Can we talk about anthropology? Specifically what's been

Humans are tribalistic
The more they fight the more advanced they become.
Africans didn't have the resources to keep up.
The zulu were advanced for africans due to war. Also they had not many mountains with high metal contents (great for war) the mountains they did habe were worshipped.
The climate was not optimal as well.

File: O848Mlb.jpg (535KB, 1873x2625px) Image search: [Google]

535KB, 1873x2625px

...Rueben?

>>37122607

so like isn't good they weren't just left in dirt-town like other 'original peoples' who are still living in dirt town to this day

>>37122741
They need to be advance naturally.
Have kings and shit before democracy, because they need discipline.
That is why warlords are so common in Africa.

>>37122271

There's actually a book about this called Guns, Germs and Steel which attempts to provide a broad theory on why certain places did better than others at being civilizations. The basic theory is "environmental determinism" and it goes like this; human civilizations arise where conditions make it possible for them to arise. For instance, civilizations would never arise in Australia where the living is harsh and deadly and there's not many good plants for farming, but civilization almost couldn't help but arise in the Fertile Crescent, a place that not only had lots of water for farming, but also had a great natural diversity of grains and access to easily domesticated animals for work, transport and eating. Really everything in civilization is rooted in escaping the hunter/gatherer lifestyle via dedicated agriculture, which provides a bedrock for distributed labor and everything else, but you can't get there if conditions aren't favorable.

As for your second question, hunter-gatherers meeting agriculturists is almost always a sad story for the hunter-gatherers because they always have smaller populations with less advanced technology and less capability to conduct focused wars; can't have a professional soldier without distributed labor. The story repeated over and over throughout the colonial period and history in general is that when agriculturists meet hunter-gatherers, the hunter-gatherers are genocided, enslaved and exploited, while their lands are taken for whatever resources they have. This was usually defended with the idea of "saving" the hunter-gatherers from their own barbarism, but it's pretty clear that these were might-makes-right scenarios. There's just one place I can think of where the hunter-gatherers have weathered the storm in some form, the Amazon, and that's only because the deep Amazon is hell on Earth for anyone aside from Amazonians. So there's still a few uncontacted tribes down there.

File: 1453500254384.jpg (772KB, 1045x3515px) Image search: [Google]

772KB, 1045x3515px

>>37122271
many africans are butt hurt about getting run over and fail to utilize or build on what they were given
progress is literally the white mans tool to them

>>37122898

so is it more slavery and jim crow that are oppressing the peoplez or is it more the origin and needing to catch up now that society is larely global

>>37123536

There's a ton of history involved in answering that really. I guess the cliff notes version would be that in America, slave descendants are in a unique situation. Chattel slavery is an incredibly destructive force on a group of people and the racism that justified the initial slavery has never faded completely from the minds of the white people who dominate America, so it's not just a matter of catching up, certain fundamental attitudes about race have to change before they can really change much for themselves.

Arguably though the whole thing does have its roots in the differing fates of certain areas of the Earth. The Europeans who showed up to colonize Africa were not apprised of environmental determinism or a terrible lot of scientific thinking of any kind, so they mostly ascribed the relative lack of civilization in Africa to a lack of intelligence or morality, or both. They assumed that you could build a farm one place just as easy as anywhere else and that humans could only become farmers; that is what the Bible says after all; so there was no explanation for it other than the people being different. Phrenology ensued. Those misapprehensions provided the root justifications for believing that Africans were less than human, which in turn provided the justification for holding them as slaves (although the real motive was economic), and once a giant institution was built on slavery a lot of inertia got attached to the underlying ideas, which continue to harm anyone descended from those slaves and even some people whose ancestors immigrated from Africa of their own free will in the past few decades.

>>37123748
the only sad part about slavery is that it ended at some point. Beyond that, I have no regrets.

>>37123847
Why would you have regrets or any investment in something you weren't involved in?

>>37122271
Its not just whites, there were/are pleanty of successful non white civilizations.
Subsaharan, abos and the like just never got a good enough edge over their environments or never got curious enough to explore new places/ideas. By now they unfortunately missed out on experiencing globalization for themselves and will never develope culture quite like their successful predecessors. American natives were caught just as they were starting to develope.

>>37122898
>(((Guns, Germs and Steel)))

>>37124011
agreed, and I read the book cover to cover, too. I don't get why normies idolize this book.

The problem is schools teach it as the be all and end all book disproving racism, when in reality it's very inconclusive, and doesn't offer any hard proof of its claims.

>>37124077
>I don't get why normies idolize this book.
Because it offers "proof" for completely environmental historical determinism. This way liberals can reassure themselves that the reason whites and blacks differ in achievement is really only due to geography.

>>37122607
Zulu were not advanced for Africans, they were one of the more primitive African kingdoms of the 19th century. All they had were brilliant leaders and the luck to genocide/get white people to genocide their enemies.

>>37124114
This is sadly true to some degree.

About 3 or 4 years ago, when I was still a liberal, I would genuinely spend like 2 hours each night trying to look up black scientific achievements to try and "prove" to myself that blacks and whites were intellectual equals.

I would get frustrated because the two groups seemed vastly unequal in scientific achievement, no matter how I looked at it.

Moreover, there were almost no important inventions made by blacks whatsoever, even after slavery and Jim Crow ended, or before colonization either.

Of course, in hindsight it all makes sense, but at the time I just kept looking because I knew that the two groups HAD to be equal in all ways.

>>37124077

Well we don't have a control Earth to test it against, so there's always going to be an element of theory to it. It still provides a better explanation for the general course of history than racism does and is consistent with everything we now know about the subject, whereas racism isn't much better than phrenology in this regard.

>>37124188
Go look at the population of sub-Saharan Africa pre-1900, add it to the population of blacks in the Caribbean, Brazil, the US, etc., and compare it to the European and Asian population. Then realize most of those blacks were living in shitty jungles or living in slavery by either white owners or people from their own continent owning them.

>>37124281
(cont)

And that right there would be your reason

>>37124260
>muh racism is pseudoscience meme

look, I get that racism doesn't explain everything on earth, but there is good evidence that people MAY have evolved differently to generate some of the different outcomes associated with each race.

All I'm saying is, the only reason why there's more evidence to environmental determinism is because psychologists look for/get funding to look for these problems.

Try being a psychologist saying you want to study if a certain pattern of genes causes lower intelligence among different races.

You'll probably be branded as evil, face huge roadblocks, and

if the random gene you selected wasn't playing a significant effect on intelligence, it will be assumed that you are wrong forever, and no future genes will be researched

>>37124281
still doesn't explain how they got into that mess, desu