Is it fair to say all humans are capable of civilization?

The key point is that while Europeans (and Asians) adopted a lot of shit from others, they also invented a lot of shit on their own. Sub-Saharan Africans however invented exactly nothing, everything they have is from somebody else.

>no writing

Are you serious?

Well technically a selectively bred organism is a GMO. What we usually call 'GMO' today involves more direct and invasive ways of editing the DNA, and these methods are what people are wary of, not the underlying concept which goes back to prehistory.

Then GMO is meaningless.

What should the term be for those things that aren't selectively bred, but have patented genes in them?

I don't know, but I agree that there should be a more specific term for this.

The only part that really salts my eyes is when people say 'natural'. It's fine as a slogan, not as a technical term, not when we invented almost everything that we say is natural.

When I hear this I'm always tempted to say that strychnine and plutonium are also natural.

How so? Bantu developed iron working independently. There is evidence of independently developed metal-working, art and trade in Niger delta that goes back many centuries. There is also nok culture which goes back to as early as 1000BC. Igbos even had their own indigenous ideographic writing system (Nsibidi). In Eastern Africa, you have Aksum and pre-Aksumite cultural development as well. I don't understand the meme of africa-bashing. Many groups in Subsaharan Africa accomplished a respectable amount given the location and isolation from Eurasian influence that others benefited from; reaching the levels on par with many isolated eurasian peoples. And when they did start absorbing influence, you see subsequent developments like you would with any other group such as Swahili culture in the South-East, Aksum in the Horn, and the various kingdoms around the Sahel.

No. Not being racists but whether or not they would have a closer proximity to other cultures or more access to important resources doesn't mean that they would develop any faster or different. africans have had plenty of resources and such but simply never used them or bothered to innovate anything even after other cultures started colonizing Africa. Nothing particularly wrong or inferior about that they simply just stuck to what worked and never gave a shit about changing anything.

My fucking eyes

Actually Amerindians had a higher development rate compared to europeans.

...

>Bantu developed iron working independently.
No proof of that.

>My fucking eyes
can't handle good taste

>implying its not the same concept.

>If America had not been isolated it would have been a powerhouse of the world. am I wrong ?
Yes. But guess what happened when they got access to the old world knowledge

>”These people had no letters nor script, neither knew to write nor read. They communicated with images and paintings and all their history and books were recorded in figures and images, with which they knew about their ancestors and had memory of what they did and what they left recorded for more than a thousand years before the Spanish arrived to this land.”

>”Most of these books and recordings were burnt as other idolatries”, but many of them are still hidden. ”After we came to this land to preach our fate we gathered many young men in our homes and taught them to write, read and sing. As they did well we ensured to teach them grammar and a school in Santiago de Tlatelolco was built for this purpose. This school received the most able young men from all the neighboring towns. ”

>”The Spanish and clergymen who knew about this laughed and mocked, being sure that no one could teach grammar to people so unskillful, but working with them for two or three years they came to understand every art and subject of grammar and speak Latin, both written and spoken and even to write heroic verses. ”

>”As the secular and ecclesiastic clergymen saw this they became frightened of such thing being possible: I was the one who worked with them for the first four years and taught them about Latin and its knowledge. ”
>”As they saw that this project would continue and that they were improving, and they had ability for more, the clerics started to disapprove the school and object about the risks of idolatry this implied. ”
- Florentine Codex by Friar Bernardino de Sahagun, Tenth Book, Inform of the author

Reportedly they also corrected friars for citing wrong biblical verses, in latin. The College of Tlatelolco got closed definitely 5 years after Sahagun's death.

The Bantus got it from West Africans, and the Bantus spread out very quickly after that, bringing iron tools, cattle, and cereal farming with them.

en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iron_metallurgy_in_Africa

There is debate on how old iron metallurgy is in West Africa, with the most commonly accepted date being around 400 BC. Metallurgy had already been a thing throughout Sub-Saharan Africa, at least from the East to the West

>Africans have had plenty of resources and such but simply never used them or bothered to innovate anything even after other cultures started colonizing Africa.

Agriculture, metallurgy and civilization had a later start in Africa, but it wasn't like they were all literally Stone Age tier. By the time Europeans first started coming to Africa during colonization, most of Africa was already at least Iron Age, especially East Africa, as they had constant contact with Eurasian countries, even as far away as India, and West Africa. Even the spear chucking Zulus were in the Iron Age, albeit on a level similar to primitive European barbarians thousand of years ago who were also using metal. The way of the land was either agriculture of sorghum, yams, African rice, and other things, or pastoralism like what the Masaai and Khoikhoi do. Hunter gatherer populations quickly became a minority, especially the ones that spoke click based languages like the San and Hazda, or consistently bullied groups like the Mbuti and Twa that had to quickly switch to a modern lifestyle or face extinction.

>Is it fair to say all humans are capable of civilization?
no

>Abbos
>human

Good one, m8

>looking very robust means you aren't human

That didn't stop Australians from fucking them all into near extinction.

>robust
They look like patchy haired gorillas

No they don't. Are you autistic or something? At the most, they look like the most primitive members of our species. That being said, Neanderthals and Heidelbergensis had more primitive features than them.

>But then as I grew up I began to understand that the writting and steel and gunpowder were no creations of these conquerors but came from other people in asia and they had just learned it from them. If America had not been isolated it would have been a powerhouse of the world.

Exactly. Cortés might have been an asshole for contributing to the dissapearance of the culture, but he was not a full barbarian.

>"I will say only that these people live almost like those in Spain, and in as much harmony and order as there, and considering that they are barbarous and so far from the knowledge of God and cut off from all civilized nations, it is truly remarkable to see what they have achieved in all things."
Second letter of relation to Charles V

also this >The Aztec Triple Alliance, which ruled from 1428 to 1521 in central Mexico, is considered to be the first state to implement a system of universal compulsory education.[4][5]

>The upper class sent their sons to rigorous boarding academies, the calmécac (“houses of tears”), which, in their cultivation of good breeding, their design to break boys’ loyalties towards their homes, and their austerity, bore a definite resemblance to public schools in England during the reign of Victoria (boys aged seven were urged not to look “longingly to thy home... Do not say ‘my mother is there. My father is there’”).38 Attention was paid to “character”: the preparation, it was said, of a “true face and heart”. But there were classes too in law, politics, history, painting, and music.

>The children of workers received vocational training in the more relaxed telpochcalli, the “houses of youth” established in every district. The teachers were professionals, but priests played a part. From these institutions, children could go home frequently. Yet they, like those in the calmécac, received ample instruction in morality and natural history through homilies which they often learned by heart, and of which some survive. “Almost all,” wrote a good observer in the 1560s, “know the names of all the birds, animals, trees and herbs, knowing too as many as a thousand varieties of the latter, and what they are good for.”39 A strong work ethic was inculcated: and children were told that they had to be honest, diligent and resourceful. All the same, preparation for combat was the dominating consideration where boys were concerned: above all, single combat with a matched enemy.

>In both educational institutions, food was provided by children or their parents, but the teachers were supplied by what it is probably permissible to call the state.40 Girls received training as housewives and mothers.
Hugh Thomas, Conquest, Chapter I