None of these leftoid anti-White race traitors seem to be able to reconcile that in 100BC, the indigenous populations of the Americas were uncontacted. Sub-Saharan Africans were mostly uncontacted and any slavery at the time was Africans enslaving Africans and the slave trade was entirely limited to the Middle East.
And while the Greeks were building the Colossus of Rhodes, what were Africans doing? What were Indians doing? Nothing. They were an evolutionary dead end. This is over a thousand years before any of these claims of "stolen resources" and "genocide" and "slavery" could ever be used. Whites needed to invent transoceanic galleons before it was ever possible to do those things, meaning they already had infinitely surpassed the capabilities of any of these trash peoples. Then we're told that those galleons were the product of "stolen land" from a bunch of mindless savages who never once created a government.
No wonder the 1619 project is so sacred to them. It is literally central to their beliefs that world history only existed after the point where they could make these claims of persecution.
Romans built towering marble temples to Jupiter ar the same time that Africans were failing to even invent literacy.
We are not the same. It's not genocide when one species out-competes an inferior one. It's evolution.
And if we ever did carry out genocide, then why are there still mouthy ingrates alive to complain about it?
There’s a new theory that Africans “did all that” but since they had no writing it was all lost to history. Of course reading & writing is fundamental to civilization building so it’s easy to call bs on it. Fuck even the Aztecs & Incas had it which is why we remember them.
I think there's one in the Pharaonic Royal Line who's a Nubian, but given how stylized the art of that era is-- he'd be presented as black in murals by virtue of being from there alone. Plus, 1 in 4000 years hardly counts as a trend.
the indigenous populations of the Americas were uncontacted. Sub-Saharan Africans were mostly uncontacted ... And while the Greeks were building the Colossus of Rhodes, what were Africans doing? What were Indians doing? Nothing.
If you mean Indian as in people in the Americas, they were doing lots of stuff. Aztec pyramids, designs that could be seen from space, geometry that turns the wind into specific calls, mountain rope bridges with ropes as wide as a car, independently discovering zero, and so on.
Subcontinent India had tons of accomplishments and things to be proud of as well.
Both of these were once-great civilizations that had declined from glory. That's where their shame and resentment comes from. They know they could be better, but are currently failures.
The blacks on the other hand have never done anything useful ever. This is where their envy and hatred comes from. Yeah, the Super-Soaker is cool, but can you guys think of anything notable from black Africa? Things to be proud of as a civilization. As far as I can tell they didn't even carve Mufasa into a mountain face, and that just takes a chisel and some time.
I’m sorry, but let’s not pretend those societies actually did anything unique. We’re talking about civilizations that couldn’t even forge steel by the 15th century. Compared to other civilizations at the same time period the Indians were so laughably far behind it’s almost cruel. Chichen itza wasn’t built until around 450 AD.
Do you really care if you're decapitated by an obsidian blade or a steel one?
Europe borrowed a lot from the East, while the Americas were isolated. Of course they'd be "behind". If the Americas weren't behind overall it'd mean Europe were idiots. Imagine having access to Persian and Chinese technology and only being on par with peoples who had to invent everything themselves.
Do you really care if you're decapitated by an obsidian blade or a steel one?
We had GUNS by the time they were still using stone. These freaking people are only five hundred years removed from three thousand years of demon worship and child sacrifice.
The one and only successful civilizing of a non white people has been the Japanese, and that's because they were already mostly civilized by then anyway.
We don't use obsidian blades in anything except single-use surgical tools. Obsidian is garbage, it's brittle as all hell. An obsidian blade would be turned and broken by even the most basic steel armor. Meanwhile their steel sword would hold an edge the entire time you brought the foul primitives to heel.
You can't steal "resources" from someone that gives no value to it. Even if they did somehow figure out it could be useful, it's not like they would do anything with it.
Yeah this is like the 'stolen wealth' shit. Gold meant nothing to the animal tribes of Central America. It has no actual intrinsic value, it only has value in an economy that can ascribe and translate worth, and then turn that worth into some kind of labor.
Hold on, The Inca and Maya and Aztecs all loved gold. They had very good metallurgry, but very little accessible iron. They (The Inca, at the very least) made do with very good alloys of silver, copper, tin, gold etc. Their bronzes were phenomenal for the time. What is strange to me is that they did very little oceanic exploration, considering the abundance of suitable timber.
i remember some quote, paraphrased here about a european discovering diamonds in Africa, the quote mentions an african child kicking a massive diamond like a hackey-sack. They didnt see the value in it, it was just a rock to them.
Even after the European development in Africa for resources, they still didnt see the value. And now the Chinese are doing the same and facing the same trouble: locals who dont care.
PS: Watch Empire of Dust, its a good documentary about the Chinese resource extraction in Africa. It follows around a PM as he attempts to build a road using local labor from a mine site to a city. The locals just dont care.
I've taken to the opinion that leftists should get deported to third world shitholes and not be let back in. After all, if black people really wuz kangs and shiet, then they'll be fine, and totally not raped to death by a bunch of dindus.
And while the Greeks were building the Colossus of Rhodes, what were Africans doing? What were Indians doing? Nothing.
In that particular instance the Indian emperor Ashoka was building Amaravati Stupa at about the same time. Equally ostentatious and oversized, if not quite as technically impressive in the engineering because it's primarily a dome. I don't know of any comparable sub-saharan African monuments from that era, but if you ignore the kangz stuff and just go by continent and include Egypt, Libya, Morocco etc. there's plenty, although many are kind of entwined with ancient Greek/Roman culture, you can still say things like the sphinx and pyramids are distinctly their own.
It's funny because both black and white racialists are ignoring the rest of Africa, and treating Sub-Saharan Africa as the pinnacle of all African Civilizations.
Sub-Saharan Africa not having massive high-density cities and advanced civilizations makes sense considering the fact that Malaria kills off density, high-yield cash crops are hard to grow in those regions, they don't have many navigable waterways, and humans can be hunted by actual god damned predators.
If America is on Easy Mode; then Sub-Saharan Africa is set, by default, to Nigh-On-Impossible.
(a) they evolved natural resistance to malaria (sickle cells)
(b) malaria is less deadly than the diseases Europeans faced. The Renaissance happened after the black plague ravaged Europe.
high-yield cash crops are hard to grow
"high yield cash crops" don't just fall into your lap. They're created through artificial selection by farmers carefully and deliberately crossing lower-yield strains.
Other races did this. Wheat was created from, basically, grass. Rice too. And when you create a living thing through evolution, you by definition create it to prefer your own climate.
So other races put in the effort to create these crops, and now you're making an excuse for blacks - "dey wont gibs me no crops!"
All that said, the Bantu (arguably the most successful sub-saharan african race) actually did invent farming on their own, and that was instrumental to their success. As in most things, the difference between blacks and other races isn't one of kind (that is to say, it isn't that one had farming and the other did not) it's a difference of degree (other races just do it better).
they don't have many navigable waterways
Fair enough, but they still could have created civilizations along the waterways that they had. It's like if you have $100k and you waste it, and your excuse is, "well that other guy had a million" - that's true, but you still wasted what you had
humans can be hunted by actual god damned predators.
That's true everywhere that humans have ever lived. There used to be fucking lions in Europe. Why do you think so many kings have lions in their heraldry?
There are drawings of lions in the caves of Chauvet. Much later, the Greeks had lots of stories of lions because they still roamed asia minor.
...what most humans did, when they entered a new area, is hunt the mega-fauna too extinction. Europeans did it. Asians did it. Even the aboriginal australians did it 50k years ago!
So much of this is shockingly wrong. As in: absolute ahistorical nonsense. Where the hell did you get this crap?
(a) they evolved natural resistance to malaria (sickle cells)
Sickle Cell Anemia is a disease not a natural resistance. And no they didn't develop a natural resistance, they still die from it like everybody does. It isn't an immunity.
(b) malaria is less deadly than the diseases Europeans faced. The Renaissance happened after the black plague ravaged Europe.
Holy shit no. Not even close. Europe had been in contact with the coastline of Africa since at least the Carthaginians who brought back a fucking Gorilla to Carthage. In that time, any Europeans travelling more than basically 20 miles inland into Africa lead to their deaths from disease. It's called The Dark Continent not because of the people, but because it's utterly inaccessible to European civilizations. The Portuguese traders had the same problem, it's why they needed African kingdoms to actually get slaves. The Portugese had colonies in almost every continent and they never had the inability to survive exploring those continents like they did in Africa.
Once a rudimentary drug was invented in order to fight off the effects of Malaria, colonies finally began to take root in Africa, and the people themselves ended up having to biologically adapt to the disease (Afrikans aren't Belgian, they're African). Even during the slow expansion into Africa, it was constantly noted by European generals that the attrition rate due to disease was absolutely extreme, and they would regularly lose more troops from disease than anything else even close, and it was never as bad in any other continent.
Malaria has been the most deadly disease that Europeans have ever faced. The Bubonic Plague only wiped out 30% of Europe in each wave. Malaria wiped out everyone until primitive medicines could be invented. Even now you still need drugs to deal with the likelihood of Malaria if you go to Africa. There's a reason blood banks won't even accept blood donations from you if you've traveled to Africa within 5 years.
And again, as for Africans, the deadliness of Malaria didn't come in waves every couple decades like the Bubonic Plauge did in Europe. It's permanent. Every year. Every day.
"high yield cash crops" don't just fall into your lap. They're created through artificial selection by farmers carefully and deliberately crossing lower-yield strains.
For god sakes, again you're completely wrong. You still need a basic crop to even work with. Wheat isn't just some random grass. It's an extremely high protein edible grass. There's not that many of those. The staple crops are wheat, barley, rye, maze, and fish/rice. Literally none of those grow naturally in sub-saharan Africa, and would be eaten by Zebra if they did. Instead, wheat, barely, and rye all grow in Europe. Maze is basically the shittiest of all the staple crop because it's the hardest to work with, has to be beaten into a powder to even cook, and is effectively inedible otherwise. It also has very low protein.
The asians invented the rice paddy, that's a lot different. Heavy and reliable rains allow for rice paddies to actually help feed fish at the same time because rice has basically no protein, but the fish who do like have high concentrations of protein. Asia took millennia to develop this technique, and again, it just so happens that this can be done in the unique circumstances of Asia's tropical geography.
Sub-Saharan Africa has none of this. Humans were actively competing with other grazing animals. Wheat had to be imported into Africa because it doesn't naturally grow there, but they need it to live with even the paltry populations they currently have. The rains and soil are not that good for growing such temperate crops, especially since temperate regions go from total drought for most of the months out of the year, to heavy flooding for a few weeks, then back to drought.
No one was going to naturally build strong agriculture in Sub-Saharan Africa. You needed technology to get it.
Fair enough, but they still could have created civilizations along the waterways that they had. It's like if you have $100k and you waste it, and your excuse is, "well that other guy had a million" - that's true, but you still wasted what you had
No, they couldn't. Sub-Saharan Africa's waterways are absolute shit. Not only are they only navigable with even small boats for only a few weeks out of the year, but the have a ridiculous number of waterfalls and terrain challenges. The Left claims that European colonies building roads and rail lines were trying to "steal resources" from Africa, but the reason they spent most of their time on infrastructure building is because no navigable infrastructure existed naturally in Sub-Saharan Africa.
That's true everywhere that humans have ever lived. There used to be fucking lions in Europe. Why do you think so many kings have lions in their heraldry?
I erased part of this comment so I wouldn't be so insulting to you, but the shit you just said blew my fucking mind. They knew of lions. There wasn't any lions in England and France. The English also have heraldry of dragons and unicorns. Yet, for some reason, Birmingham isn't beset by magical ponies endlessly droning on about friendship.
In any case, eradicating mega fauna is still a hell of a task, considering how much mega fauna we're talking about. It's not just the predators, but the "prey" too. And yet still, we have to talk about the fact that Sub-Saharan Africa is still isolated, still doesn't have navigable waterways, still doesn't have cash crops, and still doesn't give immunity from Malaria to Africans. You don't build dense cities, because you can't support them, maintain them, or feed them.
You being ignorant doesn't mean my comment doesn't make sense.
Sub-Saharan Africa is one of the most temperate climates on the planet.
The Congo is fucking Temperate to you, is it? Why are you all like this? How do you know literally nothing about the places you hate.
Blacks not understanding agriculture and how to work the land does not = "It's hard to farm here". It's a HUGE distinction.
Correct, because it's not about blacks not understanding agriculture. They do. Agriculture has existed in Africa for many millennia. What they don't have is cash crops that can naturally survive in Sub-Saharan Africa's environmental conditions.
America has freezing cold winters in huge swaths of the country and deserts that will kill the population too. You think there were not animal predators in the US killing settlers and natives alike?
Not anywhere to the extent that such a thing takes place in Africa. There's a reason Mustangs basically exploded in North America as a horse population. Horses weren't being hunted by much larger predators. The biggest predators horses have in North America are humans. In Africa, Zebra evolved as horses to have massive camouflage patterns that exist in no other horse breed in the world, specifically because they hunted so aggressively by predators. They also happen to be extremely violent, aggressive, and paranoid as equines.
Europeans had all but eradicated the only real predators they had to compete with: wolves. I terrified the shit out of them when they came to North America, and again, it was basically all they had to deal with. Even bears don't actively hunt humans as prey.
Africa has to deal with not only predators that will hunt humans, and diseases that wipe out human concentrations, but also the prey species that will be happy to kill you too.
Jesus Christ those comments.
None of these leftoid anti-White race traitors seem to be able to reconcile that in 100BC, the indigenous populations of the Americas were uncontacted. Sub-Saharan Africans were mostly uncontacted and any slavery at the time was Africans enslaving Africans and the slave trade was entirely limited to the Middle East.
And while the Greeks were building the Colossus of Rhodes, what were Africans doing? What were Indians doing? Nothing. They were an evolutionary dead end. This is over a thousand years before any of these claims of "stolen resources" and "genocide" and "slavery" could ever be used. Whites needed to invent transoceanic galleons before it was ever possible to do those things, meaning they already had infinitely surpassed the capabilities of any of these trash peoples. Then we're told that those galleons were the product of "stolen land" from a bunch of mindless savages who never once created a government.
No wonder the 1619 project is so sacred to them. It is literally central to their beliefs that world history only existed after the point where they could make these claims of persecution.
Romans built towering marble temples to Jupiter ar the same time that Africans were failing to even invent literacy.
We are not the same. It's not genocide when one species out-competes an inferior one. It's evolution.
And if we ever did carry out genocide, then why are there still mouthy ingrates alive to complain about it?
There’s a new theory that Africans “did all that” but since they had no writing it was all lost to history. Of course reading & writing is fundamental to civilization building so it’s easy to call bs on it. Fuck even the Aztecs & Incas had it which is why we remember them.
They also claim Egyptian pharaohs were actually black as well.
I think there's one in the Pharaonic Royal Line who's a Nubian, but given how stylized the art of that era is-- he'd be presented as black in murals by virtue of being from there alone. Plus, 1 in 4000 years hardly counts as a trend.
Even the plural is a lie in "But muh Kangs!"
If you mean Indian as in people in the Americas, they were doing lots of stuff. Aztec pyramids, designs that could be seen from space, geometry that turns the wind into specific calls, mountain rope bridges with ropes as wide as a car, independently discovering zero, and so on. Subcontinent India had tons of accomplishments and things to be proud of as well.
Both of these were once-great civilizations that had declined from glory. That's where their shame and resentment comes from. They know they could be better, but are currently failures.
The blacks on the other hand have never done anything useful ever. This is where their envy and hatred comes from. Yeah, the Super-Soaker is cool, but can you guys think of anything notable from black Africa? Things to be proud of as a civilization. As far as I can tell they didn't even carve Mufasa into a mountain face, and that just takes a chisel and some time.
I’m sorry, but let’s not pretend those societies actually did anything unique. We’re talking about civilizations that couldn’t even forge steel by the 15th century. Compared to other civilizations at the same time period the Indians were so laughably far behind it’s almost cruel. Chichen itza wasn’t built until around 450 AD.
Do you really care if you're decapitated by an obsidian blade or a steel one?
Europe borrowed a lot from the East, while the Americas were isolated. Of course they'd be "behind". If the Americas weren't behind overall it'd mean Europe were idiots. Imagine having access to Persian and Chinese technology and only being on par with peoples who had to invent everything themselves.
We had GUNS by the time they were still using stone. These freaking people are only five hundred years removed from three thousand years of demon worship and child sacrifice.
The one and only successful civilizing of a non white people has been the Japanese, and that's because they were already mostly civilized by then anyway.
We don't use obsidian blades in anything except single-use surgical tools. Obsidian is garbage, it's brittle as all hell. An obsidian blade would be turned and broken by even the most basic steel armor. Meanwhile their steel sword would hold an edge the entire time you brought the foul primitives to heel.
Super soaker wasn't even the first air pressured water gun. http://www.sscentral.org/history/beginnings.html
I'd like to see an actual gun that shoots water. Like a 1 oz shot, 1" long cylinder of water, but launched at like 100 mph.
It would be far easier if you froze it first.
WE WUZ GALLEON BUILDERS N SHEEEIT.
You can't steal "resources" from someone that gives no value to it. Even if they did somehow figure out it could be useful, it's not like they would do anything with it.
Yeah this is like the 'stolen wealth' shit. Gold meant nothing to the animal tribes of Central America. It has no actual intrinsic value, it only has value in an economy that can ascribe and translate worth, and then turn that worth into some kind of labor.
Yep. There's a difference between being wealthy and simply having claim to a resource rich territory.
Hold on, The Inca and Maya and Aztecs all loved gold. They had very good metallurgry, but very little accessible iron. They (The Inca, at the very least) made do with very good alloys of silver, copper, tin, gold etc. Their bronzes were phenomenal for the time. What is strange to me is that they did very little oceanic exploration, considering the abundance of suitable timber.
i remember some quote, paraphrased here about a european discovering diamonds in Africa, the quote mentions an african child kicking a massive diamond like a hackey-sack. They didnt see the value in it, it was just a rock to them.
Even after the European development in Africa for resources, they still didnt see the value. And now the Chinese are doing the same and facing the same trouble: locals who dont care.
PS: Watch Empire of Dust, its a good documentary about the Chinese resource extraction in Africa. It follows around a PM as he attempts to build a road using local labor from a mine site to a city. The locals just dont care.
I've taken to the opinion that leftists should get deported to third world shitholes and not be let back in. After all, if black people really wuz kangs and shiet, then they'll be fine, and totally not raped to death by a bunch of dindus.
They only go to globalist hives, and never interact with the local people because the local people absolutely hate them more than we do.
In that particular instance the Indian emperor Ashoka was building Amaravati Stupa at about the same time. Equally ostentatious and oversized, if not quite as technically impressive in the engineering because it's primarily a dome. I don't know of any comparable sub-saharan African monuments from that era, but if you ignore the kangz stuff and just go by continent and include Egypt, Libya, Morocco etc. there's plenty, although many are kind of entwined with ancient Greek/Roman culture, you can still say things like the sphinx and pyramids are distinctly their own.
It's funny because both black and white racialists are ignoring the rest of Africa, and treating Sub-Saharan Africa as the pinnacle of all African Civilizations.
Sub-Saharan Africa not having massive high-density cities and advanced civilizations makes sense considering the fact that Malaria kills off density, high-yield cash crops are hard to grow in those regions, they don't have many navigable waterways, and humans can be hunted by actual god damned predators.
If America is on Easy Mode; then Sub-Saharan Africa is set, by default, to Nigh-On-Impossible.
(a) they evolved natural resistance to malaria (sickle cells)
(b) malaria is less deadly than the diseases Europeans faced. The Renaissance happened after the black plague ravaged Europe.
"high yield cash crops" don't just fall into your lap. They're created through artificial selection by farmers carefully and deliberately crossing lower-yield strains.
Other races did this. Wheat was created from, basically, grass. Rice too. And when you create a living thing through evolution, you by definition create it to prefer your own climate.
So other races put in the effort to create these crops, and now you're making an excuse for blacks - "dey wont gibs me no crops!"
All that said, the Bantu (arguably the most successful sub-saharan african race) actually did invent farming on their own, and that was instrumental to their success. As in most things, the difference between blacks and other races isn't one of kind (that is to say, it isn't that one had farming and the other did not) it's a difference of degree (other races just do it better).
Fair enough, but they still could have created civilizations along the waterways that they had. It's like if you have $100k and you waste it, and your excuse is, "well that other guy had a million" - that's true, but you still wasted what you had
That's true everywhere that humans have ever lived. There used to be fucking lions in Europe. Why do you think so many kings have lions in their heraldry?
There are drawings of lions in the caves of Chauvet. Much later, the Greeks had lots of stories of lions because they still roamed asia minor.
...what most humans did, when they entered a new area, is hunt the mega-fauna too extinction. Europeans did it. Asians did it. Even the aboriginal australians did it 50k years ago!
So again, this isn't a very good excuse.
Thousands of miles of coastline, from which not a single ship set sail.
So much of this is shockingly wrong. As in: absolute ahistorical nonsense. Where the hell did you get this crap?
Sickle Cell Anemia is a disease not a natural resistance. And no they didn't develop a natural resistance, they still die from it like everybody does. It isn't an immunity.
Holy shit no. Not even close. Europe had been in contact with the coastline of Africa since at least the Carthaginians who brought back a fucking Gorilla to Carthage. In that time, any Europeans travelling more than basically 20 miles inland into Africa lead to their deaths from disease. It's called The Dark Continent not because of the people, but because it's utterly inaccessible to European civilizations. The Portuguese traders had the same problem, it's why they needed African kingdoms to actually get slaves. The Portugese had colonies in almost every continent and they never had the inability to survive exploring those continents like they did in Africa.
Once a rudimentary drug was invented in order to fight off the effects of Malaria, colonies finally began to take root in Africa, and the people themselves ended up having to biologically adapt to the disease (Afrikans aren't Belgian, they're African). Even during the slow expansion into Africa, it was constantly noted by European generals that the attrition rate due to disease was absolutely extreme, and they would regularly lose more troops from disease than anything else even close, and it was never as bad in any other continent.
Malaria has been the most deadly disease that Europeans have ever faced. The Bubonic Plague only wiped out 30% of Europe in each wave. Malaria wiped out everyone until primitive medicines could be invented. Even now you still need drugs to deal with the likelihood of Malaria if you go to Africa. There's a reason blood banks won't even accept blood donations from you if you've traveled to Africa within 5 years.
And again, as for Africans, the deadliness of Malaria didn't come in waves every couple decades like the Bubonic Plauge did in Europe. It's permanent. Every year. Every day.
For god sakes, again you're completely wrong. You still need a basic crop to even work with. Wheat isn't just some random grass. It's an extremely high protein edible grass. There's not that many of those. The staple crops are wheat, barley, rye, maze, and fish/rice. Literally none of those grow naturally in sub-saharan Africa, and would be eaten by Zebra if they did. Instead, wheat, barely, and rye all grow in Europe. Maze is basically the shittiest of all the staple crop because it's the hardest to work with, has to be beaten into a powder to even cook, and is effectively inedible otherwise. It also has very low protein.
The asians invented the rice paddy, that's a lot different. Heavy and reliable rains allow for rice paddies to actually help feed fish at the same time because rice has basically no protein, but the fish who do like have high concentrations of protein. Asia took millennia to develop this technique, and again, it just so happens that this can be done in the unique circumstances of Asia's tropical geography.
Sub-Saharan Africa has none of this. Humans were actively competing with other grazing animals. Wheat had to be imported into Africa because it doesn't naturally grow there, but they need it to live with even the paltry populations they currently have. The rains and soil are not that good for growing such temperate crops, especially since temperate regions go from total drought for most of the months out of the year, to heavy flooding for a few weeks, then back to drought.
No one was going to naturally build strong agriculture in Sub-Saharan Africa. You needed technology to get it.
No, they couldn't. Sub-Saharan Africa's waterways are absolute shit. Not only are they only navigable with even small boats for only a few weeks out of the year, but the have a ridiculous number of waterfalls and terrain challenges. The Left claims that European colonies building roads and rail lines were trying to "steal resources" from Africa, but the reason they spent most of their time on infrastructure building is because no navigable infrastructure existed naturally in Sub-Saharan Africa.
I erased part of this comment so I wouldn't be so insulting to you, but the shit you just said blew my fucking mind. They knew of lions. There wasn't any lions in England and France. The English also have heraldry of dragons and unicorns. Yet, for some reason, Birmingham isn't beset by magical ponies endlessly droning on about friendship.
In any case, eradicating mega fauna is still a hell of a task, considering how much mega fauna we're talking about. It's not just the predators, but the "prey" too. And yet still, we have to talk about the fact that Sub-Saharan Africa is still isolated, still doesn't have navigable waterways, still doesn't have cash crops, and still doesn't give immunity from Malaria to Africans. You don't build dense cities, because you can't support them, maintain them, or feed them.
You being ignorant doesn't mean my comment doesn't make sense.
The Congo is fucking Temperate to you, is it? Why are you all like this? How do you know literally nothing about the places you hate.
Correct, because it's not about blacks not understanding agriculture. They do. Agriculture has existed in Africa for many millennia. What they don't have is cash crops that can naturally survive in Sub-Saharan Africa's environmental conditions.
Not anywhere to the extent that such a thing takes place in Africa. There's a reason Mustangs basically exploded in North America as a horse population. Horses weren't being hunted by much larger predators. The biggest predators horses have in North America are humans. In Africa, Zebra evolved as horses to have massive camouflage patterns that exist in no other horse breed in the world, specifically because they hunted so aggressively by predators. They also happen to be extremely violent, aggressive, and paranoid as equines.
Europeans had all but eradicated the only real predators they had to compete with: wolves. I terrified the shit out of them when they came to North America, and again, it was basically all they had to deal with. Even bears don't actively hunt humans as prey.
Africa has to deal with not only predators that will hunt humans, and diseases that wipe out human concentrations, but also the prey species that will be happy to kill you too.