Why didn't Indigenous Americans develop civilisation at the same rate as Europeans in spite of being isolated from possible competition from other races and living in a very resource-rich area? The state of advancement they had reached when the Europeans first came was similar to what White people had achieved millennia earlier, for example ancient Egypt, the Indus Valley Civilisation, Rome etc. Could this be linked with the fact that people with greater Amerindian heritage are invariably poorer and have lower IQ than those with greater White heritage in modern day Latin America? The IQ of a race seems to determine the rate of progress achieved. For example Blacks lived the way Whites did probably 10,000 years ago until recent times, and many continue to do today. Similarly the collapse of previously White civilisations occurs due to interbreeding with lower IQ races, e.g. Egypt, India etc.
Why didn't Indigenous Americans develop civilisation at the same rate as Europeans in spite of being isolated from...
>For example Blacks lived the way Whites did probably 10,000 years ago until recent times, and many continue to do today.
The oldest finding of "humans" in Europe was on the same level as Africans before they met the rest of the world.
Picture shows the "lion man" a ivory sculpture made from mammoth which dates back around 35000-40000 years ago.
I don't know what the hell you think you're talking about. Tenochtitlan was larger than London when the Spanish discovered it and they literally had hydroponics in the midst of a giant artificial island in the middle of a lake. Mesoamerica was actually pretty amazing.
Mesoamerica was far better than Africa south of the Sahara.
Which isn't saying a lot.
not really, they had virtually no metal technology, whereas Africa had bronze and iron from 400BC at least.
They had a larger city than Europe when they were invaded.
Euros are so obsessed with metal. The mesoamericans used superior obsidian. And metal armor didn't stop it - in fact it would just shatter and bits of broken obsidian glass would then be stuck in your metal armor.
It's almost like humans strive for hierarchy, and are social beings, so creating civilization and dominating a region is a natural result of evolution?
Look at our planet now, we're pretty developed, it's only a matter of time before we kill eachother off into the dark ages like we did all the other times.
Obsidian isn't superior, it is much more limited and isn't malleable. You can't recycle it, once it fractures it is useless. It's also important for ship building, wheels and plumbing, and later steam power. Only an idiot would underestimate metal as a significant level of technological achievement.
Iron working originated in the Armenian Highlands / Anatolia, a place full of volcanoes and hence obsidian. So given the abundance of the latter, why did they develop metal?
You're retarded my man.
Central Mesoamerica had better living conditions than most of Europe, they had no famines and where it not for the Aztecs and their shit and the European viruses they would've been impossible to conquer by just Spain.
Check out Graham Hancock lectures if you're interested.
Because they didn't have to. The indigenous population of the Americas had mastered the hunter-gatherer lifestyle so they had no reason to advance technologically unlike jewurope
basically europeans believed in god, unlike those satanists
India is best country in this world.
LOL
India has a small well educated elite. the vast majority are backwards savages on level similar to sub-sahara africa
>no competitive pressure, no hardship in getting resources
Answered your own question, memeflag. Sage.
One reason is, the plants and animals are different. They didn't have cows, pigs, dogs etc.
>Ancient egypt
>Indus valley
>White people
Kek
>Rome
>White people
Kek
>in spite of being isolated from possible competition
if you think that is a good thing then you have 0 authority to speak on civilizations
only incas has beast of burden the llama. Inca would have been the master race since central mexico lacks proteins and beast of burden, they had to eat worms, and other insect and beans for protein.
It is for weaponry. Even surgeons now use obsidian blades instead of metal if they need an extremely sharp cut.
Moctezuma had many chances to wipe out the Spanish but his retarded attitude and dismissing his advisors received them at his palace.
They could not smelt metal down. That was their biggest set back. Other than that they were pretty advanced but the inability to smith metals and forge steel from iron was nonexistent in the Americas. They used brittle volcanic glass, obsidian, for cutting. Also Montezuma was a huge retard and should’ve listened to his brother.
Tlaloc's objectively better than Yahweh. Jews are always going to lose on the religion front.
It's arguable.
Obsidian is starp but it’s basically glass. They wouldn’t be able to penetrate armor with me. It should just shatter.
Shut the fuck up egipciano.
they only wore cloth armor, and bronze shit was ceremonial. you only need metals for transportation and warfare. they just used clubs and obsidian to cut cloth armor.
There's a book called Guns, Germs, and Steel that deals with this kind of thing.
The Indians not have niggers to the south , mongrel hordes to the north east and the Muslim invaders to the Mid East. Also did not have jews spread out into every pocket state.
Threats to survival advance development of survival and not advancements in ritualistic madness.
Also with small population groups and abundant resources of natural foods with no competition they had no reason to advance into farming , surviving harsh winters with large populations and no need to do anything more than pray to birds in the sky and reproduce.
>in spite of being isolated from possible competition from other races
Why do retard think this is a good thing.
South America was/is cursed with peace.
I’m talking about conquistador armor. Obsidian clubs were useless against that. It doesn’t help either that the Spanish were able to enlist help from rival tribes that hated the Aztecs. Had all the tribes united, Hernan would’ve been BTFO.
People in Europe, Asia, Africa, and the Middle East has the geographical price leave of being able to share technology with one another (not always done directly of course).
The people’s of North and South America were basically in an echo chamber and could only get tech from each other. They also did not have many of the proper animals needed for domestication.
Conquistadors didn't really wear armor apart from a breastplate and helm here and there.
It would be extremely impractical in those environments anyways.
Fucking shrooms man
Wearing armor in Mesoamerica = heatstroke in an hour
Culture
The same culture that is going to destroy the US
t. retard
and people
You idiot I just explained what happened when you hit metal armor with obsidian weapons. The obsidian shatters then gets caught in your armor tearing your flesh apart. That's why the Aztecs wore cloth armor.
Jared Diamond is wrong about everything. There is no such thing as special kinds of tameable animal. Every animal that's ever been domesticated was wild and insane at one point. Wild aurochs and horses are aggressive and uncooperative, wild boars will kill a man.
They arrived to North America about 10,000 years late, the Euros put their feet down and started building civilization earlier than they did, they both progressed at about the same rate but if you start the race 10,000 years late don't be surprised when everyone is ahead of you and thinks you're backwards, which then contributes to the I.Q. disparity because they never had the epigenetic shifts to the degree that the older empires did due to civilization itself changing people's DNA, so now their I.Q. is stunted as a result, not because they're inherently stupider, but that they never finished developing, or ergo never reached the point the europeans did.
If North America remained entirely in a vacuum separate from the rest of the world, give them another 10,000 years and they would've been where we are now, but time waits for nobody.
>isolated from possible competition
also means isolated from possible achievements
>had better living conditions than most of Europe
proofs? by what standard.
>no famine
a simple google search says you're wrong
cambridge.org
>Drought and drought-induced famine are recurring phenomena in Mesoamerica that have devastated populations in the region repeatedly during the past two millennia. Although it is counterintuitive to conceive of the idea that volcanic eruptions anywhere in the world might affect the lives of people in Mesoamerica, we examine the reports of drought and famine during the period A.D. 1440 to 1840 and compare them with known
that wasn't the issue.is correct. don't know where you pulled that about schrapnel from
>where it not for the Aztecs and their shit
so if i say "if it wasn't for all the christians here being retarded, the ottomans wouldn't have conquered the balkans, that somehow makes it better?
>White people had achieved millennia earlier, for example ancient Egypt, the Indus Valley Civilisation
>They arrived to North America about 10,000 years late, the Euros put their feet down and started building civilization earlier than they did, they both progressed at about the same rate but if you start the race 10,000 years late don't be surprised when everyone is ahead
also this
meant to quote
>Also with small population groups and abundant resources of natural foods with no competition they had no reason to advance into farming
and it just has to be the american flag every single time
who do you think domesticated all new world crops including tomato and potato and corn you absolute retard
I am now convinced you have never seen or held obsidian.
Wasn’t the only range weapon the Aztecs has the atlatl? A long bow shoots further, with more accuracy, and with more power.
This
I wasn't referring to natural disasters, their organization prevented famines due to human error.
Isolation also meant no exchange of ideas, diseases, and resources. Diversity really is a strength in a narrow sense.
"Who lived better" is meaningless. What matters is who lived
...
A branch of the Mayans left the planet a long ass time ago.
They left the useless ones behind.
POO
Mesoamerica culture was incredible, and it's pretty tragic so much of it's written history was destroyed by the Spanish.
like what? only famines due to human error i can think of are ones that result from devastation during war and then at a much later period in history, economic policies like what the gommies implemented. all other examples i can think of are because of some drought or other natural disaster.
are you saying they found a way to account for war devastation or something?
well, its deeper than just the spanish comming here
t. the mexican intellectual
This argument really does Jow Forums no favours at all, because it can be thrown back at you - very justly - that you're ignorant of history. They can then make the next step and say you're ignorant of everything, and demolish you in public.
Amerindians had many complex societies - Aztec, Inca, Maya, Pueblo. They're fascinating to read about, particularly the Inca. Acknowledging that doesn't invalidate the claim of European superiority however, as I will mention in a moment.
All of those empires collapsed. As did the Western Roman Empire. And all of these empires collapsed for almost the exact same reason - the benefits of complexity and centralization were outweighed by costs incurred. I urge you to read The Collapse of Complex Societies to learn more about this, a fascinating read that explains in detail the problems faced by these societies and how their collapses show a consistent pattern.
Now, here's why this proves European society - we are an aberration. We have escaped the agrarian surplus economy that maintained these past societies, moving to an industrial surplus that not a single society achieved before us. Here, the argument that there was no Amerindian civilizations works against us (because they you could argue the natives never had the chance to try their own methods) while the fact that they did exist and failed like every other civilization attempted by non whites works.
Once you learn how unique Western European civilization is - and learn it through reading about the huge number of civilizations that have existed and failed - you learn to glorify it more, and what's more, have the rhetorical power to defend that zeal.
They focused on developing crops that are easy to grow and require little maintenance like corn. This alone secured food for everyone.
everyone was pretty much equal before the renaissance
>what is milpa
Mesoamerica have best crops and agriculture. Not only it produce plenty of food its more healthy diet and it also not exhaust soil.
Aztec were the protestants of their Quechua forebearers. They were a small group who came to power during a period of bad crop yields and drought.
The Inca were the same. They were a small successful group who took over during a period of decline and happen to be the group the Spanish met.
The older civilizations of the Americas spanned both continents but fell apart because they lacked a way to trade across the vast distances. Ancient roadways connected all of the great societies of the Americas , from the Montana medicine wheel to the Puebla culture to Aztec, Maya, Inca, and on into Chile and Bolivia
>and it also not exhaust soil
You do realize that the most accepted reason for Mayan collapse was due to extensive and catastrophic soil erosion that eliminated the tax base and led to city collapse?
sciencedirect.com
Ooga booga
Several extinction level events.
They kept getting thrown back to the stone age.
interesting. i read the article on this. i know there are various forms of crop rotation currently known. and farmers just ignore those because the gubmint/eu subsidies make it so it's much more profitable to just grow fucking beans for the eu market every year and import potatoes from the czech republic and tomatoes from greece and shit like that. cause the eu bureaucrats think on a continental level, not a regional one. which is gonna lead to some serious problems in terms of soil depletion down the line.
the article on milpa does include this sentence though
>Agronomists point out that the system is designed to create relatively large yields of food crops without the use of artificial pesticides or fertilizers, and they point out that while it is self-sustaining at current levels of consumption, there is a danger that at more intensive levels of cultivation the milpa system can become unsustainable
not sure what they mean by that. and does current levels refer to current as of 2018 or what?
>isolated from possible competition
Theres the problem. Without competition there was no reason to not cut everyones head off to appease their gods.
>Highschool history class
>Teacher bending over backwards explaining why aztecs are super advanced despite never inventing a wheel
>"Well they had wheel-like structures, they invented a sideways basketball hoop, so CLEARLY they understood the technology."
>"They had no domesticated animals with which to pull the wheel"
>"Therefore its actually even further proof of just how advanced they were to recognize that a wheel was not a feasible invention with their resources"
>Starts drifting into global warming part of the lecture
>pic related, me sitting there thinking, "They couldn't make a wheelbarrow?"
>Living in a very resource-rich area
That's why
How soon for those peaches nigger.
?
I'm a spic, you should be proud of the Britisih Imperialism bringing Christianity to the Natives; I'm glad the Conquistadors did the same to south America. While a lot of things we got wrong, I rather have Christ and not have child sacrifices and cannibals as part of the state religion.
possible, there is also a lot of chance in those things though
staying the way you are is the default
Its mean that you can exhaust everything if you go over limit.
>better use more pesticides and chemicals goy
Also its not really suited for industrial scale food production(that include tons of fertilizers, pesticides and mechanical gathering).
Its essentially high yield, sustainable, healthy but on garden scale. Aka it would demand much more people farming vs modern methods that have few people but rely on chemicals, mechanization and soil depletion.
Also check terra pretta and agro forestry. Both South and North indios terraform their surrounding landscapes using fire to control forest and replant fruit/nut/other trees.
Mistakes were made.
>tough terrain
>no horses and carriages
>no metalwork
>isolated from possible competition from other races
there's your fucking answer dumb fucker, wouldn't expect less from a retarded spanjool
Why couldn't Europeans even develop agriculture before middle eastern farmers walked in and took control of the land?
no chickens, no horses, no cows, no steel
pff tio no se creo que la conquista fue un hoax por parte de felipe ii de hecho los indigenas asian escultars to grandes de piedra y super bien hechas y tenian clubs de obdsidiana k kortaba mejor k el metal y todo
The fuck are you talking about, it was a fucking blood test between rival civilizations.
probably something to do with them sacrificing their own people as offerings. probably made things a little hard for development.
>yes by the way ruler, i think we should try this to make advancements
>absolutely not. sacrifice this man. the gods will love it
>King murders/sacrifices top rivals to ensure stranglehold on power and/or best men killed in wars
>Population becomes dumbed down and weak
>Civilization collapses
>Get conquered/have dark ages
>Repeat
Lol I can tell you are a beaner.
>larger than London
Not an accomplishment back then, London was a second rate european city
>hydroponics
Invented by babylonians long and neither that nor aztec were true hydroponics
Mesoamerica was "amazing" in the sense it was better than africa, all while being isolated. It proves native americans had a brain, albeit small and relatively uncreative. They didn't even invent the wheel ffs
No troll Diamond is almost certainly correct; the north-south axis of the americas means any agricultural innovation will spread slower vs the east-west of Eurasia (it was a slow slog to adapt eg corn/beans/squash to higher latitudes, but it was happening). And also the America’s were mostly devoid of large animals because they were mostly killed off by the first wave of arrivals, being totally naive to hominids (whereas the animals of the old world adapted alongside humans and had a chance to adapt to us; the megafauna of the Americas was seemingly just sat there while they were speared and eaten in a very short period).
in league with satan
I’m pretty sure this isn’t true. IIRC the ‘Bantu expansion’ was driven by innovations in metallurgy and agriculture that certainly wasn’t known to Europeans much before ~4000 years ago (not yesterday, but in historical terms not as old as records go by far).
First of all, I'm not an Anglo, and second of all, British Imperialism was never concerned with turning natives into Christians at all. That was a concerned of the Catholics, but that's a different issue.
I do agree with Christianity being a positive factor for stopping Mesoamericans from continuing to be blood thirsty pagans, nonetheless, the Mayas, and Aztecs had fascinating cultures, and the records of their history should have been preserved for posterity. The Spanish could have evangelize them without having to destroy their past. But what's done is done.
>doesn't bring up the difference in genetics
enjoy never being able to solve lifes problems
lmao, nice example
What part of no fucking horses and no contact with other civilizations don't you get?
what part of wheel as a tool don't you get? indians are just a bunch of inbred retarded asians anyways.
i bet my balls you are chicano, fucking scum