They did, you just don't think about them because they are in North Africa, West Africa, and East Africa.. It's like saying South Americans never made civilization.
North Africa bears no relationship, civilizationally, culturally, and genetically to sub-Saharan Africa. Before the Arab invasion the people of North Africa were basically historically Mediterranean peoples (think Sardinians, Phoenicians, Greeks, Berbers, etc). The Arab invasion brought other genetic lines, and Islamic civilization has brought a persistent genetic flow from sub-Saharan Africa due to the slave trade.
There have been some notable sub-Saharan and Saharan civilizations. Most prominently in Ethiopia and the horn of Africa, but also some in Nigeria, an older civilization in Zimbabwe about which very little is known, etc.
It is true that sub-Saharan Africa is one of the few parts of the world in which no people ever invented a written language (once again, the closest being Ethiopian which was borrowed from Arabian scripts).
There have been some notable sub-Saharan and Saharan civilizations. Most prominently in Ethiopia and the horn of Africa, but also some in Nigeria, an older civilization in Zimbabwe about which very little is known, etc.
It's kind of sad that that history implies a couple civilizations eventually fell to the forces of degradation in their society.
And do you think that's because "they don't care", or do you think it might be one of the most aggressively inhospitable regions on earth for civilization because of poor soil quality, no cash crops, rampant malaria (preventing any significant population density near water), rivers that only flow days out of the year, no domestic animals, and mega-fauna in direct competition with human settlements.
When even Mediterranean civilizations were fully aware of sub-Saharan Africa as early as the Carthaginian Empire and never managed to properly colonize it until the 18the century, it speaks to a larger problem.
If all things were equal, it would not be possible to claim that a 6 month voyage across the Atlantic to Canada, Mexico, or Brazil, would be less difficult than settling the Ivory Coast. It's not equal, and Africa (and Australia) are uniquely shit at being able to be placid and prosperous enough to develop civilizations.
And do you think that's because "they don't care", or do you think it might be one of the most aggressively inhospitable regions on earth for civilization because of poor soil quality, no cash crops, rampant malaria (preventing any significant population density near water), rivers that only flow days out of the year, no domestic animals, and mega-fauna in direct competition with human settlements.
While some parts of your description individually describe some parts of Africa, Africa is huge and highly varied. Additionally, your argument goes counter to the most widely subscribed (and imho, supported) theories of history. Your description is not remotely accurate for most of the Africa.
You raise another very good example of how unique sub-Saharan peoples are. Sub-Saharan African peoples never domesticated any animals. We have dozens of examples of domestication across Europe, the Middle East, India, Asia, and even the Americas. Zero in Africa.
Where did the earliest civilizations arrive? Inhospitable places like Egypt, the arid areas of Mesopotamia, the arid Indus, etc. These were areas that were very hard to live in and required civilization to make a go of it. See, e.g., the "hydraulic empires" theory. Difficult climates across the globe require civilizations, social structures, hierarchies, and working together. That almost never happened in sub-Saharan Africa.
There are many factors for why sub-Saharan Africa is uniquely alone in the world in never developing a written language or any substantial civilization. It's interesting that if you compare to, e.g., North and South America, we do see many examples of complex civilizations in the Americas, examples of written language, etc., and those were all developed in isolation from the greater Afro-Euroasian world. Large parts of North America are basically a paradise for civilization building (e.g. the East Coast).
Malaria? Rome was a mosquito-infested malarial swamp...until the Romans built a sewage and drainage system in 600BC.
Spare me, the most widely subscribed theory of history is that Europeans made Africa poor and prevented them from developing by extracting their natural resource wealth through colonialism. It is entirely false and heavily supported by enormous efforts of academic bias, rhetorical warfare, and straight up making shit up.
As for Africa, yes, but that's the point, OP wants to talk about Sub-Saharan Africa, which is what my quote specifically refers to; not Egypt.
There are zero domesticatable species in Africa. Even Zebra and African Elephants have some utility because they are similar to mostly domesticatable animals like horses, donkeys, and Asian Elephants, but even modern technology finds it utterly impossible. Zebras may look like horses, but they aren't the same kind of horse that even a Mustang is.
Egypt, Mesopatamia, and the Indus valley were explicitly hospitable at the time of their development, and had extremely regular river flows which made civilization possible. Difficult climates do the exact opposite. If the worst climates developed civilization, we would see ancient mega structures in Northern Scotland, Scandanavia, Mongolia, and the Sahara itself would have long and thriving civilizations before the ancient Sumerians or Yamato.
And it is important that a civilization requires complex social structures organizing together, that is explicitly impossible in Sub-Saharan Africa. We can see how impossible it is because Nigera, for example, has dozens of completely unique languages (over 500 actively spoken languages in the country) and over 60 different ethnic groups. Why? Because each tribe was geographically isolated from one another by geography, disease, and competition for tens of thousands of years.
Rome wouldn't exist, with or without sewage and drainage, with Malaria being as prevalent and perpetual as it is in Africa. Malaria is one of the reasons modern Europeans couldn't sufficiently explore into the continent because there was no malaria treatment until well over a thousand years since the collapse of the Roman Empire.
East Africa: Ethiopia and Somalia(Kush and Sheba), yes
West Africa, no. no.. no... Trading enough gold and slaves to arabs ripping you off (They paid gold for salt pound for pound and paid out gold for a tiny fraction of the same weight in copper) so that you can build some mildly improved mudhuts does not make a civilization.
I mean technically they are a civilization now, to some extent, but not appreciably before the age of exploration.
North American civilizations existed. All North American tribal civilizations were subsumed by the American civilization and are now dependent on it for their existence as a people. The same can be said for Central and South American civilizations being dependent on European-Christian civilizations, despite the fact that they were significantly more advanced than the ones in North America.
What mattered to the proto-civilizations in those regions you marked was the profit to be made by 'kings' and 'lords'. Lacking the very concept of caring for one another and only suffering quietly as they were sold enmasse over the scale of almost three millennia is another reason why they never made it to a fully self-sustaining civilization.
Even small rural villages in east asia accomplished that, once the yoke of marxism was burnt down.
This is 100% fucking backwards. Profit motive for kings was not the basis of proto-civilizations. That's barely even a reasonable argument for Feudalism.
Most of them did get wiped out by the Bantus. See, that's the issue - without a steady supply of slaves to extort, the few 'african civilizations' that depend on profit for their rulers and not the well-being of their peoples tend to almost always collapse. Same thing with a majority african countries today. Without constant foreign aid, they die.
They did, you just don't think about them because they are in North Africa, West Africa, and East Africa.. It's like saying South Americans never made civilization.
North Africa bears no relationship, civilizationally, culturally, and genetically to sub-Saharan Africa. Before the Arab invasion the people of North Africa were basically historically Mediterranean peoples (think Sardinians, Phoenicians, Greeks, Berbers, etc). The Arab invasion brought other genetic lines, and Islamic civilization has brought a persistent genetic flow from sub-Saharan Africa due to the slave trade.
There have been some notable sub-Saharan and Saharan civilizations. Most prominently in Ethiopia and the horn of Africa, but also some in Nigeria, an older civilization in Zimbabwe about which very little is known, etc.
It is true that sub-Saharan Africa is one of the few parts of the world in which no people ever invented a written language (once again, the closest being Ethiopian which was borrowed from Arabian scripts).
It's kind of sad that that history implies a couple civilizations eventually fell to the forces of degradation in their society.
And do you think that's because "they don't care", or do you think it might be one of the most aggressively inhospitable regions on earth for civilization because of poor soil quality, no cash crops, rampant malaria (preventing any significant population density near water), rivers that only flow days out of the year, no domestic animals, and mega-fauna in direct competition with human settlements.
When even Mediterranean civilizations were fully aware of sub-Saharan Africa as early as the Carthaginian Empire and never managed to properly colonize it until the 18the century, it speaks to a larger problem.
If all things were equal, it would not be possible to claim that a 6 month voyage across the Atlantic to Canada, Mexico, or Brazil, would be less difficult than settling the Ivory Coast. It's not equal, and Africa (and Australia) are uniquely shit at being able to be placid and prosperous enough to develop civilizations.
While some parts of your description individually describe some parts of Africa, Africa is huge and highly varied. Additionally, your argument goes counter to the most widely subscribed (and imho, supported) theories of history. Your description is not remotely accurate for most of the Africa.
You raise another very good example of how unique sub-Saharan peoples are. Sub-Saharan African peoples never domesticated any animals. We have dozens of examples of domestication across Europe, the Middle East, India, Asia, and even the Americas. Zero in Africa.
Where did the earliest civilizations arrive? Inhospitable places like Egypt, the arid areas of Mesopotamia, the arid Indus, etc. These were areas that were very hard to live in and required civilization to make a go of it. See, e.g., the "hydraulic empires" theory. Difficult climates across the globe require civilizations, social structures, hierarchies, and working together. That almost never happened in sub-Saharan Africa.
There are many factors for why sub-Saharan Africa is uniquely alone in the world in never developing a written language or any substantial civilization. It's interesting that if you compare to, e.g., North and South America, we do see many examples of complex civilizations in the Americas, examples of written language, etc., and those were all developed in isolation from the greater Afro-Euroasian world. Large parts of North America are basically a paradise for civilization building (e.g. the East Coast).
Malaria? Rome was a mosquito-infested malarial swamp...until the Romans built a sewage and drainage system in 600BC.
Spare me, the most widely subscribed theory of history is that Europeans made Africa poor and prevented them from developing by extracting their natural resource wealth through colonialism. It is entirely false and heavily supported by enormous efforts of academic bias, rhetorical warfare, and straight up making shit up.
As for Africa, yes, but that's the point, OP wants to talk about Sub-Saharan Africa, which is what my quote specifically refers to; not Egypt.
There are zero domesticatable species in Africa. Even Zebra and African Elephants have some utility because they are similar to mostly domesticatable animals like horses, donkeys, and Asian Elephants, but even modern technology finds it utterly impossible. Zebras may look like horses, but they aren't the same kind of horse that even a Mustang is.
Egypt, Mesopatamia, and the Indus valley were explicitly hospitable at the time of their development, and had extremely regular river flows which made civilization possible. Difficult climates do the exact opposite. If the worst climates developed civilization, we would see ancient mega structures in Northern Scotland, Scandanavia, Mongolia, and the Sahara itself would have long and thriving civilizations before the ancient Sumerians or Yamato.
And it is important that a civilization requires complex social structures organizing together, that is explicitly impossible in Sub-Saharan Africa. We can see how impossible it is because Nigera, for example, has dozens of completely unique languages (over 500 actively spoken languages in the country) and over 60 different ethnic groups. Why? Because each tribe was geographically isolated from one another by geography, disease, and competition for tens of thousands of years.
Rome wouldn't exist, with or without sewage and drainage, with Malaria being as prevalent and perpetual as it is in Africa. Malaria is one of the reasons modern Europeans couldn't sufficiently explore into the continent because there was no malaria treatment until well over a thousand years since the collapse of the Roman Empire.
North Africa, yes
East Africa: Ethiopia and Somalia(Kush and Sheba), yes
West Africa, no. no.. no... Trading enough gold and slaves to arabs ripping you off (They paid gold for salt pound for pound and paid out gold for a tiny fraction of the same weight in copper) so that you can build some mildly improved mudhuts does not make a civilization.
I mean technically they are a civilization now, to some extent, but not appreciably before the age of exploration.
You can say it's not a civilization, but it still was (and it was an Islamic one for a period of time).
Again, even if we are arguing that it's not a civilization because it's primitive, that doesn't mean that "primitive civilizations" can't exist.
Primitive and completely dependent on more advanced civilizations for any of its civilized aspects
Those aren't different terms.
North American civilizations existed. All North American tribal civilizations were subsumed by the American civilization and are now dependent on it for their existence as a people. The same can be said for Central and South American civilizations being dependent on European-Christian civilizations, despite the fact that they were significantly more advanced than the ones in North America.
What mattered to the proto-civilizations in those regions you marked was the profit to be made by 'kings' and 'lords'. Lacking the very concept of caring for one another and only suffering quietly as they were sold enmasse over the scale of almost three millennia is another reason why they never made it to a fully self-sustaining civilization.
Even small rural villages in east asia accomplished that, once the yoke of marxism was burnt down.
This is 100% fucking backwards. Profit motive for kings was not the basis of proto-civilizations. That's barely even a reasonable argument for Feudalism.
Most of them did get wiped out by the Bantus. See, that's the issue - without a steady supply of slaves to extort, the few 'african civilizations' that depend on profit for their rulers and not the well-being of their peoples tend to almost always collapse. Same thing with a majority african countries today. Without constant foreign aid, they die.
That's not a quote from me.
Foreign Aid explicitly devastates foreign countries. Most governments don't operate on the well-being of their peoples.