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?
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.
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?
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.
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.