Common /his/ statements regarding Africa debunked

>Africans didn't domesticate any animals

No. We see prehistorically both the local "wild" cow and a Sahara sheep penned and raised. The former was absorbed with incoming cowherds from Eurasia and the later ended at the beginning of the dry period that occurred in the "Neolithic" Subpluvial

https://books.google.com/books?id=dwK5CwAAQBAJ&pg=PA220&lpg=PA220&dq=barbary+sheep+sahara+penned&source=bl&ots=CEblTo6pW1&sig=NRUy-dzbWYeZYUdFOx111tRMHXQ&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwjZjP3rvd3VAhUmrVQKHf1DBEgQ6AEIaDAN#v=onepage&q&f=false

>What we may be witnessing in fact are two or more centres of morphological domestication occurring, a phenomenon which frankly should not be surprising. >Perhaps as part of re-evaluating our epistemological and theoretical approaches to early cattle domestication in North-East Africa, we should also consider discontinuing the antiquated use of imported terms such as Neolithic (Gatto, 2011; Wengrow 2006) and instead continue developing appropriate regionalised archaeolological traditions (cf. Garcea, 2004). This is a wake-up call for North-East Africanists more broadly to better critically engage with the trends, methods and theories being developed elsewhere both on the African continent and elsewhere, as many who are fauna and faunal specialists already do

Mind you there is also the donkey and a native subspecies of pig was also domesticated.

Though most of Central Africa had diseases that inhibited their dispersal unless lands were clear cut and regularly burned.

(For the pig)
The History of Pigs in Africa:
The origins and development of African livestock. Archaeology, genetics, linguistics and ethnography. (PDF)

>African farmers were lazy, they didn't take advantage of the land

No.

>In Africa, however, the need for scheduled consumption shaped the development of food production.

>African cattle were domesticated during the tenth millennium BP by delayed-
return Saharan hunter-gatherers in unstable, marginal environments where
predictable access to resources was a more significant problem than absolute
abundance. Pastoralism spread patchily across the continent according to re-
gional variations in the relative predictability of herding versus hunting and gathering. Domestication of African plants was late (after 4000 BP) because
of the high mobility of herders, and risk associated with cultivation in arid
environments. Renewed attention to predictability may contribute to under-
standing the circumstances that led to domestication in other regions of the
world.

>Some African patterns, such as the use of small-seeded crops, patchy adoption of food production, and continuation of hunter-gatherer societies,
resemble those of eastern North America. Others, such as domestication of animals before plants, may be sim-
ilar to Andean patterns. African data also reinforce some commonalities noted for many loci of domestication.

>Arid conditions following the end of the Pleistocene are often thought to have catalyzed subsistence change (Bar-Yosef and Belfer-Cohen, 1989; Harris, 1996b; McCorriston and Hole, 1991; Moore and Hillman, 1992; Piperno and Pearsall, 1998). Finally, the African data sup-
port Harris’ contention that pristine domestication processes are rare, and
require unusual combinations of biological and cultural circumstances.

We argue that concerns about predictable availability of
resources, rather than increased yield, catalyzed domestication in Africa,
and suggest that renewed attention to predictability may contribute to understanding the circumstances that led to domestication in other regions of the world

(Cattle Before Crops PDF also free)

>>3255065
Whoops sorry about that

>>3255073
>when you mess up your copypasting
Copypasting doesn't constitute an argument, nigger.

I can keep going if folks want to give common retorts regarding the development of African society.

>>3255081
It's called citing your sources.

>>3255085
No, citing sources is writing up your own argument and copying the links where you derived them from. It's not obnoxiously spamming the board with posts prepared beforehand.

>>3255091
First and second posts include written retorts followed by source information.

Third post reiterates the the conditions that followed low soil fertility, rainfall and African response to said barriers I mentioned.

Given the 2,000 character limit I am in fact following up with source materials for my points however terse they may be.

>>3255054
>>This study shows that continent-wise 55 % of land area in Africa is unsuitable for agriculture
Only 10-11% of the world area is suitable for agriculture(arable land). 45% of Africa being suitable for agriculture is therefor four times that of the world average.


>No. Southeast Asian is endowed by volcanic and alluvial soils with greater degrees of rain. Java one of the great examples of human density has rich soils thanks to a series of "recently" dormant and active volcanos. Something not found in most of Africa.
The natives of other areas of the planet found a way even with extremely poor soil like in the South American jungles.


Juts skimmed quickly, pretty sure you're also integrating North Africa into Sub-saharan Africa which you seem to concentrate on but forgot to make any distinction.

what is this full court press with the africa threads this week

>>3255406
Not to forget that a big chunk of that a big chunk of that land is the Sahara desert.

Everything sub saharan is savage land, everything on top of it is sandnigger land.
But north africa > the rest.

been there. Africa is a clusterfuck of overgrown black babies, missing education, victimhood and still tribal warfare and witch doctor shit.

Its amazing to see what giant clusterfuck africa actually is. Beautiful as all hell but man did we and they themselves fuck up the society.
The black for not caring about anything whites build and practically taught them, they managed to neglect and forget it all real quick.
the whites settlers /colonizers for not trainig the blacks enough and basically giving on none of the profit.

But hey, humans are shit anyways. what else to expect.

>>3255406
The degree of fertility varies. As the study itself state rainfed subsistence level agriculture is viable but also 1. The land is not equally distributed 2. Most of said land is already under cultivation 3. Most land that's not in cultivation is minimally worthwhile to farm 4. A significant portion is protected land for environmental purposes 5. Most of this viable land is a result of introducing crops that weren't native to Africa

On that last part most of africa's population explosions occurred with the introduction of cassava and corn, the carrying capacity of land before than was much smaller.

This of course is also talking about lands that can actively be utilized with high input (oil, farm tractors, irrigation infrastructure, improved seed, etc....) That isn't possible for most farming people.

You also have cheap imported broken rice from regions fo Southeast Asian that have significantly higher yields that can't be completed against.

A number of factors but it better explains the previous and current issues.
>>3255410
I have not a single clue. It's been the most I've seen on this board
>>3255487
So I'll correct this all tomorrow but most of this can be tackled bit by bit

>>3255054
>total land area of Africa: 11.73 million mi
>Sahara desert :3.552 million mi

The Sahara desert is about 33 percent of the total land mass of Africa. This 3/5th of the land not usable for agriculture is in a lump together. That does make that " continent-wise 55 % of land area in Africa is unsuitable for agriculture" mean a lot less then it would otherwise. Also...

>being subject to slash and burn agriculture.

That shit cause long term damage to the quality of soils. My understanding of the matter that slash and burn agriculture had a strong up term in use in the post colonial period. Basically a lot of people feeling developed areas do to unsafe conditions and trying to survive via subsistence agriculture. Thus" Africa WAS filled with lush lands" is not a wrong statement.

Expect this thread to be deleted. Only posts shitting on Africa are allowed.

>>3255054
>Common /his/ statements regarding Africa debunked
Look we know this shit already, it's not us you have to convince. It's /pol/ that you have to convince

>>3255899
Read above link. It's referring to Sub-Saharan Africa but also their idea of land potential includes every amenity afforded to farmers in say China or the west (fertilizer, tractors, irrigation etc....)

It's silly in my mind but that's why I mentioned the 16% that's already being actively used by the continent's population.

No slash and burn is actually very good for forests, looks up "edge effects". The issue is shorter durations between fallow and fire. What was once every 20 years of say a three year growing cycle has been come an 5 year growing cycle with only a couple years in between or constant cultivation even. This come from higher populations and lower available land to poor.

People also forget there are indeed cashcrop and export markets in prime land owned by the state or elite.

Slash and burn has been redeemed in research a lot the past 30 years.

>>3255410
Pretty sure it's the same anon that makes them everyday, with the same pics and similar phrases to bait replies. It's sad as fuck.