Why do historians try to suppress this information so much?

>>3159157
Let me guess, niggers and jews?
Fuck off.

Because eurangutans keep trying to convince themselves that they had a lot of struggle compqred to Amerindians. The truth is Incas were superior to europeans. History demonstrates it.

>>3159157
Source/evidence for this claim?

>Zimbabwe
>Hailed as some of the most productive agricultural land in Africa
>Considered "The Breadbasket of Africa" before Mugabe screwed up everything
>Low soil performance
I call bull.

>>3159207
Zimbabwe is mostly 2; I think you're confusing it with Botswana, my Rhodesian friend. In any case, southern Africa is actually very susceptible to droughts.

The interesting one for me is the Nordic countries where you have very short but very intense growing seasons in summer with lots of sun (very long days) and lots of rain and then 9 months of gloom.

>>3159207
but most of zimbabwe is blue, meaning high performance

>Modern soil fertility = Past soil fertility.
Yeah, those Inner Chinese factory town deserts sure was the same thing in agrarian China.

What I find particularly interesting is that Left-leaning historians will often cite the land conditions of Northern Africa in defense of the lack of observable development in Sub-Saharan Africa. As evidenced by the map, it is actually Northern Africa that suffers from non-arable land and virtually all of the Bantus have full access to some of the most luscious and arable land on the planet. Really makes me think

>>3159232
>>3159233
Zimbabwe is mostly 8, 6, and 5 with just a patch of blue in the north and south, that streak of blue is mostly in Zambia and that large patch of blue is in the northeastern part of South Africa, not Zimbabwe.

>>3159241
To be fair north africa desertified massively since antiquity, and most of the orange areas are intensively farmed and have been for centuries.

>>3159241
isn't most of that land covered by jungle and infested with dangerous animals and diseases?

>>3159157
We don't, this is something that historians talk about all the fucking time.

File: IMG_1293.png (40KB, 1357x628px) Image search: [Google]

40KB, 1357x628px

>>3159241
Did you even look at the picture? Sub-Saharan Africa has shit soil

>>3159157
Because it would expose the eurocentric narrative that europeans developed on easy mode for thousands of years. While others had to struggle and even then surpassed them several times.

>>3159650
/pol/ has this bizarre idea in their heads that Europe is a freezing siberian tundra with unforgiving soil while Africa (from what they can tell from cartoons and 50's Tarzan movies) is some kind of paradise.

It's funny because even in the logs of 19th and early 20th century openly racist explorers, colonists, and missionaries they note how Europeans have been very blessed with land compared to Africans. The lush pastures their European cows grazed on were a far cry from the borderline starvation tier pastures of most of Africa.

this shit can change over time, Egypt was vital for Roman grain production

>>3159710
This. And Arabia Felix was well known as fertile and prosperous, but modern Yemen is almost all white in the map.

>>3159157
Wait... The green part of America is basically steppes while the orage one is very fertile.

The red spots in France are half forest and half fields, with a very good production per hectare.
South Sweden is an agricultural paradize, why is it all red?

Morocco is less fertile than Spain, the map is again fucked up.

>>3159696
>>3159650
Meh. There is more green in Americas than in Europe, yet the locals never made any civilization.

>>3159793
Jews broke their dam and flooded their land with silt ruining the soil quality

>>3159157
>Scandinavia and Congo have the same soil type
>Yet Scandinavia is the best place to live in the world while Congo is the worst

It's almost as if the inhabitants are at fault

>>3159973
But they did, humans had just not settled the Americas for anywhere near as long as Europe. Given time the Americas would have progressed farther, they would never have caught up to Europe due to the fact that Europeans settled way earlier than Americans though.

>>3159696

because they had been grazed for 10 thousand years longer

>>3160006
>humans had just not settled the Americas for anywhere near as long as Europe
isn't there a new study or something that says humans arrived to america like 100 000 years earlier than thought

>>3159207

Here's a hint, agricultural methods and technology matters a ton.

Farmers that have access to modern techniques, nodern crop strains, pesticides, irrigation, and fertilizers will grossly outperform farmers who don't. The productivity of farmland tripled during the green revolution. The difference between Zimbabwe and the rest of pre-60's Africa is that the Rhodesian farmers had the capital to buy fertilizer, insecticides, and high yield crops, as well as the knowledge to use those tools.

>>3160069
No

>>3159954
america's agricultural powerhouses are the midwest and central california

>>3160069
Neanderthals reached the Americas

>>3160049
Wrong.

>t. Jared Diamond

>>3159995

t. ibrahim al-baghdadi

>>3160069
They still don't know if they are human.

>>3160272
actually the jews in that area were a bunch of retarded fucks, they got wrecked by the aksumites for persecuting christians

File: 7.jpg (55KB, 957x621px) Image search: [Google]

55KB, 957x621px

>>3159157
Retard here

Are the white and red colors the bad ones? How do I read this map?

File: Origins of Domesticated Plants and Animals.png (342KB, 1447x1025px) Image search: [Google]

342KB, 1447x1025px

Another important consideration is what crops were available and domesticated
>pic related

>>3159954
>Wait... The green part of America is basically steppes while the orage one is very fertile.
Grass builds more soil than trees
Temperate prairie has the best soil possible

>The red spots in France are half forest and half fields, with a very good production per hectare.
When there is enough water, you can have poorer soil and still get a good production, especially with forest and fertilized fields.

>South Sweden is an agricultural paradize, why is it all red?
same as above, I'd guess it's red because of sand

>Morocco is less fertile than Spain
Yeah, no idea whats up with that

>>3159998
>Just ignore the fact that Nords never built any great (or even decent) civilizations or cities, and basically every political or technological wonder they have was invented elsewhere
>Just ignore the fact that the Congo was completely fucked-up (as with the rest of Africa) by European colonists

It's almost as if you're a fucking retard.

>>3160320
White and red are bad in terms of performance.
Read it like this: the further left a colour is, the less resilient a soil is.
If a colour is further down, that means the soil performs better.
Red, for example, has low performance, but high resilience.
Yellow, as another example, has high performance and low resilience.

>>3160332
Thanks

>>3160106
Rhodesia white farmers actually grew cash crops though (because cash crops bring in big money). Only with the sanctions did they jump to grains and other stuff they could grow in a sanctioned nation.

>>3159168
retard
>>3159185
wow, it's like you niggers are coordinated or something

>>3160405
Try again with some facts, eurangutan subhuman.

>>3160506
*yawn*

>>3160516
*raises paw*

>>3160179
America's largest farms are there, but start Google hearth and look at the rural east coast. The most intensive agriculture is there.
>>3160327
Africa have many large and powerful rivers. What was lacking?


>>3160006
So, they derped around for 50k years and not 80? Is that the excuse? What magical thing happen here?

>Just ignore the fact that Nords never built any great (or even decent) civilizations or citie
You are so ignorant it make me think you are an American. Snow niggers had the best naval technologies of their time and built a democratic, totally decentralized country with written laws and legends. They had towns.

And Congo was even more fucked before Leopold. Look at what it is now. Imagine the same with spears instead of AKs.

File: IMG_0220.jpg (406KB, 1314x860px) Image search: [Google]

406KB, 1314x860px

>>3160714
>Snow niggers had the best naval technologies of their time and built a democratic, totally decentralized country with written laws and legends. They had towns.
HAHAHAHAHAHA

>>3160714
Amerindians reached the beginning of the bronze age in less time than eurangutans did.

Amerindians had less advantages compared to them.

Try again with some facts, monkey.

>>3160714
>Africa have many large and powerful rivers. What was lacking?

Actually there aren't that many.

>>3160722
you cannot deny that longboats are completely dope and fucking Scandis colonized North America and Russia simultaneously.

>>3160722
Longships were pretty fucking advanced, as they could both traverse open seas and shallow rivers. They were also so light that the crew could carry it over land if neccessary and use it as a mobile shelter

>>3160895
Could you take three of them and make a comfy boat fort?

File: kon_map.jpg (38KB, 640x392px) Image search: [Google]

38KB, 640x392px

>>3160861
That's cool, can you explain the Russia colonization? I'm pretty interested.

>>3160924
The Rus were norsemen.

File: East_Slavic_tribes_peoples_8th_9th_century.jpg (430KB, 767x952px) Image search: [Google]

430KB, 767x952px

>>3160924
Not him but basically
>"vikings" liked to sail upriver with their longboats
>follow Volga and Dnieper
>capture Kiev
>make it "mother of rus"
>gain strenght and influence in the region

Based on this the early american civilizations should of bern a superpower.

File: 1366239205844.gif (410KB, 883x1164px) Image search: [Google]

410KB, 883x1164px

>>3159157
Because it would shatter the delusion that all populations of humans across the planet have equal cognitive performance.