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).
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.
Why do you think africans never made it to civilization? They never cared.
PS: Play classical music.
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).
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.