Why were Central/South Americans more developed than North Americans

because they were the first to arrive in the continent while Native Americans were the latest to arrive before the bering ice bridge melted

>>3060210

What?
They arrived at the same time as they were the same people

>>3060210
?

File: confused negro.png (842KB, 1280x800px) Image search: [Google]

842KB, 1280x800px

>>3060215
>>3060217
>Native Americans are the same as Incas, Toltecs, Olmecs, Mayas, Aztecs
No

>>3060233

Yes?
The only difference is that their ancestors have been isolated for some 13000 years.
Also there was another migration from Siberian called the Dene people who mixed with the first natives.

>>3060238
then explain why they were more advanced than the plains niggers. My hypothesis is they had more time to build cities and work the land

>>3060259

There's a reason why there is no such thing as an ancient civilization from Northern Europe.

Southern climates are easy and people in them have more free time to engage in abstract pursuits like architecture.

>>3060205
North America is more Asian mongoloid while the south Aztec and more importantly Incas are of Indo-European decent.The Incas are not Amerindian the ancient Incas had Red/Blonde hair and blue eyes they were also taller and had different bone structure than the Amerindians.

>>3060259
humans first evolved in africa but the first civilizations were in the middle east

>>3060205

they allready accidentally the civilization

File: 1467000418264.jpg (49KB, 487x550px) Image search: [Google]

49KB, 487x550px

>>3060282
>el peruANO

>>3060382
That's an Amerindian mongrol

>>3060210
>>3060259

Same reason as why nomadic lifestyles develop in other regions.

As far as the Great plains go, they wern't the most hospitable for developing agriculture. There were extreme temperatures and, tornados which wrecked havoc (try and play oregon trail for instance). As well, Natives lives were based around migratory animals, like buffalo, so even less reason to develop permanent settlements and more reason to more around in tepees.

As for the rest of North America, there were permanent settlements, like in the Mississippi Region, the Pueblo, the Iroquois confederacy/Six Nations.

Each individual tribe has differing histories, but also keep in mind, that while the Aztec and Incan civilizations were still largely intact with European colonizations beginning, by the time that North America was being settled, vast, vast swathes of the populations had effectively died out due to disease.

Certain tribes remained nomadic, other tribes had the proper conditions and motivations to develop cities around agriculture, other tribes had to deal with harsher winters (much like Northern Europe), and other tribes had more time to harvest crops/ no winter.

>>3060282 Fuck off back to /pol/ mate, this board is /his/ you dumb cunt.

>>3060282
Is this a new level of WE WUZZing?

>>3060259
North American natives existed for several millennia. They had enough time

>>3060205
The central/south American natives found ancient Lemurian ruins to inhabit.

>>3060205
Same reason why Mediterraneans in ancient times were the beacon of civilization in Europe while Germanics were barbarians but this flipped in the past several centuries.

The actual question should be: Why were europeans less developed relatively compared to amerindians?
It's obvious that Amerindians as a whole were superior to eurangutan """"""""civilization"""""""".

>>3062564
Less developed? Are you kidding, americans did not even invent bronze while euros sailed the oceans and kicked inca ass.

>>3063317
Incas already had bronze
>15000 years of offset
Nope

>>3060259

>implying that all cultures follow a unilineal evolutionary track, inevitably leading to the development of a nation-state
>buying into determinism
>not realizing this theory has been obsolete for at least a century

Also pls stop applying societal models based on the centralization of political authority (Marxists, you too) to decentralized societies in order to analyze their social structures, it doesn't work

Not sure about American Indians but First Nations groups were by far and large decentralized groups with high levels of social complexity.

>>3060418

>>3064350
here

forgot about the Iroquois Confederacy

but wasn't that established during the contact era?

>>3063317
>taking the bait this hard

>>3060282
Holy shit end yourself

>>3060205
Developed is relative.

>>3060205
Who was the most advanced of all the groups in the America's? Also it depends on which civilizations we're talking about, some Central American Amerindians, especially the ones in what is now El Salvador and Guatemala, were pretty decadent.

>>3065840
Nigger those countries had far more developed civilizations than any other Central American ones. Hell Guatemala reached a high level of culture in the Classic period more impressive or on par with Mexicos.

>>3065952
Shit maybe it was Honduras, all I know is that nothing really good ever came out of El Salvador or that area in general. Guatemala has all those pyramids and buried cities right?

>>3060282
WE WUZ CHIEFS N SHEEIT

>>3064360
Way before