/sci/ - Science & Math

[Anonymous No.11872723]

According to GGS sub-Saharan Africa didn't have the conditions for the transition from hunter gatherers to civilization. Does this mean that if colonization never happened sub-Saharan Africa would never have civilization?

[Anonymous No.11872796]

>>11872723
define civilization

[Anonymous No.11873920]

>>11872723

If colonization never happened, they'd still be living sustainably and healthily.

[Anonymous No.11873978]

>>11872723
I'm gonna assume we're talking about first world, inventive, material civilisation.
There would be no modern political system in africa if it were left to itself, but this is also true of most of the world outside europe (Americas, Australia, SSA, Indonesia ). Centralised state/ law/economic formation is a product of north west europe that spread outwards. Basically - in all of history - only NW europeans invented the "first world" systems, others can maintain it/ use it when given to them, but inventing such a civilization is another task.
There is no reason to think any country outside europe would have undergone the industrial revolution without the aid of Europeans (ie there are no independent inventions, philosophical/political development suggesting so) so...no SSA would not have any semblance of modern civilisation if it were just left alone

[Anonymous No.11874020]

>>11872723
>According to GGS
cringe and >>>/trash/

[Anonymous No.11874038]

>>11872723
Stop posting kike propaganda on my board. Subsaharan Africa would not have had civilization because the people are fucking stupid, that is it.

[Anonymous No.11874050]

The natural state of humans is a hunter gatherer society, colonization brought only suffering and oppression.

If white colonists had never brought their oppressive rule to Africa and taught Africans to fight and oppress each other, sub Saharan Africa would be a utopian land free of hatred, violence, racism, conflict, or suffering, living in balance and harmony with nature.

What you’re calling “civilization” isn’t a real concept, every culture and traditional way of life that isn’t rooted in racism and oppression is equally valid and successful. Different cultures adapt to different environments- a white man from a so-called “civilized” colonist culture wouldn’t survive for very long in the Kalahari Desert, for instance while the so called “uncivilized” indigenous people are adapted to live and thrive in the environment.

In practice this racist myth of “civilization” has been used by whites around the world to brutalize, oppress, rape, savage, and destroy countless beautiful traditional indigenous cultures around the world.

[Anonymous No.11874069]

>>11874050
this. #DecolonizeYourMind #AbolishWhites!

[Anonymous No.11874141]

>>11872723
Only a tiny part of Africans are/were hunter gatherers. I don't think people realize they are a tiny outlier group, similar to what the sentinelese are for India.

[Anonymous No.11874150]

>>11872796
sedentary, specialized jobs for every person, written language, trade and economics based on fiat currency rather than bartering, and agriculture

You need ALL 5 to be considered civilized. No exceptions.

[Anonymous No.11874176]

>>11874150
>fiat currency
So, there was no civilization prior to the 20th century?

Please don’t use terms you don’t know when attempting to provide a precise definition.

[Anonymous No.11874182]

>>11874141
You cant just group the entirety of africa and say that. Northern africans and Eastern Africans are very different from central, western, and "southern" Africans.

[Anonymous No.11874193]

>>11874182
The point is that almost none of them lived as hunter gatherers in recent history.

[Anonymous No.11874196]

He's correct, his logic is just backwards. Adverse conditions create tougher/more capable people. Lush, tropical zones like sub Saharan Africa create non-adaptable, static groups of humans. Lots of people had to die for Caucasians and East Asians to become what they are today.

[Anonymous No.11874515]

Have you looked at the geography of Africa? It explains most of the problems of the people who lived there.

[Anonymous No.11874525]

>>11874196
Africa is wrought with adverse conditions, its more that the necessity for careful long-term resource allocation, the opportunity to compete with and dominate megafauna, the isolation from extremely deleterious diseases and the lower parasite burden made evolution on the steppe, in the tundra, in the fertile crescent and levant a lot more ammenable to highly sophisticated social organization and intellectual development.

[Anonymous No.11874534]

>>11872723
>>>/his/

[Anonymous No.11874553]

>>11873978
>so...no SSA would not have any semblance of modern civilisation if it were just left alone
Define "just left alone." SSA was always part of global trade networks and privy to the general spread of knowledge and philosophy. The Mali Empire had a Magna Carta-like decree around the same time England did. SSA would never have been completely isolated from the rest of the world.

[Anonymous No.11874571]

>>11874525

Wrong. Conditions like deserts, or highly frigid winters are infinitely worse for paleolithic humans. And the fact that sub-Saharans never thought to assemble and eradicate megafauna like Asians/Caucasians is a testament to their inability to plan ahead.

Anon, say it's December. I'm going to drop you into the middle of a country, where you will have access to no tech, no anything, the clothes off your back, and other humans no longer exist. You get to pick Finland or the Congo. You might be dogmatic with me but I already know which one you're going with.

[Anonymous No.11874580]

>>11874571
Why would they have needed to eradicate megafauna? There's simply no necessity for that. White person transposing their own values on different people they can't understand.

[Anonymous No.11874587]

>>11874580

Because they're dangerous and were bona fide competitors during pre-modernity. Not your cute little zoo animals.

[Anonymous No.11874589]

>>11873978
>only NW europeans invented the "first world" systems
you're a retard, NW europeans inherited a civilization and bungled it up for a thousand years before shit picked up again, and when it did, it wasnt in NW europe

[Anonymous No.11874598]

>>11874587
Oh so why didn't you domesticate the bear or the moose or the tiger. Dumbass reasoning. You try to impose your stupid values on people you don't really understand and then blame them for that. Classic projection, you're trying to project your own stupidity on people you barely know and failing.

[Anonymous No.11874599]

>>11874553
I think you're being disingenuous. Mali is nw africa not ssa. ok mali had it, where is it now? why didn't mali show a development similar to england if magna carter type documents are so important? Liberia had the US constitution...look at it now.
Im not saying SSA would be cut off completely, but the idea there would be any western development there without white investment/intervention is ludicrous.
Mozambique, Tunisia, Somalia... are all less 'isolated' than they ever were, but show no semblance with western countries outside their (usually incredibly corrupt, sham) political 'democracies'/ structures. They also show little sign of getting better, outside economic fantasists who believe the current/past success of the first world has nothing to do with the populations that made that success possible. You cannot just inject third world countries with first world systems and expect them to magically 'catch up'.

[Anonymous No.11874601]

GGS is long-discredited popsci garbage and wankery. No one who actually knows what they're talking about takes it seriously

[Anonymous No.11874609]

>>11874598

You're not making any sense now lol wtf is this comment? They killed off competitors/danger (bears, wolves, mammoths) and domesticated useful, servile animals (aurochs, horses). Europeans mastered their world, sub-Saharans remained subject to it. Perfectly obvious schism you simply cannot accept.

[Anonymous No.11874613]

>>11874589
No they didn't inherit a system - they destroyed feudalism/ serfdom - the de facto state of human existence before 1750. They legislated free economic markets (abolish guilds), actually invented things, opened up whole fields of research. What system did they 'inherit'

[Anonymous No.11874656]

>>11874609
This is just dumb reasoning. How are so many Africans alive if they didn't master their world? Even after all the diseases the Europeans introduced?

[Anonymous No.11874668]

Asian and European technical achievement has always been superior to African achievement. You can choose to ignore the fact or explain it away with "non-racist" values but it does not change reality. Individual humans might be exceptional but the averages of groups of people are easily predicted and quantified. Show me one place where Africans, left to their own devices, created an ideal society.

[Anonymous No.11874695]

>>11874668
I could say the same about African physical prowess which works for their environment. Different selective pressure produces different results but it doesn't matter since both groups are alive because they were good at something. Nobody decided your technical achivement is superior over African achievement. That's just a feel good subjective argument to mask your inadequacy as an individual.

[Anonymous No.11874714]

>>11874599
>why didn't mali show a development similar to england if magna carter type documents are so important?
Of course it's an important step. The answer to your question is guns, germs, and steel. It all happened at about 1500. Before then, kingdoms across the world were quite similar.

[Anonymous No.11874770]

>>11874714
To clear up specifics vs general claims, the Mali Empire specifically fell pre-colonization in a Roman fashion, I'm talking general African Kingdoms existing at the time of colonization that were subject to guns, germs, and steel.

[Anonymous No.11874813]

>>11874695
>mask your inadequacy as an individual.
A meaningless assumption or a projection. Either way it avoids the premise that some racial groups are smarter than others. And, yes, some racial groups have physical advantages over others.

[Anonymous No.11874830]

>>11874813
>And, yes, some racial groups have physical advantages over others.
Not really. Prowess at particular tasks doesn't break down by race, but by much smaller sub-groups.

[Anonymous No.11874844]

>>11874830
It breaks down by race quite well. Name the last white European who won an Olympic gold medal at foot racing. Then name the last sub Saharan African who won the Worlds Strongest Man contest.

[Anonymous No.11874885]

>>11874844
You retarded? That doesn't refute anything. There's literally a lone tribe in Kenya that dominates the long distance events. You would just say it's dominated by blacks, but that would be very short-sighted.

[Anonymous No.11874898]

https://www.bitchute.com/video/qvaxPH3ftUQ/

Guns germs and steel is a joke. Typical, environmentalist garbage.

[Anonymous No.11874904]

>>11874898
The fuck kind of website is that...

[Anonymous No.11874913]

>>11874885
I mean name an african country that has the living standard/ stability/ peacefulness of a white western country.

[Anonymous No.11874915]

>>11874904
Was on youtube, uploaded to bitchute due to the current 'purge'

[Anonymous No.11874918]

>>11874913
Botswana I think is probably slightly worse to live in than Ukraine.

[Anonymous No.11874921]

>>11873920
Healthy? You mean the parasites, childbirth deaths, untreatable abscesses and infections, HIV, etc?

[Anonymous No.11874941]

>>11874913
Modern day or pre-1500?

[Anonymous No.11874959]

>>11874921
Heart disease, psychopathic tendencies, cancer, homelessness, capitalistic monopolies, moral decay, male effeminism, transgender over activism, immigration, low birth rate, not so bad where I'm from

[Anonymous No.11875107]

>>11874918
I mean ok. Yes it has a higher gdp per capita. But Botswana gets most of its income from the diamond trade.
Ukraine is currently in a proxy war, destabilised by the orange revolution seeded by the US, and doesnt have a large precious mineral trade. However metrically it scores about the same (a little better) on standard of living
https://www.numbeo.com/quality-of-life/country_result.jsp?country=Ukraine

https://www.numbeo.com/quality-of-life/country_result.jsp?country=Botswana

Botswana scores low on economic complexity
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_economic_complexity#2017_rankings
much lower than ukraine. Demonstrating the point even with its income, botswana does not process its rich resources for technological applications ( it doesn't have the population base that could support such industry). Its outlook is also pretty weak. So Botswana is rich bc the west buys its diamonds - but on quality of living its still only as good as Ukraine. (Lots of western states have far fewer resources than Botswana and are doing way better)

[Anonymous No.11875144]

>>11874941
Both. And i mean sustained periods. So i can look as the uk and go, ok there were some bumps in the road, but the trend was 'up' from about ad 900 until 1914.

Africa may have had some kingdoms with administration/ art etc etc, but it all pales into comparison with the industrial revolution anyway so...
I mean some kind of agricultural kingdom in ssa comparable even to medieval feudalism - ie something that never existed.

[Anonymous No.11875159]

>>11872723
He indirectly addresses your question in the book and the answer is that the book doesn't aim to explain post-1500 history. Why make posts about books you've never read?

[Anonymous No.11875236]

>>11875144
>I mean some kind of agricultural kingdom in ssa comparable even to medieval feudalism - ie something that never existed.
Yes, there were plenty. They were always on par up until about 1500.

[Anonymous No.11875243]

>>11875236
No there were not

[Anonymous No.11875287]

>>11875243
There were. Pre-colonial European explorers were generally impressed with SSA kingdoms compared to their homelands. Here's an account on Benin City from a Portuguese captain:
>Great Benin, where the king resides, is larger than Lisbon; all the streets run straight and as far as the eye can see. The houses are large, especially that of the king, which is richly decorated and has fine columns. The city is wealthy and industrious. It is so well governed that theft is unknown and the people live in such security that they have no doors to their houses

[Anonymous No.11875293]

>>11875243
To clarify yes, i know kongo kingdom greater Zimbabwe etc etc...
but they were never anywhere close to the complexity of a medieval european state.

[Anonymous No.11875332]

>>11875287
They had mud walls.
>some diary said some stuff
ok great...and the archaeology.
Heres another account
>This city is about a league long from gate to gate; it has no wall but is surrounded by a large moat, very wide and deep, which suffices for its defence
>They were impressed
Yeah, im impressed by the pyramids. Still built by a dumb civilisation that thought it was o so important to put organs in jars for dead kings - who were gods incarnate- which needed to be stored in big pointy structures.

Still I'd put Benins complexity as something more like the Celts, not medieval europe.

[Anonymous No.11875337]

>>11875144
>>11875287
built by muslims

[Anonymous No.11875347]

>>11875337
What do you mean by this?

[Anonymous No.11875354]

>>11875347
Just desperately moving the goalposts to support his predecided conclusion that niggers are subhuman

[Anonymous No.11875358]

>>11875337
Sometimes they were Muslim. You mean Arabs? No, they were well aware of Arabs.

[Anonymous No.11875362]

>>11875354
It not
>>11875332
>>11875243
me

guy who said>>11875337 is new.

[Anonymous No.11875377]

>>11875354
>He doesn't think africans were technologically advanced so he must think blacks are inferior

keep seething. I think they have a cool history, and don't really have any opinion on them in that sense. I do have a problem with people trying to glorify kingdoms/states that ultimately were/did very little.

[Anonymous No.11875379]

>>11875354
not quite, the point is that they had contact with a colonial civilization that got them a leg up to build their own.

[Anonymous No.11875386]

>>11873978
What about Ancient Egypt, Assyria, Ottoman Empire, China, Japan, Mongols, etc.?

[Anonymous No.11875415]

>>11875386
Catalog the inventions/inventors, rank them by impact/importance. Basically uk, France, germany and Italy did all the invention that made the modern world possible, and it was all after 1500.

Want to know more, read 'human accomplishment' by Murray (pdf online)

[Anonymous No.11875424]

>>11873978
>NW europe
more like mesopotamia, nile river, indus valley, china. then europe from the greeks
NW europe did fuck all until the romans

[Anonymous No.11875466]

>>11875386
no doubt NA/europe have dominated innovation in the past 2/300 years, but there's a lot of human history before that

[Anonymous No.11876003]

>bro just build a flouring civilization on a continent with unnavigible rivers and no good natural harbours

[Anonymous No.11876027]

>>11872723
Ethiopia is below the Sahara yet it is one of the oldest civilizations of Earth, 100% native to Africa. So the empirical evidence already proves this theory wrong.

The Kushites (Black Africans) also developed an advanced civilization and built pyramids in Kush (modern Sudan), but the geographic definition of whether that's below the Sahara or not varies, so on a technicality they may not qualify as "Sub-Saharan".

[Anonymous No.11876042]

>>11872723
Yes. Complete isolation can kill any sort of advancements. Interactions with different parts of the world with different environmental factors producing different technology that are all being shared across trade means everyone benefits. Diversity is a strength.

[Anonymous No.11876045]

>>11875107
>scores low on economic complexity
How is it measured and why is high complexity desirable.

[Anonymous No.11876056]

>>11875386
>mongols
>civilization
This is really, really low. I'm disappointed.

[Anonymous No.11876069]

>>11873978
Seems like a blanket statement, other non-European civilizations made important philosophical and scientific advances (particularly the Arabs and the Asians), given enough time they may have achieved the social and economic conditions for industrialization.

Europe was the first, and it did spread the advancements of industrialization to the rest of the world, greatly lifting living standards, even when taking the horrors of colonization into account, in the long run globalization was a net positive for the world.

But just as Europe industrialized it might have just as easily missed the boat. The Ancient Romans / Egyptians* had steam engines as toys but they never realized they could use them to manufacture products more efficiently.

* The advancement happened in Roman Era Egypt