Africa didn't have any animals that could be domestica

I think the current view is that wild horses have leaders, but domesticated horses don't, because of the way we've separated and taken care of them for thousands of years.

>It's another idiots that don't know the difference between tame and domesticated bait the anti-racists who are just as wrong for different reasons
Africa has multiple breeds of cattle only domesticated in Africa. Also Elands. The whole argument is fucking dumb.

Literally the most inefficient animal

True, the problem with Africa is that climate changes too much, so what is fertile land this generation is not too good next generation.
You have to move around with the weather, which isn't conductive to settled society and civilization.

Actually most of the major deltas are very stable.

hydrogen engines have already been invented, the only reason we have not implemented them yet is because oil companies don't allow it

That and our government is too attached on the oil teat of Saudi Arabia.

Why wouldn't Zebras become domesticated over thousands of years then?

>disputed theory
niBBa have you ever worked with horses? They're like dogs in that they're easy to control once you set yourself up as the pack leader

youtube.com/watch?v=wOmjnioNulo

>Zebra stallions will fight with each other for females and will even go as far as stealing females from one another
>If the female which is stolen is pregnant, the new male will rape her until such time as she has aborted the pregnancy. Abortion would be done by releasing hormones that would cause her body to reabsorb the foetus or miscarry or if she gave birth to a live foal it would be kicked to death by the male
Because Zebras are fucking psychopaths

Not like they don't have enough of that sitting around

Don't bully cute hippo

Seems like a lot of animals in the wild have variations of competing for mates and rape. If separating and taking care of horses has lead to changes in their behaviour why is it that the same cannot be done to Zebras?

Horses were far more manageable, they didn't have a kick specially designed to blow a lions skull open and horses evolved in Asia so had no paranoia about humans eating them when they finally turned up for starters

>horses have a pack with a leader
Like zebras btw.

Why are zebras such niggers? Is it because they're half black?

Zebras are black under the hair

They're literally just as rapey and wild as horses. Niggers are just too dumb to tame them and are rationalizing it

But white people couldn't domesticate them either, and they had big meme plans about doing it in the 19th century like a Rothschild turning up to parliament on a carriage drawn by them, wonder why that never went anywhere?

...

and so the shitposting cycle beings again...

Fuck zebra fuck ur mother

*destroys your civilization*
heh nothing personnel, mammals

Will to Power, bitches.

>One wealthy landowner trying it one time for shits and giggles is comparable to an entire continent having thousands of years to try it

>White people with hundreds of years of experience in animal husbandry can't accomplish it either
Really makes you think

>can't accomplish it

You mean aren't trying it because we already did it with horses ages ago.

And we invented cars and shit in the meantime. lol

>Horses
Yeah those work really well in African colonies where a fly kills the shit out of them, can't imagine what advantage there would be to a donkey sized animal that was immune

wtf i like zebras now

The problem in Africa is all the contrary, the people there had just enough food and water that they didn't have to struggle, just move from time to time, so they never settled down, and thus they never moved on from mud huts or had the time to make lasting cultural edifications until much later.

The thing is the earliest horses were tamed before they were domesticated, and only became what they are today through thousands of years of breeding. I don't see why that's not possible with Zebras. Earlier horses were no less aggressive and not much different in size.

Horses became domesticated in 3000+AC

How many years do you think that was?

Horses had a hierarchy that humans could use and start choosing which would breed. Zebras don't.

How are you going to create the hydrogen gas without fossil fuel you dingus?

loc.gov/rr/scitech/mysteries/zebra.html

Earlier horses didn't evolve alongside human precursors that hunted them, this is a pretty big difference

>the people there had just enough food and water that they didn't have to struggle, just move from time to time,
That pretty much perfectly describes the early Fertile crescent.

>we don't domesticate zebras because we don't want
That's not how the world works, loser. Look at your dying race. "We don't breed because we don't want to :(" *gets replaced by AFRICAN GENES*

Malaria and yellow fever are also pretty stable there.

No

Does this work on humans?

>Africa didn't have any animals that could be domestica.....

Those animals are merely tame. Their young are still savage beasts

The hippo is the single most dangerous animal on the African continent.

Horses were probably tamed and domesticated as a source of meat in winter, since they were better than sheep at living through the snowy conditions of Central Asia. Riding and chariots came later, and the latter probably wouldn't have happened without the pre-existence of wheeled carts invented by other societies. There was no reason for Africans to domesticate zebras. And hippos aren't even worth mentioning.

Africans tamed animals all the time. Pic related are some ostriches owned by the king of Bamum in Cameroon. Meroe used elephants and Benin had tamed leopards.

...

...

A possibly tamed hippo from 13th-14th century Ife.

Nature is fucking sociopathetic.

>3000+AC
wtf is that?
>How many years do you think that was?
I don't know user, really.

>i don't know
Then why do you imply things you don't understand?

Except the people of the fertile crescent discovered agriculture which allowed them to settle and culturally grow into proper civilizations.

I'm not sure what happened with Africa. Were their lands fertile but not suited for agriculture? Did they not have the tin, copper and iron for sowing tools? Did they just fell back just by chance?

I didn't implied anything. What means "3000+AC" ffs?

Yes you did, you implied horses needed a bit of time to get domesticated. How many years do you think it was?

You take the rapid transfer of technology for granted, especially when there is a huge continental desert and a massive rainforest in the way.
Also, consider some of the land we consider breadbaskets are only arable through relatively new technologies. A plow made of steel vs one made of stone makes a hell of a difference.

Maybe they had problems with obtaining technology. Africa is a really big place after all and travelling it is way harder and relatively more dangerous with wild life and disease. Everyone else had either boats for the Mediterranean and Indian/Red/Persian sea or horse travel over the flat steppes that linked Eurasia well. There also wasn't any big bulk trading going on big ships nor was the trade really that worth it, especially with the huge distance for shitty items. My view is that isolation really fucked them over the most among many significant factors.

That was not me.

>be mexican mongol
>be isolated for thousands of hundreds of years
>still manage to discover agriculture, domesticate animals and work stone while living in a jungle filled with disease and fierce kittens
Nigs have no excuse.

In the Fertile Crescent immediately after the Ice Age there was a massive expansion of wild grasses ancestral to modern cereals, and populations became reliant on these to the point that they could settle down in one place rather than having to move constantly. This lead to population growth, cultivation and eventually domestication by about 8000 BC. In Africa there was no equivalent to this.

Agriculture arose in West Africa only after pastoralism was introduced from the Middle East. Pastoralism allowed populations to rise, but it didn't spark plant domestciation until the Sahara began to dry up and droughts made pastoralism became less reliable, forcing pastoralists to hedge their bets by cultivating plants like finger millet, which they domesticated before about 2500 BC. Even then, because their economy was still mainly pastroal, this didn't lead to the adoption of sedentism until after another thousand years c. 1500 BC. The 'Neolithic' cultures which arose around 1500 BC were just as impressive as those of the Fertile Crescent c. 8000 BC, building stone monuments and creating art, but they got off to a much later start. It took the Middle East five thousand years to get from agriculture to civilization, so it's stupid to expect equally advanced civilizations to arise in West Africa when sedentary agriculture there isn't even four thousand years old. Most of the rest of Africa got agriculture from West Africa, so they were even later getting started.

Mexico isn't a jungle you retard. The situation in Central Mexico was probably similar to that in the Fertile Crescent.

>there was a massive expansion of wild grasses ancestral to modern cereals, and populations became reliant on these to the point that they could settle down in one place rather than having to move constantly.
I thought although they were still far more localized they still had to move every once in a while, like Africa.

The teotihuacan civilization wasn't in a forest and communication was so easy they could literally trade all the way to the Aztecs

Teotihuacan was Aztec, dumbass.

I like the way you talk.

>Teotihuacan
No. They developed independently then the Aztecs expanded to include the Teotihuacans before conquering their city.

*ziggers

>Valley of Mexico is muggy jungle swamp

If anyone has any real/non-techie questions I can answer anything regarding African crop and animal domestication.

It's basically what I've studied and has been my focus for years.

>niBBa

reddit go

Did people use dogs for hunting there? When did they first start doing so?

How many people did that hippo kill

The basenji type dog came with the Banana and Taro which is to say when Malagasy settled Eastern Africa.

The thinner longer dogs of east and southern Africa arrived with the Khoikhoi speaking East African migrants to southern Africa that conquered Bushmen.

The oldest evidence of dogs in West Africa is 750ad.

Remember the only native wolf on the continent is in the Ethiopian mountains, so the dogs came from elsewhere.

Whiteys domesticated the african ostrich and the african eland in southern africa.

Also, taming is the first step of domestication, you fucking retards... The fact that zebras are tamable is proof that they could have been domesticated in the long run.

Heck the ancestor of the eurasian horse, the tarpan (which became extinct during the 19th century) was described as untamable.

Taming zebra is not domestication.

Regardless Zebras close relatives the donkey was domesticated by Africans.
Eland have been pinned in one farm in central Europe in the 20th century.

Basically false equivalency to Neolithic era.

Anything can be domesticated the resources or need to do so is the issue. You could theoretically domesticate a killer whale with all the resources of the modern era, does that make people from 100ad stupid? No.

Why hopefully all? Dogs are the most obvious case of domestication and at no point are wolves docile

Wolves today are not the same as the wolves of the past.

All dogs descend from a distinct population of wolves that seem to have had a parasitic and eventually mutualistic relationship with humans.

They in a way pressured themselves to be exist on the periphery of human society/camp which resulted in a self-selection that laid the groundwork for domestication.

Wow this is like a ShindoL work or something if it's humans.

The only difference between taming and domestication is a bunch of time and generations.

Don't be dumb.

>tame enough individual animals, breed the ones with the most agreeable traits, you end up with domesticated species in time.

Why this is such hard concept to grasp ? Wolves and Przewalski's horses are not realy agreeable animals, it took time and effort to make them domesticated.

Zebra's are not agreeable, the stallions do not cooperate even if the females do, you could theoretically get around this with artificial insemination but I don't think they had that

.. you find the most agreeable zebras, breed those, out of the next generation you repeat the process etc.

cats for example are assholes acording to our mamalian standards, solitary territorial predators, no real group instincts, actively destructive etc. Eventually enough were tamed and the ones survived were adopted in human society.

>with the exception of the dog, implying Europeans have natively domesticated any large animal

Before you say "muh Auroch", Europeans single handedly wiped out their subspecies. They got theirs from the Middle East, just like pigs, sheep, goats, etc. Not even horses are completely European, though you could argue that they were domesticated at the same time as the ones in Central Asia.

West and East Africans had already entered the Iron Age at about the same time as the rest of the world, which is especially impressive for West Africa as they not only might have gotten a head start, but they appear to have done so independently without a Bronze Age.

>Eventually enough were tamed and the ones survived were adopted in human society.
Fun fact: cats domesticated themselves.
Also what if the most agreeable aren't agreeable enough?

>That's not how the world works
Funny because that's what everyone thinks when they read your post.

I love it when some dumb person makes a dumb post and insists that others shouldn't be dumb.

oil companies aren't as powerful as you think they are.
t. Oil executive

*sigh*

listen, /pol/ sweeites

this is a ANTI-RACIST board, mmkay?

ugh just go read gun germs and steal and you'll realise you're just lucky and privileged, not superior

race doesn't even exist anyway

Why do people like you ironically shitpost? Do you get pleasure out of it?