What would happen if sub-Sahara Africa experienced an Agriculture

>>1338737
It did and it started to develop civilisation, then the white man came and ruined everything. Not even a liberal white guilt fanatic, it's just the truth, west Africa was really getting going and then slavery started.

>Inb4 but they sold each other to Europeans!
Yes warring states tend to do that

>>1338748
White man was sailing and colonizing, while the niggs were just starting. Pathetic.

>>1338748
There's some truth and a lot more half truth to this post. West Africa was still up shit creek, unlike what you claim. East Africa, on the other hand, was doing well for itself. The Swahili Coast almost singlehandedly bankrolled the West Indian textile trade and built nearly all of the dhows the Arabs and Indians used to sail. Subsistence agriculture was quite the norm with Congolese or Ugandan slaves used as labor. The males of the household would then take up wage labor jobs on cross-continent caravans only to return during planting and harvest season. Whites didn't really do anything to destroy this, however. Germany, for example, altered the nature of wage labor in modern Tanzania according to local customs in order to exploit it rather than destroying it altogether. What damaged the local customs were the insistence upon cash crop agriculture rather than subsistence, as well as exorbitant tax levies, which led to an armed revolt that was harshly put down and followed by famine as the subsistence agriculture had all but faded away.

>>1338748
True for west africa, but they on a medieval/bronze age level yet and wouldnt have managed an industriam revolution without help.
South africa was mostly savages with some exceptions.

Now the whole region would be much betzer of if these cultures would have been allowed to grow organically.

>>1338748
Wrong. The Arabs really ruined Africa, they were the first to practice race based slavery and forcefully converted East and West Africans to Islam. The Europeans got the ideas of Slavery and the notion that blacks were beneath them from Arabs. I still don't understand why black people love Arabs but hate whites for things Arabs did 1000x worse

>>1338737
How would it happen? That region is geographically disadvantaged when it comes to agriculture.

>>1338737
I guess we'll never know because fate randomly choose that area to not advance. It has nothing to do with genetic limitations on intelligence, no. God came down from heaven and plucked all the good ideas out of their with a pair of tweezers

>>1339730
>out of their
Anyway. If you were a Mediterranean man in BC, you would say the same thing about northern barbarians.

>>1339679
>they were the first to practice race based slavery and forcefully converted East and West Africans to Islam.

They converted in the vat majority of the case for trade benefits.

>The Europeans got the ideas of Slavery and the notion that blacks were beneath them from Arabs.

Slavery always existed dumbass and the inferiority of Blacks belief popped up once Euros started dealing with Black slaves because dehumanizing slaves is the easiest way to absolve yourself of guilt. Every single fucking people have similar beliefs of the people they enslave or force to labour.The Transatlantic trade despite it notable shorter duration actually traded much more in slaves then the Arab trade.

>I still don't understand why black people love Arabs but hate whites for things Arabs did 1000x worse

Bullshit. Nice try trying to blame shift though.

>>1339314
They weren't at the bronze age though. the metal ages isn't one uniform thing and varies place by place and the years it occurred. In Africa they went straight to Iron as in they acquired Bronze and Iron at the same time.

>>1339899
You should learn about African slavery and the history of slavery in general from a source other than your 10th grade history teacher, anon.