Build this

2500AC venturi effect structure
3000AC seismic resistant structures
1400AC Colosal andean irrigation systems all over the Inca empire
1400AC The biggest hydro-engineered city of the world: Tenochtitlan

Without beasts of burden to do shit for them, beta-boy eurocucks can't even compete..

real life isn't a game of civilization, its not about how much they leveled up their science skill over x years

>building your city on a giant mosquito infested swamp
>this is somehow a good thing

Because the cities of Europe looked so much grander around the same time, huh?

Worked for Venice.

If there is a concept of superior ethnic group, that is the one which had a greater development rate. All civilizations suffer similar circumstances such as population growth, competition between tribes, coastal settlements, plateau settlements, agricultural spread, trad between pacific tribes, artistic manifestation of the events or daily life, abundance and pillage, certain intermarriages unite tribes, and all of this under the constant need of better weapons. Civilization is a process of development that some tribes didn't need to do, but others had to do. On europe and mesoamerica there were tribes which had to develop to survive.

>it s a hedonists rate a bunch of people by how comfortable they make their life episode

>but whatabout

I will repeat
>building your city on a giant mosquito infested swamp
>this is somehow a good thing

so you're saying Iraq is the master race?

When was Iraq populated?

It's the same as wasting resources so a building could look "better".

Just because they didnt use wheels doesnt mean they didnt know what a wheel could do. Since they didnt have horses wheels were pretty useless

No, read this

Correct, pic related was made by Egyptians around 2590 bc

>Mayans were definitely a high tier civilization

They lived like ancient egyptians at a time when the rest of the world sailed around the globe and had science and stuff.

They were about 3-5k years behind any other civilisation.

>the rest of the world

Just Europeans: Africans were mudhut tards, arabs didn't have real science and neither did chinks

>Just Europeans: Africans were mudhut tards, arabs went retard because Mongolians and neither did chinks
Ftfy

WE

Considering they reached America 15000 years after europeans settled on yurop, reduced the chronologival offset from 15000 to 3000, and had some better technology than middle ages europe, it's truly impressive desu.

>Implying the Ancient Egyptians weren't more advanced then Europeans and Muslims in the 15th century.

But the peak of their civilization was around the Fall of the WRE. By the time the Spanish met them, they had badly regressed.

>They didn't have carved interiors like the Egyptian pyramids
Not because they couldn't, but because pyramids were built on top of other pyramids, thanks to that we can trace the evolution of the architecture through time, the astronomic and the symbolic importance of the pyramid's position.

>a step pyramid is basically just a huge pile of stones
Next thing you are going to say is that they couldn't built them as tall as the ones at egypt, despite having more volume and materials. Again, not because they couldn't, pyramids were supposed to be more wide than tall for them.

Technically they are built in a different way than Egyptian pyramids, which is a factor.

>Piattabanda

ahahahahaahahahahhaha

>no structures built on an area whose surface is +60% water, non acoustic nor calendrical features
have fun with your copy pasted arches, not even invented by italians

>have fun with your copy pasted arches, not even invented by italians

Come again?

...

Superior to anything done by native americans

But that's wrong.

They reached America with the same technological level as the rest of the world...
British isles were inhabited even later, and they managed to be somehow successful.

wow a bunch of stacked pillars

>No wheels/carts
>definitely a high tier civilization
Anime_girl_with_a_confused_face_and_an_interrogation_point_above_her_head.jpg

That's wrong, though. They started again as nomad populations, and thousands years later showed some primitive tools. They even lived in caves and showed similar characteristcs as europeans.

>15000 years of offset
Umm...If we coincide the start dates of every civilization... They had all of that technology that even surpassed middle-ages europe in 13500BC...

Nice try, though.

>That's wrong, though. They started again as nomad populations
As everyone at that time.
Sedentarization in Europe (semi sedentarization) began thousands of years AFTER the first arrivals in America. They all started at the same level.
I've read a theory about why America was "retarded" compared to the rest of the world but it deserves its own thread.

Do you have a link to that theory? or...? I'd like to read that.

That's wrong though. The nomadic population density had to start over and the constant acumulation of oral tradition was reset in America. Let's not forget about the environment modification that humans made to nature making it possible for larger populations to grow over time.

As History demonstrates. There is no "miracle" when it comes to progress. Tribes were competing each other the same as europeans in 40000AC, the difference was the offset of 15000 years between the two groups.

This isn't the Civ series, you don't need to check off arbitrary things to be advanced. I think you can be a nuclear nation without ever discovering pottery.

>no structures built on an area whose surface is +60% water
venice

>non acoustic
concert halls

>calendrical features
sundials

All these things are superficial and thus not evidence of superiority. If you look at objective superiority you can see Europeans were light years ahead,capable of far more than native Americans. Euros could have done the same as NatAms if they chose to, NatAms could not do the same as Euros as they lacked the technology.

I am talking about technological superiority not inherent genetic superiority by the way, this is not about which team or race is better, just the fact. Also it is moral to place the truth above ego and you made your mistake anonymously so it shouldn't hurt your ego to do what I am about to tell you.

I will now accept your apology and admission of NatAm technological inferiority in the year 1492.

>acoustic

Greece, 500 bc, well before you sad little retards began stacking those rocks

That's wrong though. Amerindians started the civilization race 15000 years after europeans settled on europe.

It's in this book. A must read I'd say. The theory concerns the indians of Patagonia, but it could apply to the whole continent, and also the abos, and other ethnicities.
I'd call it "the ultimate losers theory". The reason why people migrated again and again always further is not because they were adventurous or curious, it's because they lost every competition, losers of clan wars, banished etc... Little by little, by selection, the ones who reached the most distant lands were inevitably the worst kind.
(apparently the Pataginians were really shit)

>The nomadic population density had to start over and the constant acumulation of oral tradition was reset in America.

Thoudands of years user, do you realise what it means? It's more than enough.

Doesn't make sense because Europeans expanded around the world and lost their colonies to their "loser" descendants.

Yep. It was enough, yet europeans didn't develop much until 10000BC. They were 30000 years lurking around.
Meanwhile, amerindians reached NorthCanada in 25000 and didn't move south until 15000BC. Then in 6000BC started showing major progress.

Let's compare:
-European lurking around: 30000 years
-Amerindians lurking around: 9000 years

Umm...isn't it interesting?

Also, the semi-sedentarization was possible due to already morphed land which other past tribes had used. Jungles and woods aren't good spots to settle you know. Another reason why the savage land of America had to be morphed, and Amerindians had to start over again.

It's pretty good considering the Aztec Empire was only what, less than 90 years old when the Spanish destroyed it? That's a lot in a very short amount of time, your grandparents potentially were alive at the founding.

You compare primal migrations to colonisation user...

>I've read a theory about why America was "retarded" compared to the rest of the world
No Central Asians to give them horses, no Mesopotamians to give them ironworking, no Egyptians to teach them seafaring and religion, no Indians to give them mathematics and astronomy, no Greeks no give them science and their thinking, no Romans to give them engineering and law, no Chinese to give them gunpowder and compass, and a long etc.
You can also see it in the amount of diseases developed in the Old World.

Diseases introduced from the New Wolrd to the Old World:
- A bedbug infection
- Syphilis (disputed)

Diseases introduced from the Old World to the New World:
- Bubonic plague
- Chicken pox
- Cholera
- Diphtheria
- Influenza
- Leprosy
- Malaria
- Measles
- Scarlet fever
- Smallpox
- Typhoid
- Typhus
- Whooping cough
- Yaws
- Yellow fever

>The theory concerns the indians of Patagonia, but it could apply to the whole continent
not the whole continet is equally as productive jesus christ is basic logic

why does it matter? all the ex-colonies have economic and politicial systems that descend from the colonial period. everything pre-colonial only exists on the fringes of society.

In fairness we didn't introduce that shit on purpose outside of that one time in the 19th century. We didn't know we were an army of Typhoid Maries.

>people didn't migrate because of lack of resources and environment/climate change like thousands of archaelogical findings show in europe
>they got btfo by their neighbours and migrate finally to one safe place
Umm...I wonder if that's true. If I remember correctly, there has always been different tribes all over the world, also if we analyze both continents, America and Europe had a lot of tribes to compete with. Also, there are a lot of examples of original cultures who got BTFO by the neighbours who "migrated" further.
Scytians who got BTFO by north-eastern asians, Hitites, literally all the ancient middle-easter civilizations and paleolithic tribes, niggers, Romans... I wonder why do people tend to trivialize and omit the details so they could form holistic garbage...

Nobody is bashing europeans over here, though. But there are some people in denial over these facts...

not blaming you pham

>outside of that one time in the 19th century
the blanket story? wasn't made up?

Having the most advanced Stone Age civilization in history during the Renaissance is like showing up to the Indy 500 in the world's fastest donkey cart.

They had some better technology than middle-ages europe though.

and that renaissance's europe aswell but there will always be something to shit on

>It has also been suggested that the Spanish conquest of Mesoamerica influenced the history of the botanical garden[14] as gardens in Tenochtitlan established by king Nezahualcoyotl,[18] also gardens in Chalco (altépetl) and elsewhere, greatly impressed the Spanish invaders, not only with their appearance, but also because the indigenous Aztecs employed many more medicinal plants than did the classical world of Europe.[19][20] Hernando Cortés reportedly told the Spanish monarch that the Aztec physicians were superior to those in Spain, so superior, in fact, that the king need not bother sending Spanish physicians to the New World. Statement later confirmed in an early letter by the personal physian of the Spanish monarch who spent 7 years studying the Aztec medicine in a research trip that was expected to last 6 months: ‘"I marveled, in this and in innumerable other herbs, which are nameless among us, how in the Indies, where people are so uncultured and barbaric, there are so many herbs, some with known uses and some without, but there is almost none, which is not known to them and given a particular name".

>muh illiterate subhuman shitskins with their twigs and rocks were more advanced than the flower of Evropa

"& Humanities" was a mistake.

Pretty sure we did actually do that, but it was one time.

2500AC venturi effect structure
3000AC seismic resistant structures
1400AC Colosal andean irrigation systems all over the Inca empire
1400AC The biggest hydro-engineered city of the world: Tenochtitlan
Umm...isn't it interesting?

>humanities
So you agree to report all kind of nigger-baiting and shit that violates the 25-year rule, too?
Umm...

>why does it matter?
Being the first to migrate in the area has nothing to do with colonizing an already populated land, dummy, obviously the mechanism can't apply.

>No Central Asians to give them horses, no Mesopotamians to give them ironworking, no Egyptians to teach them seafaring and religion, no Indians to give them mathematics and astronomy, no Greeks no give them science and their thinking, no Romans to give them engineering and law, no Chinese to give them gunpowder and compass, and a long etc.
Every things that happened far AFTER the settlement in America. They could have discover this themselves. But they didn't.
And you really don't realise what thousands of years of adaptation means in regard of diseases. Actually the indians were immune to all of this, proof that it was not an issue.

>not the whole continet is equally as productive jesus christ is basic logic
Migration in Patagonia has nothing to do with productivity, obviously. They simply had no choice.

All wrong, look.

>isn't it interesting
Why would it be?
It's all shit that Europe had mastered a thousand years previous.

There's literally NOTHING to learn from these savages.

>mosquitos
>saltwater

All wrong. Venturi effect wasn't discovered till 1700 approximately. Seismic resistant structures exist since the Roman times, maybe some centuries before.
The andean irrigation system is incomparable hehe. Nothing equal to anything on europe regarding agricultural systems. Tenochtitlan is literally Venice improved techonologically several times in middle-ages europe.

Also, europeans had 15000 years more to develop...

Umm...isn't it interesting?

This is the strategy game way of viewing history.
How 'advanced' a civilisation is is not only subjective, but also dependent on many factors. A civilisation doesn't just move in a linear fashion and the Mesoamerican societies show this perfectly.

>I remember correctly, there has always been different tribes all over the world, also if we analyze both continents,
You don't remember correctly, there was no one in every continent before the first arrivants. When people came in America it was empty, same in Australia, and Asia before...
I wonder why people forget the simpliest basic facts...

>montezuma pro baits don't attract replies anymore so you adopt a tumblr typing pattern
pathetic. Melanin Warrior was better than you.

>arrivants
The principle the book seems to postulate is that there was no competition between tribes, after the migration. There has always been pressure between ethnicities. The "human" selection has always happened.

Also don't skip the amount of evidence that contradicts the book, there are a lot of examples of original cultures who got BTFO by the neighbours who "migrated" further.
Scytians who got BTFO by north-eastern asians, Hitites, literally all the ancient middle-easter civilizations and paleolithic tribes, niggers, Romans... I wonder why do people tend to trivialize and omit the details so they could form holistic garbage...

I learnt it from /pol/ years ago desu.

Hey, if you wanna venerate baby slaughtering cannibals as having anything to contribute to human civilization, then be my guest.

You won't see me following anyone down that road.

Don't you think if there was anything worth learning from these "people" maybe they would have stuck around, straightened up, and maybe developed a useful technology?

>venerate baby slaughtering cannibals
3 of those characteristics weren't from Aztec culture.

>worth
I think I'll need some examples...let's wait till europeans get wiped out from the earth's surface by mongrels and muslims. Then I could judge with at least similar circumstances from different ethnic groups...

>sacrifice
So you agree middle-eastern and europe from the calcolithic and the early bronze age should have been genocided leaving there only the """"pacific"""" tribes? hehe

>The principle the book seems to postulate is that there was no competition between tribes, after the migration.
No. The principle is that , in the example of America, people arrived by the north and those who migrated all the way to the south were the losers of the competition, or else they would have remained where they were. Those who settled in Patagonia had literally zero interest to be there, it's highly hostile, it tends to prove that they had no choice. By extension we can assume that the same principle applies to those who migrated from Siberia to Alaska: if they had the choice they wouldn't have done that.

>No. The principle is that , in the example of America, people arrived by the north and those who migrated all the way to the south were the losers of the competition, or else they would have remained where they were.
And that gets refuted by the numerous examples such as: Scytians who got BTFO by north-eastern asians, Hitites, literally all the ancient middle-easter civilizations and paleolithic tribes, niggers, Romans... I wonder why do people tend to trivialize and omit the details so they could form holistic garbage...

>Those who settled in Patagonia had literally zero interest to be there, it's highly hostile, it tends to prove that they had no choice. By extension we can assume that the same principle applies to those who migrated from Siberia to Alaska: if they had the choice they wouldn't have done that.
That would imply an immediate "lost" war, but as the constant contact with hostile neighbour tribes kept putting pressure on their "human" selection, the process of development shouldn't have been stopped unless they had no need to stop being nomads.

>And that gets refuted by the numerous examples such as...
BUT THERE WAS NOBODY IN FUCKING AMERICA!

After the migration the whole land got populated. There were tribes everywhere to put pressure on the "human" selection.
Unless you imply that it only counts when they migrated first, however the examples prove that those tribes who migrated further at the beginning BTFO the original tribes many times as I quoted.

They were. Their agriculture is proof of that. Compile a list of domesticated european plants pre 1500s to pre 1500s america. Also the fact that precolumbian crops yielded more and were more efficient than colonial and even contemporary ones now is proof of it.

>Evropa
Le_based_god_emperor_shadilay_kek_fasheave.jpg

>Unless you imply that it only counts when they migrated first,
OF FUCKING COURSE!!! THAT'S THE WHOLE POINT!!!!

...But that gets refuted by these examples over here.If you want examples from America:
-Patagonian tribes BTFO Inca campaign which makes them stop till Santiago
-Incas BTFO Chancas
-Moche invaded northern tribes
-Chimu invaded the area of the Moche
-Southern tribes had been a dangerous treat for centuries to the north of South-America. Tiwanaku seems to have invaded from Bolivia to Ecuador
I don't know about mesoamerica though.

Edzna archaeological site

For the life of me I will never understand pseuds like this who get themselves off on slapping their heritage in the face. It's disgusting and cringey.

Buddy, those are facts...Calm down...

What's factual about ? It's just a desperate attempt to spew memes and discredit things that hurt his widdle feelies.

Neat citation, friend.

>muh illiterate subhuman shitskins with their twigs and rocks were more advanced than the flower of Evropa
>just a desperate attempt to spew memes and discredit things that hurt his widdle feelies.

Accurate description. hehe

I didnt read any post in this thread. But the answer is that humans can be treated like cattle if there are no other options.

Haha what a shtory mark.

The Mayas went the civilization route and decided that wasn't for them. How gangsta is that?

>But that gets refuted by these examples
In what language do you want me to write it?
>it only counts when they migrated first
What happened after does not fall under the theory you fucking autist, don't act as if you misread my posts.

Incas were superior to europeans though.

>Little by little, by selection, the ones who reached the most distant lands were inevitably the worst kind.
That's the conclusion, right? False.
All the examples which disproves your conclusion.

The guy postulates that the worse tribe loses and migrates, that's actually debatable knowing the great example of the bronze age collapse. If we imply that he is right, that the worse tribes migrate, the examples I posted contradict the hypothesis.

>All the examples which disproves your conclusion.
These examples happened when the land was already occupied, these were territorial conflicts. The Alakalufs ended in Patagonia because there was no one there. By extension we can assume that those who crossed the Bering strait followed the same fate.