Hey Veeky Forums are africans really inferior as /pol/ says they are?

no i mean sub saharan they are both of the same ethnic family but so vastly different in terms of cultural advancement.

>Ekoi people
This art is dope.

This one actually uses a human skull as base.

I love this stuff but it's really a stretch to equate it to the kind of art Europe and China were producing at the same period, or even thousands of years earlier.

>or even thousands of years earlier
what did he mean by this

Bantus in general are cancer. Koisan reparations WHEN

From what I gathered, Africans made art for "pragmatic, " purposes. The mask, statue, or symbol was made with a clear function in mind, usually that meant rituals.

Igbo peope are known to be reasonably smart, so i guess theres some truth to this. My hypothesis is that west Africans have been in intensive agriculture longer that selected for IQ.

...

Niniveh is not in Europe I'm afraid.

Does anyone know if the Bantu migrations were just that or was more like an invasion?

Agriculturalists expanding and over taking hunter gatherers is a constant theme in most of history.

So there really wasn't anyone there? Sort of like how European settlers moved in across the emptier parts of North America

That would be correct. ALL evidence points to the hereditability of intelligence being a generally short-term process influenced by the socioeconomic standards of a population within the last few centuries. Hence why Jews and the Japanese have a higher IQ than genetically similar neighboring populations.

But /pol/ would rather wax poetic about the Dinaric Race or whatever.

Neither is China. Obviously I meant "anywhere else but Benin".

No civilizations or even settled cultures that we know of, no.

Nonsense, there were plenty of settled cultures. Pastoralists are not always nomads, and Bantus lived in settled villages.

He was asking about the people who inhabited the lands BEFORE the Bantu

These are modern.

If you go back a few thousand years Europeans are vastly inferior to Middle Easterners. The reason is basically the same: West Africa had agriculture much earlier than Bantu Africa, giving much more time for civilization to emerge. Also there's the fact that West African development was stimulated by trade with the Mediterranean and the Nile Valley.

There's nothing crude about Ife's art. But yeah, every African achievement seems to be blown out of all proportion. It's like people aren't interested in African accomplishments unless they can somehow challenge Europe. See people like for example. It's a meaningless comparison considering that Europe inhereted civilization going back before 3000 BC, while West African civilization developed in semi-isolation only after about 800 AD.

It's thought to have been a slow, piecemeal movement happening over countless generations, as each new generation settles a new piece of land. It wasn't some big migration or invasion, and probably people weren't even conscious of it happening. Compared to other prehistoric agricultural expansions it was very rapid though. How the farmers and hunter gatherers interacted was presumably different in every area. They also would have come into contact with Cushitic and Khoi pastoralists.

Igbo casting, c. 9th century AD

Art doesn't require brains

Then why do you guys jack off on Roman statues?

If you even have to ask this question you should realize they were inferior. Nobody asks if the Romans were "inferior".

well that settles the debate on the Dark Ages at least

You mean: being ethnotribalist doesn't require "brains".

I've noticed this pattern with stormfags a lot.

>find out about something impressive from Africa
>"Africans could never have made this, it must have been the Phoenicians or the Greeks or the Arabs or the..."
>historians and archaeologists come to the unanimous conclusion that it's African
>"Well it's not like it's that impressive, just liberals making a big deal over nothing again"

For reference: query.nytimes.com/mem/archive-free/pdf?res=F00E16F73C5517738DDDA90B94D9405B818DF1D3

So eurangutans are inferior?

Complex art like paintings requires brains simple shitty mud sculptures a paleolithic hominid could make just looking at another requires no brains.

>africans really inferior
Literally how?

Absolutely pathetic.

Are they? Isn't there a different ethnicity every square mile in africa?

It depends, there's tremendous variety in West Africa but southern Africa is mostly one ethnicity (Bantus).

Because of the out-of-africa model?

Posting some Benin art pics I took in a museum.

...

No? There's just a lot of genetic diversity among Africans, it could be old or it could be more recent.

Rotate your pictures you walking dope.

...

Veeky Forums rotates pics with a big resolution if posted from phone you retard

No.

motherfucker we have this thread every week

In intellect and culture. That's not my view (necessarily), just clarifying what people mean when they say "Africans are inferior".

...

...

So what you're saying is, I'M the dope? Oh fugg!!

I will find you and I will KILL you.

...

>culture
its always the americans who say that.

...

...

>WAZZUUUUP?

Last one.

>people
They are completely wrong.

So?

Yeah, no they aren't. They're wrong to extend this to believe that Africans are inferior, period, but it's true they are less intelligent than other races, and true that their culture is more primitive.

African weaponry is rad as fuck
imgur.com/a/iHF95

What people don't seem to understand is the Bantu migrations was rather like pioneers in the Midwest past the Cumberland Gap. It wasn't much more than people adapting to the mesic woodlands, miombo and miasmic lowlands.

They were farmers of banana which came from Austronesian farmers, agro-pastoralists of finger millet a rather late domesticated grain from the Ugandan highlands and partial Herders cows that came from Northeast Africa in a very strict time period of a previous ethio-somali expansion.

Yes, before the Bantu expansion, Cushitic/Sandawe like Herders reached all the way down to the tip of South Africa spreading the Khoekhoe language family which is distinct from the xuu and k'xa families that we're formerly bunched together as "Khoisan" but very distinct from one another save for clicks.

Bantu did not necessarily conquer through outright war most of the time, they merely out populated previous inhabitants and absorbed them into their ranks just as the Ethio-somali did before them.

Meant for

Because Americans use it to tie it back to race in a transparent roundabout way as always or typicallly think cultures don't shift, change, adapt and Intermingle.

Africans are Africans, and even if they are inferior it's rude to concentrate on that. Let them have their dignity I say, and lets not focus on the more extreme customs of obscure tribes who put plates in their women's lips to make themselves unattractive to the slavers of other more successful tribes.

>WE WUZ KANGZ
There's no shame in being descended from humble farmers and herders or even slaves, most people are.

Bantu is not an ethnicity you faggot. That's like Slav is an ethnicity.

KALI MA

You say that shit then call them inferior.muros 9300

I call them inferior because in some ways maybe they are, but why should that matter?
They're still people and deserve dignity.
Hopefully they sort themselves out.

like 60% of africa is natural barriers for humans

the sahara, the central jungle, the east mountains. everything south of the kongo had great resources, but it was so disconnected from everything else civilization only arrive via boats from europe and india. even north africa, which had a small strip of arable land, go civilization from Phoenician travelers

Also west africa had their own thing going and it was pretty cool until the muslims arrived.

natural barriers led to south africa to be sparsely populated. then bantu farmers began leaking from south nigeria and basically genocided the local pigmies and khoisans

it's similar to the patagonia and south brazil. the amazonas and the andes create a massive natural barrier, where in mexico and peru you had massive native populations, in brazil and the patagonia you had numbers in the 10s of thousands at best.

why are west africans so fucking bloodthirsty? it boogles my mind

>why are west africans so fucking bloodthirsty? it boogles my mind

Romans entertained themselves by seeing slaves get mailed by lions or killing each other for their freedom.

It's not just West Africans. Most of humanity was and is blood thirsty.

have you read about dahomey? or the butt naked gang?

really there's a part of west africa that's just fucked up

Mostly

Africans do have an upper class though and they tend to exhibit the same behavioral patterns as the upper middle class in the west.

Does anybody think Africa is comparable to Southeast Asia in terms of pre-modern political, cultural and economic development? I would like to believe that Southeast Asia were much more accomplished civilizations.

Do you mean Abos?

If so, no Africans were more advanced.

I mean Burmese, Tai, Khmer and so on.

>less intelligent
Wrong.
>primitive culture
Which ones?

They are obviously not inferior at all anyway.

Indochina was inevitably far more developed than Sub-Saharan Africa due to the earlier rise of agriculture in the former and the strong influences of India and China.

Maritime Southeast Asia is more comparable, as sedentary agriculture arose there close to when it emerged in West Africa. They also both transitioned from the Neolithic to the Iron Age without a Bronze Age at about the same time c. 500-200 BC. Both became exporters of natural resources (gold/spices) in Late Antiquity and the Middle Ages. And both were heavily influenced by Islam from about the 13th century.

There are actually very striking similarities between the two. Both were patchworks of complex agricultural states, trading empires and primitive tribes. Both had unusually low population densities, resulting in labour (usually slaves) rather than land being the most valued commodity, which undermined development. Strong territorial states didn't arise in either regions, but rather city-states and hegemonic empires were dominant. Training empires like Mali and Srivijaya are both known for supporting scholarship from abroad.

Still, I'd say Maritime Southeast Asia was generally more developed and accomplished than West Africa, mainly because of the strong Indian influence. While West Africa borrowed fairly little from the Islamic world aside from literacy and scholarship around the 13th century, Maritime Southeast Asia had been borrowing intensively from India since the early Middle Ages, bringing over scholars, craftsmen, masons, etc. This left them with more advanced technology like wheeled transport and more impressive cultural accomplishments like Java's architecture, sculpture and goldwork (all derived from India). They were also influenced by China, so they had stuff like gunpowder long before West Africa did. Still, the overall picture of social, demographic and political development is very similar.

Slavery. When the quickest way of earning money is selling your neighbours into slavery...there's a strong incentive on you to learn to like fighting.

general butt naked was a clown

you somehow mistake mental brute force "hacking" for intellect.

You somehow have a non-consensus definition of intelligence that can't even be measured.

*hits vape*

>/pol/ has a point
stopped reading there

Art is great but it doesn't feed or defend your people.

If you look into any crime statistics from any country with a decent sized black population or if you look at IQ tests then yes, they are inferior to basically everyone.

If you just like art and music they are fine.

>inferior
Literally how?

No. Island Southeast Asia has some of the densest populations on earth because of volcanic soils. Vast populations created markets and eased technological diffusion/innovation

Places like ghana and Nigera have lower crimes than a decent number of South American countries. I'm not sure how you make that claim towards everyone. Everyone is a lot.

you're not wrong, i guess it really comes down to how much stock you put into those things
too much and you might not have something worth defending anyway. and plenty of them had way happier lives than the people of europe even if they couldn't defend themselves from them (who admittedly were the best at both by that time)

>The tree in the link
um

Thats why the most nigger infested area in South America Brazil is the most dangerous place on it right?

Oh my do explain how the american negro beats the hispanic in crime despite the vast population difference.

Negros are low IQ impulsive humans crime is just their natural behavior as they are not mentally ready for civilization.

Only Java has a very high population and that's a recent development (just like in Africa).

Are you triggered? Do you want an anti white safespace, you leftypol shill?

>until the muslims arrived.
What happened then?

Here are a few excerpts from 'A History of Modern Indonesia since 1200' to back me up:
>Java thus consisted of pockets of population which were relatively isolated from one another. The population of Java in these early centuries is unknown. Reid has estimated that it might have been as high as 4 million in 1600, reaching 5 million by 1800, but there is much room for argument on this matter. Even if there was a population as high as this before the nineteenth century, Java was still extremely underpopulated by twentieth-century standards, and vast areas must have been uninhabited, thereby enhancing the isolation of the populated districts.
>The vast bulk of Sumatra as seen on a map does not reveal how little of its surface was populated. There exist no estimates of outer island population before the colonial period. Reid suggests that the population of the outer islands may have been as high as 5.8 million in 1600 and 7.9 million in 1800. Thus by present-day standards this area, too, was underpopulated.
>In all areas there was limited population, and therefore a limited base for taxation and manpower for rice cultivation and armies. It was sometimes one of the aims of warfare, therefore, to deport the population of conquered territories to the area of the victor. The physical isolation of populated territories and poor communications meant that it was difficult to maintain centralised authority over several populated areas. In Java, the solution to this was a system of limited kingship, with considerable autonomy granted to regional overlords. Similarly, outer island empires were often obliged to give considerable autonomy to vassal lords.There was, therefore, constant tension within large states between regionaland central interests, and all such states were fragile entities.