Why is there so little pre-European architecture in sub-saharan Africa? Was there a lack of building supplies...

You don't need to be rich in order to shoot out a baby user.

when child mortality and health improves, you have a population boom if measures aren't taken collectively to tamp down on births. it's basically a product of stupidity on africans' but MORE importantly westerners who thought that western medicine was the panacea to the third world's problems when it was really like pouring gasoline on a fire.

>reichstag was not burnt down by "communists", but a single dutch teenager who was associated with communists in netherlands but was basically a lone wolf acting on his own ideas.

He was still a commie dickback

>on December 6, 2007, the Attorney General of Germany Monika Harms nullified the entire verdict and posthumously pardoned Van der Lubbe based on a 1998 German law t

Jesus Christ, Germany is country full of cucks

but you do need funds and resources to raise a child. Where are these funds and resources coming from?

Poor people are more likely to have more children. Because if the life expectancy is low then you're primal instincts kick in and you start having as many offsprings as possible. That's why animals usually have a shit ton of kids literally every species does this.

Egypt was literally one of the greatest civilizations to ever walk this earth. Educate yourself.

That's why I said sub saharan africa.

Why would pre-eurpeans be building in Africa? Not ever after the Indo-Eurasian made it there.

There was, it just made with highly perishable materials. Even the great mud mosques over in Timbuktu need to be torn down and rebuilt even couple of generations, I think.

>He was still a commie dickback

yes, and definitely NOT put up to it by the Nazis.

...

>They extend for some 160 km in all, in a mosaic of more than 500 interconnected settlement boundaries. They cover 2,510 sq. miles (6,500 square kilometres) and were all dug by the Edo people. In all, they are four times longer than the Great Wall of China, and consumed a hundred times more material than the Great Pyramid of Cheops. They took an estimated 150 million hours of digging to construct, and are perhaps the largest single archaeological phenomenon on the planet.[4]

This.

While pretty neat and impressive in the sense that the wall was a continuous endeavour, the fact that that quote compares a stone and brick rampart covering foothills and mountainous regions with dozens of small forts and hundreds of guardtowers, as well as a massive pyramid built using skillfull engineering to pile huge limestone blocks to a dirt wall with a moat makes it sound more impressive than it actually is. I mean it's basically Offa's dyke on steroids.

Their culture was stagnant as fuck. They kept the same art style for literal millennia.

Why did pre-Rome Europeans never build anything asides from South Europeans?

there's no proof suggesting that is the case.

because they were dumb savages

Because it wasnt civilized.

because Europe was under an ice sheet

the "stagnation" of the art was politicly motivated because they tried to represent an eternal empire that always has been and always will be there

if you look closer it is actually really easy to pinpoint from what time a sculpture, temple or relief is - the style of the art changes frequently but the formula behind the art is by intention "stagnant"

There are some 5000 year old mud brick structures in Egypt, dry climate is good for preserving them.

Niggers have culturally misappropriated white medicine for their own purposes.

Sub-Saharan Africa had an almost nonexistent population until very recently - the entire continent was comprised of spread-out loosely-affiliated "states" of familial tribes and small-scale river cultures. The absolute KEY factor in developing society is population size, as seen in Egypt, Mesopotamia, etc. So with such a low population density there were never enough people in one place for individuals to specialize in specific tasks, outside of a few fits and starts that eventually fizzled out like in Zimbabwe and Ethiopia.

About ~30% of SSA's population is dependent entirely on resources (food, medicine) handed out by the UN. So while the UN aid packages are in theory a very caring thing to do, they've made the living situation in SSA countries exponentially worse because their economies are incapable of sustaining their own populations, and the population continues to boom because there's now a massive caste of people who just sort of exist on UN aid. No one knows how to address the issue though because no one wants to cut back the aid and kill kids, but at the same time the aid is preventing SSA countries from developing their own internal support structures and entering the world stage as self-reliant and stable countries. And since SSA countries CAN'T do that, they end up needing more aid, leading to a vicious cycle. It's a clusterfuck.

How exactly did Ethiopia fizzle out?

It's called formalism.
They kept the same art style more or less deliberately because most artists were typically trained and commissioned by a central theocracy.
The same thing happens in every country worth living in.
Standardized building codes for public places and restrictive criteria for what could be aesthetically acceptable as "professional" or "formal" this was emphasised by the fact that
their religion entailed a belief that
order=immortality.

Also privately made art breaks away from the formal style rather frequently with bodies being more anatomically correct and so on.
Unfortunately it's also made with less survivable material and there is less of it around.

books.google.com/books?id=j9eSBAAAQBAJ&pg=PT38&lpg=PT38&dq=ancient egyptian art formalism&source=bl&ots=ZxRngoY1J9&sig=u6HCK_opJ1yMOFgiHslOfw7afHo&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwjzm6T_1sjXAhUrjVQKHYjKAVkQ6AEITjAN#v=onepage&q=ancient egyptian art formalism&f=false

Great Zimbabwe seems like a pretty great place to visit, but why do people obsess over it as a 'great civilisation'?

Nobody would call the broch-builders of Scotland a 'great civilisation'

Why do we hold sub-Saharans to a lower standard?

Well first off it's not quite accurate to compare the Broch settlements to Great Zimbabwe. Great Zimbabwe is more than just the parts shown in OP's image. That building in particular was the palace, but the entire surrounding area also has ruins. Great Zimbabwe was an entire city that peaked at around 18,000 people making it more comparable to London which had a similar population at around the same time.

As for why it's called a "great civilization." Well, there's a couple reasons. One, because for years it was a commonly held belief that it wasn't even built by the native people due to the racial stigma against them. People now seeing it in much higher esteem could be considered an act of "rectifying" past transgressions and attempts at wiping out these people's history. Secondly, and IMO more importantly, it's treated the way it is because people are comparing it in the context of its own historic narrative. It's not bring held to a lower standard so much as it's being held to a different standard in relation to its own place in history. I would argue that this should be the case for every ethnic group's history including the Broch builders. The Broch settlements are an important part of Scottish history, and to downplay the worth they have to the history of the Scottish people comes off as pointless to me. The series of events that lead up to the creation of Great Zimbabwe and the Broch settlements, and Constantinople are not at all similar, so I don't really see what good it does to "rank" them. This kind of attitude creates the exact kind if environment that caused people to deny the validity of places like Great Zimbabwe in the first place. Doing this makes it less likely for people to get interested in the wide breadth of places like this that the world has to offer and so we'll all suffer less knowledge of the world and humanity as a result.

They did.

>Great Zimbabwe was an entire city that peaked at around 18,000 people making it more comparable to London which had a similar population at around the same time.

Im not 100% sure about this, but Im almost certain that high middle ages London had a population higher than 18000 people

London was not static during the high middle ages. In 1100 its population was around 15,000, by 1200 it was around 23,000, and by 1300 it was around 90,000. In the end the comparison to London in particular isn't really the point. What I'm saying is that Broch is not a good comparison to Great Zimbabwe because Broch is an architectural style that was used for multiple different kinds of structures and Great Zimbabwe is a medieval city.

>18,000
pffffffttttt would very much like to see what they cite to support these numbers

Niggers are really dumb on average so they dont have enough autistic niggers to give a shit about constructing things beyond mudhuts.

>inb4 some faggot posts the mud buildings in Sudan
Fuck off, that construct is more primitive than Sumerian buildings.
>but but muh Ethiopia
Shut up

Well much of it was built using perishable building materials. Great Zimbabwe stands out because it's made of stone, but across most of Sub-Saharan Africa wood was the standard building material. Off the top of my head, the Kongo Kingdom had some pretty impressive cities, but they didn't start using stone architecture until the Portuguese came along and their king decided to copy their culture as much as he could.

In the far south (south of the Congo region), a big part of it comes from the fact that these regions were usually populated by semi-nomadic pastoral peoples. Hell, famous states like the Zulus even were organized in a really similar manner to the hegemonic states of the steppenigger tribes. A huge part of the significance of Great Zimbabwe in the first place is that it was found in an area that otherwise didn't seem to support large sedentary states like that. It'd be like finding an Athens-level city around Moscow from Roman times.

According to his personal diary, Goebbels had no idea about it, and no other Nazi ever admitted to it, and no evidence to that effect ever turned up.

As far as anyone can tell, the Nazis had nothing to do with it and just exploited it.

niggers can't into civilization

>"they dont have enough autistic niggers to give a shit about constructing things beyond mudhuts"

>gives examples of SSA ancient civilizations

lol

>Athens level city
>great Zimbabwe

>city
>literally a bunch of huts with no roads, planning, sewerage System or urban features of any kind

How They pass that ad a city is beyond me