Did Kokuyus, Zulus or Bantues had wheels when contacted? Please, stop the denial show.
You said: “both lacked the wheel before the Europeans came” which is factually incorrect. The only one in de-Nile is you.
Oh, Omar.
Is it a sore point with you that none of the great Native American civilizations had the wheel? It doesn’t make them any less great. And nobody here besides our resident racialists looks down on Latinos.
I am not. I have no problem with the idea that there are tribal societies in Africa. I have noted some of them, myself. There are also triabl societies in many other parts of the world. What I noted that there are multiple parts of your posting in this thread that suggest trolling, including, but hardly limited to, the phrasing of your rather stupid comment that employed the words “tribal” and “Tarzan.”
What you were then shown–and have determinedly refused to acknowledge–is that the “disadvantages” were not equal, the remedies were not equal, (and cannot be fairly compared due to enormous differences in scale), and that the results are, at best ambiguous. You do not have any requirement beyond sense to be persuaded by the information provided you, but when you continue to repeat the same assertions without providing any evidence for your position, you provide a suggestion that you are trolling.
Do not try to change what I have posted by quoting it incompletely and then responding to what I have not posted.
You are free to continue your argument, but I strongly urge you to actually pay attention to the evidence against you and to respond to that.
[ /Modding ]
@Belowjob2.0
Indeed. Nobody denies Amerindian civilizations lacked the wheel. The wheel was brough by Europeans together with the wheeled machinery (clocks, for example, and cranes)
I would never exagerate what our natives had before the European arrived.
Everybody knows here a mule is better than a llama, and riding a horse is better than walking.
We know Europeans brought rice, cheese, wine, beer and a thousand of other products.
We know Europeans brought writing and modern math.
We know Europeans had better ships than anything invented in the Americas.
We know Europeans changed some brutal customs in the region, such as human sacrifices.
We know Europeans unified the region spreading theirs language, transforming it from a Babelian cacophony to something unified. Remember that North American Indians had to resort to sign language to understand each other!!
We don’t venerate Europeans, and know theirs crimes, but it is absurd to change history to fullfill our desires.
Mod. Can you imagine a more disadvantaged people to integrate to the modern world than the indigenous people of New Guinea?
They lived in the neolythic and canibalism was widespread when westerners arrived.
However, they had managed to change and progress a lot from those humble beginnings, without complaining.
You mean like pretending iron age civilizations with complex political organziation are the same as stone aged societies? Or claiming that the jet black Nubians who spoke a Nilo Saharan language sharing a common origin with the Dinka, Nuer, and Luo, weren’t really Africans?
Damn those Africans! They just won’t shut up. We never hear from New Guinea. Why can’t everybody have as little prominence on the world stage, damnit!
So you some into a thread asking us why something is so, and then you tell us not to try to convince you of the facts? :rolleyes:
Similar to what? The only way that this statement makes sense is is you mean “similar to other people who also had the lifestyle of peoples like the Tutsies”.
The lifestyle of the Tutsies is in no way similar to the lifestyle of the people in Great Zimbabwe, or the lifestyle of the people in Timbuktu or the lifestyle of the people in the Kalahari.
What does that even mean? Progress compared to what? Are you seriously arguing that Tutsies had not made any progress at all for the last half million years?
pinguin: These two groups have exactly the same technology
Blake: No, they do not. Name a single item of technology shared by most of the people in each group
pinguin: They both lack the wheel
Well, yeah Dude, they both lack the wheel. And the both also lacked nuclear weapons, as do the people of modern Italy.
Therefore 17th centruy Africa and New Guinea were both at exactly the same technology level as modern Italy.
Right?
After all we can ascertain technological similarity on the basis of technology that is missing.
Right :rolleyes:
Please explain to us how they lagged behind the people of North America, South America and Australia.
Because when a group is more advanced than three of the six inhabited continents, a statement that they lagged behind the rest of the world is rather obviously nonsense.
What racial bias? I know of no such racial bias.
As my own references on GDP and the references of other others have proved, this is not true. New Guinea falls exactly in the middle of the African cluster by any metric you care to name except for AIDS related mortality. New Guinea demonstrably is not leaving Africa behind, nor is it being left behind. It is performing in a very average manner for a developing nation.
Yes, to exactly the degree as 50% of African regions have managed to change. Or to phrase that another way, they have not done nearly as well as most African regions.
Now what was our point again?
Iron age civilizations? I am not going to start a debate on semantics :rolleyes:
Claimming what?
What Africans? There are many kind of them. And, if you ask me, my favorite SS Africans are the modest Pigmey and Khoisan peoples, so much discriminated by the Bantu majority, that invaded theirs lands with cows and iron spears.
And, of course, I see a great future for New Guinea.
I conceed that. You win. New Guinea is performing like Southern Africa. Deal?
No, I said Nubians were using *chariots *while Europe was in the Neolithic. The implication being that Nubia was a Bronze Age civilization while most of Europe was still just banging rocks together.
Keep moving those goalposts.
Also, cite?
Call us when New Guinea builds a VLA, manufactures attack helicopters or has an Antarctic research station, m’kay?
I don’t know about the Pigmeys[sic], but the Khoi of South Africa had both cows and iron *before *the Bantu migrations. Granted, they mostly traded for the latter (except when they co-operatively helped in iron smelting, like in Angola), bulitht they were hardly all mesolithic HGs.
I know that. I wasn’t questioning their race, just their geography.
In that case, no, they were not exactly entirely sub-Saharan. They were both Saharan and Sahelian, with an ethnic origin most likely in the Ethiopian Highlands and Southern Sudan (Sudanese Savannah and the Sudd wetlands), not the desert. Note that at the time of Nabta Playa and then the foundation of Nubia/Kush, this wasn’t such a big differentiator - it was during a particularly wet period, and they were on the Nile too. Cattle pastoralism just isn’t a desert lifestyle, it’s a savannah/plains one. Cattle, even African cattle, just aren’t as hardy as camels or goats.
NE Africa just never had the N-S distinction it seems Western ethnographers want to impose. The Nile sees to that - it is a corridor for cultural transmission that supercedes any barrier the Sahara represents (which is also why I doubt the Sahara Pump theory’s usefulness for anatomically modern humans). I would ditch the Sahara as a reference point entirely and refer to both Kush and Dynastic Egypt as Nilotic civilizations. *Entirely *African, homegrown and complete in their own selves. Partaking in inventions from foreign civs, sure, but culturally African, not “Fertile Crescent” - their gods were the gods of Cattle and the River (Crocodiles, Hippos, Ibis) and of Savannah (Lions, Jackals, Vultures) and the Desert (Sun, Scorpion, Cobras, Vultures).
Just looking at the origins of the Egyptian/Kushite pantheon makes any theory of largely Asian or European influence laughable. These were not a Mediterranean people like the Carthagians or Greeks. They were a people of the Nile, always and foremost. And the Nile stretches way beyond the delta.
Well, I for one have been convinced by this thread.
Africans are teh stupid because of their slow economic growth, excluding of course the countries experiencing fast economic growth.
If only they were like the hard-working Papuan people, which have in recent years experienced good economic growth, after a very long history of poor growth.
Is this right? Is this the argument?
Or pretending analphabet tribal peoples living in huts are technological advanced just because they had iron.