081e7b No.8555
Hey /his/
Why didn't Americans or Aborigines advance as far as Asians or Europeans?
Pic extremely unrelated
24eb4b No.8556
Because they were savages. The Inca and Aztecs weren't that bad though, I think given 500 years they would have gotten metal working down and shit would have really got going. Those north of the Rio Grande were really West Aryan and Volkisch, one of the most Noble races of men.
Abos are really some of the least human humans to exist, remarkable really. I think they got away with being so primitive largely due to being the alpha predator with no competition from other hominid groups or even large carnivores. Thus even big dry Australia could support a placid and slow existence.
576c91 No.8558
>>8556I remember hearing somewhere that the Zapotec or some other Mesoamerican kingdom were on a verge on some mass mining of metal or something like that.
I always keep wonder how Mesoamerica would have turned out if the whole place wasn't taken over by Europeans. How far would they have advanced with some limited contact with Europeans, if and how everyone would try to overthrow the Mexica Empire and who would replace it, if the empire would expand more north and how that would look like(I always imagined something like the Romans and Germ-maniacs).
And of course, a lot of the culture wouldn't be a damn mystery like it is now. That is if the Aztecs wouldn't burn all Mayan writings like the Spaniards did. I remember there was an earlier Aztec king who burned most of codices of the previous empire before the Triple Alliance (The Tepanec, I think) so they could rewrite a new history more focused the Mexica.
Still a shame that the Spaniards had to come and ruin the party
576c91 No.8559
>>8556>Those north of the Rio Grande were really West Aryan and Volkisch, one of the most Noble races of men.Are you just describing them, joking, or being both literal and serious
70f69b No.8561
I'd chalk it up to the availability of raw materials and inventiveness. After all, it's commonly said that American peoples didn't even know what a wheel was. Not having something as simple, yet versatile as that can throw off the whole chain. Gotta have a solid foundation before you can build upwards.
aee1ba No.8566
>>8561Americans did, in fact, have the wheel. They just lacked animals suitable for pulling carts and the like since they managed to kill off all the horses in America.
>>8558Wait, the Aztecs burned Mayan writings? I mean, I know that that one Aztec Emperor's brother burned a fuck-ton of writings to make history more Aztec-centric but I'm pretty sure the Mayan civilization was farther East/South than the Aztec Empire was.
576c91 No.8568
>>8566>Wait, the Aztecs burned Mayan writings?No, I was just speculating if that would happen if the Aztec empire expanded because it already happened with
>one Aztec Emperor's brother burned a fuck-ton of writings to make history more Aztec-centricwhich was what gave me the thought.
>I'm pretty sure the Mayan civilization was farther East/South than the Aztec Empire was.In almost every map I've seen of the Aztec Empire, there's this one little weird spot somewhere in Guatemala, separated from the rest of the empire. And apparently Nahuatl is still spoken in El Salvador.
>>8561They did know of the wheel, but it was just used for toys.
Just imagine how American history would be if they didn't eat all the horses during the Ice Age.
30975d No.8722
>>8566Couldn't they tame buffalos or something? Imean, would-be à heluva job but stll
aee1ba No.8737
>>8722For some reason or another (I can't recall right now) they aren't really suitable for that kind of thing.
30975d No.8744
bf58c0 No.8748
Diferent cultural techology advances. The history in technology is not a unique universal guideline, every culture or group culture has it owns, and it evolve by itself, only changing by cultural contacts. For example the naha people have a very advanced medicine technology that was impressive advanced,even for Europe; or for example their time calculations that were far too advanced even for European knowledge.
aee1ba No.8756
>>8744I believe it was more of a temperament issue; they just weren't suitable for domestication.
And that's not even getting into the issue that bison aren't exactly found all over America.
033fd5 No.9167
>>8555I think they regressed after a certain point and never really bounced back. We DO have a few examples of metal tools like knives or harpoons that show some sophistication, so they knew what they were doing to a big extent already.
Then it all kind of died off. Instead of moving up to bronze or the techniques spreading properly things just sort of regressed. They didn't even make it to the bronze age. If anyone else can explain that'd be great.
471200 No.10947
>>8561To use the wheel require a lot of plane surfaces or the capacity to build large roads.
112e77 No.10960
>>10947>To use the wheel require a lot of plane surfaces or the capacity to build large roads.Not tryna be a stickler but you don't really need roads to use a wheel. You can use a wheelbarrow on damn near any surface, even if it's not hard or flat.
>I'm not trying to compare wheelbarrows to carts or wagons btw>>9167>Instead of moving up to bronze or the techniques spreading properly things just sort of regressed.Don't wanna sound like some ancient aliens retard but they did manage to build some fucking incredible things for not getting past the bronze age.
Chichen Itza, Macchu Picchu, Tenochtitlan; I'm curious as to how they managed to construct such cities without some kind of metals being used.
b9b0c8 No.11020
>>10948
>implying this is for homework
Fuck off autist. We never even studied abos when I WAS in school, and barely covered Americans either.
a282ee No.11027
Momentum and critical mass of urban population, long distance trade, and accumulation of culture and science started much earlier in the Old World than it did in the New.
By the time the Mayans were a thing, Mesopotamian culture was already thousands of years old, and though Europe wasn't much older than the Mayans they didn't have to start from scratch thanks to the proximity of the Middle East.
e10a22 No.11028
Its all location and materials, populations and civilizations that grow up in thick jungle climates dont have large livestock and mining capabilities (not only native american/aborigine but there are examples of this in the jungles of the african gold coast)
also
>no horses
>things got started much later, the height of the inca empire was less than a hundred years before columbus
458f77 No.13175
>>8556To think that abbos had all them animals ripe for domestication.
Giant ass fucking wombats (killed em)
giant malleefowls (killed em, 4-5 times larger than chickens and were pretty much chickens that made burrows)
emus (nevar forget the emu war)
and a whole bunch of other fucking things that would have been
at least llama tier pack animals.
And then they fucking introduced dingoes. 10/10
7ec772 No.13176
>>8555Incidentally never invented the wheel
no horses, cows, pigs. agricultural, a disadvantage
completely different religions unfolding different cultures, less open to critical thinking, slowing everything down.
Now there are things they did better than us I believe.
Knew about the number zero before us
city population managing, tenochtitlan had a larger population than any european city at that time
underground architecture. it is still not understood how some tombs under certain temples were implemented.
Jewelry crafting of some meso americans was on par with ours.
4cc008 No.16616
>>8573
get out of here /pol/
you have your own board to shit up already
b4ad40 No.16634
>>13176They actually had the wheel.
They had domestic animals.
They were more advanced agriculturally than Europe, to the point the top 3 plants eaten in the world are products of the natives.
Their whole mathematics was more advanced in general and some could argue they were also more advanced in philosophy.
aee1ba No.16638
>>16634But they had no major draft animals. Most of the Americas had stuff like dogs, but that was really it. You had llamas and their ilk in the Andes and whatnot, but I'm not sure how good they are for pulling things.
And can I get a source for the food thing? The info I can find points to the top 3 most consumed plants being corn, wheat, and rice. Only the corn is American.
f73d7c No.16639
>>8555Americans actually were pretty civilised. Nothing compared to Abbos
103295 No.16703
>>16639Generally, but the Apache and Comanche are really where we get our whole "bloodthirsty redskin" thing from. From what I've read on them, they didn't really discriminate either. White man, native, didn't really matter.
>>8555For OP, I'd recommend looking at a relatively short book called Guns, Germs, and Steel by Jared Diamond. It does a good job of breaking down why Eurasia really took off, while the other continents didn't fare as well.
457926 No.16705
About the Aztecs, etc: Look up Gods from the Far East by Harriet Mertz. I know the title makes it sound like some von Daniken bs, but every concerned is human. As for draft animals, what's wrong with humans?
f4a507 No.16712
>>16703>Guns, Germs, and Steel by Jared Diamond>implying that's a good book 91df9a No.16720
It all comes down to competition at the end of the day.
Places like Australia and North America were very sparsely populated. If you have lots and lots of land to satisfy only a small group of people, then you can live easily off of hunting/gathering. You have no need to farm or to trade or worry about competition (as much), so more effort was put into sticking to the old ways that work, and such your population stays only as high as the ecosystem you live in will allow it to rise. 'If it ain't broke, don't fix it' idea.
Places like the Steppes, the Sahara, the African Interior, the Arctic Circle and much of South America were unsuited to farming, so the people that lived there had to rely on hunting and gathering, not allowing them time to work on advanced methods of sustenance.
In Europe, Mesoamerica, Asia, North/West/East Africa and the Andes, populations were much more densely populated. People had to compete or co-operate more frequently, and this led to a need to advance and improve the way you do things to get one up on your rivals. So people started focusing on farming and industry, and hunting and gathering became less and less important. Their population exploded because they were no longer confined by what nature could provide them with. This system worked for them, so they kept advancing and farming more land, forming nations and empires to take as much land and people as they could to fuel their civilisation.
tl;dr, he who farms, wins
91df9a No.16723
>>16638The thing about the Andean people was that the entire region they lived in was hills and mountains. What made alpacas and co. good draft animals was the fact they could take on hills and mountains much more efficiently than a cart or a wagon could.
A dozen humans and a few alpacas carrying packs full of goods can take on a steep incline/rough terrain much faster than a cumbersome wagon or handcart.
103295 No.16737
>>16712What's wrong with it? I thought it gave a bunch of pretty logical reasons for why European and Asian civ got so far.
84ff9b No.16741
>>8748I get what you are saying, but I have to ask, what part of European culture boosts technological advances? Humanism and anthropocentrism? I don't know a lot about american culture, but it seems like they used to really value nature and it's animals. So for me, what held these people back, were their attachment to nature
ce3f1d No.16745
>>16741How? Mankind didn't really have a massive effect to the point of destroying it (with some exceptions) until the time you get to an Industrial level of technology. The Native Americans had no problem cutting down trees for wood and killing animals for food and tilling the soil for farming.
Also, the whole 'nature loving hippies' image of Native Americans is more of a stereotype than fact.
1e116e No.16782
>>16616>a bloo bloo bloo /pol/You whiners are just as bad as the Nazi shills on /pol/.
f240ab No.16851
Permanent agricultural society was not a clear benefit for most people. The average person suffered a lower life expectancy, more disease, and more backbreaking labor on the farm. There are plenty of abandoned cities that simply suffered an environmental crisis, or a war, or something else entirely, and were abandoned for a nomadic lifestyle. The Aztec pyramids were actually leftovers from a previous society that abandoned them, and were rediscovered by the Aztecs.
I point this out because the question is, why advance? And why start to advance at any single point in time? And so it really is just random chance that the Inca and Aztecs were around classical Greek or Roman levels of development when we found them, and not further or less advanced. Their level of sophistication when we found them, however, should be enough to dispel any Stormfag bullshit about racial inferiority.
>>8556>Hey guys, why were the Americans savages?>Because they were savages. gr8 post m8.
f240ab No.16852
>>16634>some could argue they were also more advanced in philosophy.I'd like to see that argument.
576c91 No.16857
>>16851>The Aztec pyramids were actually leftovers from a previous society that abandoned them, and were rediscovered by the Aztecs. Just Teotihuacan and the ones around it. The Mexica went on to build their own temples based on them in Tenochtitlan, like the Templo Mayor.
35a07b No.16861
The basics of civilization are a mix of available resources (presence of metals or rocks that can be used as metal like obsidian), the presence of some kind of crop that can be stored and last all year long (the life of hunter & gatherer is far more healthy but can't sustain large groups of people on the same spot for very long) and environment (life on mediterranean or middle east is far less dangerous than some hellhole of a jungle or some snowy wasteland). After that how much they develop and expand is based on a series of variables like contact with others groups (be it through exchange or conflict) and enough resources to sustain a larger expanding population.
35a07b No.16862
>>16720Oh yeah, and this.
aee1ba No.16870
>>16720Was North America really that sparsely populated? I remember reading somewhere that the whole 'sparsely populated wilderness' that was North America was a common misconception because of just how many people died off from disease before Europeans actually started to settle the land.
91df9a No.16884
>>16870North America was pretty much desolate compared to other civilisations in the Americas. No tribes formed any major cities on the same scale as those to the south of them, nor did they engage in agriculture on the same scale, simply because they didn't have to.
aee1ba No.16886
>>16884Now I'm pretty sure that's not true. The Mississippian culture had cities and large-scale agriculture, and Cahokia is believed to have had a population at its zenith that wouldn't be matched by any other North American city until the 1800s.
dc41b4 No.16887
>>16886Cahokia was one of the largest cities in the world by some accounts, so yeah.
96a519 No.16968
It's a mix between population density and competition (
>>16720 ) and cultural exchange that enabled europe and asia to surpass the other continents.
Eurasia offered a giant west-east axis, trade naturally flowed from, e.g. the Roman Empire to Persia, India and even China. And thus technology found its way from its source towards every corner of the world. pic related, the silk route.
In the end the immense density of population in europe boosted the advance there the most. The sheer amount of states on little ground, fighting for what little clay was to be had made euros set their eyes for moar. First northern Africa, after 1492 the west.
East Asia was left behind, because the aforementioned west-east axis was disrupted through Muslim-Christian rivalry and the lack of competition in the area, especially in China.. Trade couldn't flow as free as before, making exchange rather hard (but not impossible). Asia also was in a fairly stable state around the time of 1600 and onwards, when european colonization and progress really took off. The Qing reigned in China, shielding the empire from within and without, Japan was on its way to become ruled by the Tokugawa and isolated from the rest of the world, India was in a state of being a HRE like clusterfuck defending against itself and muslims and the muslim world was in a state stagnation.
574f3c No.16986
>>16741>what part of European culture boosts technological advances?Having access to most of the worlds cultures instead of being stuck in America for starts.
4456a5 No.17148
>>8555Because they didn't need or want to in order to keep surviving.
They were chill where they were without directionless advancement/progress.
9d8632 No.24698
9600e7 No.24700
>>8555
Inferior culture. No scientific revolution. Competition. Of course northern euros were unwashed barbarians at one point, so any stupid /pol/-esque ideas of racial superiority goes right out the window.
And to say it's related to agriculture, resources and the like, well of course it is. But the three ideas in the paragraph above are much, much more important. For without those (which they were in dire need of to advance) there would be no effective use of the two latter.
Oh, and on the resources, there were plenty more in the americas. Though not so much in australia.
9d6130 No.24704
Because the need didn't exist.
>>16737
Diamond put a bit too much emphasis on geography as a reason for European and Asian advancement (environmental determinism a shit). He's also a massive eurocentrist. He'd often use Eurasian so he could attribute innovations that happened in the middle east or Asia at least partially to western Europe.
0b0869 No.24705
Aztec and Mesoamerican culture took a bad turn. They put immense labor into their temples. They sacrificed many of the potentially most useful people to keep the sun shining. They didn't do much critical thinking and hadn't enough leisure to develop anything new.
1b4298 No.24706
>>24705
But the world was going to end, for God's sake!
ee3cb5 No.24762
>>9167
Without solid trade routes bronze is all but impossible. Tin is a very hard to find metal and it is incredibly important in making bronze.
Iron is hard to figure out from scratch because unlike other metals it is almost never found in a pure form, it is far more adundant than copper and gold but for most of history people didn't know that red rocks could make anything, the notable exception being meteorites.
South America is also covered in jungle which would make locating veins of iron hard to find even if they knew what they were looking for.
They also lacked the knowledge of metalworking that the Old World had, things that took generations upon generations to learn and develop.
>>10960
> I'm curious as to how they managed to construct such cities without some kind of metals being used.
You can cut through granite with a copper saw and sand, but they probably just used slightly harder stones to chip blocks from.
fa44f7 No.24765
>>24764
liked it until the singing, could have been a really good interlude track in an album
ee3cb5 No.24768
>>24765
Theye is an instrumental version.
fa44f7 No.24769
>>24768
Quick google search came out with jackshit, you don't mind linking?
ee3cb5 No.24770
YouTube embed. Click thumbnail to play.
>>24769
Maybe I misremembered, he had released complete instrumentals of albums before though.
2a57ea No.26396
Well for starters you can read the very well written and backed book by Jared Diamond: "Guns, Germs, and Steel".
It is a very good book.
:)
e60d96 No.26682
630d13 No.26688
>>16968
Good post
>>16782
Why would we waste time with them? They have afro centrist tier logic
d850e2 No.32897
YouTube embed. Click thumbnail to play.
>>>/pol/4072552
>Americapox: The Missing Plague
Published on Nov 23, 2015
0fa8d3 No.32898
>>16968
>muslim world was in a state stagnation
Because of the Mongols, should be added.
284e70 No.32913
>>13176
> Knew about the number zero before us
thats a misnomer, the greeks knew about zero but didnt believe it was a real number because it couldnt be divided. http://www.whodiscoveredit.com/who-discovered-zero.html
this isnt where i first read of it and i disagree with his assertions, but it suffices as evidence.
9ad8f8 No.32914
>>8568
if they didn't eat all the horses.
They could have had something different too.
>>13175
If it werent for abbos id believe that no human race would be inferiour concerning intelligence and potential for sophisticated culture.
30975d No.32917
>>19797
i feel so negro, gonna end up a big old pile of dense bones
284e70 No.32918
>>32913
> i just replied to a year old comment
227b0b No.33274
File: 1449289302356.jpg (340.49 KB, 1181x664, 1181:664, yuri yuri yuri yuri yuri y….jpg)
>>8555
Aborigines - Shit race. See how easily Aryans overpowered them and wiped from Asia? Dravidians lol, in Australia they lived in no man's land anarchy. Why Polynesians didn't just conquered them?
Americans - Come on, for being isolated save for occasional Viking visits, they DID achieve a lot.
Their wrecking was based more on a luck than seriously superiority of Europeans.
I'm not speaking about Northern American Indians, of which only Puebloans and Mississippians had somesort of civilisation.
Had Atlantis not sank down/be absorbed to pit there would be advanced Americans too, like im my Crusader Kingw 2.
5d9477 No.33297
>>24705
I doubt they scarified the most useful people, the educated classes capable of decision making and creative output were usually priests and those guys weren't about to get sacrificed over some pleb or a prisoner from a rival village.
b9232b No.33301
>>24705
Bullshit. The Aztecs almost exclusively sacrificed prisoners of war, and I dare to say the entire human sacrifice cult initially was just a means to justify the Aztec's constant need for warfare, without which their social system and hierarchy would have sunk like a stone in the water.
This is not to say that the sacrifice cult was particularly clever, of course. There's a reason why Aztec art looks almost primitive when compared to that of the Mixtecs or the Olmecs.
00fb24 No.33545
>>8555
Civilization requires separation of roles in society.
Separation of roles requires surplus.
Surplus requires some pretty counter-intuitive shit.
For example, how the fuck do a bunch of ungabungas know that planting a seed in the ground will cause a plant to sprout?
Even if that is learned through observation, how the fuck do they know that this can be beneficial to them?
How do they know that hanging thin strips of meat in the sun will make meat last longer?
If the ungas are constantly moving places, shit like this that requires observation and deliberation may not be discovered.
If there are no plants that already provide and overwhelming benefit from foraging, then replanting them and settling may not seem worth it.
So in order to advance their society, ungas need to get their bunga together, live in conditions that (one way or another) lead to a surplus of food, and then the ball gets rolling.
>inb4 genetic inferiority and muh haplos
While that is a factor in societal development, it becomes more significant as development snowballs and accelerates as means to change the environment to suit people's needs more become more available and effective. Early on, it doesn't take more than a horde of downies observing, trying things out, and sharing their findings with others to start a civilization.
It's not Jared Diamond's white guilt extravaganza, but it isn't independent from the environment either.
Abos live in fucking australia. Pretty shit-tier land. They basically scraped by with no time or resources to dedicate to advancing their society.
New Guineans fared a bit better. They've got agriculture, and that allowed them to scrape by with no time and resources again.
Ainu, who are basically white-skinned abos, fared better yet.
As for amerindians, their problem is not in the lack of resources (though that is a factor >>11028 ) as much as the delay in their development due to them settling the continent much later than europeans did. >>11027
To be quite honest with you, the big pre-columbian american states remind me of ancient and classical societies in their level of social/economic/scientific development. If the Old World was magically suspended in stasis for a thousand years while the Americas advanced on their own, we'd probably see at least China-tier civs on the discovery of the New World.
de26ab No.33553
>>33274
>Dravidians lol
While Abbo-society is so underwhelming without having any excuses for it-
Australia has some ressources, woodlands and northern abbos are said to made contact with some malaysian traders whom they could have adapted some form of basic sophistication like fucking pottery at least-
That labelling them gentically inferiour seems plausible, I cant get why so many rightwingers shit on dravidians.
These guys DID achieve some serious progress like irridation systems before getting conquered by the ayrans and even after that, said ayrans adapted some of their customs (which means they were useful) and southern indians who were still quiete unmixed dravidians developed own strains of complex architecture.
Miscrediting them because guys like Evola have a hard on for northern indian culture and brahans seems unjust and biased.
de26ab No.33554
cc0f4c No.33556
>>33545
>Ainu, who are basically white-skinned abos
That never ocurred to me, got more info about that?
de26ab No.33559
ed0c33 No.33563
>>33559
>Interestingly, ancient Amerindians from 9-12,000 YBP have an Australoid appearance. The skulls from 9000 YBP appear Ainuid or Polynesian and the earlier skulls line up with Negritos, Papuans and Aborigines. This implies that the ancient Northeast Asians or Siberians from around the Altai region who immigrated to North America 9-12,000 YBP may have been an Ainuid people.
So that's why injuns look so distinct compared to other asians.
000000 No.34851
>>8555
>Why didn't Americans or Aborigines advance as far as Asians or Europeans?
Advance from what starting position, in which direction and what for?
1e8123 No.34865
>>34851
>what for?
The most important point tbh.
>>33553
>That labelling them gentically inferiour seems plausible, I cant get why so many rightwingers shit on dravidians.
Even more so, if you look at the current situation in India you can see that the south is more developed. There's also a lot of accomplished scientists from the south, especially Tamil, like Raman (1930 Physics Nobel prize for Raman (inelastic photon) scattering) and Chandrasekhar (1983 Physics Nobel prize for stellar evolution models).
704684 No.34942
>>16887
I think Cahokia fell due to its rigid clan structure not allowing exceptional individuals to advance so people just left.