.

>there were no native black kingdoms
>ok well they were culturally arabized, they don't count.


holy shit, can't win.

Anglos have been largely left alone since the Norman invasions. Almost a millennia.

To be fair though, all that was done by racist dickheads like OP, western civilization isn't inherently bad.

They maybe never got invaded, but that doesnt mean they were isolated. In fact, they were in war with a european power almost constantly.

>The isolated Anglos developed a far greater civilization than the very mixed Ottomans.
What the fuck are you talking about? Britain was constantly in contact with the other European powers, we have a fucking German queen.

My point is exactly that they were not culturally arabized, you stupid nigger. If they had simply been "arabized" they would have retained most of their native culture.

My point is that the degree to which they behaved like arabs is only explainable by the fact that they WERE arabs, at least originally.

Understand now, Jamal?

>They maybe never got invaded,
Thanks for agreeing with me

>What the fuck are you talking about?
That there was no invasion of England following the Norman invasion. Do you suffer from mental retardation?

Retard

>not being invaded is the same thing as being isolated.

so i guess the US are living in isolations since 250 years.

He's right though, Anglo plebs might be homogenous but the aristocracy was always a mixture of Anglo, Latin, German and Scandinavian elements. And frankly, English working class is no better than your average nigger.

Hahaha.

Greeks had a script before approximating the Phoenician one, though, look up Linear B.

Nothing you're saying is founded on archeology, history, or deep understanding of the region. You're spouting unfounded speculation based on your pre-conceived ideas of race.

Mali was founded by Maninka people who spoke their native language primarily. The founding of the kingdom is attested to by centuries old oral tradition in the form of the Epic of Sundiata. I'm sure you'll dismiss it despite the fact that Homer's stories were also orally transmitted for centuries. For some reason, the bar is raised impossibly high for you to give africans any credit.

of course

All right I give up Africa was teeming with advanced civilizations before whitey showed up, and if it weren't for racism they'd have IQs in the 150s.

hehe u mad whitey

>implying retards cannot create a civilization
Ever heard of Sumer or Akkad? Middle Easterners are literal brainlet, yet they pretty much invented civilizaiton.

>gets his baseless argument btfo by facts
>resorts to sarcastic strawman retort
Kek

Why don't you move to africa or to a black neighbourhood and show us how tolerant and progressive you are?

Guess you haven't been to a majority african country or city then...

the Boers were hardly intellectuals nor did they bring in very advanced technology though.

Were the africans in the region nomadic at the time? How come they never settled?

This isn't what this thread is about. It is about why africans are so underdeveloped and primitive, even though the colonialists brought civilisation to them and the fact that we are constantly being told that race and IQ differences don't exist or that it is racist to discuss it.

My motivation for the thread was to answer that issue, if we are all equal and there are no differences in IQ between races - why is Africa so poor, primitive, violent etc etc

>the Boers were hardly intellectuals nor did they bring in very advanced technology though
They literally arrived dirt poor and illiterate and yet created a sophisticated and prosperous agricultural network. Meanwhile, 200 years later a bunch of cuckolds on Veeky Forums will argue that niggers never developed because you can't farm in Africa.

>even though the colonialists brought civilisation to them
HAHAHAHAHAHA

He's actually right. You're implying what he is stating sarcastically.

Sorry you're right. Africans were developing medicine, mining gold, building ships and roads and cities when whitey arrived. The europeans learnt everything from the africans.
WE
WUZ
KANGZ

It's true. I wish my country got colonized the same way African countries did, they brought technology and education that helped them leap 500 years into the future in a whim pretty much.

Yes by proving that Mali was founded, lead and inhabited by native people and not Arabs contrary his ridiculous theory, I was certainly implying that.

Technological development isn't linear and its ridiculous to compare what was achieved by Europeans and set is as a standard to all races when there is no way to measure how Europe or their civilizations could have developed differently.

Can you realistically prove that if blacks had inhabited Europe and whites Africa, technological and cultural development would have been different?

There's nothing to base this on.

Genetically they were almost identical.

Germanics were nigger tier during Greco-Roman tier.

...

Those aren't great accompaniments and given that couldn't even get themselves it leads me to believe much if that was revisionism.