My ancestors :)

masterace

How did they know his skin color?

Didn't know how wheels worked till the spaniards came LMAO

They checked his criminal record.

...

...

...

...

Is that 2 dudes and 6 more dudes in drag? wtf

who cares lmao. But poor nordic farmers/fishermen.

...

...

...

...

So, white?

Oh yeah they did, but they were useless without horses. Also they reached America 15000 years after europeans settle on europe.

So, Master Race.

No, argentinian

My ancestor :)

...

Literally my ancestors

My ancestors

> wheels were useless without horses
What are wheelbarrows?
What are llamas?
What are alpacas?
What are slaves/servants/paid workers?

Its easy to see that the apple does not fall far from the tree in terms of intelligence

> They reached America 15000 years after europeans settled europe
Im not even going to fact check this, but why the fuck does that matter? What the fuck were they doing that entire time? It wasnt just walking cuz they would have gotten there way earlier even without the wheel.

Even after your people were propelled thousands of years into the future in terms of technology your countries are still raging shitholes. The only thing you guys have mastered is poverty.

My ancestors

Wheels already existed in mesoamerica.
>wheelbarrows
>The earliest wheelbarrows with archaeological evidence in the form of a one-wheel cart come from 2nd century Han Dynasty Emperor Hui's tomb murals and brick tomb reliefs.
>llamas in mesoamerica
>literally undomesticated horses already could carry a human and weighted at least 400kg
>undomesticated llamas weighted less than 90kg
>alpacas even worse

>What are slaves/servants/paid workers?
>The first evidence of wheeled vehicles appears in the second half of the 4th millennium BCE, near-simultaneously in Mesopotamia (Sumerian civilization), the Northern Caucasus (Maykop culture) and Central Europe (Cucuteni-Trypillian culture), so the question of which culture originally invented the wheeled vehicle is still unsolved.
>slaves didn't exist before the invention of the wheel

>why the fuck does it matter?
What do you think eurasians were doing before the wheel?

>Im not even going to fact check this
Probably because you don't check anything hmm...
>raging shitholes
>90% genocide
>elites and middle class murdered
>the rest assimilated by europeans
>the low class were thrown to toxic mines with an extremely low life expectancy for 4 centuries
Hmm...

It's obvious my ancestors were superior. Your little brainlet cannot comprehend it, though.

My ancestor ;)

Alans > visigoths

My ancestors :))

you really are mentally challenged, I feel bad now.
I realize that wheelbarrows existed way early, which is why you guys should have had them by the time Europeans got to you.
Despite other quadrapeds not being as strong as horses, they could still be used for labor as they were in other societies.
Why are you talking about the origination of slaves and wheels? The point is you had slaves but did not use wheels.

Also, despite this being completely irrelevant and idk why you would even bring it up, slaves definitely existed before wheels because slaves existed as soon as one person could physically submit another.

> the white man kept us down
Are you seriously implying that latin america would be better off now if they were not colonized by Spain/Portugal?

Your ancestors were superior only to africansm, some of which were probably also your ancestors.

My ancestors :v)

Somethings aren't meant to be proud of

moi ancestors bruv ;)

>I realize
Hmm...
>they could still be used for labor as they were in other societies
The first "animal" carrying a wheeled vehicle, where did it happen?
>slaves definitely existed before wheels
Which demonstrates that the existence of slaves doesn't have anything to do with the general use of the wheel.
>the white man kept us down
Actually I think that process was benefitial, that's why I think "white" "people" should live the same, it will be good for their genes.

>Your ancestors were superior
To europeans. All development was faster compared to them. It probably didn't reach the brainlet land of unitedstates though.

My EUROPEAN ancestor
We wuz native europeans and shite

ROMAN SCUM >/OUT/
SAXON SCUM >>>>/OUT/

PLAID CYMRU

are these Cossacks or some kind of Caucasus people?

what the fuck is that head? A dog?

Cossacks. And yes!

> hmmm
Seek help, you are dumb for real. I'm not even joking this time.
> First animal carrying a wheeled vehicle, where did it happen?
Thats not something we will ever know because it is so broad, but it would probably be in the first civilization to have the wheel which at this point seems to be early mesopotamia or their ancestors. Which is estimated at around 4000BCE.
Other animals that could be used are oxen, water buffalo, deer, and donkeys.
>Which demonstrates that the existence of slaves doesn't have anything to do with the general use of the wheel.
Except that if you didn't have access to the animals that I have previously brought up you could use humans you retard. YOU. CAN. USE. SLAVES. TO. PULL. WHEELED. VEHICLES. So the excuse that you didn't have horses is retarded.

> All development was faster compared to Europeans
Oh right I forgot, how your people came to Europe on tech they have never seen, conquered them almost effortlessly, enslaved and colonized them, and then taught them the language. Thats why were are all speaking Nahuan at the moment.

>cringeball
Hmm...
>Thats not something we will ever know because it is so broad
>All evidences are from civilizations with a plain focused agriculture
>oxen, water buffalo and donkeys
>all of them had a high capacity of pulling before being domesticated
>deer
Hmm...
>YOU. CAN. USE. SLAVES. TO. PULL. WHEELED. VEHICLES.
>slaves definitely existed before wheels
Then why isn't there wheels from 20kBC or earlier? You just said slaves existed before wheels. Omg you must be united statian, no doubt.

>came to Europe on tech they have never seen
>15000 years of offset
Hmm...
>conquered
>numerous diseases and epidemics with 90% of mortality
Hmm...
>nahuan
Millions are speaking native languages. What's your point? Do you mean that in 50 years from now muslims will be superior to europeans because they will replace them and the majority will speak arab?
Hmm...

Our superiority is a historical fact. All data you bring here is literally memes. Have you ever read a book? pffft

my ancestor

at the point it is evident you are trolling cuz no one is this dumb

>Then why isn't there wheels from 20kBC or earlier? You just said slaves existed before wheels. Omg you must be united statian, no doubt.
Having wheels does not mean you will have slaves. Having slaves does not mean that you will have wheels. The point is that humanity dscovered both. You had slaves but did not have wheels. When this was brought up you gave the arguement that you had no animals to operate wheeled vehicles. I brought up humans. You then autisticly started asking when slaves and wheels were discovered.

>15000 years of offset
This bitch wants a 15000 year handicap on development cuz his people travelled across the bering strait. No everyone is help to the same standard you loser. As already mentioned, development does not stop while people migrate, and it certainly doent take 15000 years to travel from Iran to fucking mexico.

> millions are speaking native languages
no they arent

> If muslims replace europeans and the majority will speak arab does that mean they are superior.
Yes, you idiot. If you allow yourself to get completely dominated by another civilization they are completely superior. Why does everyone want to be like Rome and no one wants to be like Carthage? Why do so many people study Germany and Russia, but no one wants to be like Poland?

>The point is that humanity dscovered both
It's simple. The wheels remnants show that it was actually a conceptual invention, that was spread all over the eurasian zone, but wasn't actually generally used, until horses were domesticated. It was probably due to the irregular terrain between villages and other tribes, that made it difficult to carry them, even though they lived on plains, it was an even worse scenario in Assyria and their mountainous land. That's why the rest of the eurasian cultures didn't use them. Even britain natives didn't use them until some years before christ.

Mesoamerican villages had jungles and rivers between them. The irregular land was even worse on the land where llamas were domesticated.
> development does not stop while people migrate
Archeological evidence demonstrates otherwise. 14000BC amerindian "technology" is literally similar to 30000BC southern european "technology".
>no they arent
pic related
See? The cringeball demonstrates you are a kid, jeez this board is doomed.
>completely dominated
The "conquest" finished when spaniards killed the big states, the rest of the natives had terrains and had treats with europeans before assimilating their families.

>Why does everyone want to be like Rome and no one wants to be like Carthage?
Maybe you are right, if everybody knows "white" ""supremacy"" is a joke, they might have a great sense of judgement.

All amerindian technology development was superior, then the diseases happened and most of them died. That's all that happened to the natives. The rest is "europeans" making up "legends" of the "conquistadors" that today are being proven wrong. I wonder why would people like fairy tales...

...

The Incatard claims another thread. RIP.

> Mesoamerican villages had jungles and rivers between them. The irregular land was even worse on the land where llamas were domesticated.
I guess land clearing is a concept no one thought of

> 14000BC amerindian "technology" is literally similar to 30000BC southern european "technology".
Thats my point. You argue its due to migration. I argue that it doesn't matter. The choice to migrate was theirs, it was a bad one and one that cost them 15000 years. I am not going to spare them 15000 years of development because they made a bad desicion.
> wikipedia quote
Ok I concede to the millions speaking mayan languages. But I was speaking generally meaning not a lot of people speak it. Which in a world of 7.5 billion, 6 million is quite insignificant.

>the rest of the natives had terrains and had treats with europeans before assimilating their families
Thats still being dominated by another culture

> if everybody knows "white" ""supremacy"" is a joke, they might have a great sense of judgement.
I'm not coming at this from a white supremacist angle. I'm not a white supremacist. You were the one that started with the master race speak. I am simply saying that your peeps were way behind in development. Europe, India, the Middle east, and East Asia were waaaaaay ahead. Not to mention that East asia did not settle long before the Americas were settled.

> legends" of the conquistadors
Well documented colonization vs. a few written manuscripts by natives and the rest is just anthropological conjecture. K.

:--)

>WE WUZ VIKANGZ N SHEIT

>I guess land clearing is a concept no one thought of
What do you think eurasians were doing with 15000 years of offset?
>The choice to migrate was theirs
And they even achieved what eurasians did in less time. It's pretty simple. Who is better, a child genius with potential or a mediocre grown man. Hmm...
>Which in a world of 7.5 billion
The Amerindian land is what counts though, they didn't lost the language. Didn't you want to "prove" that they spoke spanish or something? hehe
>Thats still being dominated by another culture
Actually the consequence is a mix of both with more native influences of both. United states isn't the world you know?
>master race speak
Because we are superior.
>east asia
>The fossilized teeth of Homo sapiens (dated to 125,000–80,000 years ago) have been discovered in Fuyan Cave in Dao County, Hunan.
>America 25000BC in Canada, the rest of the continent in 14000BC
Nope.
>I am simply saying that your peeps were way behind in development. Europe, India, the Middle east, and East Asia were waaaaaay ahead.
Actually they were way behind. Knowing that Amerindians had an offset of 15000 years.

>well documented
>lacks most archeological evidence
Just mentioning the south-american "conquista" just shows you that horses and european weaponry was irrelevant, so all battles until the last years of resistance shows native weapon caused deaths to the skeletons. All natives even had constant epidemics yet they resisted the europeans easily. Meanwhile the diseases kept fucking up with them. Most of this is omitted by the "conquistadors" records. The textil and relics from the cities and capitals were burnt and the gold and bronze melted.

In mesoamerica the remnants show that europeans were even more savage that the aztecs lmao. Even though the aztecs were an exception compared to the other cultures like the Maya, toltecs and olmecs.

In the other hand european subhumanism is demonstrated by their genes, they are literally killing themselves heh

...

>That hair
JUST

My ancestor (on the right) :)

>Thylakoids
>Cell wall
>On Veeky Forums nobody knows that you're a Plant

My ancestor :)

Just LOL @animalcucks having to eat fellow eukaryotes

My ancestors :^)

> What do you think eurasians were doing with 15000 years of offset?
There you go again, you can use that as an excuse but I don't buy it. I jugde everyone by the time they are in because they are in the state they are in due to their own action. Europeans at the time had already cultivated agriculture and land clearly. Your entire world view is justified because your ancestors were "travelling" for 15000 years taking new resources as they moved along, instead of cultivating new tech. You confirm my arguement every time you say that.

> achieved what eurasians did in less time
Because the eurasians showed them how to do it
> Didn't you want to "prove" that they spoke spanish or something? hehe
No, I made my point. You are just an idiot.

> Actually the consequence is a mix of both with more native influences of both. United states isn't the world you know?
The native influence is very minor. We have been speaking about latin america this entire time professor. You are the only one who ever brings up the US.

>Actually they were way behind. Knowing that Amerindians had an offset of 15000 years.
lol. Keep telling yourself that. Its really pathetic.
"Why werent the natives as advanced as Europeans?"
"IF ONLY THEY HAD 15000 MORE YEARS THEY WOULD BE!"
"....k"

> In mesoamerica the remnants show that europeans were even more savage that the aztecs lmao
WE WUZ CIVILIZED AND SHIT despite being admittedly 15000 years behind. WE ACTUALLY COLONIZED OURSELVES.

I am so glad I was not born where you were, holy shit.

>this guy
American education everyone

my ancestors ;) bloody barbarians

fookin irish

>excuse
Wrong. Woods and jungles were everywhere near the coasts of south-europe and north-africa/some zones of the middle east. The archeological evidence shows that the fauna demographics changed over time and some especies got extinct thanks to human presence. This process of collectors-hunters was the same in the Americas.
>taking new resources as they moved along
>migration
All wrong. Early european spread show no development at all as their population occupy the rest of south europe. Nomadic migration shows that the cultural preservation is volatile. And it's demonstrated again in America.

>Because the eurasians showed them how to do it
Wrong. Amerindians started again from the beginning as the archeological remnants show, and developed with less time, major achievements.
>my point
Which was to remark native language as extinct, which is completely false.
>native influence is minor
Wrong. All agricultural and familiar based culture remained in the low class, and the hierarchical organization was literally used when the "conquistadors" arrived. The viceroyalty even used many province based administration from the natives and built on the cities that were already populated by natives.

>lol
Hmm...
>15000 years behind
Wrong. The arrival had an offset of 15000 years, however the offset was reduced by the amerindians to 4000 years. That's why Amerindians developed at a faster rate, showing their technological superiority compared to europeans.

It's pretty simple. A civilization with a higher development rate, like the Amerindians, is better than one with a mediocre "development" rate, like europeans.

So whats your prediction on the remaining Amerinidians become a superpower or even world power? And when will they into space?

The remaining amerindians got cucced to death and the only pure remaining ones are deep in the jungle barely connected to nearby towns and doesnt help much of those that hid deep in the jungle were from the lowest class as well. They arent going anywhere until the latam goverments decide to stop pretending they dont exist which wont happen soon.

>90% epidemic disease genocide for 2 centuries
>elites and middle class murdered
>rest of the priviledged class assimilated
>low class thrown to toxic mines for 2 centuries
The amerindian civilization ended when the diseases arrived and demographically destroyed the empires. It could have remained effective, yet the social selection and the change for 4 centuries have affected natives and the ones who succeded were assimilated by eurangutans.

>modern comparison
Now that we agree with Amerindian superiority, now we can put europeans under the same treatment and see what happens, right? Then we will compare which one of them will go to Mars. hehe
The eurangutan genes don't reach most villages. They affect mostly capital cities and villages near the coast.

>>elites and middle class murdered
Dont go full pic related, we all know most elites were allowed to conserve some power.
>eurangutans
You shouldnt say such things outside of /int/, stop your european hate boner.

Wrong. The Inca empire had a militar elite. The sucesion war killed some of the royal families, yet the arrival of the spanish spread a lethal bunch of diseases which killed most villages and depopulated some cities from the empire. After the "conquest" all cultural remnants were burnt and the metal art was melted, the cultural prohibitions started and all royal families who didn't obey were murdered. The rest were assimilated over time.

All of it were written in the records.

I tought you were that delusional mexiposter of /int/ and Im not too sure about the Incas but at least from the aztecs and the other native empires it wasnt as bad other than getting their entire culture removed to become subjugated to catholicism and the crown. We had a lot of priests that fought for rights of the natives and got them a better treatment.

That's the point I was making with the treatment.
>90% epidemic disease genocide for 2 centuries
>elites and middle class murdered
>rest of the priviledged class assimilated
>low class thrown to toxic mines for 2 centuries
Of course there will be people trying to comfort eurangutans, there are always people like that. However, it's only fair to compare such populations after they go through the same treatment. After all, it was benefitial, sot why fear it?

Claim to be master race. When asked how soon their inevitable return would be if they are indeed so superior, they openly adimt that they were BTFO too hard.
Dude you suck at debating for your people.
> admitted you were 15000 years behind
> admitted you were BTFO so hard you can't return despite your superhuman abilities

Russia:
> unindustrialized in 1880, 83% of population illiterate newly free serfs
> by 1980 competing with the US militarily and economically with a unique form of government after the fastest industrial development at the time despite going through 4 major wars. Also they made it to space.

Germany:
> Fucked to shit with economic constraints in WWI
> by WWII basically becomes a superpower

Japan:
> 1890 bunch of sword weilding tribesman on an island
>1944 conquered most of east asia

Mongols
> 1200 shitty nomadic tribe
> 1400 conquered argueably the greatest empire ever

Surely the Amerinidians with their natural genius and everyone's access to information and cheap industry these days should be able to become a world power in at most 200 years. I might be underestimating them again. Let me know.

Simple.
Europeans settle on europe: 40000BC
Amerindians reached Canada: 25000BC; then after the deglaciation (10000 years later) populated the rest of the continent in 15000BC

European crops date from 10000BC.
Amerindian crops date from 6000BC.

Europeans getting the bronze from other culture in 3200BC.
Amerindians reached the bronze age in 500BC approximately.

Also as a great factor:
Horse domesticated in 3000BC approximately.

Knowing that the rests of all amerindian populations of 14000BC to 10000BC were pretty much paleolithical-tier and all lived as nomads, practiced some artistic manifestations as european paleo-populations. It's safe to assume they started again in the paleolithic and had to morph the environment of woods, jungles and coasts to their convenience, the same the europeans did with their environment for thousands of years before the Neolithic.

Then let's compare:
Europeans lurking around as nomads: 30000 years.
Amerindians lurking around as nomads: 9000 years.

Europeans reaching the bronze age from other cultures after the Neolithic stage: 6800 years.
Amerindians reaching the bronze age by themselves without the influence of a culture thousands of years ahead of development: 5500 years.

Let's check also how many years have humans modifyed the horse population and environment: 37000 years.
Let's check how many years have amerindians affected the camelids of South-America, when the spaniards came: 16500 years. They had less than half the time, yet they already domesticated diverse species for food and whool. Llamas can carry up to 50 Kg.

And I didn't mention the disadvantages such as continental isolation (north-south and east-west), Niño fenomena that destroys coastal villages, less cultures to trade with, and no naval technology, iron, horses, wheel, and writting from north-african nor anatolian cultures.

So, it's safe to affirm. Incas were superior to europeans. Their higher development rate was excellent compare to europeans.

Do you think this guy is trolling or he's mentally ill?

>post genocide comparison
So you agree with Inca superiority? Then if you want to compare modern populations let's put eurangutans under the same amerindian treatment:
>90% epidemic disease genocide for 2 centuries
>elites and middle class murdered
>rest of the priviledged class assimilated
>low class thrown to toxic mines for 4 centuries
Then we can compare both, don't you agree?
hehe
How did you get that?

Rejecting historical facts is actually normal for ideology followers. What do you expect from an eurangutans?

You posted it on the other thread, and it resumes important info from the other texts on hispa ;)

I dont know why /pol/tards and such go into a hard denial whenever the native american empires are mentioned. I have seen this so many times it stopped being funny
>why were they so behind?
>actually they werent
>they were a pretty good civilization
>NAH THEN WHAT ABOUT THE WHEEL AND IRON
>start a shitstorm that whenever they get something refuted they move the goalpost to something else
>Incas were superior to europeans
PeruANO, you should stop calling them like that because something something horseshoe theory

Seek help dude.

Nice so we can agree with Inca superiority.
I made an observation about the arrival of amerindians to America, then some eurangutans started chimping out. He was probably united statian. Then you see here the result of constant eurangutan accusations and their daily failed attempts at intellectual dishonesty and goalshifting. No wonder their "society" is decaying.

How could such a superior people become subjugated to genocide for 2 centuries, become assimilated into a lesser culture, be so suscpetible to disease, and be forced into toxic mines still?
The europeans went back and forth. Yet they didn't die out to the diseases you guys had. Strange.

You do realize we all started out in the same place, right? Amerindians werent created out of nothing. They were a group that split off. A group that was rediscovered thousands of years later to be found to have accomplished jack shit. You can use the excuse of walking and weather to justify your retardation, but I am judging your society on all its choices. If travelling for 15000 years is what put you 15000 years behind then maybe you shouldnt have done that.

Your whole premise is based on people giving you the handicap of 15000 years like thats a normal comparison. Its not our fault you guys decide to tard around for 15000 years instead of build civilization. Now you have to accept the consequences.

Claiming Mesoamerican civilizations were superior to Europeans in 16th century is so fucking idiotic there is no place for debate here. I'm not a /pol/tard, this is just fucking reality. Even this mental cripple realizes this and spergs out about "higher development rate", whatever that means.

...

>Mesoamerican
Meant to write "native American".

Im not sure if that retard is saying that but the general consensus is that mesoamericans were pretty great for an isolated left behind civilization which was just on its "bronze age" when discovered. Which for a reason triggers europeans into saying how could they be on par with romans and greeks (not the other early civilizations like egyptians or babilonians or chinese, just those two).

I never implied anything like that nor did anyone. Those were interesting societies. But this lunatic just barges into random threads and screeches about Inca superiority, and claiming they were superior is just schizophrenic.

>Yet they didn't die out to the diseases you guys had. Strange.
This eurangutan doesn't know about the herder and animal domestication epidemics...
>we all started in the same place
It's simple. Their development was supremely higher compared to europeans. You can put eurangutans in a jungle for 100.000 years and they would stay in their mudhuts without the middle east and anatolian cradles of civilization, meanwhile America developed faster without those influences. The point is self-evident, as history demonstrates. Amerindian development was higher compared to europeans. Don't you agree?
>higher development rate", whatever that means
If your brainlet can't understand eurangutan "english" language, what are you doing here, chimp?

I dont know if it were you on and his other posts but both guys are pretty fucking retarded. The anti natives is talking out of his ass and the incatard is sucking too hard the incas dick. And the
>Which for a reason triggers europeans into saying how could they be on par with romans and greeks (not the other early civilizations like egyptians or babilonians or chinese, just those two).
Happens too often on here and in /int/ whenever the natives are mentioned which turns into a similar shitstorm.
But also to be fair, the american guy started it because he trashtalked the other user when he posted master race with that solar calendar which was Aztec but for a reason he decided to wank off to incas

"Development rate" would imply progress is linear and constant, and it is not.
I'm saying this for other people here, you're clearly insane. I wonder how someone becomes like that.

>progress is linear and constant
The point is: All kinds of POV lead to the same conclusion. Amerindians in 14000BC had technology from 30000BC europe. Both had the same start at that point. Amerindians achieved more in less time. That's where the "development rate" comes from. Don't you agree?

Who made this?

No, I don't agree. There is no reason to have an experiment where both amerindians and europeans started in the same place because that already happened. We both started in the same place then branched off. Thats it period.

Why was I retarded? I am simply jugding both people from the start of existance and he is judging from the start of settling an area. I happen to think that is an important distinction. Take away the "if ony we had 15000 years" and his entire arguement is invalid. That's all I am saying. All my points are valid, he has not refuted any of them aside from the fact that technically 6 million people speak nahuan. My point in terms of that was that almost no one speaks it, which still holds true.

>if ony we had 15000 years
That's wrong. It's pretty clear the distinction. A higher development rate is the natural distinction of nature. Unless you support might makes right which leads to supporting the decadence of europe today.

>started in the same place
Amerindians didn't exist nor europeans, that's the same as saying you are niggers. Amerindian genes started differentiating themselves when they entered from Siberia. Even then, the early settlers diverge from amerindians from all the rest of the continent. The basis are simple. Amerindians started existing when they reached America as their genetic differences increased thanks to the continental isolation.

The same as the differences between european and sub-saharan genes.

As I said before, Amerindian development was higher compared to europeans. All history has demonstrated it. Don't you agree?

How will La Raza ever recover?

No. Because you have to add 15000 more years for the Amerindian "achievements" to happen. You were not created later, you came out of Africa like we did, and managed to do way less than us in way more time. LOL at you pathetic faggots.