That's all it is, the differences between great civilizations and poor hunter-gatherers, the differences between white people and black, it all comes down to where on Earth you were born, and what sort of food you can gather or produce there. In places where you can grow grains that you can store up, there is time for invention, for hiring artisans, for technology. In places where you have to work every day hunting and gathering, there is little room for such specialized activities. Many white people on this board think that there is something special about white people that makes them better than blacks, or more intelligent, but this is false. It's hilarious actually, because the reason is simple, white people were able to oppress blacks since they had the resources to do so, having inherited the domesticated animals and crops from humans that migrated out of the fertile crescent after that region became too dry. It wasn't superiority, it was luck! Thanks to Jared Diamond, author of Guns, Germs and Steel for recognizing this. http://www.agron.iastate.edu/courses/agron342/diamondmistake.html
The currently accepted view of human origins, the "African Eve" theory, posits a beginning in Africa some 200,000 years ago, an exodus through the Middle East with an African/non-African split about 110,000 years ago, and a Caucasoid/Mongoloid split about 41,000 years ago. Evolutionary selection pressures in the hot savanna, where Negroids evolved, differ from pressures in the cold Arctic, where Mongoloids evolved (Stringer & Andrews, 1988). in my book Race, Evolution and Behavior (1995), I proposed that the farther north the populations migrated from Africa, the more they encountered the cognitively demanding problems of gathering and storing food, gaining shelter, making clothes, and raising children successfully during prolonged winters. As the original "out-of-Africa" populations evolved into present-day Caucasoids and Mongoloids, they developed larger brains, slower rates of maturation, and lower levels of sex hormone, and with these changes came reductions in sexual potency, aggressiveness, and impulsivity and increases in family stability, forward planning, self-control, rule-following, and longevity. http://www.lrainc.com/swtaboo/stalkers/jpr_rghrs.html
Don't vomit up that shit again. I just explained why. There were no native animals in africa that could be domesticated. With no domesticated animals, there could be no plow. Everything else progressed from this fact. When you have to hunt, gather, and work your fields by hand, there is no time to fart around stealing other people's wealth, and inventing shit. Plus, there is simple no need, especially if you are a nomad. It's impractical to have alot of stuff if you have to carry it everywhere. I dare you to dispute this.
No, there was no reason to expand into other areas unless there was some advantage to do so. In fact, the middle east at the time of human expansion into the area was fertile and wetter then it is now, and was home to most of the important domesticated animals, goats, sheep, and pigs. Europe was ideal for crops, and mongolia had expansive grasslands and more importantly-horses. Storing cereal grains is easy, and they last many years. Shelter is not a big deal, especially with wool for clothing.
Everyone knows what Europeans "accomplished". My point is that this had nothing to do with their genetic makeup, rather, it was due to a favorable climate, geography, and luck. Indeed, it takes considerable intelligence and cleverness to survive in a more hostile area.
Well, technically the African Elephant was domesticated before the time of Carthage. That knowledge was lost however. Weird breeds of cattle and goats are still herded over most of Africa and Egypt domesticated everything and its mother. But thats all nitpicking. Most of Africa is indeed a desolate and tempermental wasteland almost useless for the purposes of higher civilization.
Iceland, the only all-White nation in the world, has the world's highest literacy rate. 100%. It is an island of cooled volcanic magma, located Just south of the Arctic Circle. It has no coal, no fuel, no timber, no mineral wealth or natural resources, and no navigable rivers. 75% of the interior is uninhabitable and only about 1% of the land is arable. It is the youngest nation in Europe and one of the most isolated countries in the world. Nonetheless, Iceland is #2 in the world in life expectancy and has one of the world's highest standards of living, in terms of per capita income. It has tremendous medical facilities and a thriving publishing business. Virtually every family has a telephone. Upon graduation from high school, each Icelandic student has learned five languages.
Well how ever you and I believe it happened, you and I agree that whites are far more advanced then blacks.
God you're thick. Off the coast of Iceland is one of the world's most productive fishing spots, and Iceland is rich in natural geothermal energy. It's also a port between Europe and the Americas. No, I don't agree at all. Certain people that happened to be white due to the lack of sunlight at northern latitudes used the advantages of circumstance to invent things that black people never before needed. There is no appreciable difference in the mental capacity of blacks and whites. Why would you take credit for things you didn't create?
Throughout 6,000 years of recorded history, the Black African Negro has invented nothing. Not a written language, weaved cloth, a calendar, a plow, a road, a bridge, a railway, a ship, a system of measurement, or even the wheel. (Note: This is in reference to the pure-blooded Negro.) He is not known to have ever cultivated a single crop or domesticated a single animal for his own use (although many powerful and docile beasts abounded around him.) His only known means of transporting goods was on the top of his hard burry head. For shelter he never progressed beyond the common mud hut, the construction of which a beaver or muskrat is capable.
Spider, Did you even read your article? "Here’s one example of an indirect test: Are twentieth century hunter-gatherers really worse off than farmers? Scattered throughout the world, several dozen groups of so-called primitive people, like the Kalahari bushmen, continue to support themselves that way. It turns out that these people have plenty of leisure time, sleep a good deal, and work less hard than their farming neighbors. For instance, the average time devoted each week to obtaining food is only 12 to 19 hours for one group of Bushmen, 14 hours or less for the Hadza nomads of Tanzania. One Bushman, when asked why he hadn’t emulated neighboring tribes by adopting agriculture, replied, "Why should we, when there are so many mongongo nuts in the world?" And then you wrote this about the article:
You said that, but they lived in an inhospitable region filled with dangerous animals for tens of thousand of years, how do you explain their success? Name one powerful and docile beast native to Africa that could have been domesticated. What use is a calender of you know the seasons intimately? Of what use is a road if you have nowhere you need to go? ...
What's your point? It's a harsh environment, and they have an ancient, traditional, and successful way of life. As long as they all participate in hunting and gathering, they will survive. There is no room for paying people to create a magnificent house for you, for instance.
Time is just one aspect of it. Hunting and gathering can only contribute a limited amount of calories. I suggest the Bushmen have created a technology for living that is perfectly suited to their environment. Personally, I know that my lifestyle is not perfectly suited to my environment. In fact, it is destroying it rapidly.
Spider, you wrote: "In places where you can grow grains that you can store up, there is time for invention, for hiring artisans, for technology. In places where you have to work every day hunting and gathering, there is little room for such specialized activities". BUT the article you gave us says: "Are twentieth century hunter-gatherers really worse off than farmers? Scattered throughout the world, several dozen groups of so-called primitive people, like the Kalahari bushmen, continue to support themselves that way. It turns out that these people have plenty of leisure time, sleep a good deal, and work less hard than their farming neighbors".
Yes, but they cannot gather the kind of wealth that a farmer of grain is able to do. They cannot afford to have a separate class of craftsmen, barrelmakers, horsebreeders, ect... And they have such a climate that it might be suicidal to work all day in the sun.
Spider, you wrote: "In places where you can grow grains that you can store up, there is time for invention, for hiring artisans, for technology. In places where you have to work every day hunting and gathering, there is little room for such specialized activities". BUT the article you gave us says: "Are twentieth century hunter-gatherers really worse off than farmers? Scattered throughout the world, several dozen groups of so-called primitive people, like the Kalahari bushmen, continue to support themselves that way. It turns out that these people have plenty of leisure time, sleep a good deal, and work less hard than their farming neighbors".
You just said that, retard. I still say there is little room for such specialized activities, in spite of their leisure time. It's called conservation of energy. If they expended more energy, they would need more calories, which are unavailable in their environment. The invention of guns, for instance, could not happen under such circumstances, no matter how clever you were.
It turns out that these people have plenty of leisure time, sleep a good deal, and work less hard than their farming neighbors".