Is there any truth to the idea that black civilizations are always shit because of "muh climate"?

Is there any truth to the idea that black civilizations are always shit because of "muh climate"?

What is the most "ideal" climate for civilization?

Stable food supply is the most important one. By that measure though Asian countries are the best because an acre of rice has more calories for feeding than any other grain. Makes sense if you consider population to be a meter of civil progression.

Poor climate would be best for evolution. It requires more planning to survive winters compared to more mild climates. That planning translates to other areas of civilization building.

Are there winters in Africa?

Winters are milder the closer you get to the equator.

Doesn't that mean you don't have to deal with your crops dying to frost?

Anything other than subtropical Africa, apparently. Even South America is not so unforgiving. Although no civilizations arose in the Amazon. Yet somehow they did in the Andes.

Climate, predators, domesticated animals, food, environment in general determines the ideal place for a first civilization. There's a reason we have named such an ideal region, it is known as the Fertile Crescent.

Egypt was hot as shit
Sub saharans were just more interested in enslaving and raping each other than getting any actual work done.
Meanwhile the Egyptians were inventing math and science

Exactly. It is easier. Therefore you don't have to work as hard or come up with creative solutions.

It's also why black people from the north are smarter than black people from the south. Same with white people from the north and white people from the south. Everyone gets dumber the closer you get to the equator.

>Same with white people from the north and white people from the south
Wait, what? Literally everything significant in Western civilization has been achieved by Mediterraneans (Greeks, Italians/Romans)

Egypt was successful because the land around the Nile was very fertile

Africa is the most fertile continent.

Unfortunately africans are muslims.

If African civilisations are so shit because their climate is great and they have so much food then why do they starve and rely on food supplies from the West?

Most africans are christians, you dumbass.

they don't

you're thinking about refugees from wars, created by white people when they decided to draw borders on a map with a ruler.

because we came in with the modern technology that makes humans nature/disease proof and they continued to breed like they were dying like wild animals.

now they are trying to support post 20th century population densities and the only infrastructure that exists is the one whites and Asians provide to distribute free shit whilst extracting resources.

I've given this a lot of thought and study over the years and the most ideal climate for civilizations it seems is the weather typically found in Europe.

Africa only requires the bare minimum to consistently get by. The climate is literally just hot as fuck so all you need to do is operate around one weather pattern and you're good. This also is added with nearly every game you can hunt is cunting massive and one days work feeds your group for a week and there's never a lul in resource obtainment.

In Europe you have to operate around 4 different seasons, 2 of which are mild enough to give ample opportunity to try out new tactics and tech to better operate in the other 2. You have forests which give you a lot of shit to work with and it rains a decent amount so you can get massive farm yields allowing more people to focus on tech advancement. Typically with tech advancement you see them decide to build bigger and better things because they can.

Here's the biggest ha-ha part of it all. Stonememes in Bongistan was built by hunter-gatherers. They had the man powerful if multiple groups worked together, got clever, spread out the project over a good period of time, and were consistently well off enough to drain resources into such efforts. This is in contrast to African hunter-gatherer groups who got by just well enough to not starve to death.

Being in a Bio Anthro program has been the biggest red-pill despite all the attempts at a subtle blue-pill. Africans have 10,000 years of evolution telling them to be little better than chimps and do just enough to scrape by. The type we typically call "black" and not "nigger" is a genetic anomaly heavily influenced by white culture. They look at white culture and say "I want to be apart of that!" while 98% of nigs say "I can leech off of that" or "Fuck that white shit, nigga."

muh Scandinavians

>implying Muslims weren't the most progressive religion at one point

That's because the Amazon is incredibly inhospitable. Have you ever been there? It's filled with bugs and the vegetation is so thick you can barely walk. Trying to farm it with bronze or late stone-age tech would be a nightmare.

You've mistaken Syria for all the rest of Africa famalam

Norwegian here, we have never been significant and neither has the rest of scandinavia.

Hundreds of years of exploitation and imperialism would tend to make a civilization shitty.

>Europe had the most successful civilizations meme.

Hardly. China built a bigger and more stable country than any that has ever been produced in Europe. India and Egypt have also been largely successful if we look at it from a macroperspective.

On a historical scale, the European countries have very recent and mostly thanks to industrialization. The only western country that has been really impressive of late though has been US, but even they are a fairly young country.

>What is Ancient Greece
>What is the Roman Empire
>What is ERE
>What is Renaissance Italy
These are the most important European civilizations. The rest of Europe became as successful as they did because of them. Count their later achievements as well, and there has never been any civilization or conglomeration of civilizations as important as Europe, not even close, and that just might be because there were many smaller civilization interacting with each other. Also, I count cultural progress as achievements as well. Would you rather live in China or Europe?

Africa has lots of very arable land. Look at the more recent history of Zimbabwe.

WYTE PPL SMDH

>What is Ancient Greece

A bunch of city states that were very busy killing and conquering each other

>What is the Roman Empire

The greatest empire produced in Europe (and northern Africa, and the middle east). Still just a regional power when compared to China.

>What is ERE

The east roman empire was technically speaking in today's Turkey.

>What is Renaissance Italy

Are you meme:ing?

>Would you rather live in China or Europe?

Assuming you pick me up from the flow of time and drop me off at a random point in history?

China easily. Better chances of not starving, having decent quality of living and not getting caught up in some stupid local war AND I'd have better opportunities of social advancement.

Yeah fuck off.
Africa fails because they aren't allowed to do anything extreme or fun.
A "hitler of africa" would probably be pretty successfull...provided the west, russia, and china didn't stick their dicks in it and interfere. Which they always fucking will.

The problem with Africa is that no african country has self determination in modern times. Someone gets too big they either get bought or killed. Getting too big is dangerous so they stick to be warlords on the wests payroll.

that pic is retarded, zebras aren't even close to being as prone to domestication as horses, which is why even today they're mostly wild. There isn't some magical taming gene in whites that made them domesticate horses, that's retarded.

The Swedish tried taming mooses for war and were partially successful, except the moose are smart and skittish, so they'd fuck right off as soon as they heard gunfire.

>A bunch of city states that were very busy killing and conquering each other

Also intellectually built western civilization and culture and science and mathematics etc. and beat the world's superpower (Persia). This is the turning point of the European continent (and humanity for that matter).

>Still just a regional power when compared to China.

Are we having a serious discussion here? This smells fishy. Anyway, its military wasn't even my intended point. The point is that the Roman Empire dispersed Greco-Roman culture to the rest of Europe and brought its infrastructure there to allow for the cultivation of other civilizations, which would become the dominant ones after the power shift from South to North due to the Ottomans.

>The east roman empire was technically speaking in today's Turkey.

This is bait, right? The ERE was literally Greek, so unless you consider Greece to be not European, your point doesn't stand. Also, their seat of power was in the European continent, and the empire flourished because of that part. There is no way you can remove the ERE from Europe even from a geographical POV (not to mention Asia Minor had tremendous Greek influence before the Turks, for a much longer time than the Turks).

>China easily. Better chances of not starving, having decent quality of living and not getting caught up in some stupid local war AND I'd have better opportunities of social advancement.

That's debatable at best but I'm not keen on starting yet another front on Chinese history (maybe someone else wants to), but I was referring to modern times regardless, because ancient Europe is made of many dissimilar civilizations and I would have to specify which region I would be referring to and when (something like ancient Greece vs ancient China in date X).

Also, I'm not that guy, so there's no need to be intentionally contrarian with my posts because you think I'm supporting his >le red-pill cringe attitude.

I think those horses have autism

you are retarded.

yes, even in the most ideal locations they had to leave fields fallow for years just to get 1 crop

> Muhammad was totally a feminist, guys!

Sweden was once a pretty big regional power, and I'm not talking about Vikings or something. I'm talking 17th century.