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.
Again, everything they had had already been done a millennia ago. They have an interesting history, but only because they had a prolonged pseudo Bronze Age.
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!
Amazingly, you've never discovered that African trade with India and China was a regular occurrence, you've never heard of Egypt, and you've never known that African people have been fishing since forever.
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.
Nope. Everything I've said is correct. You're the one who's wrong. Let's keep score, shall we?
Sickle Cell Anemia is a disease not a natural resistance.
I didn't say "sickle cell anemia" I said "sickle cells" - do you understand the difference? Sickle cells is an adaptation that reduces the mortality from malaria. In a region where malaria is endemic, sickle cells are a huge advantage. A little anemia is a small price to pay. (source)
So, I'm right. They developed resistance to the disease. That's one point for me. Your reply fails, so that's negative 1 point for you.
Malaria has been the most deadly disease that Europeans have ever faced.
How is mortality to Europeans at all relevant to this conversation?? Holy shit! You're way off track. Here, let me help you. You claimed that malaria prevented blacks from developing technology. I compared malaria's effect on blacks to the black plague's effect on whites.
That is the comparison being made. How deadly is malaria to blacks (who have some protection due to the sickle cell trait) vs. how deadly is the black plague to whites.
Here are two things that are irrelevant: (1) how deadly is the black plague to blacks (2) how deadly is malaria to whites
Once again, -1 points to you for raising an irrelevant objection.
Wheat isn't just some random grass.
I didn't say that wheat was "just some random grass" - I said that wheat was created by our ancestors through selective breeding. And what our ancestors started with is no poorer than what Africans have available to them.
The score is now 2 to -3
Sub-Saharan Africa's waterways are absolute shit.
Given your performance in this thread so far (literally everything up to this point has been irrelevant), I'm reticent to believe you here, but I actually don't know much about the geology so, I'll throw you a bone and grant you one point. The score is 2 to -2
There wasn't any lions in England and France.
I literally mentioned the name of the gave IN FUCKING FRANCE where our ancestors drew lions that they saw with their own two eyes.
The people who lived in those caves and drew those lions were at approximately the same state of development as must africans today. So what's different between these two groups? The presence of lions is not the difference.
The ancestors of the europeans killed off or tamed the megafauna, then developed a great civilization that flew to the moon. The ancestors of the first australian aborigines also killed off their megafauna, but then failed to develop a great civilization. Meanwhile, the africans did absolutely nothing.
Another point for me, and another point taken away from you for raising a faulty objection. Final score, me: 3, you: -4
Sickle cells is an adaptation that reduces the mortality from malaria.
Reduces, you're not immune from Malaria. It's still a massive killer disease in Africa.
How is mortality to Europeans at all relevant to this conversation?
You're the idiot that claimed that Malaria was one of the less deadly diseases that Europeans had faced. It's not. For Europeans, it's actually one of the worst.
I didn't say that wheat was "just some random grass" - I said that wheat was created by our ancestors through selective breeding. And what our ancestors started with is no poorer than what Africans have available to them.
And that's still wrong. Europe and the Middle East had access to three of the most useful cash crops imaginable: Wheat, barley, and rye. High protein and high carbohydrate edible crop grasses that aren't native outside those regions. They are particularly useful because they can be grown in huge swathes, allowing for massive amounts of edible food. Those crops are unique.
It was not created. They existed naturally and were cultivated into having higher yields over thousands of years. The most important point is that they existed naturally in those areas so that they could be cultivated in the first place. The rest of the world wasn't lucky enough to have that happen to them. The native Americans could never cultivate Tall Fescue enough to make it into an edible staple crop; that's not how plants work. You have to have something to start with, and nothing was better than having wheat, barley, and rye all at the same time. Nothing's even close.
I actually don't know much about the geology so, I'll throw you a bone and grant you one point.
Maybe you should go backwards and see if you can figure out why plants and disease are just as relevant as fucking geography, not geology.
How can you guys be this confident about shit you are this ignorant about.
I literally mentioned the name of the gave IN FUCKING FRANCE where our ancestors drew lions that they saw with their own two eyes.
Over 10,000 years before the heraldry you quoted existed, yes they saw it with their eyes. Meanwhile, Arabs and Persians forgot the names of the ruined cities they built within 200 years. By the time heraldry was made, the only reason that the French and English had pictures of lions is because the Romans brought lions to Rome and made artwork of them. The Celts don't have pictures of lions because no one in their entire civilization's history had ever encountered one.
The people who lived in those caves and drew those lions were at approximately the same state of development as must africans today.
Your arguments need to be based on reality, not ignorance, racial stereotypes, and memes. That's a poor country by the way. It's Nairobi, Kenya. Africa actually has cities, apparently you didn't know this either.
The ancestors of the first australian aborigines also killed off their megafauna, but then failed to develop a great civilization. Meanwhile, the africans did absolutely nothing.
It's one problem. Sub-Saharan Africa has all of them.
You're the idiot that claimed that Malaria was one of the less deadly diseases that Europeans had faced.
No, I didn’t. I said that Europeans had faced worse diseases than Africans. That is a comparison between how malaria affects Africans (not Europeans) and how the Black Plague affects Europeans
We really can’t continue this conversation until you successfully parse that sentence
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.
So in your mind, It is impossible to grow beans/corn/wheat etc. in an area where lush jungles and plants of every other kind seem to thrive?
Oh my god, jesus fucking christ.
You can't grow Kentucky Bluegrass in fucking jungles because of different soils, climate, water levels, soil biology, humidity, acidity/basity, and fucking heat. That doesn't even include the rest of the biology like native insects, bacteria, and fauna.
You literally don't know anything about plants let alone farming.
All these noble Kangs in Africa are just fate-stricken to live in the one lush, warm, wet area of the world where coincidentally NOTHING will grow. Except of course, All of the lush jungles, trees, plants etc.
You can't eat jungle trees you idiot.
Large human civilizations benefit from large, open prairie, high protein, high carbohydrate, cash crops to succeed.
I genuinely don't know how to communicate with someone as legit retarded as you.
If you had even a rudimentary knowledge of plants or weather, you might become smart enough to talk about the subject that you think proves your point.
JFC, this is as bad as that one idiot who thought that everyone who died in the Holocaust died in just Auschwitz. How are you all this fucking ignorant about shit your supposed to hate?
Our current international system of finance based on the full faith and credit of nation states, guaranteed by their progressive system of representative governance and progressive taxation of their respective citizenry.
If you google her, they've already taken away her teaching position. She will never receive a grant or get a paper published.
They might allow her to stay at the university if she's tenured, because they have an enormous endowment so they can afford it. But she is effectively cut off from the world of academia.
I’m happy to live in a western country. But yes, there are sadly a lot of non whites who can’t shut up about the evils of the west. Of course you can’t generalize a whole race of people but the fact the people hate the west is pretty clear
This attitude harkens back to the colorblind era or the 90s and early 00s. It’s a shame that it was all a ruse to defang white peoples in preparation for the current identity politics wars.
I get that but I still have that mentality. As a Christian I can’t just determine I dont want to associate based on race. I get that there is massive hatred towards whites and I speak out against it but so many young ppl have been brainwashed
... She literally didn't say "blacks" in this quote. "I was intentionally leaving out American blacks".
All that being said, that resentment, shame, and envy isn't coming from "outsized achievements". This is a stupid claim that's similar to "Islamic Terrorists hate us because they are jealous of our freedom."
The resentment, shame, and envy is being intentionally institutionalized into these demographics the same way that guilt is being intentionally institutionalized whites. The purpose is to capitalize on resentment as a mechanism to achieve political power, nothing more. There is no reason ambitious leftists wouldn't make the same arguments using different groups, and they in-fact have. They will continue to.
However the "outsized achievements" are used as one rationalization/justification for resentment, and in their arguments for more institutionalizing racism in the name of ending racism. It's a flavor of disparate impact theory. White people built a more successful civilization than blacks and indigenous groups, therefore it must be the result of White people oppressing those groups. And while nobody will ever word it this way, the ability to engage in an efficient global slave trade at the industrial scales it was done at in the Atlantic Triangle is an outsized achievement. (especially if you include Arabs in the "White people" group - they truly mastered the trade)
None of this is about resentment, shame, or envy. They hate us for 2 reasons, we interfered with their bullshit and we don't believe in their bullshit.
It's based on their 1300 religious book that tells them they are gods on earth, their accomplishments are the envy of the world, and all who do not worship as they do must die. Just like this crazy bitch.
I've been calling individuals niggers, because the individual decides their own participation in that lifestyle. Skin tone doesn't factor into it. My uncle is a nigger. He's mostly white. My cousin is a nigger. She's mostly white. I've grown tired of these human trash and wish them gone. But I don't condemn an entire race because of these worthless fucking pieces of shit.
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.
lol they weren't fighting Europeans clad in metal armor.
As a Caucasian I don't feel threatened at all by admitting Americans were also smart, creative, civilized people.
Again, everything they had had already been done a millennia ago. They have an interesting history, but only because they had a prolonged pseudo Bronze Age.
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.
There’s an old Dick Tracey comic about that.
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.
Amazingly, you've never discovered that African trade with India and China was a regular occurrence, you've never heard of Egypt, and you've never known that African people have been fishing since forever.
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.
Nope. Everything I've said is correct. You're the one who's wrong. Let's keep score, shall we?
I didn't say "sickle cell anemia" I said "sickle cells" - do you understand the difference? Sickle cells is an adaptation that reduces the mortality from malaria. In a region where malaria is endemic, sickle cells are a huge advantage. A little anemia is a small price to pay. (source)
So, I'm right. They developed resistance to the disease. That's one point for me. Your reply fails, so that's negative 1 point for you.
How is mortality to Europeans at all relevant to this conversation?? Holy shit! You're way off track. Here, let me help you. You claimed that malaria prevented blacks from developing technology. I compared malaria's effect on blacks to the black plague's effect on whites.
That is the comparison being made. How deadly is malaria to blacks (who have some protection due to the sickle cell trait) vs. how deadly is the black plague to whites.
Here are two things that are irrelevant: (1) how deadly is the black plague to blacks (2) how deadly is malaria to whites
Once again, -1 points to you for raising an irrelevant objection.
I didn't say that wheat was "just some random grass" - I said that wheat was created by our ancestors through selective breeding. And what our ancestors started with is no poorer than what Africans have available to them.
The score is now 2 to -3
Given your performance in this thread so far (literally everything up to this point has been irrelevant), I'm reticent to believe you here, but I actually don't know much about the geology so, I'll throw you a bone and grant you one point. The score is 2 to -2
I literally mentioned the name of the gave IN FUCKING FRANCE where our ancestors drew lions that they saw with their own two eyes.
The people who lived in those caves and drew those lions were at approximately the same state of development as must africans today. So what's different between these two groups? The presence of lions is not the difference.
The ancestors of the europeans killed off or tamed the megafauna, then developed a great civilization that flew to the moon. The ancestors of the first australian aborigines also killed off their megafauna, but then failed to develop a great civilization. Meanwhile, the africans did absolutely nothing.
Another point for me, and another point taken away from you for raising a faulty objection. Final score, me: 3, you: -4
Reduces, you're not immune from Malaria. It's still a massive killer disease in Africa.
You're the idiot that claimed that Malaria was one of the less deadly diseases that Europeans had faced. It's not. For Europeans, it's actually one of the worst.
And that's still wrong. Europe and the Middle East had access to three of the most useful cash crops imaginable: Wheat, barley, and rye. High protein and high carbohydrate edible crop grasses that aren't native outside those regions. They are particularly useful because they can be grown in huge swathes, allowing for massive amounts of edible food. Those crops are unique.
It was not created. They existed naturally and were cultivated into having higher yields over thousands of years. The most important point is that they existed naturally in those areas so that they could be cultivated in the first place. The rest of the world wasn't lucky enough to have that happen to them. The native Americans could never cultivate Tall Fescue enough to make it into an edible staple crop; that's not how plants work. You have to have something to start with, and nothing was better than having wheat, barley, and rye all at the same time. Nothing's even close.
Maybe you should go backwards and see if you can figure out why plants and disease are just as relevant as fucking geography, not geology.
How can you guys be this confident about shit you are this ignorant about.
Over 10,000 years before the heraldry you quoted existed, yes they saw it with their eyes. Meanwhile, Arabs and Persians forgot the names of the ruined cities they built within 200 years. By the time heraldry was made, the only reason that the French and English had pictures of lions is because the Romans brought lions to Rome and made artwork of them. The Celts don't have pictures of lions because no one in their entire civilization's history had ever encountered one.
I didn't know that caves came with 50 story buildings.
Your arguments need to be based on reality, not ignorance, racial stereotypes, and memes. That's a poor country by the way. It's Nairobi, Kenya. Africa actually has cities, apparently you didn't know this either.
It's one problem. Sub-Saharan Africa has all of them.
This is so sad. I literally feel bad for you
No, I didn’t. I said that Europeans had faced worse diseases than Africans. That is a comparison between how malaria affects Africans (not Europeans) and how the Black Plague affects Europeans
We really can’t continue this conversation until you successfully parse that sentence
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.
Oh my god, jesus fucking christ.
You can't grow Kentucky Bluegrass in fucking jungles because of different soils, climate, water levels, soil biology, humidity, acidity/basity, and fucking heat. That doesn't even include the rest of the biology like native insects, bacteria, and fauna.
You literally don't know anything about plants let alone farming.
You can't eat jungle trees you idiot.
Large human civilizations benefit from large, open prairie, high protein, high carbohydrate, cash crops to succeed.
If you had even a rudimentary knowledge of plants or weather, you might become smart enough to talk about the subject that you think proves your point.
JFC, this is as bad as that one idiot who thought that everyone who died in the Holocaust died in just Auschwitz. How are you all this fucking ignorant about shit your supposed to hate?
Holy fucking shit, based?!
I think you missed the "outsized achievements and contributions" part.
Oh my goodness, the professor of logic? Down at the university? Do you have a dog???
Well I'm not one of them gays if that's what you're asking!
Lol what in the fuck did Jews ever actually create? They literally couldn't even have a Jewish country until it was given to them.
Half the world venerates a Jewish holy book.
... which was written in defiance of them, starting a worldwide revolution.
I agree, they're very good at inciting revolt.
Our current international system of finance based on the full faith and credit of nation states, guaranteed by their progressive system of representative governance and progressive taxation of their respective citizenry.
This is skipping a ton of historical context.
The part where it was called "Palestine" for like 2000 years?
It was called Palestine when the jews were still living there, lol. The Kingdom of Judea was IN Palestine.
Things that are wrong aren’t based.
No. Why would that be based?
a lot less, I'd say.
Comment Reported for: Rule 16 - Identity Attacks
Comment Removed: Rule 16 - Identity Attacks
I'm not a professor, but this I knew for quite some time. What's new?
Somebody in academia is saying it, which is refreshing.
If you google her, they've already taken away her teaching position. She will never receive a grant or get a paper published.
They might allow her to stay at the university if she's tenured, because they have an enormous endowment so they can afford it. But she is effectively cut off from the world of academia.
I’m happy to live in a western country. But yes, there are sadly a lot of non whites who can’t shut up about the evils of the west. Of course you can’t generalize a whole race of people but the fact the people hate the west is pretty clear
I’m well aware of stats but I should’ve said I don’t make a judgement about someone until I get to know them.
This attitude harkens back to the colorblind era or the 90s and early 00s. It’s a shame that it was all a ruse to defang white peoples in preparation for the current identity politics wars.
I get that but I still have that mentality. As a Christian I can’t just determine I dont want to associate based on race. I get that there is massive hatred towards whites and I speak out against it but so many young ppl have been brainwashed
is there a single instance where the bible is saying we gotta all be smooshed together in one space? cuz im not seeing it
Not smooshed together in one space. I’m all for people associating with who they choose
She is right, and getting smeared all over the MSM.
Bullshit! WAKANDA FOREVAH! WE WUZ KANGS N SHEEEEIIIT!
And dogs, horses and cats were partners in creating Western civilization. The wogs are the coat-tail riders.
Well then "bipoc", time to git gud?
Where's the lie?
... She literally didn't say "blacks" in this quote. "I was intentionally leaving out American blacks".
All that being said, that resentment, shame, and envy isn't coming from "outsized achievements". This is a stupid claim that's similar to "Islamic Terrorists hate us because they are jealous of our freedom."
The resentment, shame, and envy is being intentionally institutionalized into these demographics the same way that guilt is being intentionally institutionalized whites. The purpose is to capitalize on resentment as a mechanism to achieve political power, nothing more. There is no reason ambitious leftists wouldn't make the same arguments using different groups, and they in-fact have. They will continue to.
However the "outsized achievements" are used as one rationalization/justification for resentment, and in their arguments for more institutionalizing racism in the name of ending racism. It's a flavor of disparate impact theory. White people built a more successful civilization than blacks and indigenous groups, therefore it must be the result of White people oppressing those groups. And while nobody will ever word it this way, the ability to engage in an efficient global slave trade at the industrial scales it was done at in the Atlantic Triangle is an outsized achievement. (especially if you include Arabs in the "White people" group - they truly mastered the trade)
Don’t forget the ship owners ;)
The Portuguese weren't going to corner that market. They were at war with the Ottomans.
Agreed.
Oh that's odd, American blacks are who her quote applies to the most out of all the non-Whites of the world.
Now tell us about Penis Envy. Go on, crazy lady, give us more of your delusional entertainment.
What's delusional about it?
...
Penis Envy isn't real?
I mean, GeneralBoobs is wrong about resentment, it's absolutely resentment-mongering by political actors. But Penis Envy is not a thing.
None of this is about resentment, shame, or envy. They hate us for 2 reasons, we interfered with their bullshit and we don't believe in their bullshit.
I mean you’re right about those things, but she’s also right about this.
their bullshits based on envy and resentment
It's based on their 1300 religious book that tells them they are gods on earth, their accomplishments are the envy of the world, and all who do not worship as they do must die. Just like this crazy bitch.
As for the blacks, I'm not going to generalize an entire race unless it's a joke. She clearly believes her racist bullshit.
I've seen you calling them "niggers" in a pretty vitriolic ways, but you draw the line here?
I've been calling individuals niggers, because the individual decides their own participation in that lifestyle. Skin tone doesn't factor into it. My uncle is a nigger. He's mostly white. My cousin is a nigger. She's mostly white. I've grown tired of these human trash and wish them gone. But I don't condemn an entire race because of these worthless fucking pieces of shit.
even the fellow blacks, especially the fellow blacks
Comment Reported for: Rule 16 - Identity Attacks
Comment Removed: Rule 16 - Identity Attacks
Your planet is awfully small.
Comment Reported for: Rule 16 - Identity Attacks
Comment Removed: Rule 16 - Identity Attacks
Comment Reported for: Rule 16 - Identity Attacks
Comment Removed: Rule 16 - Identity Attacks
How many fucking sockpuppets do you have?
you're telling me you rather vote for joepedo than [one of the three based negroes I can name]??
not voting is in itself a vote