To give you an ideal what the size of Africa is.

Penelope

Diamond Member
Jul 15, 2014
60,260
15,767
2,210
1591735511117.png

-------------------------------------
just for your information.
 
Feels as an intimidation tactic. Note the incorrect Italian named Atlantic Continents of the Western Hemipshere are North and Atlantis in Atlantic Aboriginal language.

That's a large continent, suprising, despite it's size; the population is very, very much smaller than Asia:
1591735982968.png
 
That is one big damn toilet.

Africa is not a country, so what are you comparing

That is one big damn toilet.

Africa is not a country, so what are you comparing?
Africa is the world's second biggest continent but its biggest shithole.

Hey now, let's not be that way.

Africa would be a great place is it weren't for all those Africans. The closest it ever came to becoming civilized was when is was colonized by the Brits, the Dutch, and the Germans. But they just didn't try hard enough.
 
Racists — or simply shallow thinkers — often use terms like “the shithole continent” to denigrate Africa and its many peoples. But the real question of why Africa (South of the Sahara), or the Americas were civilizationally underdeveloped compared to Eurasia for several millennia, and entered modernity at such a disadvantage, is quite interesting.

Guns, Germs, and Steel: The Fates of Human Societies, published in 1997, was one notable modern attempt to answer this broad question. “It asks why Eurasian peoples conquered or displaced Native Americans, Australians, and Africans, instead of vice versa. It argues that this outcome was ... due to ... features of the Eurasian continent, in particular, its high diversity of wild plant and animal species suitable for domestication and its east/west major axis that favored the spread of those domesticates, people, and technologies for long distances with little change in latitude.”

“The first part of the book focuses on reasons why only a few species of wild plants and animals proved suitable for domestication. The second part discusses how local food production based on those domesticates led to the development of dense and stratified human populations, writing, centralized political organization, and epidemic infectious diseases. The third part compares the development of food production and of human societies among different continents and world regions. Guns, Germs, and Steel became an international best-seller, was translated into 33 languages, and received several awards.” (Wikipedia)

No one book, even as brilliant as this one, can account for the evolution and clash of human societies over time. This particular work has occasionally been criticized for being a bit too “deterministic,” relying too much on geographical and physical circumstances for deep explanations of economic and societal growth — but I did not find it so. Instead, I found it provocative and in many respects eye-opening, bringing together much expert knowledge in diverse fields of study to present a rich overview of planetary human development.
 
Last edited:
Without the white man to set up their government, law, infrastructure, and maintain it for them. African's are unable to function in a civilized manner and eventually descend into chaos and tribal barbarism. ... :cool:
 
Racists — or simply shallow thinkers — often use terms like “the shithole continent” to denigrate Africa and its many peoples. But the real question of why Africa (South of the Sahara), or the Americas were civilizationally underdeveloped compared to Eurasia for several millennia, and entered modernity at such a disadvantage, is quite interesting.

Guns, Germs, and Steel: The Fates of Human Societies, published in 1997, was one notable modern attempt to answer this broad question. “It asks why Eurasian peoples conquered or displaced Native Americans, Australians, and Africans, instead of vice versa. It argues that this outcome was ... due to ... features of the Eurasian continent, in particular, its high diversity of wild plant and animal species suitable for domestication and its east/west major axis that favored the spread of those domesticates, people, and technologies for long distances with little change in latitude.”

“The first part of the book focuses on reasons why only a few species of wild plants and animals proved suitable for domestication. The second part discusses how local food production based on those domesticates led to the development of dense and stratified human populations, writing, centralized political organization, and epidemic infectious diseases. The third part compares the development of food production and of human societies among different continents and world regions. Guns, Germs, and Steel became an international best-seller, was translated into 33 languages, and received several awards.” (Wikipedia)

No one book, even as brilliant as this one, can account for the evolution and clash of human societies over time. This particular work has occasionally been criticized for being a bit too “deterministic,” relying too much on geographical and physical circumstances for deep explanations of economic and societal growth — but I did not find it so. Instead, I found it provocative and in many respects eye-opening, bringing together much expert knowledge in diverse fields of study to present a rich overview of planetary human development.



You admit that Africa and it's people have been less developed than Eurasian civilizations, yet you support the practice of insulting and denigrating those that accurately discuss that gap.
 
That’s a really good question. With all that land why can’t they feed themselves?
The same reason they walked on dem really really hard stones for years dat cut dey feets..I think we call them diamonds...And lived all along a great ocean and never built a sailboat.....and made spears to hunt with EVERY time they hunted, instead of using a higher quality wood...like ebony or iroco or tamarindo. Too hard to carve when you cant make a decent knife.
 

Forum List

Back
Top