What went wrong?

Westafricans are the mediterrans of subsaharan africa, bringers of civilisation.

Then name the unique reason europe had to develope them.

Inhabited by Africans

Those inventions were purely hypothetical, the point was that it can be applied to other things such as the development of agriculture, bronze, iron, and even paleolithic technology. Europeans developed everything before Amerindians, who cares if Amerindians spent less time between developments.

Someone explain to why even if the blacks had kingdoms WHY DO THEY ACT SUBHUMAN NO MATTER WHERE THEY EXIST?

No autism is the mother of invention, autist are the reason we have anything because they take the time to come with random shit to create for their own pleasure.

Amerindians had much worse domesticated livestock than Europeans, simple as.

>NORMAL RATES OF DEVELOPMENT

The native americans arrived 10 thousand years ago and did better than the africans.

/Thread

What other factors can we use to explain the failure of Bantoids, pygmoid and Khoi-san to develop anything resembling modern society?

>Why is Africa underaccomplished?
Because most of sub-Saharan Africa historically lacked complex civilization, and where complex civilization existed it was relatively late, limited and often isolated. Contrast Eurasia/North Africa, where civilization was widespread from an early stage, resulting in an interconnected network of complex civilizations adopting innovations from one another and thus undergoing a largely common development. Compare and contrast Mesoamerica and the Andes, where civilization was also relatively isolated but had a much longer time to develop than in most of Africa. Also compare the Mississippian culture, which developed in relative isolation at about the same time that West African civilization emerged and reached a comparable, if less accomplished, level of development.

>Why did most of Africa lack civilization
Look at the origins of civilization in the rest of the world and this becomes clear. Civilization generally emerged independently in regions like the Middle East, China, Mesoamerica, India and elsewhere only after the establishment of sedentary agriculture. In every case, civilization emerged several thousand years after the rise of sedentary agriculture, and only in regions which were fertile and interconnected. For example civilization in the Middle East emerged around 3500-3000 BC after agriculture emerged and spread between 8000 and 6000 BC. The Middle East was also economically interconnected, with ideas and innovations capable of quickly moving between different parts of it like Mesopotamia, the Levant, Anatolia and the Nile Valley. Similar patterns are found throughout the world. Next, civilizations tended to emerge in neighbouring regions, such as the Aegean, due to a mix of independent development and stimulation from neighboring civilizations. Stimulation might be indirect, through trade or the diffusion of technologies, or more direct in the case of emulation or outright conquest and colonisation.

Now look at Sub-Saharan Africa. Though pastoralism was introduced to some areas like the Sahara at an early date, crop-based agriculture only emerged around the third millennium BC in the Sahara. But this early use of crops was marginal, integrated into the pre-existing nomadic pastoral economy. It wasn't until the 2nd millennium BC that fully sedentary cultures began to appear in the Sahel and the Guinea Coast, for example the Nok in Central Nigeria, the Gajiganna near Lake Chad, the Tichitt tradition in Mauretania and the Kintampo Complex in Ghana. Sedentary agriculture in central, eastern and southern Africa was later still, spreading from the west only after 1000 BC and not reaching some areas until the early centuries AD. So in contrast to the major Eurasian and American centers, which were generally sites of very early agricultural development, most of Sub-Saharan Africa did not have time to develop complex civilizations. Only parts of West Africa, which also had a high degree of interconnection due to its river systems, had enough time to independently build complex civilizations after around 800 AD. Civilization was also beginning to emerge in the Great Lakes region and in West-Central Africa in the early modern period, but at that point it was too late to reach any degree of maturity before the colonial period.

The only other way civilization could take hold in Africa was through intensive contact with Eurasian/North African civilizations; this occured in some other regions where agriculture emerged at a later stage, such as Indonesia and Japan. In some African regions this did occur; Nubian and Ethiopian civilization were born under the influence of Egypt and Yemen respectively, and in the Middle Ages the city-states of the Swahili Coast would arise under Islamic economic and cultural influence. Some areas only had more indirect economic stimulation, such as Zimbabwe after 1000 AD.

In West Africa too there was influence from North Africa, though this was limited: it only became economically significant after about 300 AD, and had little cultural impact before the spread of Islam in West Africa after 1000 AD when independent civilization had already emerged. Literacy entered parts of West Africa in this way, but contacts weren't intensive or diverse enough to bring about further transfer of technology, and these influences were limited to Islamic regions. Furthermore, economic interaction with the north often took the form of the slave trade, which does not result in postive economic stimulation but rather tends to undermine development. With a few exceptions, the rest of Africa was isolated from the influence of complex civilizations before recent centuries.

Some environmental factors also may have stifled development in Africa. Outside of the Ethiopian highlands the plough was generally not used south of the Sahara. In tropical regions this was due to the presence of the tsetse fly, which carries diseases that kill beasts of burden. Elsewhere it may have been due to a separation between specialist pastoralists and sedentary farmers, which meant farmers didn't generally have access to livestock, or due to thin, weak soils which could be farmed best with a hoe and would only be damaged by the use of a plough. Tsetse flies also prevented the spread of other useful animals such as the horse, which never spread south of the equator. Then there's also the presence of widespread tropical diseases like malaria stifling population growth.

>What about the civilizations that did exist? Why didn't they accomplish much?
The independent civilizations of West Africa only emerged in the centuries around 800 AD. These include Ghana, Kamen, Mali, the Hausa states, the Yoruba/Edo states and the Akan states. Emerging at such a late date, they did not have much more than a millennium to develop before the colonial period, and with only limited influence from Eurasia they could hardly be expected to be any more advanced than other incipient civilizations like the early Sumerians, the Shang dynasty or the Olmecs. West Africans built sprawling cities, undertook great construction projects (in particular massive walls and enclosures) and created beautiful art (the terracotta, ivory and cast metal sculptures produced in Igbo Ukwu, Ife and Benin for example) and architecture (much of which can only be seen today in old colonial photographs of places like Kumasi). Compared to other incipient civilizations in their first thousand years, West Africa hardly seems inferior. It lacked an independent writing system (though Arabic script was used in Islamic areas, and a proto-script existed in southeastern Nigeria) and monumental stone architecture (the latter fairly inevitable considering the lack of workable stone in much of the region), but so did many others: the Incas did not have true writing and the Shang had no great stone architecture, and the Mississippians had neither. In other ways they surpassed many of these civilizations: the Sumerians had no sculpture as naturalistic as those of Ife, and the Old Kingdom Egyptians did not have such large cities. Seemingly primitive practices in West Africa such as human sacrifice were also found in many, if not most, emergent civilizations including the Shang, Olmecs and Sumerians. So while West African civilizations might seem underaccomplished compared to their contemporaries, they were far from underaccomplished within the context of emerging civilizations.

As for those civilizations such as Nubia, Ethiopia and the Swahili Coast, these were essentially marginal regions within a wider Afro-Eurasian oikumene. Compared to 'core regions' such as the Middle East or China, they were geographically constrained and sometimes semi-isolated, and thus they were not as accomplished as these focal regions (though they are easily comparable to many other 'marginal' parts of the Eurasian world, such as much of Indonesia, Tibet, Sri Lanka, etc). The Nile does not give Nubia the same advantages as Egypt, as it lacks in Nubia the wide and regularly flooding alluvial plains that made Egyptian civilization possible. The Ethiopian highlands, though fertile, are highly treacherous and difficult to move through, and after the collapse of Aksum they became largely isolated from the wider Christian world. The Swahili coast only ever consisted of a number of relatively small towns occupying islands along the East African coast, far from the major cultural centers of the Islamic world. None of these regions were ever going to be at the heart of world civilization, though at times they could be regionally influential (the Nubian rule of Egypt and the Aksumite rule of Yemen both come to mind) and all of them left behind a brilliant cultural legacy.

>What about technology? Even without much complex civilization, why did Africa lack basic things like the wheel, milling, etc.
Technological development in Eurasia/North Africa was the result of constant close interaction between different regions over a very long period of time. A network of closely interacting societies grew up across Eurasia/North Africa, meaning innovations made in one area would often quickly spread to all others. For example, China recieved the wheel and possibly metallurgy from Central Asia, and later technologies and processes like sericulture, paper-making and gunpowder spread west from China. Without adopting from Asia none of medieval Europe's remarkable technological sophistication would have been possible. Contrast the civilizations of the Americas, which developed in isolation not only from Afro-Eurasia but also, for the most part, from one another. The result of this was that American civilizations, though highly developed as civilizations and advanced in certain areas, were left hopelessly backward in certain technological areas such as metallurgy and machinery.

Aside from places like Nubia and Ethiopia, most of Africa lay outside the sphere of closely interacting Eurasian/North African societies; it's possible that iron working was adopted from North Africa, but this is debated. Aside from that, most of Sub-Saharan Africa had to develop its own technology in isolation from Eurasia and also from other African regions (as most of Africa was not closely interconnected), and in only a very short period of time compared to Eurasian and American societies due to the late emergence of sedentary society and civilization. It should come as no surprise then that Africans were not as technologically developed as other older and more connected societies (though they were more technologically advanced than most Native American societies). Still, there were developments. Regardless of the origins of ironworking in Africa, the ingenuity of African metallurgists in devising efficient methods of smelting suited for varying geographic and climatic conditions is well attested. The development of lost-wax casting by Nigerian artisans is also noteworthy, as is their semi-independent development of glassworking (inspired by glass beads imported from Egypt, but the manufacturing process itself developed without foreign influence).

>What about Africans outside of Africa? Why didn't they accomplish anything?
Most of the African diaspora, particularly in the Americas, are descended from agricultural chattel slaves who were relegated to the bottom of society and deprived of any social mobility in a racial caste system which still influences society today. It is unreasonable to expect such populations to succeed so soon after experiencing these conditions.

Without being shaped and constrained by such conditions, African diasporas have not been underaccomplished. Historically there are many examples of African diasporas which excelled in their host regions, especially in the Islamic world where Africans, like Turks, were often used as military slaves which were integrated into the ruling elite. Aside from African rulers in medieval Egypt and Yemen, Africans in India have been particularly successful: the African-ruled sultanate of Janjira on the west coast and the African elites of the Deccan sultanates such as Malik Akbar come to mind.

>Malik Akbar
Sorry, Malik Ambar.

>No autism is the mother of invention, autist are the reason we have anything because they take the time to come with random shit to create for their own pleasure.

No it isn't

Get help

>putting Bantus, Cushitics, whatever the hell Ethiopians are, West Africans, and Nilo-Saharans in the same box

Pygmies and Khoisan are just hunter gatherers and farmers/herders. Leave them alone you bully.

My ancestors brought Banana to the continent creating opportunity for yam gardeners to rapidly populate the equatorial in lieu of farm animals.

AMA about African migration, crops and prehistory before 2kya

Thanks for the dump, user

Environment affects genetics and genetics affect the environment. Sub-Saharan West Africans are a product of their environment which also in turn is a reflection of how they themselves interact with their environment. Long term isolation/limited interaction with the greater Eurasian/North African connections severely limited their development. Like a malnourished North Korean who has been starved and made smaller, so to are the Africans malnourished from the ways of higher social organization. Like North Koreans, giving them nourishment will eventually make them more ready for higher society on a genetic and cultural level.
Europeans tried to force their development by thinking that Africans can function like Europeans which is not the case at least not on the larger African collective. Their adaptation must come naturally from the Africans themselves through competitive pressure that is eventually adapted and overcome by a natural process under African reformation.
The Chinese are uplifting the Africans this way. They building African infrastructure and giving financial aid in exchange for mineral rights regardless of the governmental practices of any African nation. This runs opposite to the Western approach in Africa which is no infrastructure building and only financial aid if the government complies with Western values. Chinese don't give a fuck about human rights and dictatorships. On the population level, the migration of Chinese people into African society has led to fierce economic competition. Chinese are out-competing the Africans in work and businesses. A Chinese man for example sells his stock very early in the morning to sell to all the customers in need, while an African man only starts to sell after attending church, eating breakfast, hanging with friends and family, etc. By the time the African man arrives to sell, the customers are dried up since the Chinese man sold to them already. The strong Africans survive while the weak die here.

>civilization generally emerged independently in regions like the Middle East, China, Mesoamerica, India

not true

The invasive species called Bantu were confused with humans and allowed to run rampant.

>Because I have a pattern recognition machine in my head, dat means aliums looooooooool

Back to redshit

>On the population level, the migration of Chinese people into African society has led to fierce economic competition.

Chinese numbers in Africa are extremely small lol. Fuck off with that bullshit. Most of them are temporarily in it and often serve a Chinese expat base.

>Europeans tried to force their development by thinking that Africans can function like Europeans which is not the case at least not on the larger African collective. Their adaptation must come naturally from the Africans themselves through competitive pressure that is eventually adapted and overcome by a natural process under African reformation.

The Europeans didn't even "develop" the population at all really because developing Africans woudl ruin heir entire bottom line. See how educated Africans in colonial time still had to deal with mass bullshit and not even being seen as equals at all (more like monkeys in suits with degrees) .

Blacks are ancient humans they are not meant for civilizatiins at all.

European built infrastructure and institutions in Africa fell into ruins/decay despite Africans having worked on/in them for years. Various attempts to develop Africans over the centuries failed. National Colonial efforts in developing the Africans would have been too expensive and likely futile. Even today it'd be so expensive for a foreign nation for little benefit and likely little results. Development is given in a variety of ways, foreigners invest into the nation expecting the Africans to make good on their investment (usually the incompetence in skill, work ethics, and learning capacity leads to foreign importation of labor), volunteers like missionaries charities etc., and foreigners entering the nation teaching people. These usual indirect way of development is exceedingly slow with Africans. They are simply very slow in picking things up. Even development of Africans in the Americas and Europe have very limited relative success, whereas the non-African and non-European nations are developing at a much easier degree.
Africans have only recently been "uplifted" from small, sparse villages and given basic technology/innovation of civilization such as writing since a few hundred years ago. Such millennium changes are way too drastic for them. Development of Africans (both Africa and outside) is going to take hundreds of years, especially when the general approach is simply giving them resources in abundance such as money and access to education. Eugenics can speed it up.

kek,

...

>>Why did most of Africa lack civilization

You didn't answer the question. Nothing becomes clear the way you said it. What's clear is that Africans are just not as smart as the rest of the world. It took them longer to figure out agriculture and to emerge as one or a collective of civilizations.

> Sedentary agriculture in central, eastern and southern Africa was later still, spreading from the west only after 1000 BC and not reaching some areas until the early centuries AD

>AD

This on-liner is the sole reason why africa is so behind.

Africans aren't as smart as the rest because of environmental reasons that affected their development in both culture, innovation, and genetics (to various differing degrees). With enough time with the right environmental pressures, they'll advance as they somewhat have, just likely at a trailing pace with some exceptions. Maybe they might catch up at some point. Judging by recent migrations, that might happen sooner than expected because of "certain" reasons..

Lol you didnt read jack shit.

...

Muslims didn't conquer them.