Ancient history programme

[WILF 44,620]

27 minutes ago, Greb147 said:

Another theory is the animals and plants of Africa evolved alongside humans and their early ancestors so were harder to domesticate. 

I do agree with what JD said as well, those venturing in to new lands and encountering new flora and fauna had to be more adaptable than those living in a niche. 

Or because they are not as mentally advanced as us maybe ? 
Someone said before on here something I agree with, they can be taught things but they can’t innovate and create......that seems fairly accurate to me

[Greb147 6,808]

12 minutes ago, WILF said:

Or because they are not as mentally advanced as us maybe ? 
Someone said before on here something I agree with, they can be taught things but they can’t innovate and create......that seems fairly accurate to me

But that's one of the theories to why they didn't advance like us. 

It didn't just happen like that, we all originated from Africa so there must be a reason why we leaped ahead. 

Well that theory fits in with what I put forward. There was no need for them to innovate when they were living in a niche in Africa, they were surviving just fine as they were. 

Edited August 21, 2020 by Greb147

[Born Hunter 17,656]

1 minute ago, WILF said:

I have no idea either mate, just asking the obvious really.

China, modern Iraq, South East Asia, South America were all building and making things, and to be fair I don’t think it’s entirely accurate to say Europeans have only done stuff for 1500 years, what about the Roman Empire 

New Grange here in Ireland is 5000 years old.
Id say “modern” Britain is 1500 years old but the A1 is a Roman Road.

Point being, wether they have pushed on or fallen into decline almost every other race has advanced more than your average African, I can’t think of a single thing that an African has ever invented ? 
 

I know my thoughts on race are well known but I’m genuinely not trying to come at this from a position of prejudice......it’s a genuine question ? 

I said western Europeans mate. The Roman empire was another Mediterranean civilisation that followed Greece etc etc. The earliest civilisation that we know of is arguably Gobleki Tepe in Turkey, not far from the Med'. The Romans arguably spread proper civilisation throughout Europe. But it all started in the middle east. Of course the Romans didn't bring us the neolithic/agriculture, that predates them but at the same time that isn't the sort of 'high civilisation' I think we're talking about.

If I'm not mistaken East Asian and American civilisations all seem to be in more temperate climates than deep Africa? And very coastal/littoral in comparison. For instance much of American civilisation cropped up in central America right? The part with the highest coast to landmass ratio I expect. Whereas the natives of the huge and deep Northern and Southern continents were still basically living the equivalent of a palaeolithic life until Europeans colonialists arrived. I can't speak of East Asia, just don't know on that front mate.

Here's more speculation. Did the fall of megafauna naturally lead to the end of proper nomadic hunter-gatherers (the paleaolithic) and force a more settled small game specialist type of hunter-gatherer (the mesolithic) which is naturally more susceptible to the invention of agriculture (the neolithic)? The extinction of megafauna in Eurasia coincides with the development of civilisation. Africa never saw that extinction........

[Born Hunter 17,656]

Talking about hunting megafauna, I'm part way through reading this cool paper I found,

Elephant and Mammoth Hunting during the Paleolithic: A Review of the Relevant Archaeological, Ethnographic and Ethno-Historical Records

It's worth a read, even if you just skim out the sections that catch your attention.

[Born Hunter 17,656]

32 minutes ago, WILF said:

I know my thoughts on race are well known but I’m genuinely not trying to come at this from a position of prejudice......it’s a genuine question ? 

Just wanted to say, I know that mate and that's why we can have a sensible discussion about it. I'm not going to get all emotional if i can't 'prove' my beliefs and I doubt you will either. 

I'm not convinced that there's significant differences, genetically, between us in the UK and a pygmy in the Bronx zoo like  I errr more towards other factors as the explanation. BUT that doesn't mean I have to accept Somalia's finest as my neighbours.

But I don't really want this to go down that political route and I doubt you do either. I think we're doing just fine keeping this separate from our politics. 

[WILF 44,620]

11 minutes ago, Born Hunter said:

Just wanted to say, I know that mate and that's why we can have a sensible discussion about it. I'm not going to get all emotional if i can't 'prove' my beliefs and I doubt you will either. 

I'm not convinced that there's significant differences, genetically, between us in the UK and a pygmy in the Bronx zoo like  I errr more towards other factors as the explanation. BUT that doesn't mean I have to accept Somalia's finest as my neighbours.

But I don't really want this to go down that political route and I doubt you do either. I think we're doing just fine keeping this separate from our politics. 

I agree, it’s boring and been done to death.

Its just I have always felt that we are different, I have always thought that was obvious but maybe a chunk of that is down to my own beliefs......but, I don’t think my prejudice makes it less real.

And the point was I suppose I wanted to see if anyone said “No, there’s no difference and here is why” but I think most on here have hinted that there is a difference and tried to give various reasons why.

It rather knocks the “we are all the same” narrative because quiet obviously we are not the same and everyone knows it.

 

[Born Hunter 17,656]

2 minutes ago, WILF said:

I agree, it’s boring and been done to death.

Its just I have always felt that we are different, I have always thought that was obvious but maybe a chunk of that is down to my own beliefs......but, I don’t think my prejudice makes it less real.

And the point was I suppose I wanted to see if anyone said “No, there’s no difference and here is why” but I think most on here have hinted that there is a difference and tried to give various reasons why.

It rather knocks the “we are all the same” narrative because quiet obviously we are not the same and everyone knows it.

 

We're definitely not all equal. Nature is full of inequality and hierarchies. It's just quite how far we run with that where we will find disagreement.

An obvious example is sprint and distance events at the Olympics. Blindingly obvious racial inequality.

[gnasher16 29,791]

1 hour ago, WILF said:

I have no idea either mate, just asking the obvious really.

China, modern Iraq, South East Asia, South America were all building and making things, and to be fair I don’t think it’s entirely accurate to say Europeans have only done stuff for 1500 years, what about the Roman Empire 

New Grange here in Ireland is 5000 years old.
Id say “modern” Britain is 1500 years old but the A1 is a Roman Road.

Point being, wether they have pushed on or fallen into decline almost every other race has advanced more than your average African, I can’t think of a single thing that an African has ever invented ? 
 

I know my thoughts on race are well known but I’m genuinely not trying to come at this from a position of prejudice......it’s a genuine question ? 

Id say this geezer was reasonably well versed on the subject 

[Born Hunter 17,656]

19 minutes ago, gnasher16 said:

Id say this geezer was reasonably well versed on the subject 

 

Edited August 21, 2020 by Born Hunter
I was probably wrong

[Astanley 11,500]

Born will know better than me,but wasn't there a study done on a global scale ,(funded by those intent on proving we 're all equal )measuring IQ and comparing racial results,..it turned out that ashkran ( spelling ) jews ,were miles above any other racial group ,followed by east Asians ( oriental ) and then Caucasians ,...with sub Saharan African s and Albanians being the bottom groups .seem to remember reading this somewhere .

[Born Hunter 17,656]

1 minute ago, Astanley said:

Born will know better than me,but wasn't there a study done on a global scale ,(funded by those intent on proving we 're all equal )measuring IQ and comparing racial results,..it turned out that ashkran ( spelling ) jews ,were miles above any other racial group ,followed by east Asians ( oriental ) and then Caucasians ,...with sub Saharan African s and Albanians being the bottom groups .seem to remember reading this somewhere .

I honestly haven't done a whole heap of reading on race related science. I'm more interested in anthropology/evolution. 

[gnasher16 29,791]

4 minutes ago, Born Hunter said:

Just FYI but Charles Darwin explicitly believed that there was no significant difference between subsaharan Africans and Europeans. He spoke about it comprehensively.

Oh well i stand corrected then you will know more about the man than me.....i just presumed the above passage was directed specifically at African Negros.

[Born Hunter 17,656]

1 minute ago, gnasher16 said:

Oh well i stand corrected then you will know more about the man than me.....i just presumed the above passage was directed specifically at African Negros.

I might be totally wrong, hang on. I was almost sure as it struck me as bold considering his time and research.

[Astanley 11,500]

7 minutes ago, Born Hunter said:

I honestly haven't done a whole heap of reading on race related science. I'm more interested in anthropology/evolution. 

Well look into it you fkn dimwit  .

[Born Hunter 17,656]

8 minutes ago, gnasher16 said:

Oh well i stand corrected then you will know more about the man than me.....i just presumed the above passage was directed specifically at African Negros.

Fair one mate, I'll hold my hands up because I think I was wrong. I recalled a piece he wrote about his time with some blacks which convinced him that they were simply uncivilised, rather than uncivilisable, so to speak. He was also a vocal abololitionist which sort of stands in contrast to racist views (at the time).

So again, fair one, it looks like I was mistaken.