How did Europeans conquer Africa?

[Deleted member 9090]

How does this even have to do with my argument.

You came out saying all Africans were living hunter gatherer lifestyles lol. I just pointed out, that it's bullshit.

IQ is very important for this, and actually to the whole thread, as it can explain in one argument why africa is backwards and was colonized so easily.

 

[Deleted member 9090]

i have been to africa multiple times myself, mostly zimbabwe and every time we spent some time with locals you could immediately notice how different they were. USA people would know this as well as they have first hand experience with them as well jfl.

 

[Deleted member 6273]

no of course they arent hunter gatherers anymore, but they remained way back in the stone age when other civilizations were way more advanced. i admit saying they were all hunter gathers is a bit of a stretch but you should have known what i meant, africans being backwards (still are). also most of african tech is from outside of africa, actually almost everything lmao.

i used the germans domesticating zebras as an example for that its possible and africans just never put the work in to create their own domesticated horses.

There were indigenous domesticated cattle lol.

African Indigenous Cattle: Unique Genetic Resources in a Rapidly Changing World

At least 150 indigenous African cattle breeds have been named, but the majority of African cattle populations remain largely uncharacterized. As cattle breeds and populations in Africa adapted to various local environmental conditions, they acquired unique ...

www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov

Plus Africa wasn't attached to the Eurasian belt directly.

Nordic groups were similar but to a lesser degree. MENA and India have much more ANCIENT scientific and sociocultural influence on the world compared to Nordics despite being nearly 20iq points lower on average.

 

[goat2x]

Lower iq

 

[Deleted member 6273]

i have been to africa multiple times myself, mostly zimbabwe and every time we spent some time with locals you could immediately notice how different they were. USA people would know this as well as they have first hand experience with them as well jfl.

Locals in those countries barely have more than 5 years of education what do you expect lol.

 

[Deleted member 6273]

IQ is very important for this, and actually to the whole thread, as it can explain in one argument why africa is backwards and was colonized so easily.

Ancient India and MENA lol. 80iq averages btw sub 80 according to Murray.

 

[Deleted member 9090]

There were indigenous domesticated cattle lol.

African Indigenous Cattle: Unique Genetic Resources in a Rapidly Changing World

At least 150 indigenous African cattle breeds have been named, but the majority of African cattle populations remain largely uncharacterized. As cattle breeds and populations in Africa adapted to various local environmental conditions, they acquired unique ...

www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov

Plus Africa wasn't attached to the Eurasian belt directly.

Nordic groups were similar but to a lesser degree. MENA and India have much more ANCIENT scientific and sociocultural influence on the world compared to Nordics despite being nearly 20iq points lower on average.

from your own article:

'' showing that the diversity of African mitochondrial DNA is largely embedded within the mitochondrial DNA diversity of Near East cattle, support that the maternal ancestor of African domestic cattle may have originate from the same center of cattle domestication and/or auroch populations than the European taurine, in the Fertile Crescent. ''

they are from outside of africa jfl. do you even read your own articles bruh

what do you mean with this?
''Nordic groups were similar but to a lesser degree. MENA and India have much more ANCIENT scientific and sociocultural influence on the world compared to Nordics despite being nearly 20iq points lower on average. ''

 

[Deleted member 9090]

Locals in those countries barely have more than 5 years of education what do you expect lol.

thats not what im talking about. most education only improves crystal intelligence. high IQ people will always be smart doesnt matter their education. what i meant is that you can immediately notice that africans are of lower intelligence jfl.

 

[Deleted member 3323]

Their societies didn't put an emphasis on war and education therefore they didn't expand enough.

 

[Deleted member 9090]

Ancient India and MENA lol. 80iq averages btw sub 80 according to Murray.

uh yeah? a lot of indian history is made after the aryan invasion (im not taking away from their acomplishments of course).

yes those areas are low IQ but a lot of history form those regions is made after invasions from the aryan steppe lmao.

you can see those same countries still struggling with their local populations in these modern times. thats why europe and asia had so much potential; their IQs. this is why china is booming and colonizing africa jfl.

 

[Deleted member 9090]

Their societies didn't put an emphasis on war and education therefore they didn't expand enough.

no its literally because they were low IQ

 

[Deleted member 3323]

no its literally because they were low IQ

Reminder Europe was just like Africa up until the meds came in and civilized them.

 

[Deleted member 9090]

before you laugh at me, what i mean is that the people living in MENA arent the same people as their ancestors (assyrians etc)

uh yeah? a lot of indian history is made after the aryan invasion (im not taking away from their acomplishments of course).

yes those areas are low IQ but a lot of history form those regions is made after invasions from the aryan steppe lmao.

you can see those same countries still struggling with their local populations in these modern times. thats why europe and asia had so much potential; their IQs. this is why china is booming and colonizing africa jfl.

 

[Deleted member 9090]

Reminder Europe was just like Africa up until the meds came in and civilized them.

jfl if you think the meds had different DNA than the northern europeans

 

[6’1cel]

Different tribes spread across all of Africa who fought against each other and sold each other out. Africa is not some one united continent.

neither was europe

 

[Deleted member 3323]

jfl if you think the meds had different DNA than the northern europeans

They did though. They're actually closer to Africa than Europe. That explains why so many meds look Arab looking. Anyways, Europe was just uncivilized and tribal-like Africa before Christianity and romanization came in. Especially Ireland and Scotland.

 

[6’1cel]

View attachment 815120

because whites are smarter and stronger

 

[Deleted member 9090]

They did though. They're actually closer to Africa than Europe. That explains why so many meds look Arab looking. Anyways, Europe was just uncivilized and tribal-like Africa before Christianity and romanization came in. Especially Ireland and Scotland.

not true though but i get what you mean with that. eventually it doesnt even matter if it were the case or notcause IQ is the number 1 limiting factor for civilizations so even if because of constant war europe was held back, it was only a matter of time before their potential would have been used to create the world as we all know it

 

[Deleted member 6273]

from your own article:

'' showing that the diversity of African mitochondrial DNA is largely embedded within the mitochondrial DNA diversity of Near East cattle, support that the maternal ancestor of African domestic cattle may have originate from the same center of cattle domestication and/or auroch populations than the European taurine, in the Fertile Crescent. ''

they are from outside of africa jfl. do you even read your own articles bruh

what do you mean with this?
''Nordic groups were similar but to a lesser degree. MENA and India have much more ANCIENT scientific and sociocultural influence on the world compared to Nordics despite being nearly 20iq points lower on average. ''

Ancient India and MENA had much more advanced societies than ancient Nordic countries and had a much larger scientific presence despite being 20 iq points lower allegedly.

Most cattle including European cattle came from the fertile crescent or have ancestry from there. My point is that those cattle were breeded to fit the ecological niche and are unique to Africa lol.

 

[Deleted member 9090]

Ancient India and MENA had much more advanced societies than ancient Nordic countries and had a much larger scientific presence despite being 20 iq points lower allegedly.

Most cattle including European cattle came from the fertile crescent or have ancestry from there. My point is that those cattle were breeded to fit the ecological niche and are unique to Africa lol.

well actually no, most of those ''advances'' are pretty insignificant compared to what europeans have invented, doesnt matter the time line as india, africa and other low IQ civs were eventually limited by their IQ. this is why asia and europe are and have so much more, they had the potential from the beginning.

well if that was your point, you shouldve been a little bit clearer about it. because i agree with that. but it didnt debunk my point of africans not discovering domestication of animals, it was brought there to them. just like every other technology ever. ever. ever.

tldr: IQ is the number 1 factor for determining a succseful society and since africa and india and MENA are low IQ they are backwards in this time where intelligence is far more important then before in ancient times.

keep coping africanbro idc you will never match european excellence

 

[Deleted member 9090]

Their societies didn't put an emphasis on war and education therefore they didn't expand enough.

btw african societies were fucking brutal just like europeans were. just look at the zulus

 

[Deleted member 3323]

not true though but i get what you mean with that. eventually it doesnt even matter if it were the case or notcause IQ is the number 1 limiting factor for civilizations so even if because of constant war europe was held back, it was only a matter of time before their potential would have been used to create the world as we all know it

Europe was only able to have a powerful millitary because they traded with China for gunpowder. Their IQs were only possible due to their societies and a little bit of their environment Ancient greece produced so many philosophers and mathematicians because of the emphasis on education in Athens. Every great thinker had an education. Without an education you would have almost zero high IQ individuals or a strong society.

Look at China, it wasnt always a superpower. Most of the country was illiterate and low IQ up until the communist party upped literacy rates through education. now the average IQ is 90-100+ in developed parts of the coutnry.

 

[Deleted member 6273]

thats not what im talking about. most education only improves crystal intelligence. high IQ people will always be smart doesnt matter their education. what i meant is that you can immediately notice that africans are of lower intelligence jfl.

Then why do generations get smarter due to the Flynn effect lol it matters. Someone who would score genius levels on a 1900iq tests would register as normal now.

 

[curryslayerordeath]

uh yeah? a lot of indian history is made after the aryan invasion (im not taking away from their acomplishments of course).

yes those areas are low IQ but a lot of history form those regions is made after invasions from the aryan steppe lmao.

you can see those same countries still struggling with their local populations in these modern times. thats why europe and asia had so much potential; their IQs. this is why china is booming and colonizing africa jfl.

doesnt rly mean anything though, those 'aryan invasions' arent the same as most europeans, a lot of various groups within south asia have 70-95+% dna comprised of that population; do they look remotely european?

i think the indian subcontinents development isnt rly represented by any average metrics. until very recent times, various methods of segregation (caste system) split the population completely, since most of the laborers were 'lower caste' and less intelligent but more directly useful to society, they proliferated in size much more (so the avg is kinda distorted).

 

[Deleted member 6273]

well actually no, most of those ''advances'' are pretty insignificant compared to what europeans have invented, doesnt matter the time line as india, africa and other low IQ civs were eventually limited by their IQ. this is why asia and europe are and have so much more, they had the potential from the beginning.

well if that was your point, you shouldve been a little bit clearer about it. because i agree with that. but it didnt debunk my point of africans not discovering domestication of animals, it was brought there to them. just like every other technology ever. ever. ever.

tldr: IQ is the number 1 factor for determining a succseful society and since africa and india and MENA are low IQ they are backwards in this time where intelligence is far more important then before in ancient times.

keep coping africanbro idc you will never match european excellence

Nice switch from Nordic to European lol. Ancient MENA and India was more advanced than ancient Nordic societies lol. Infrastructurally, technologically and scientifically despite being 20 iq points lower.

 

[Deleted member 7697]

Europeans are Lucky Africans didn't have Horses otherwise while world would be mullatoes by now lmao

 

[Deleted member 2597]

Africa's climate meant the people didn't need to emphasise hard core survival and hunt for tools to acquire more food etc so they were low cortisol and chill and didn't really care about expanding.

 

[Jagged0]

View attachment 815120

Machine Guns, and large industrialized empires that ruled over almost the entire world but I'm pretty sure you're not looking for an answer for the historical or geographical reasons only an artificial reason to fluent superiority or mock a group of inferior people in your mind.