Do you think given time Africa will fix itself and migration will decrease?

submitted by [deleted] from self.debatealtright

sorted by:
top
newinsightfulfun
you are viewing a single comment's thread.

view the rest of the comments →

[–]SoylentCapitalist 2 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 0 fun3 insightful - 1 fun -  (19 children)

During the Mesolithic era they did. What invention did they have that sub-Saharan Africa didn't? There were more than 6,000 years of the Mesolithic where the wheel nor farming had been in Europe. They were hunter-gatherers using stone tools just like the sub-Saharans: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mesolithic

[–]Ethnosomniator 4 insightful - 1 fun4 insightful - 0 fun5 insightful - 1 fun -  (18 children)

They did not produce stone age art on the same level as depicted in the French caves. They also did not produce technology (social and material) capable of wiping out their paleo fauna. Everyone else did.

IQ is real, deal with it.

[–]SoylentCapitalist 3 insightful - 1 fun3 insightful - 0 fun4 insightful - 1 fun -  (17 children)

They also did not produce technology (social and material) capable of wiping out their paleo fauna. Everyone else did.

Like what? Give an example of this invention. Sub-Saharan Africans had bows and spears just like them during this time. Both groups used stone. Both invented cave/rock art so it really isn't an invention that sub-Saharans didn't have.

IQ is real, deal with it.

Do you read? I already mentioned Europeans were smarter. The argument is about how they had similar technology during this time before other foundations were built.

[–]Ethnosomniator 5 insightful - 3 fun5 insightful - 2 fun6 insightful - 3 fun -  (16 children)

I don't have to come up with evidence for what is abundantly evident. We can come up with theories and hypothesis as to why and how it played out. Everywhere else, the bigger, calorie rich yummy animals were eaten. Not so in africa. Yes, theoretically africans could have achieved this, too, but that is really a simpleton's view.

Big game hunting is difficult, especially with sticks and stones. But we can see how immediately after giving negroes modern guns they proceed to hunt the big animals to extinction. This is happening right now before our eyes. So they would, if they only could. All the usual kvetching and Diamondesque fantasizing about peculiar difficulties are nonsense. Africans simply were not capable of coming up and organising the difficult operations involving many capable and reliable men of different tribes/clans. Apart from weapons you need strategy, tactics, trust, rituals and capable leaders to invent, use and teach these to the next generation.

You also need supplementing technology like medicine, because it's a moral booster to know that getting injured on such a hunt will not automatically kill you. Neanderthals have been found to be riddled with injuries consistent with big game hunting. They knew how to treat their hunters. I suspect negroes lack those, too.

[–]SoylentCapitalist 3 insightful - 1 fun3 insightful - 0 fun4 insightful - 1 fun -  (15 children)

You also need supplementing technology like medicine, because it's a moral booster to know that getting injured on such a hunt will not automatically kill you. Neanderthals have been found to be riddled with injuries consistent with big game hunting. They knew how to treat their hunters.

European medicine was literally doing more harm than good for the most part way past even the Mesolithic era:

Perhaps it is not surprising, then, that even among their rich patients, doctors were not much trusted. Medieval doctors were especially fond of bleeding their patients using leeches, which probably made them even weaker. It is possible that the peasant with his magic stones, herbal drinks and prayers was more likely to recover from his illness than the rich man.

https://www.abdn.ac.uk/sll/disciplines/english/lion/medicine.shtml

Big game hunting is difficult, especially with sticks and stones. But we can see how immediately after giving negroes modern guns they proceed to hunt the big animals to extinction. This is happening right now before our eyes. So they would, if they only could.

Apart from weapons you need strategy, tactics, trust, rituals and capable leaders to invent, use and teach these to the next generation.

Young male sub-Saharan Africans hunt and kill lions by themselves as a rite of passage with only a spear and cowhide shield. The Maasai had this tradition for a long time:

The Maasai people have traditionally viewed the killing of lions as a rite of passage. Historically, lion hunts were done by individuals, however, due to reduced lion populations, lion hunts done solo are discouraged by elders.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lion_hunting

I don't have to come up with evidence for what is abundantly evident. We can come up with theories and hypothesis as to why and how it played out.

Just admit they had similar technology at this point. Hunting tactics at the core was mostly tracking and exhausting prey which sub-Saharans did as well. You can't name any invention/tactics they had during this time as evidence but insist it's abundantly evident when your only support is that it's because they didn't kill off their animals.

[–]Ethnosomniator 3 insightful - 1 fun3 insightful - 0 fun4 insightful - 1 fun -  (13 children)

There's so much misinformation you either carelessly procured or naively absorbed.

Conflating mesolithic with medieval doctors! I expressly wrote about Neanderthals that survived literal crashes with hostile paleo fauna. These guys enjoyed decent medical expertise of their tribe as well as the benefits of a caring, nurturing society. This is a fact. I'm not sure if africans a thousand years ago had access to these technologies but we know for effect that Neanderthals did. As far as European medicine, yes, we went backwards at some point, thanks to the christian church. But that is a seperate discussion entirely.

Young male sub-Saharan Africans hunt and kill lions by themselves as a rite of passage with only a spear and cowhide shield

You're so wrong it hurts. This is the Diamond level dillusion I was speaking of, the untameable zebra yet again. This is how Massai hunt lions: They form a young hunter's pack and seek out a young lion who's been spotted. With giant shields, spears and possibly dogs (don't remember anymore) they pester and harry the poor predator. He dies more of exhaustion. You could not hunt most animals like that, it's not even very efficient in terms of yield versus the loss of energy, time and manpower. In raw numbers it's a far cry from downing a mammoth: A young lion would give about 100-150k calories, most of that lean muscle, the worst in terms appealing food. Mammoths would be in the ballpark of 10mio calories, most of that nice, saturated fat plus abundant resources on top.

As to the invention, the onus is on you. Exhaustion is just a theory, it's probably uniquely african and not very efficient.

[–]SoylentCapitalist 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (12 children)

I expressly wrote about Neanderthals that survived literal crashes with hostile paleo fauna. These guys enjoyed decent medical expertise of their tribe

Medical expertise of their tribe? Neanderthals survived crashes like that because of how they were built being simply stronger than humans. Not that this matters because we're talking about homo sapiens. Neanderthals were long extinct by the time of the Mesolithic.

As to the invention, the onus is on you.

I've already cited the same tools Europeans used to kill them. Bows, spears, and stone. Europeans at the time didn't have weaponry more advanced than this and the sub-Saharans had the same weaponry for this few thousand year period. You're trying to argue Europeans had invented something else sub-Saharans didn't (which you can't even name) with the pitiful argument it's why sub-Saharans didn't kill all their big animals. You've cited no sources to support this or anything else you've mentioned such as how they apparently couldn't muster large numbers.

Here's a source on sub-Saharans hunting elephants as well:

The use of pitfalls in elephant hunting is combined with the use of spears. Although the Khwe (Namibia) no longer hunt elephants, their forefathers did hunt them.

Page 10 from https://www.mdpi.com/2571-550X/1/1/3/pdf

In any case it's clear they had similar technology during this time, especially compared to the current discrepancy between the races through technological advancements after the foundations were built that put Europeans far ahead.

[–]Ethnosomniator 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (11 children)

Again, many neanderthal skeletons have endured terrible, bone breaking injuries resulting in fractures. Period. Stop here and think what this means. Not a bruise, but a bone that was broken at some point, had to be set and then given rest. A fracture is a death sentence for most animals. Not so with with our ancient cousins, who could recuperate thanks to their tribe. A tribe member being dead weight is not something all humanoids could(can?) handle. And some specimen had suffered multiple such injuries! There's also a find of a toothless neanderthal who was hadfed with soups and prechewed food.

And yes, it matters because we have a couple hundred Neanderthal skeletons, giving us unique insight into an ancient paleo fauna hunter that managed to bring big game down- in contrast to africans. If you find a couple hundred african skeletons from 100K years ago, let us know!

"Same weapons" does not mean anything. Alexander the Great had "the same weapons" as the Persians, yet he wiped the floor with bigger enemy armies regularly. It's ridiculous you don't want to get this into your head. The same would happen if Whites and blacks faught it out in south africa in a civil war (assuming no outside intervention). Since we're talking mainly wood & sinew, there's much speculation involved anyhow. Artifacts rot. Most bows and stones would not have been powerful enough for those animals anyhow. Did Europeans use atl-atls? Bigger bows? Poison? Who knows! And, again, some smarter blacks managed to hunt down elephants, but obviously they did not finish them off. Like EVERYONE ELSE on earth. From studying racial differences we know that blacks are high time preference, more robust with less high IQ related alleles etcetera etcetera. You don't seem to fully grasp what the implications of that mean and that they are totally in line with different hunting outcomes.

[–]DragonerneJesus is white 1 insightful - 2 fun1 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 2 fun -  (1 child)

"Same weapons" does not mean anything.

They didn't have the same weapons. Europeans have always been ahead of Subsaharan africans. In the mesolithic, Europeans had already domesticated the dog and created harpoons. And many other things. And he is being disingenous when he talks about "farming and agriculture" because the beginning of the neolithic is defined by when areas start farming... And different areas enter the neolithic during different times.

It is so bad actually that while "Neolithic" is defined as "When did Farming start in this area", in Africa they had to invent a new term entirely called "The Pastoral Neolithic refers to a period in Africa's prehistory marking the beginning of food production on the continent following the Later Stone Age. In contrast to the Neolithic in other parts of the world, which saw the development of farming societies, the first form of African food production was mobile pastoralism,[29][30] or ways of life centered on the herding and management of livestock."

[–]SoylentCapitalist 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (8 children)

And yes, it matters because we have a couple hundred Neanderthal skeletons, giving us unique insight into an ancient paleo fauna hunter that managed to bring big game down- in contrast to africans.

And, again, some smarter blacks managed to hunt down elephants, but obviously they did not finish them off.

The African tribe bringing down elephants with pitfall traps wasn't limited to just "smart Africans" because smart people have always led others. No, Neanderthals don't matter anyway for the argument being discussed, and your guessing about Neanderthals without any sources has become a waste of time at this point.

Like EVERYONE ELSE on earth.

There's so many reasons why this doesn't mean what you think it does. Africa had more plentiful big game, far larger continent, more difficult terrain and areas not accessible. This speculation they had inferior technology because they didn't kill all their elephants/other big game is idiotic.

[–]Ethnosomniator 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (7 children)

I'm not guessing but I'm not willing to invest 10-20min to look up the proper citations because you are not willing to accept these points even in theory! What I wrote is established, generally accepted, basic archeological evidence. Your links were the definition of i09 muh science! didyouknow, bro!? Single africans don't kill a mature lion by themselves. The lion would absolutely tear them to bloody shreds easily. Ancient medicine was mostly decent but experienced lows as well as scientific degeneration during the dark ages and later during the renaissance and religious wars and early industrialisation periods.

Once more, your mistake lies in conflating singular events with a pattern. I'll try one more time, baby steps:

  • Most humans eat the yummy, millions of calories rich paleofauna into extinction. Africans dindu nuffin.
  • Some africans manage to take down lions, elephants, probably almost all sorts of big game. This does not mean anything by itself. (the Zulu did win some victories against the British but never had a real chance)
  • But in contrast to pretty much all the other races, they don't make a huge dent in numbers. In other words, they could not make a regular habit out of killing, eating and turning very large game into resources which all other could.
  • We also established that they have no general, structural or moral qualms. When given a gun they kill elephants quite happily
  • One more example from recent history to make it clear that humans will eat what's available: the Dodo was not used to humans. When settlers/slaves finally arrived in large numbers on the Dodo's island, they ate every single last bird rather quick.

The best explanation is the same that solves the mystery of why africans didn't really tame any local animals. Overthinking ad nauseum is a recent disease spread by globohomo.

[–]Nombre27 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

If either of you care to peruse

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Timeline_of_historic_inventions

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_Africa#Prehistory

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Prehistoric_Britain#Mesolithic

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mesolithic#Europe

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Prehistoric_Scotland

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Prehistoric_Italy#Neolithic

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_Greece#Prehistoric_Greece