Guns, Germs and Steel

Sweden yes!

The book and documentary are garbage blaming whites and the west for everything bad to befall native peoples. A much more interesting read (even though it does a bit of the same) is the Ishmael series by Daniel Quinn.

>cherrypick

I didnt even complete the first chapter. These were the first ones that came to mind.

This book has a lot of flaws and geografical detwrmenism was debunked years ago. Existance of Israel, South Korea and Singapore already prove that this bookhas flaws. Read Why Nations Fail - this book explains topic better.

Tamed does not means domesticated

Is his argument really that different groups of people lived in different environments for thousands of generations, but don't assume that means they are different you fucking rascist?

Does the book start off by disproving the theory of evolution?

>we all evolved out of Africa
>Humans aren't designed to thrive in Africa
which one is it libcucks?

>climate change is not real guys

It's absolute bullshit.

>successful societies are successful because they're located on long continents instead of tall continents
>there wasn't anything to domesticate in Africa, as opposed to Eurasia where aurochs were docile and friendly and wolves begged for inclusion

>Doesn't think people are happy in industrialised societies

Big words for a man who didn't die of a parasitic infection at 6 months old.

>Tamed does not means domesticated
Until you practice animal husbandry on the ones you tame, durrrrrrrr. Where the fuck do you think cows come from, dumbass? Look up aurochs. That's what cows used to be until the romans were like "nah, we need to be able to milk you".

The only reason we (white people) haven't thoroughly domesticated zebras is because we already did all that work with horses, and good enough is good enough.

Zebras would be a domesticated species if they evolved alongside europeans rather than niggers

Fuck off nigger Quebec

>b-but MUH ZEBRAS

>Existance of Israel, South Korea and Singapore already prove that this bookhas flaws

This is retarded. Those nations wouldn't be advanced at all if it weren't for Western colonialism and influence.

Arguing on the Internet is useless, if you want to understand why wolves were domesticated but not bears you'll search and find by yourself.
On another point, I see that the WE WUZ disease is hightly countagious.

I'm amazed by the reaction here. After reading it I thought Cred Forums would love it.

Gee I wonder why people domesticated the smaller animal rather than the giant animal. Also bears are useless cunts that sleep for half the year

We may be autistic, but we're not retarded.

Geee I wonder why people domesticated cows before rabbits then.

Probably because cows are useful for pretty much everything that rabbits aren't.

Or do you enjoy rabbit-milk, rabbit-cheese, etc., in Martinique?

Cows produce milk and meat.

Rabbits produce only meat and in small amounts.

Also a male rabbit can't be used for transport of heavy things.

> Hey we need to make cheese, lets domesticate cow then
Here is why arguing on the internet is non-productive. You are so convinced by your point of view that it's useless to engage in discussion.
Technically rabbits are still tamed, not fully domesticated. Wolves were domesticated thanks to herd hierarchy. It's just for info.

See pic

Jared (((Diamond))) is a hack

>I cannot support my position, it's pointless to argue

Ok.

You honestly think it was easy to domesticate aurochs?

A Guns, Germans and Steel thread? Without even looking I KNOW that someone is going to post that retarded and thoroughly debunked copypasta Cred Forums loves so much. The only question is when? I'm going to give Cred Forums the benefit of the doubt and say it's somewhere between the 10th and 20th post.

Not exactly the same pasta but, third post. I'm disappointed.

Oho, post 33! That's surprisingly late!

It's a piece of highly motivated reasoning. He wants it to be true that the entirety of world history can be explained by geography/animal life/anything but different people being different. And low and behold that's what he finds. Some of it is silly or impossible to really back up, e.g. that there are no domesticable animals in Africa, even across 100,000 years that humans have lived there. Etc, etc.

you are better off reading brave new world

I never said it was easy...
>I cannot support my position, it's pointless to argue
Have you ever tried to explain influence of rap on criminal behavior in black communities to a BLM supporter? I tried this, and I'm in that same position now. Not worth the time and energy

>I come to Cred Forums to talk shit about how the other people on Cred Forums are all idiots, but not me, I'm enlightened
>thoroughly debunked, but I can't refute it myself, it's 2016

(((Jared Diamond)))

it's garbage. pop history. diamond takes you right to the door of the real reasons for disparity in the world then gives you nonsensical or patently false bullshit

I agree, it's not worth the time or energy. Domesticating huge, dangerous animals that are only able to be domesticated due to the length of a landmass, now, that's worth it.

>I'm wrong so I'll act holier-than-thou in an attempt to make myself seem smart

Whatever you say, nigger.

>Tamed = Domesticated !

Glad to see Cred Forums showing its 3rd grade education

your proxy turned off

so? did they tame elephants to build great structures?

let us forget the semantics and raise the question why they did not use the available resources...

>yet another "I come to Cred Forums to tell Cred Forums how stupid we all are except me" weirdo
>not understanding that taming is the first step to domestication

Taylor actually was right in the regard that different environments had a different effect on how the population there developed.

He just applies this information to the wrong aspect (civilization) instead of human biological diversity, the actual reason why people developed differently. He basically goes from caterpillar to the butterfly and pretends the cocoon doesn't exist. He just skips the one real conclusion so it stays the PC feel good crap it's supposed to be.

>but I can't refute it myself
This'll be the fourth or fifth time I debunked it. I think I should make a pasta myself because I'm going to need to post this many, many times because Cred Forums seems to be incapable of independent thought or research.

1. The area between Europe and India is far from insurpassable. This is the area Alexander conquered within a decade, mind you. The area that was known as the Silk Road, debatably the most important trade route in all of human history. This is the territory of the Persian Empire, which at its height had the highest population (as a percentage of the total population) of any empire in all of human history. This is nothing compared to the Sahara, which was downright insurpassable until around the 10th century camels were introduced to the region from the Middle East(!). This is also coincidentilly the time around which we see empires arise in West-Africa. Mali, Songhai, Ghana etc. Not to speak of the pre-existing civilization of Ethiopia (which was easy to reach due to the Nile).

2/3. Google those crops, nigger. All of them are either imported by Europeans at a later date, or native to West-Africa or the Horn of Africa, the two parts of Africa that had settled civilizations.

4 + pic. Learn the difference between domesticating and taming. A bear can be tamed, as can a zebra, but neither can be domesticated. Even today half-zebra hybrids are incredibly difficult to control due to their inherrent temperament.

6. It's not a zero-sum game, both a technological advance and diseases helped. As for Malaria and Africa, that might explain why Africa was only settled in the late 19th century (when large leaps in the medical field were made) rather than the 16th century.

Not going to contest the last two points, but if 6/8 of your points are demonstrably false it's time to rethink your argument. Maybe that's why Diamond is an award winning author and Cred Forumsacks who rechew everything they agree with are not.

Tamed is the first step in domestication.
As you can see it was very possible to tame Zebras and after a long period of breeding is would have the same results Europeans achieved.

>corn

Lol no corn is relatively modern in its caloric/nutrition use. This person didn't read the book, only the spark notes and is rejecting straw men instead of actually refuting the stronger points of his arguments.

>so? did they tame elephants to build great structures?
You DO know that Indian elephants have a lot less agressive temperament than African elephants, right? The only exception might be the North African elephant (which Hannibal supposedly used) but.

1. They're North African (it's in the fucking name)
2. They're extinct now.

You're not going to have a fun time domesticating African forest elephants.

>Is it a leftist piece of garbage Cred Forums?
Yes, and factually inaccurate.

(Which goes without saying, but might as well).

Thank you for posting this pic

You mean 5/8. You didn't contest point 5 either. Because you couldn't.

>everything in Africa is undomesticatable because of this reason or that reason

We over here have domesticated wild foxes and turned them into pets. It's a matter of controlled breading, but to do that you need to have a triple digit IQ, something which niggers generally lack.

Do you feel less than or equal to the unemployed nigger invading your country right now?

>Is it a leftist piece of garbage Cred Forums?

Yes.

It is very typical in left wing "reasoning" in that it completely ignores culture. Culture does not exist according to leftists like Diamond. All human beings are identical, robotical reflex machines according to them.

>"There are no better civilizations, its just different."

There you have it. The projection of the disgruntled leftie. No, I'm pretty sure tribal culture is inferior to civilization, due to one, simple fact: Tribes are constantly at war with each other. It was like that in barbarian, pre-Roman Europe, it was (and still is) like that in Africa, it's like that in the Amazon. Everywhere you find tribal culture, tribes are in a state of constant warfare. Just like family groups of chimps, in fact.

And again, you can only deny that when you deny the existence of culture, and assume all human beings are reflex machines who are forced to be assholes by their environment. Unless they are right wing assholes, in which case you will assume they are assholes because of their ideology, curiously only attributing free will to the enemy.

Are you beginning to see why I hate leftists yet?

>thoroughly debunked
>just take my word on it while I insult your intelligence, though

Why would anyone domesticate bears?

Go ahead and make that pasta, then, friend.

1. The relatively impassable nature of the Sahara (after the domestication of many animals, I would note) has nothing to do with anything. You're even saying

>until around the 10th century camels were introduced to the region from the Middle East
>this is also coincidentilly the time around which we see empires arise in West-Africa

The reality is that Arabs had been building trade routes into much of Africa for centuries prior. Yet you're touting African empires arising centuries later, and this is some evidence of...what? It honestly seems like blacks couldn't get their shit together until inspired by other peoples.

2. Potatoes and maize are not native to any part of Africa. What is this "WE WUZ POTATO FARMERS!" bullshit?

3. The post you're "debunking" agrees that these crops were so useful that they were imported by Europeans, so saying, "GOOGLE IT, NIGGER, EUROPEANS IMPORTED THEM!" isn't any kind of argument.

4. What part of "taming is the first step of domestication, and wild horses of Eurasia weren't magically biddable?" don't you get?

6.:

>Africa was only settled in the 19th century

Are you fucking joking? You're literally wrong by centuries.

>if 6/8 of your points are demonstrably false it's time to rethink your argument

No shit.

My bad, I skipped out on it.
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Genghis_Khan
>The Mongol military was also successful in siege warfare, cutting off resources for cities and towns by diverting certain rivers, taking enemy prisoners and driving them in front of the army, and adopting new ideas, techniques and tools from the people they conquered, particularly in employing Muslim and Chinese siege engines and engineers to aid the Mongol cavalry in capturing cities.
>particularly in employing Muslim and Chinese siege engines and engineers
>Muslim and Chinese siege engines and engineers
>[Urbanized] siege engines and engineers
Oops. He did indeed manage to take over a (divided) China which is impressive, but without the aid of his Chinese engineers Genghis wouldn't have gotten far. There's a very good reason why he's remembered as a great conqueror, and why the Mongols were mostly considered unorganized raiders before him.

Don't worry, I've included this in my pasta the next time someone inevitably posts this bullshit.

>We over here have domesticated wild foxes and turned them into pets.
Yeah, that was a Soviet project. This wasn't exactly done during the days of Novgorod.

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Russian_Domesticated_Red_Fox

It required half a century of sustained effort by one of the most scientifically advanced nations in the world. It presupposes a civilization to breed the inherrent disagreeable temperament out of an animal.

It's full of bullshit, like if in Africa there were no enough horses or ruminants to domesticate.

>As for Malaria and Africa, that might explain why Africa was only settled in the late 19th century (when large leaps in the medical field were made) rather than the 16th century.

No fucking shit, you retard. Literally babby's first history lesson. The place was literally called "the white man's grave" before kinine was invented.

Author isn't a historian, his theory is good old environmental determinism, he tends to ignor or downplay facts that contradict his theory.

>Tribes are in constant warfare, civilizations are not
Are you beginning to see why I hate rightists yet?

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Russian_Domesticated_Red_Fox

50 years of glorious soviet efforts and they domesticated fox.

>It required half a century of sustained effort

That's pretty much the definition of "domestication". It's controlled breeding. You can't do that overnight. You need to do that over multiple generations.

Or are you seriously thinking any European can just walk into the woods, whistle a magic tune, and turn a wolf into a dog?

...

Within like the first page of his book, he says "it's super racist and evil to even suggest that any particular race is better in any way than any other."

He then proceeds to say "In fact, these [black primitives who never invented the wheel or agriculture] are better in every way than 'civilized' white men".

Instant hypocrisy, pure garbage. It's a bunch of backformed revisionism to try and explain why nobody other than whites invented advanced technology and grew to dominate the world.

Yes.

Because you are a retard who does not know what he is talking about and mistakes his ignorance for enlightenment.

For instance, are you currently living in fear of a raiding party that will come into town and kick up shit? No? Congrats, you are not living a tribal existence.

>The reality is that Arabs had been building trade routes into much of Africa for centuries prior.
Arabs? You know that's at its earliest 7th century, right? And even if they somehow managed to make inroads into sub-Saharan West Africa by that time (and not Ethiopia, which has been civilized since at least the 4th century), that does not contradict my point: civilizations did arise in the regions that had contact with the outside world, at around the time that contact intensified.

>Potatoes and maize are not native to any part of Africa.
That's what I said.

>3. The post you're "debunking" agrees that these crops were so useful that they were imported by Europeans
Use your thinky organ for a moment. If the Europeans had to import them from outside of Africa, would native Africans (especially in the isolated center and south of Africa) have access to them before having contact with Europeans?

>4. What part of "taming is the first step of domestication, and wild horses of Eurasia weren't magically biddable?" don't you get?
The part where not every animal is domesticatable, but practically every animal can be tamed. There's a reason why wolf attacks were a thing in Europe until the 18th century.

>You're literally wrong by centuries.
Other than South Africa (which had an agreeable climate) and some fringe trade posts, I'm right. There's this thing called the Scramble for Africa, look it up once.

Pic related, a map of Africa in 1830. Not only is much territory unclaimed, much of the claimed territory (except in the very Southern tip and in the North) were claimed in name only and barely settled until later.

>Yeah, that was a Soviet project. This wasn't exactly done during the days of Novgorod.
>It required half a century of sustained effort by one of the most scientifically advanced nations in the world

You make it sound like it was some big fucking deal. It wasn't, just an experiment and it proves that any animal can be domesticated. The reason bears and foxes haven't been domesticated in the past is because they didn't serve a much of a purpose aside from their fur, which could be gotten as easily through hunting them or other animals. Food was important, transportation were very important and that's why canines (for hunting), cattle and horses were domesticated. Niggers never figured that out, not because their wildlife was somehow more aggressive or somehow undomesticatable, but because their IQ average TODAY is around 80.

One of the strongest premises that Guns, Germs, and Steel rides off of is that there are no significant genetic differences between human populations, and that all sociocultural differences can be explained purely by environmental factors instead of human biology.

While he makes a strong case that differences in genetics is *unnecessary* to explain differences in cultural success, this in itself does not prove that it didn't play a significant role.

One major example I can think of this is that Jared Diamond asserts towards the beginning of the book that there is little to no reason to believe that Homo sapiens bred with neanderthals or other hominids. Since his book has been released, it's been proven that not only have humans cross bred with neaderthals, but it is heavily regional and almost excludes Africa entirely.

This in itself has staggering implications that Jared didn't consider, primarily because he didn't want to.

Hey guys i just read Culture of Critique.

It's not true, r-right? Were the bad guys, r-right?

I mean i knew it was bad, but this bad? And it has only gotten worse in the last 100 years. All Pepe posters will be in Gulags soon.

Its leftist garbage

>Or are you seriously thinking any European can just walk into the woods, whistle a magic tune, and turn a wolf into a dog?
What I'm saying is that there's an inherrent difference in temperament. You'll have a hard time breeding an animal over a long period of time if said animal is highly agressive and can kill the shit out of you. That's why dogs and early wolves were easier to domesticate than, say, hyena's. Or horses easier than zebras. That's why the Malinese imported horses rather than domesticating zebra's: (with the technology available at the time) there was no point, and even today it hasn't been perfected. The only real counterargument to this is a 50 year long Soviet study performed by a highly technologically advanced nation.

>For instance, are you currently living in fear of a raiding party that will come into town and kick up shit? No? Congrats, you are not living a tribal existence.

Well, I've got bad news for you. Fear doesn't care if you belong to a tribe or civilization.

Rabbit farms exist, for rabbit meat.

That said why bother with gamey shit when you can have chicken

Yes yes Hanz, everything is ok. Keep wörking.

Also be a good goy and open up these borders.

(im trying to calm myself down, i just want to be comfy again :3 )

Literally a meme novel that's been bTFo'd elsewhere

Certain hypotheses that Jared Diamond makes about EARLY civilization are certainly sensible and are widely accepted.

However he presumes a kind of "stasis" -- that once groups in certain areas hit an obstacle, they were doomed to fail. We know this is not even close to the truth: obstacles lead to innovation, and those are the places that succeeded.

As an example, Greece is a place wholly unsuitable for the kind of widescale agriculture that a civilization "needs" to develop. Unlike Egypt or Mesopotamia, the climate and soil was bad for growing grains which could be easily stored. There also was a dearth of another ingredient needed to fuel ancient civilization -- wood.

The Greeks instead cultivated grapes and olives (which would make a pretty shitty diet), which they processed into oil and wine and traded all over the ancient Mediterranean to obtain the grains and timber they needed.

Assuming all of God's children are equal, how did the Greeks take the local fruits without a whole lot of nutritional value and use them to create a great civilization while the Polynesians were still living in temporary huts and picking wild fruit 2500 years later?

The Polynesians were certainly more isolated but that's only because the Greeks were expert seafarers -- again, an obstacle encountered and then overcome. Oh, and how did they build those boats in an area without an excess of timber? Exactly.

I have to thank Jared Diamond though as I read history a lot more carefully now.

>You make it sound like it was some big fucking deal. It wasn't, just an experiment and it proves that any animal can be domesticated.
Yeah, and once again: a highly advanced 20th century civilization. Not just some tribesmen, who'd in no way achieve that same result.

>Niggers never figured that out, not because their wildlife was somehow more aggressive or somehow undomesticatable, but because their IQ average TODAY is around 80.
You're reversing cause and effect like some fucking creationist. Their IQ is so low because they never managed to build a civilization which filtered out low IQs. The fittest Africans (for survival) weren't intelligent or cooperative, they were agressive and strong.

My problem is that he ignores culture. Like you said, purely environmental factors. But we know culture is a real phenomenon that drives its members towards particular goals.

And historical treatise that ignores culture is wrong from the outset. When we look at the Romans, for instance, it was their typical culture that allowed them to drive forward. And when the erstwhile tribesmen of Europe took that culture for themselves, they absorbed factors that turned them from there-is-no-tomorrow tribals into builders of empire in their own right.

>It required half a century of sustained effort by one of the most scientifically advanced nations in the world
The only thing they did was leaving the most cute foxes and killing all others, it also wasn't an official progect, because mendel genetics weren't whelcomed at that time.

>Assuming all of God's children are equal, how did the Greeks take the local fruits without a whole lot of nutritional value and use them to create a great civilization while the Polynesians were still living in temporary huts and picking wild fruit 2500 years later?
Because Greek was located in the Eastern Mediterranean where they could easily trade with the grainshed of the ancient world whereas the Polynesians had to sail large distances just to find another tiny island with five people living on it?

>The only thing they did was leaving the most cute foxes and killing all others
And pray tell, how would a stone age group of tribesmen manage that? Especially when those foxes have no real benefit in being domesticated? They aren't good beasts of burden, aren't particularly helpful for hunting prey large enough for humans to consume (unless you really enjoy eating small rodents) and don't lay eggs. The best animals for domestication are relatively large yet also inherrently relatively agreeable in nature.

>The only real counterargument to this is a 50 year long Soviet study performed by a highly technologically advanced nation.
You're writing this off as though it's not completely relevant and detrimental to Jared Diamond's arguments.

Keep in mind the results of this study were published nearly a decade after GG&S, and that it's likely he was completely unaware of it at the time.
The entire study flies completely in the face of his theories of domestication in that foxes completely lack hierarchy, have poor temperament, and are prone to panic. The fact that it happened in a span of a few generations is nothing short of phenomenal and cannot be explained by what's written in his book.

In fact, his criteria didn't make sense to begin with as both the ancestors of cats and pigs barely fit them.

>at its earliest 7th century

So for centuries prior, as I said...

>civilizations did arise in the regions that had contact with the outside world

This is, honestly, meaningless pablum. What contact with the outside world did Mesoamericans have? What, you say, they had contact with other tribal/linguistic/ethnic groups? Well, so did Africans! Look, it's nothing.

>that's what I said

In service to what, though? The enumerated point was that Diamond was wrong when he said diverse crops were necessary. The pasta pointed out that this was not true, and your response is "but other people thought those crops that disprove Diamond were awesome, therefore Diamond's right!"

It's trash.

>your thinky organ

The point that follows this idiocy isn't a point. It's literally not even worth discussing. It's like the ragged shadow of a syphilitic strawman.

>not every animal is domesticatable, but practically every animal can be tamed
>there's a reason why wolf attacks were a thing in Europe until the 18th century

We domesticated wolves tens of thousands of years ago. We call them dogs. "Wolves are tamable, but you can't domesticate them"...wtf, guy?

This should not be made into pasta. You'd just embarrass yourself over and over. :(

>How Corn became Corn: The Book

>inherrent difference in temperament.

Sure is funny that different human subgroups who evolved in totally different environments and bred with recognized other species like Neanderthals are completely devoid of any difference in the "inherent temperament" that you claim makes it literally impossible to ever domesticate some animals, even if they are closely related to domesticable species.

I mean seriously, look at the zebra that you love so much. It's basically a very slightly divergent horse; zebras and horses can breed. Their differences? Zebras evolved in a different environment, have a different skin color, a different social structure, and a different temperament, and these minor differences make them totally undomesticable.

Zebras are to horses as blacks are to other human subspecies - they can interbreed, but their different environments led to differences in skin color and temperament that make them wholly unsuitable for "domestication" (civilization). The zebra example is such a powerful refutation of Diamond's central argument that I'm shocked he even considered using it.

There is also an inherent difference in temperament between dogs and wolves. For instance, you can have a trained, friendly wolf, but you can never, ever get them to ignore food.

The entire point of domestication is to take away those inherent traits. The word is a verb, you'll notice. It's not a magic want you wave around.

>The only real counterargument to this is a 50 year long Soviet study performed by a highly technologically advanced nation

No, that's the only counterargument that guy mentioned, and you're now focusing on like a pitbull (a domesticated species with an inherent aggressive temperament that was bred into them). And you show the typical fallacy of the modern age in thinking that 50 years is a long time. I'd say 50 years is a minimum for domesticating a species, because it's in essence guided evolution. That shit takes time, and saying that it does is not debunking the argument.

And that's disregarding that domestication is also partly down to environment. Pigs that escape turn notoriously boar-like. Dingo's in Australia are, essentially, dogs that got away from the original settlers and established themselves as a species.

In short, there's no magical border between species that are easily domesticated and species that can not be domesticated. With enough time and effort, you can do everything. You could breed flying cows, if you wanted to.

Tribal raiding parties do, though.

>101 Excuses: The Book

>They aren't good beasts of burden, aren't particularly helpful for hunting prey large enough for humans to consume (unless you really enjoy eating small rodents) and don't lay eggs

>guns germs and steel

excuses for africans sitting on their asses for thousands of years: the book

>What contact with the outside world did Mesoamericans have?
With various, other mesoamerican tribes? You know the Aztec civilization started out as an alliance between three city-states that conquered the surrounding peoples, right?

>Well, so did Africans!
What Africans? The ones in the West and the Horn of Africa had much more contact with the outside world than those in the disease ridden center and southern parts.

>The enumerated point was that Diamond was wrong when he said diverse crops were necessary.
Correct, but all the crops mentioned that the pasta implies the Africans could've domesticated were either already domesticated in the West and East, or not native to Africa. Even if Diamond is wrong on that point (and I dare not say that with certainity), such crops were simply not available to most tribal Africans.

>The point that follows this idiocy isn't a point.
Ok bruh.

>We domesticated wolves tens of thousands of years ago.
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wolves_as_pets_and_working_animals#Trainability
Wolves are already somewhat trainable creatures. Not as trainable as dogs, but not as untrainable as, say, a hippo. Or a bear. Or a zebra for that matter. Of course they're not perfectly obedient, but enough that they can be bred to be more obedient in future generations. Most animals in Africa are too dangerous for that, which is why hyenas for example were never domesticated.

>easily trade

Hey cool in your rush to debunk you ignored almost every other point of the argument.

> Greeks could easily trade

With what? Ships? They had a dearth of useable wood to make them. They had to trade to get wood for ships, but had to create ships to trade first. What to do?

> the grainshed of the ancient world

Which had no use of anything the Greeks could, with difficulty, obtain from the land. There was no great demand for grapes and olives until the genius of the Greeks turned them into wine and oil.

Which they used to trade to obtain the timber and grain which are thought to be the bedrock of civilization.

D-DELETE THIS

>t. Jared Diamond

>Yeah, and once again: a highly advanced 20th century civilization. Not just some tribesmen, who'd in no way achieve that same result.

Are you being willfully retarded? I'm talking about that fact that the experiment proved that any animal could be successfully domesticated. You keep claiming that Africa's wildlife is undomesticatable. That claim is bullshit. As for tribesmen domesticating animals: dogs and cattle, it's possible. The Europeans did it, the Asians did it, the sub-Saharan Africans failed to do it because they have lower mental capacity.

>Their IQ is so low because they never managed to build a civilization which filtered out low IQs.
>The fittest Africans (for survival) weren't intelligent or cooperative, they were agressive and strong.

Do you see your own contradiction? It wasn't civilization that filtered out low IQs in Europe, it was exactly the same thing you're talking about, natural selection. In Europe, to survive people had to be smart, because first of all they actually had to deal with the constant lack of food and extreme winters. It wasn't civilization that brought about European and Asian high IQ, but high IQ that brought about civilization.

>Jared "white people are useless I love to stuff abo cock in my bunghole" (((Diamond)))
Yeah not exactly a great author. In the preface he literally writes about how one of his goals is to destroy racism.

>excuses for africans sitting on their asses for thousands of years: the book
Written by (((a gall bladder specialist)))

OK, hold up. You're turning this argument on its head. It's not about domestication of foxes. It's about domestication in general. Nobody suggested anyone should domesticate foxes for any reason.

Though that reason, in a stone age context, would be fur. Shocker, I know. The very reason those foxes were domesticated in Russia.

>The best animals for domestication are relatively large yet also inherrently relatively agreeable in nature.

This is nonsense. We have also domesticated ferrets and rats, for instance. And rats? We did that recently. In the 1800's. People bred rats for rat-baiting (a "sport" that also spawned a few breeds of dog) and noticed some rats came out as albinos. Well, they liked that, so the "fancy rat" was born.

Rats, of course, lend themselves very well to domestication on account of their short breeding cycle. In the end, they turned out to be one our most useful domesticated species, given that they are a good scientific model for humans. They are also popular as pets, and easy to train because they are intelligent.

Wild rats? Very small, very non-agreeable.

What is your point? That because Soviet scientists did it with foxes, this knowledge is 1-on-1 transferable to stone age tribesmen domesticating agressive animals that can easily kill them? Other than maybe chickens, which they did sort of domesticate.

>Hey cool in your rush to debunk you ignored almost every other point of the argument.
Because those points don't matter if there's no contact with other groups that can provide you with what you lack. In such an isolated scenario, an obstacle can very well be a dead end.

>With what? Ships?
Yeah? Naval trade has been established in the Mediterranean for centuries. Even if ships could not be built domestically, they could be traded for. And failing that there were established and accessable land routes. Unlike the Polynesians, the Greeks were never in a situation where they couldn't get what couldn't be grown/produced domestically.

>Which had no use of anything the Greeks could, with difficulty, obtain from the land.
Oh really?
britishmuseum.org/research/online_research_catalogues/ng/naukratis_greeks_in_egypt/introduction/greek–egyptian_relations.aspx
We have enough knowledge about trade and military relations between Egypt and the earliest Greek civilizations, to the point where even Greek art and weaponry were to some extent influenced by the Egyptians.

>if abos could ride kangaroos and nigs could domesticate the gorilla, they'd be in space by now

youtube.com/watch?v=bBIubgsfK8E

>It wasn't civilization that brought about European and Asian high IQ
Actually, that's a theory which is currently popular (for instance, see the book "A farewell to Alms").

If cold climate is responsible for high IQ, which are south east asians who live in a tropical climate smarter than native north americans who live in a cold climate?

I think you are just shitposting, but let's give it a try.
Have you ever tried to breed animals? Even if you didn't, you should know that different individuals have different temperaments and certain behavioral patterns can be inherited. You can change the average temperament of the stock by removing the undesired individuals and keep breeding the rest. This is exactly what our ancestors did. Have a stock where 90% are crazy aggressive? Just kill them, and keep breeding the rest, after a few dozen generations, you will end up with a reasonably tame stock.

sh up

>Yeah, and once again: a highly advanced 20th century civilization. Not just some tribesmen, who'd in no way achieve that same result.
Except that tribesmen did the same thing with wolves, aurochs, horses, and so on. So you're still dancing around the premise of the argument.

youtube.com/watch?v=f4CGwSqrGq8

youtube.com/watch?v=ybgQJlYRrZs

>Animals have genetically determined behavioral traits which dictate certain of their capabilities, such as their capability to be domesticated.
>Humans are complete blank slates whose traits are entirely cultural in nature

So which is it, goy?

hehe classics

It's the direct opposite of well known retardation called as great man theory. Non-surprisingly it's also dumbshit.

vs. Chinese farmer who made a functioning aircraft

youtube.com/watch?v=l422VlRE4xs

>I'm talking about that fact that the experiment proved that any animal could be successfully domesticated.
Indeed, they could. Given the right circumstances and tools. Which were not available to stone age tribesmen. What about this do you not understand?

>As for tribesmen domesticating animals: dogs and cattle, it's possible. The Europeans did it, the Asians did it
Have you ever considered those were entirely different animals with entirely different temperaments?
>B-But muh undomesticatable red foxes
Once again, a stone age tribe does not have the same means available as a 20th century civilization. Of course an advanced civilization with means to capture and restrain their target animals as they desire has better chances of domesticating more agressive animals.

>It wasn't civilization that filtered out low IQs in Europe, it was exactly the same thing you're talking about, natural selection. In Europe, to survive people had to be smart, because first of all they actually had to deal with the constant lack of food and extreme winters.
We agree, but you make it sound like we disagree. The need to predict the weather (which is fundamental in agriculture, the prerequisite for civilization) requires intelligence. No agriculture, no intelligence-based selection. Without agriculture, agression and strength matter first and foremost.

>It's about domestication in general.
See above: with animals large enough to actually be worth the effort domesticating, temperament becomes important if you don't have advanced means at your disposal (which presupposes earlier domestication of more agreeable animals and/or agriculture).

>Though that reason, in a stone age context, would be fur.
>Stone age tribes
>Not simply hunting for fur
>Not going for larger animals for fur

>And rats? We did that recently. In the 1800's
Again, what use would they be to a stone age tribe?

(((Jared Diamond))) is a Soros funded propagandist so ofc his books are complete bullshit.

>Except that tribesmen did the same thing with wolves, aurochs, horses, and so on.
Which presupposes that those animals have a more agreeable temperament than those found in Africa. As I've posted earlier, even wolves are to a certain extent trainable, and far more trainable than most animals found in Africa. Mutatis mutandis the same applies to for example aurochs as opposed to hippos.

>great man theory
>retardation
wew

>New Guineans
>as smart as Europeans

Hahaha fuck no. My ancestors had to deal with these fucking retards and they're basically even more retarded aboriginals.

I remember going to a museum on New Guinea as a child to learn about the Dutch, but all I got was a bunch of superstitious tribal retards and their retarded habits such as shitty bows, penis cup holders and various nose mutilation piercings.

>It wasn't civilization that brought about European and Asian high IQ, but high IQ that brought about civilization.

You sure about that? Europeans were probably more intelligent then the average African 10000 years ago thanks to the climate, but you don't need an IQ of 100 to build a civilization. It is likely that having a civilization helped select for greater intelligence simply because civilizations actually places even greater selection pressures for intelligence in humans then cold weather.

>transferable to stone age tribesmen domesticating agressive animals that can easily kill them
I don't know if you're retarded or merely pretending.

You can skip it. He brings up a few interesting points, but he's mostly grasping at straws. It's the reading equivalent of sitting in your anthropology class at a four year college, listening to your (((white))) professor drone on about how New Guineans are the best because he went there and met some.

The tropics are fucking brutal to live in. If you let me pick between North American cold climate and the tropics, I'd pick the cold.

Again dogs? Didn't you see that point earlier? Yes, wolves are more agressive than modern dogs. But they're also more trainable (and therefore more agreeable) than most animals found in Africa. You can't simply domesticate any animal you desire as a stone age tribe, you need animals with a temperament suited for that. And those are simply not found in Africa, a continent where they'd be lucky if wolves and aurochs were the most agressive and most deadly animals on the block.

>The tropics are fucking brutal to live in.
Yet niggers are fucking retarded.

>with various, other mesoamerican tribes?

So, like I said...

>what Africans?

All Africans have had contact with other groups. Period.

>the outside world

Again, a contradiction. You're arbitrarily choosing what "the outside world" means on a case to case basis that possesses no rigor whatsoever.

>but all the crops mentioned that the Africans could've domesticated were either already domesticated in the West and East, or not native to Africa

Rice. Sorghum. Beans. Nuts. Etc. These things aren't able to be domesticated, or Africans couldn't domesticate them because other people did it first? You're really, really reaching, here.

>Wolves are already somewhat trainable creatures
>not as trainable as dogs

We literally made dogs out of wolves.

Fuck, man.

Your entire argument is essentially, "well, the versions of animals that were in Eurasia were inherently biddable, that's why they were domesticated, but the canids, ungulates, etc. in Africa were CRAZY, so it has nothing to do with different peoples and everything to do with inherent differences in animal populations that fit into my narrative."

>Yeah? Naval trade has been established in the Mediterranean for centuries. Even if ships could not be built domestically, they could be traded for. And failing that there were established and accessable land routes.

It's right in front of you, people are walking you right up to it and you refuse to step through the door.

Greek civilization developed on poor soil. The only extensive cultivation that could be done were of specialty crops instead of staples -- crops that no one particularly wanted to trade for until the Greeks ~*~*INNOVATED*~*~ and turned them into oil and wine. Other people did want this.

The Greeks should have been a barbarian tribe of nomads we barely know of according to Jared Diamond's argument. But they didn't collapse and remain in a pre-historic state of development when confronted with the poor geography of their land. They innovated, developed products that other people with BETTER LAND wanted.

Diamond comes up with a litany of excuses as to why his Polynesian friends collapsed into a heap when confronting this obstacle but fails to adequately explain why the Greeks met it, overcame it and thrived.

Domestication just means that you take control over their reproduction.

Have the zebra you're riding on fuck another zebra that allows your lad to ride on and you've started domestication.

It's pretty embarrassing that this point gets brought up regularly when a quick look into what "domestication" means would refute it instantly.

Personality is more important than intelligence when it comes to invention.
Whites enjoy testing and discovering new things.
youtube.com/watch?v=uEP0294BhLI

>doesn't use a shred of empirical data
>entire argument is muh feels and equality

>stemlord

It's worth reading because Diamond's assessment of why some civilizations took off and others stayed in place is interesting, but it is definitely a lefty book.

>Yeah, and once again: a highly advanced 20th century civilization. Not just some tribesmen, who'd in no way achieve that same result.

Explain the modern technological advantages of the Soviet experiment. We assume that both the Soviet scientist and some 100 BC scientist had adequate food and health.

>All Africans have had contact with other groups. Period.
Other groups that faced the same limitations: lack of suitable crops, lack of domesticatable animals, lack of good local resources, horrible diseases and insects that make contact with established civilizations impossible etc. So that doesn't really help a lot, considering they all face the same obstacles on the road to civilization.

>You're arbitrarily choosing what "the outside world" means
Very well, I will hereby define the "outside world" as other, civilized (that is to say agriculture based) groups.

>Rice. Sorghum. Beans. Nuts. Etc. These things aren't able to be domesticated, or Africans couldn't domesticate them because other people did it first?
No you fucking idiot. They were domesticated where they were present and weren't where they were not. This shouldn't be difficult to understand.

>We literally made dogs out of wolves.
And for the fourth time WOLVES ARE ALREADY TRAINABLE ANIMALS.

>they could [domesticate animals] given the right circumstances and tools, which were not available to stone age tribesmen

And yet Stone Age tribesmen did it...in Eurasia...

This is really a central point that destroys your argument that you've yet to address. The closest you've come is magical thinking in which, for no real reason you can articulate past "it's obvious because they did it!", you insist "then then animals in Eurasia must have been inherently able to be domesticated!"

I think one of your ancestors committed bestiality and brought us the spastic aquafresh currently shitposting ITT

It is.

Hardcore historical determinism and great man theory are retarded.
Resources don't mean shit if there's nobody able to make decent use of them(see the collapse of Mughal Empire and Maratha Empire - one after another or decline of the Ottomans).
Great people don't mean shit if they have no resources nor means to obtain those. Even Napoleon - the very person that caused the great man theory to be a thing - couldn't do shit by the time of Waterloo. He could've win it, sure. However Austrians were coming. Russians were coming. What he faced was a 3rd or 4th part of the resources coalition had and it was enough to bring him down. Same applies to many other examples.

>Explain the modern technological advantages of the Soviet experiment.
Simple. Contact with the outside world (the first Russian/Muscovite Tsars were Scandinavians, brought into contact with Mediterranean civilization through centuries of (attempted) religious missions as well as back and forth trade and wars) plus the presence of soil that's quite fertile and suited for the building of crops (Ukrainian wheat belt) and contact with civilizations that already grew those crops.

There's a very good reason why the Fertile Crescent is called the craddle of civilization, and why every Eurasian civilization can in one form or another be tracked back to the Fertile Crescent.

That's cute but did you forget LIONS have been a circus act for centuries now? Remind me where those come from.

>south east asians

Compare them to the Chinese and Japanese instead of Native Americans.

>native north Americans

Who generally lived south of the Great Lakes and near the coasts which were mostly temperate. There were few tribes that actually lived in comparable environment to Europe and the American natives are a whole different story after what is actually speculated an "American Black Death" plague wiped out most of them prior to the arrival of Europeans.

>Indeed, they could. Given the right circumstances and tools.

What fucking tools are you talking about. The experiment with foxes was literally just segregating the nice and happy ones from the ones that aggressive and letting the former ones breed while killing off the aggressive ones. This is literally how animal husbandry works, with ANY animal. If the Europeans could do it with wolves and wild cats and wild cows thousands of years ago, then the Africans should have been able to do it with their own wildlife.

>Have you ever considered those were entirely different animals with entirely different temperaments?

Have you considered that all animals are different from one another and yet all over the world they've been domesticated from Europe to Asia to the Americas, everywhere except Africa and Abboland. Yes, clearly the wildlife of fucking Africa is so special that it's in no way possible to domesticate it unless you have the special magical "tools" of the 20th century.

>Once again, a stone age tribe does not have the same means available as a 20th century civilization.

Building a fucking cage/fence isn't rocket science. Africans figured out how to sharpen sticks and rocks and hunt, they just didn't manage to take it a that one step further, mostly because the didn't need to. Food was plentiful in Africa.

>We agree, but you make it sound like we disagree.

Then why the fuck are you arguing about that Africans are mentally inferior? They are, that's a fact.

How about instead of crying about it you actually refute some of the points he's made? And no, >muh zebras is not a valid argument.

>Circus act
The very definition of taming. We call it a lion tamer, not a lion domesticator. The thing that inspires awe -for being so unusual- is the way the tamer interacts with the lion.

A dog show inspires much less awe than a lion tamer for a reason.

It triggers every single non-STEM brainlet, doesn't matter if they are hardcore SJWs or Stormniggers. The first say it's racist, the second it's politically correct, the true patrician understands it's a book that solved history.

You seem to be confusing great man theory with the comic book "superman". Great man theory doesn't claim that a single person can conquer the world with a wooden spoon if he's great enough. You should probably google the meaning of it before talking about it.

Great man theory is simply the idea that history is mostly shaped by exceptional individuals. It doesn't deny the obvious importance of the environment in which these individuals evolve, but unlike all the marxist bullcrap spewed by hacks like Diamond, it doesn't make the fallacious argument that environmental factors, be they geographic determinism in the case of Diamond or "hidden power structures" or some other bullcrap, are responsible for these historical events happening.

The reason why Genghis Khan embarked on a journey of world conquest wasn't due to "material forces of history", it was because Genghis Khan was an exceptional individual.

>Which presupposes that those animals have a more agreeable temperament than those found in Africa.
No it doesn't. You're arguing under and assumption with no support for said assumption.

You can control a population that disagreeable without taming them by simply killing off all of the members that you consider to be less approachable. Then repeat this process with every successive generation over time.

Taming an individual animal doesn't really have to be a first step.

>even wolves are to a certain extent trainable
Not all of the species that exist today are.

There's also the issue that the species around today aren't garaunteed to be the same species that were around 50,000 years ago because their gene pool is likely to be slightly tainted by wild crossbreeding. So your assertion here is assuming that what's around today is what our distant ancestors started with.

>far more trainable than most animals found in Africa.
"Trainable" isn't the first prerequisite to an animal being worth domesticating. There are plenty of domesticated or purposefully bred animals in existence that are too stupid to train, but are otherwise comfortable with human interaction as a result of trait selection. Them being useful in any way or providing a resource that is valuable are good starting points to motivate selective breeding.

You're buying into the excuse that Diamond provides. The real underlying reason that Sub-Saharan Africans never advanced is because they were too feudal, had an environment that didn't challenge them enough, and as a result of those factors and others natural selection just wasn't enough of an evolutionary pressure to drive them to evolve into a more advanced haplogroup. The climate they lived in didn't require any development of abstraction in their languages. There was nothing in their eco system that required that they plan for the future. So they didn't.

What's the matter nigger, did I set off your delicate sensibilities by saying black lives don't matter?

At least I know you're not a brainwashed righty kid, so I can TRY to explain you this : "There are no better civilizations, its just different." thing
I'll try to take an easy example : skin color. Which one is better ? You'll tell me white ofc. You already got a sun burn I guess, so you know it's not perfect. The one who says his black skin is better because he never got a sun burn will have to take vitamin D if he stays too long in Iceland. So, which skin color is better? (hence the all good, just different argument leftists like to use)
The comparison is far fetched but I think you can get it.

And yet people keep hyenas and grizzly bears as pets

In my understanding, he basically argues that all people, all races, are equal. The fact that Europe was way more successful than the rest of the world is because of the unique biome, geography, and climate, not because the people started out smarter. Different parts of the world developed differently because of the Earth's geography in those areas, not because the people in those areas were different.

I generally agree with that premise, the idea that all people started out roughly equal. However, if you have a certain group of people living in one place that is rich in nutrients and easily defended from barbarians for thousands of years, then those people will be able to adapt in certain ways that make them different from another group of people who lived in thick jungle with no nutrients who were constantly being attacked by wild animals and barbarians the whole time. In some ways, his books can be seen as an explanation for racial differences which is actually based in natural science (geology, biology) rather than social science.

>MUH ZEBRAS!

>Why Nations Fail
That book is even worse.

Haven't read it because I'm a serious historian and I don't adhere to grand theories of human development, even that of white supremacy.

The tropics often have a wild food source year round. Obviously there are population restrictions but the penalty for poor planning is not nearly as great.

The pre-Columbian Indians of the prairie are believed to have first grown "specialty" crops and then "staple" crops but in a strange fashion. They didn't just "rotate" fields and crops but abandoned them and then came back sometimes several years later. It suggests possibly a very imperfect understanding of fertilization and nutrient depletion.

>very well, I will hereby define the "outside world" as other, civilized

Wait, you said contact with outside groups was a prerequisite for civilization. Now you're saying contact with civilized groups is a prerequisite for civilization. So did the first civilization get instructions from aliens or what?

>you fucking idiot
>rice, sorghum, beans and nuts were domesticated where they were present and weren't where they were not
>this shouldn't be difficult to understand

But I chose those examples purposefully. They all exist in Africa. So if they were domesticated where they were present, why weren't they domesticated by Africans?

>for the fourth time WOLVES ARE ALREADY TRAINABLE ANIMALS

Because Eurasians tamed them, therefore they are inherently tamable.

Yeah, we understand your point, it's just post hoc bullshit.

>Compare them to the Chinese and Japanese instead of Native Americans.
Why?

>Who generally lived south of the Great Lakes and near the coasts which were mostly temperate.
There were also native north americans who lived in the Appalachians and other colder climates. In fact they were usually less evolved than other Indians.

The most advanced Indian civilization was in hot hot mexico by the way. What gives?

>Is it a leftist piece of garbage Cred Forums?
yeah its trash m8

Was into his documentary but some of it is bullshit.

- downplays contribution of Eurasiatic native Americans to global agriculture
- glosses over shared genetic origin of civilized MesoAmericans and Eurasians
- downplays the difficulty of taming large animals such as horses

His conclusion was the Eurasians won because they had large beasts of burden and metal.

But using metal and taming beast required brains.

Eurasians got smarter because they had to be smarter to survive in Eurasia.

Tropical Africa had lots of water and food all year round.

Lots of Eurasians had to hunt much more than Africans to survive. Some Eurasians have 100% meat diets like Eskimos.

Tropical climate didn't stop Eurasians from taming tropical American plants or animals.

When the Europeans got to MesoAmerica that Aztecs and Incas had domesticated animals and plants.

That origin from Eurasia gave the MesoAmericans the brain wiring to do such things.

>contact with the outside world (the first Russian/Muscovite Tsars were Scandinavians, brought into contact with Mediterranean civilization through centuries of (attempted) religious missions as well as back and forth trade and wars) plus the presence of soil that's quite fertile and suited for the building of crops (Ukrainian wheat belt) and contact with civilizations that already grew those crops.
>this explains Soviet domestication of foxes

Fuck.

>advanced means

This is what you're not getting. There are no advanced means. How do you imagine dog breeders work? They get out their dog cum injection devices, look at the dog cum under an electron microscope for genetic flaws?

They get two dogs to fuck. That's it. That's literally all there is to it, with the possible exception of artificial insemination. But that's more of a cattle thing, because it beats the effort of physically driving your breeding bull around to everyone's farm and hoping he's in the mood.

In the end, it all comes down to rubbing two animals together, and all you need for that is a fucking cage. And before you imply that stone age hunter-gatherers could not set up a kraal, they managed to do this shit with one of the most widely feared apex predators in the world, and they did it so long ago that we call the age "prehistoric".

>some bullshit about fur

Nigger, YOU asked why they would domesticate foxes. YOU posited that extremely narrow question like it fucking meant something, and I already told you it was a retarded narrowing of the conversation that was completely meaningless. Play stupid games, get stupid prizes.

>Again, what use would they be to a stone age tribe?

Are you actively trying not to get the point? It had nothing to do with stone age tribes, you idiot. It had to do with your point that the best species for domestication are relatively large and have an easy-going temperament. Rats prove that that is wrong.

There are also cheetah's. They are large, but not threatening large. They are useful: Italians during the Renaissance used them as hunting "dogs". And they are easy-going, probably the nicest large cat in the world. There are tons of videos of people handling them, and I've even petted them myself, when I was young. Which other full grown large cat would people feel comfortable letting near children? not one.

I haven't heard of any effort to domesticate cheetah's, despite them fitting your rules.

What the hell does that have to do with domesticating foxes?

Aren't the oldest metals found in Africa?

>The experiment with foxes was literally just segregating the nice and happy ones
Now think about what resources and facilities are needed to segregate them if they are not inherrently at least somewhat trainable. That is my entire point: you can't just do that to animals that cannot be convinced to do so unless you have advanced means to your disposal. I don't see what's so hard to understand.
>If the Europeans could do it with wolves
For the fifth time: already somewhat trainable animals.

>Have you considered that all animals are different from one another and yet all over the world they've been domesticated from Europe to Asia to the Americas
Not all animals. Nowhere in the world have bears been domesticated despite being present on almost all continents in various sizes. We could do it today, but our ancestors could not due to their disagreeable nature.

>Building a fucking cage/fence isn't rocket science.
Now try building a fence that can restrain a zebra (Cred Forumss favorite example) with only stone age technology and organization. Now one that can hold a dozen of zebras but with enough space for them to breed and walk around without going apeshit. Now find a way to get the "bad" ones out and only select the "good" ones. See where the problem lies if the animal in question isn't inherrently somewhat trainable?

>Then why the fuck are you arguing about that Africans are mentally inferior? They are, that's a fact.
Are you mentally inferior too? I agree that their IQs are objectively lower. You argue they never built a civilization because they're stupid. I'm saying they're stupid because they never built a civilization. Humans, including human intelligence, adapt to environment factors. Africans never built a civilization in most of Africa so they were never selected for intelligence in terms of survival. This does make me suspect that Ethiopians are on average more intelligent than most other Africans.

>His conclusion was the Eurasians won because they had large beasts of burden and metal.
I haven't read the book, but the Aztecs didn't have either metal nor beasts of burden. Yet the civilization they developed was far ahead anything seen in Africa.

Does Diamond offer an explanation?

I also think the reason for this is that the Siberians who eventually morphed into native americans had already evolved a higher IQ.

>See where the problem lies if the animal in question isn't inherrently somewhat trainable?
Wow, that's racist, the behavior of zebras is entirely cultural you racist shitlord.

He conflates technical knowledge with IQ/Intelligence.

"These tribals can light a fire so they're smarter!"

Forget that that isn't what intelligence is, because he would never make the same case backwards:

"These Europeans can fly to the moon, they're so much smarter!"

If you want an account of history that starts to take account of IQ, maybe 'Democracy the god that failed' is something of a start, I own both books and it's a much better read that Guns Germs and Steel.

Overall he ignores epigenetics for feels and muh equality

It's funny, the book is clearly written by a leftist jew ivy league professor. In the preface he basically tells the reader how he will prove to them that the reason Western culture (white culture) has been more successful is due to everything but race. By the end of the book he pretty much disproves that it was just do to climate, location and resources and race does play in integral part. Of course, instead of actually stating that he ends the book pretty much not answering the question this primitive island nigger from Papua new Guinea asked him; which was " Why do white men have so much cargo and we have so little?"

>pic unrelated.

Is "Democracy..." accessible if I make the effort? I remember getting bored by all the economics talk after the first few dozen pages.

>already somewhat trainable animals.
I'm going to challenge you now to go up to a Siberian wolf in the middle of the fucking forest and teach it to play fetch.

You may find that they will play fetch with each other using your severed limbs.

You're still assuming that there are traits within any given wild species that put domesticating them in easy mode. That's a really stupid assumption.

You see, the, uh, fertile Ukrainian soil, combined with, uh, Mediterranean contact, uh...

...equals the domestication of foxes, shitlord!

Please, elaborate.

>Does Diamond offer an explanation?
If I remember the book correctly (I only read it once) he pretty much ignores South and North America completely.

I felt the same starting out, but yes, he goes on to write much less technically.

Just keep in mind a few of the terms, he mostly gently reminds you of the concepts each time.

>I haven't read the book, but the Aztecs didn't have either metal nor beasts of burden. Yet the civilization they developed was far ahead anything seen in Africa.

He gives some muddle response about how corn was far more nutritious and easier to grow than the crap the abos grew. He basically flat out states that Aztecs essentially had the nutrients to support larger populations and more importantly large brain size and those other people didn't.

Of course he doesn't actually say this but he frequently makes references to beasts of burden and other domesticated animals and how pigs and dogs for example, became smarter than their wild counter parts due to their diet and breeding. He was making a different point then but it can be applied to people within the same context. He wont because "iz racis."

>So did the first civilization get instructions from aliens or what?
Fertile Crescent, bruh (or some mesoamerican equivalent for the mesoamericans. Sadly we know very little about them). They were the first ones to figure out agriculture (due to the favorable soil/climate and local crops) and started exporting that crop and that knowledge. All Eurasian civilizations can in one way or another be traced back to the Fertile Crescent.

>They all exist in Africa.
Yes, you fucking idiot. They existed in West Africa (where we saw Mali, Songhai and Ghana) and in the East (Ethopia and Sudan). In other words: where the circumstances for civilizations were favorable, civilizations arose. Those crops aren't native to for example modern Zimbabwe, which is why it remained tribal.

>Because Eurasians tamed them
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wolves_as_pets_and_working_animals
It's specifically talking about wolves. Wolves, as in wild wolves. Not already domesticated animals (save for a few exotic pet exceptions)

Yes, this explains the development of a civilization that would later on become civilized enough to have the means and tools to eventually domesticate an animal that would be impossible to domesticate in for a stone age tribal group.

>They get two dogs to fuck. That's it.
And how do you get two animals to fuck that in no way cooperate? How do you filter the ones with good and bad traits if they jump and kill you at their fancy? This is why temperament matters.

>YOU asked why they would domesticate foxes.
Yes, and foxes per se would not be a favorable animal to domesticate for a stone age group that worries about survival first and foremost. That's more in line with an already established civilization that can afford itself luxuries.

>There are also cheetah's. They are large, but not threatening large. They are useful: Italians during the Renaissance used them as hunting "dogs".
Alright, this is actually interesting. Sauce on that?

>we could do it [train bears] today, but our ancestors could not due to their disagreeable nature

Wait, so you're saying that advanced people can do more advanced things than other people, yet the reason Eurasian animals were domesticated was because they're inherently biddable, not because the people of Eurasia were more advanced?

>Siberian wolf
Are you going to imply all wolves are exactly the same with the same temperament and that there is no variation in subspecies?

WHY YOU WHITE MAN HAVE SO MUCH CARGO

Yes. What's so SJW about presupposing that civilizations require means to become advanced enough to do what they couldn't do before?

>Fertile Crescent, bruh (or some mesoamerican equivalent for the mesoamericans. Sadly we know very little about them). They were the first ones to figure out agriculture (due to the favorable soil/climate and local crops) and started exporting that crop and that knowledge. All Eurasian civilizations can in one way or another be traced back to the Fertile Crescent.
Actually the consensus now is that Asia Minor and parts of southeastern Europe were where the first real civilizations arose.

How convenient.

I guess I'll give it another try. Frankly I just want to kek at the "physical removal" parts.

The funny thing is that his argument about african animals being more savage than their eurasian counterparts can also be applied to humans. Niggers are more savage and less tamable than europeans and asians.

I believe that the main reason Europe was so successful is because of all the sea routes that connected it together.

There is plenty of good quality land all over the world, but in Europe you have good land which is also interconnected by sea routes. Large-scale transportation over land didn't exist at all until the 1800's, which was well after the enlightenment period had already started. The only way to have efficient transportation before that was by sea.

The sea is essentially a free highway which was already built for you. All you need is to tie a few pieces of wood together and you have your vehicle. The amount of free kinetic energy that sea routes provide is insane. This allowed for extremely easy trade, exploration, discovery, and spread of ideas.

Warfare is also a consideration. While it is very efficient to have trading ships sailing on sea routes, war ships are much less efficient. You need way more people per ship, and bringing heavy weapons, horses, and plunder (on the return trip) is highly inefficient. The sea, while being a free highway for trade and exploration, is also a free fortification to protect against barbarians or other warring states.

Conversely, large open plains such as eastern Europe, central Asia, the middle east, and western China/Mongolia favor large land-based armies. Since the areas are so large, no army can effectively defend the area from attacks. Barbarians will crush any fledgling civilization. Europe has the alps, and many thick forests in its interior which hindered large-scale barbarian armies from venturing too far west.

Different user, but I'm pretty sure that the reason Cheetahs were never domesticated has to do with the difficulties in getting them to breed in captivity.
They tend to be the chillest of the big cats by far, something to do with being specialized to run at 60mph for short bursts, and being really frail otherwise.

Guess you're right on that part. But that does not debunk the initial theory: that from multiple (at the very least two) original points, agriculture developed and both the crops and techniques were exported to other parts of the world, which in turn became civilized. Either an initial area with favorable civilizing circumstances would be needed, or contact with an already civilized group. Central Africa had neither.

Skip to Chapter 4 in "Democracy..." that's where it starts to get into that stuff

"In a Libertarian Order, there can be no tolerance for Communists and Democrats"

...

>you fucking idiot
>they existed in West Africa (where we saw Mali, Songhai and Ghana) and in the East (Ethopia and Sudan). In other words: where the circumstances for civilizations were favorable, civilizations arose.

For fuck's sake, pick a narrative! You said earlier that civilizations only arose from contact with civilization, and now you're saying that the crops civilized people could domesticate existed there, but THEY WUZ EMPIRES! despite no contact with civilization, because Arabs never got there, and the reason they couldn't cultivate shit was because (((reasons))), yet EMPIRES!

You're literally all over the place, yet everyone else is an idiot?

>it's specifically talking about wolves

Yet again, we tamed and domesticated wolves. They're called dogs.

No, I understand. Any value judgement is inherently based on values (hence the name), which are inherently biased. For instance, with your skin example it depends in whether you plan to be in the sun a lot. Though, that's purely skin, without taking race into account, but that's a discussion for another day, and one I definitely do not have all the answers for.

Similarly saying "there are no better civilizations, just different ones" is an oversimplification. And one that very overtly seeks to serve the "less civilized" civilizations by giving them a leg up. That knowledge alone informs my opinion of the statement.

In essence it's just moral relativism. I don't like moral relativism, because it's too easy. It's saying "well, everything means something else to someone else, so we should just give up on finding common ground". It's the very definition of throwing the baby out with the bathwater. Literally, because what do I care about someone else's stinking baby? That's MY morality, so no-one can tell me that it is morally wrong to kill someone's baby because it is in the way.

If you ask most people in the world if they would like to live in a state of constant warfare as opposed to occasional warfare, most will answer the latter. From observation we can tell that most tribes live in a state of constant warfare, and therefor we can rather unambigiously state that tribal life in general is inferior to post-tribal life in general.

This was proven a century ago by my countrymen coming into contact with the headhunters of Papua New Guinea. They observed that the people lived in constant stress, because coming of age rituals required a human head. So all throughout the year, a raiding party might descend on a village and murder everyone. These people (Christian missionaries, in fact) convinced the locals to give up their headhunting ways by replacing the head with an item. The tribes themselves saw that headhunting was inferior to the "civilized ways"

>Now think about what resources and facilities are needed to segregate them if they are not inherrently at least somewhat trainable.

Cages, that's all that was needed.

>I don't see what's so hard to understand.

Exactly, I don't see how you can be so dense and deny objective reality staring you in the face.

>already somewhat trainable animals.

Most retarded statement I've read all week. You are either literally a retard or are pulling my leg. Every animal is already "somewhat trainable". What matters is whether your brain functions well enough to do it.

>Nowhere in the world have bears been domesticated despite being present on almost all continents in various sizes.

Because bears were useless. Africans didn't even manage to domesticate the wolves and wild dogs native to their continent.

>See where the problem lies if the animal in question isn't inherrently somewhat trainable?

You really fucking think horses were easier to domesticate? You ever been around a wild horse, you dipshit? They are pretty fucking aggressive as well, and yet somehow Europeans and Asians still managed to do it. Must've been those "advanced tools" you keep harping on about.

>Are you mentally inferior too?

No, but you clearly are if you can't comprehend the above and instead choose to argue for the sake of argument.

>I'm saying they're stupid because they never built a civilization.

Do you even know what civilization is founded on? Agriculture and animal husbandry. The ability for a people to settle down on and live off of a piece of land for many generation, instead of constantly moving around to find food. To do that, they need to be able to grow their own food and raise their own animals for exploitation. This requires a certain amount of intelligence which can only be gained beforehand through natural selection.

>zebras cannot be domesticated
>the book

>You DO know that Indian elephants have a lot less agressive temperament than African elephants
RACIST

>what's so SJW about presupposing that Eurasian animals were magically trainable and that's why they domesticated animals

It's a mystery. A huge, unsupportable, anti-white mystery.

But the larger point is that continue to insist Eurasian animals are able to be domesticated as evidenced by the fact that they were domesticated, yet shy from the idea that Africans can't domesticate animals as evidenced by the fact that haven't generally domesticated animals.

>it's because of the animals and their psychology!

Sea routes are important but they don't mean much if you are a hunter & gathering culture. You can look at the Polynesian islands as an example. Abundant in fertile land and resources yet never had a truly developed civilization. It's our agricultural society that helped us develop into what we are today.

I don't disagree with you, sea routes did play in integral part. Both east Asia and Europe have always had very convenient sea routes. However, you can also look at the empires formed around the Silk-road as an example of civilizations formed around land trade routes as well.

Diamond and McNeil are anti Cred Forums

David Landes was Cred Forums before Cred Forums thought about being Cred Forums

I cri er tim

Yes, which is why northern Europe was not really civilized until very recently.

Objectively there are better cultures and civilizations. You can quantity this by comparing the standard of living, the degree of liberty and the availability of food and shelter to name a few.

You have a legitimate point to make about race when you are discussing the issue of races being adapted to different climates, but unfortunately you do not consider that it is only a few races producing cultures worth living in, objectively making them superior.

Go live with niggers if you disagree, see how great their culture is when you get mugged and raped

Seriously, this.

>animals of the same type from different environments have completely different mental/emotional/cognitive abilities
>but the reasons Eurasians are more successful is because of geographical accidents, not different mental/emotional/cognitive differences, because that would be racist

>civilized
Wow racist much? There is no such thing as "civilized" and "uncivilized", just different :^)

>le Africa is bad for farming meme
data.worldbank.org/indicator/AG.LND.ARBL.ZS?year_high_desc=true

Dmitri Belyaev shits all over Jared Diamond's notion that 'some animals can't be domesticated', thus destroying the entire crux of one of his main arguments

The Lucifer Principle by Howard Bloom is a book I read in the 90s as a kid. It is the first time I heard the term "Meme". He posited that a meme is a living creature ... A memory gene and it spreads like bacterial organisms but it makes the host transfer it through communication. It really make my synapses erect with thoughts.

Fuck you, muh feels. :(

Yeah Africa being a bad place to grow crops has been debunked countless times. Before Niggers stole South Africa from the whites they where exporting a lot of produce. The lands are very fertile. African just have no idea how to manage them because they have never bothered to learn. It's a lot easier to live like animals like the have for the past 50,000 years then to learn from foreigners how to tend crops and grow the land. I think the only niggers that have learned this are the Ethiopians but they are a different stock. They are like the High Elves of the nigger race.

>one of those is literally a painted horse
nice job m8

I want to domesticate zebras just to prove him wrong.

Yea, I think that civilization needs a solid agricultural base to start with. After that, sea routes basically give you a huge jump-start. The silk road was very successful, but it took much longer to develop and it depended on other civilizations already being established. If it weren't for China on one side and Western Civilization/Arabs on the other side, the silk road probably would never have existed.

I just wanted to emphasize the effect of sea routes because most people discount their effect today since we have planes trains and automobiles. Sea routes are significantly less efficient by comparison today, but it mattered a whole lot back then.

Ethiopians are like half caucasoid. Basically they're a bunch of middle eastern neolithic farmers who came back to Africa and fucked niggers.

A meme book that my anthropology professor blew out of the water 4 years ago during a lecture. The entire book is "H-hey guise it's not black peoples fault they are the ass end of humanity it's white people!". Nothing but revisionist, African ass kissing

poor wojtek he finished his life in a zoo
F

niggers have no excuse to be so late compared to the rest of the world, guys in the Andes had a way worse starter than most of africans

it's not like they haven't bothered to learn, they are simply too stupid too

i read one story from an aid worker were an african farmer would rather spend his crop earnings in impressing his village than develop his land

Most of the retards posting about domestication here have never even been in contact with large animals. Temperament matters. After thousands of years of domestication there are still aggressive strands that run through modern farm animals which make some dangerous and unproductive to handle.

The people who initially domesticated the aurochs, water buffalo, elephants, horses, etc must have been based as fuck. Shitting on Africans who never figured out how to domesticate zebras is just faggotry - I'd like to see your NEET ass go into the grasslands and domesticate some zebras yourself. Pure WE WUZ faggotry here.

Is it about psychopaths?

Watch Empire of Dust.

>Patrician
>Jared FUCKING DIAMOND
No, fuck you.

I didn't enjoy the format, I recall him repeating himself in odd ways, like he wrote it for morons. I did find some of his ideas interesting though.

When studying history you have to remember, since none of us was there and all the information is filtered through time and the world view of both the current and past writers, there is no "Bible" of 100% accurate information. All of it has to be take with a grain of salt so to speak. A lot of it is just educated guesses and this work is no different.

I wouldn't swear by it, but it is an interesting read. As I said, there are some valid points of how location and ecology gave certain advantages, you just have to kind of shrug at his "everyone and everything is equal otherwise".

>most of the retards posting about domestication here have never even been in contact with large animals
>temperament matters
>after thousands of years of domestication there are still aggressive strands that run through modern farm animals which make some dangerous and unproductive to handle.

Wow, so they must have been pretty aggressive in the first place, like all our history records, huh?

Yet you're siding with some faggot who says the entire reason they were domesticated was because they were biddable, as evidenced by their domestication.

>pure WE WUZ faggotry here

It's not "WE WUZ" if it actually happened, newfriend. Our ancestors actually domesticated wolves, aurochs, wild horses, etc.

How can you not know this yet attempt to lecture anyone?

It's basically a very smart man flailing about doing mental gymnastics trying to explain why lighter skinned populations BTFO darker ones by every metric.

He starts from a bullshit conclusion (IQ is equally distributed amongst the people of the earth) and works backwards from it, paving a road with bullshit to his easily torpedoed evidence.

"Y-you can't domesticate horned animals into beasts of burden!" Ok what about the reindeer?

"A-Africa didn't have any domesticable pl-plants!" South Americans turned some bitch ass grass into corn, get the fuck out with your excuses.

Literally the only people who have a "muh natural resources sucked!" are the Eskimos and a few other remote groups, and yet the Eskimos have an IQ higher than anyplace but white/Asian countries.

You're pic related tier of retardation.

>never even been in contact with large animals. Temperament matters. After thousands of years of domestication there are still aggressive strands that run through modern farm animals which make some dangerous and unproductive to handle.

A lot of us actually deal with niggers on dailly basis FYI

>wolves were domesticated but not bears

Try again, leaf.

>Doesn't understand the difference between "tame" and "domesticated".

>it's not WE WUZ since my ancestors actuall did it
WE WUZ ROMANS AND SHIIEEEET

NEET plz. Crutch of a loser who's never accomplished anything in life is to lay claim to the accomplishments of others.

>But they're also more trainable (and therefore more agreeable) than most animals found in Africa. You can't simply domesticate any animal you desire
Stop making stupid excuses for negroes. European domesticated tons of species, poos in loos managed elephants, even South Americans and Eskimos managed to domesticate species.

i always wonder how people get the idea to do this
>wake up
>hmm, let's tame that 800kg furry thing that could knock my head off with one swipe, it will be fun

We should probably also ignore that aurochs existed in North America until sometime before the Middle Ages.

My grandfather was a planter, and he said "you drop a seed into the ground and it comes shooting right back up" about the fertility of African soil.

People tend to forget that half the shit European colonists did in their colonies was farming. I always laugh at the notion that "Europe robbed the natural resources of Africans/Asians", because the thing that made us the most money was the soil they walk on.

Usually you raise a cub, not try to tame full grown bear.

North Africa, even.

Again with the fallacy. By your logic, wolves were never domesticated because there are still wild wolves that reproduce outside human control.

So having been called out on your lack of historical education, you result to "I have superhuman powers that can determine your life status because you made fun of me!"

You honestly should have just three-sixtied and walked away.

Romans didn't domesticate wolves, aurochs or horses. You're an idiot.

>well, it was done in them old-timey days, so it must have been Romans, because they're old timey

>not allowed to feel pride at others achievements
>especially your family or ancestors

K bud.

>"Americas had poorer crops, giving le ebil white man advantage"
>Columbus brought back the potato and maize form the Americas curbing famine in Europe as they both produce more calories per acre than whwat

One of these statements is true, and one of them is said by Jared Diamond

cmon, youre arguing with a negro here, what do you expect, reason?
not to mention he is totally buttblasted because of his inferiority

It's very obvious by the fact that they weren't domesticated that other geographical populations of the aurochs were not able to domesticated.

>this is what they want you to believe

literally the first book you see advertised in the history section of every book store for obvious reasons.

if you want to read real ancient history you have to read books written from that era and form your own opinion, not the revisionist theory trash being peddled by leftists

It's true that it's an oversimplification, but I think it's intended because it's for the masses.
But careful, you're also oversimplifying things. True that "headhunting" is savage as fuck, but what about bungy jumping? It was a ritual from a similar tribe and now it's a ritual in most of western civilization.
It's also true that leftists are using this argument to deconstruct western civilization, they are just doing it wrong, on purpose or not I don't know.
It may look "less civilized", but I'll prefer to grow my willow and chew some than buy my Jewspirine in pharmacy for example.
Instead of arguing which civilization is better, I'd prefer to say that you can learn from every civilization.

>don't feel pride in your ancestors if you're white

They don't even know how fucking stupid they sound, man. They literally live in an anti-white hugbox where everyone simply agrees that white people are horrible. So when white people just laugh at them and point out their idiocy, they melt down.

>Foxes can never be domesticated!
It only took one Russian 40 years to do it.

youtu.be/d1G2yZMUNUQ

You fags keep saying some animals can never be domesticated. Then you get shown evidence of Europeans domesticating literally everything they want, including zebras, but then you say it doesn't count because zebras still survive in the wild.

Also
>"Europe has cows, whereas Americas had buffalo which can't be domesticated"
>Cows are literally just domesticated buffalos

>Read Why Nations Fail
It's the same just with even more fallacies and white blaming

Just look at that deer. Its having the best day of its life

>civilization," convey the false impression that civilization is good, tribal
hunter-gatherers are miserable, and history for the past 13,000 years has
involved progress toward greater human happiness? In fact, I do not
assume that industrialized states are "better" than hunter-gatherer tribes,
or that the abandonment of the hunter-gatherer lifestyle for iron-based
statehood represents "progress," or that it has led to an increase in human happiness"

It's funny how the dumbfucks who say this kind of shit never give up their first world lifestyle.

lol what? keep patting yourself on the back because some based dudes 10,000 years ago domesticated big ass animals, and you may or may not share genetic material with them.

Very definition of a WE WUZ clown. Stop looking in the past and take control of your future.

>Very definition of a WE WUZ clown. Stop looking in the past and take control of your future.
As soon as you fuckers stop asking for reparations for what my ancestors did to your ancestors.

Fuck off snakebec. If subhumans could manage their shit instead of throwing it, zebras, elephants wildebeest, warthogs and hyenas could be tamed and used. Just like the Europeans/Asians/Arabs did.

Look forward my friend, not backwards.

I worked in UK and the continent for a while, and the backwards looking attitude impedes progress forward.

It's why America is kicking ass on all technology fronts right now while Europe is still bickering about whether Celtic or Nordic or Frankish or whatever heritage is better. Maybe when you pull your heads out of your asses you can keep up with America.

>I don't know anything, so I'll just say some shit and hope I'm right

This is what's wrong with your people.

There is literally no serious scientist or academic on earth that denies my ancestors domesticated animals. :)

Again, if you're not intelligent enough to properly employ the white man's memes, you only make a fool of yourself in the attempt.

Seriously, Romans did not domesticate wolves, aurochs or horses. The fact that you think this is even an issue paints you as an idiot to, honestly, everyone outside of your clique of idiots.

>lol what?
>dey did it cause it was old timey, nigga

Good point user

Well, "constant war" was the thing I was arguing about tribes in order to judge the lifestyle inferior. You can throw all the extreme sports you want at me, but "constant war" is still a big nono.

>it's a ritual in most of western civilization.

Nnnnnnnnot quite. The original ritual was a coming of age ritual, and as is common for tribal coming of age rituals, it is mandatory, terrifying, and has a high likelihood of physical damage and death. In the West, it's a safe, voluntary experience.

>Instead of arguing which civilization is better, I'd prefer to say that you can learn from every civilization.

I'm onboard with that. The problem I have is with total moral relativity, or rather, the ideologically motivated version where people essentially project their misgivings with Western society on foreign cultures. It's a variant of the "tourist experience" where people come back from two weeks in India and start talking about moving there.

And in the end the whole learning about other cultures thing is inherently a civilized concept. That's own thing about classic civilization and primitivity: In civilization, you can choose whether to chew willow bark or buy aspirine. In the primitive society, you can't.

Wojak was a corporal who helped carry ammunition during WWII.

No I am not memeing you. There really was a bear fighting for Poland, he really was enlisted and promoted to corporal, and he really did help carry ammo, and his name really was Wojak.

The author tries to oversimplify everything with lack of proper explanations. Only pretentious cucks would love to read that book.

They're slowly cathing up though. Maybe 1000+ and they'll learn selective breeding.

the movie/documentary version got a lukewarm response here

some people really liked it, but the majority probably saw it as MSM trash

especially the real historians and economists that lurk these boards

He is right on progress. What we call 'progres' is essentially a degradation.

Thank you, guy who is in Into to cultural anthropology class.

wojtek not wojak

This, best way to form an idea of how things where in the past and how people viewed the world is to read the exerts from historians of those times.

Pic related is an excellent book, highly recommend it. Also, there's a 2 part series, massive book, by Nail Ferguson about the Rothchild's called House of the Rothschild which not only gives you great insight into how extremely wealthy Jewish family managed to amass such a fortune and power. It also accurately portrays the politics and economics of the time.

Based Wojtek.

You mean wojzscztek?

excerpts*

fucking auto correct.

It was on my list, thanks for saving my time OP

Please correct me if I'm wrong, but isn't that version one of those that completely mistranslates him on occasion? I'm thinking of, as a specific example, the bit atheists really like.

hehehe

>would rather live in the stone age where disease is caused by spirits and people are killed for premarital sex and gays are lynched

>people are killed for premarital sex and gays are lynched
At least half of the pol/ wants that.

I don't think they had rope in the stone age to lynch people.

youtube.com/watch?v=cJ8FFvz9uY0

They absolutely did. Some people have been making rope for almost 30,000 years, that we know of.

Is this the russian Primitive Technology?

You can also use ancient slavic method of execution, that consists of benting two trees to the ground, tying them to persons legs and then letting tham go.

Seems like it.

>tying them
>without rope
alosha, I...

Tips of trees are usually very flexible.

Excellent. Learn something new and all.

Anyways, homo's and other "wierd" people were often given spiritual roles in old tribes that kind of set them apart. I'm not sure when homo-sex was really "banned" vs. just not doing your gender role properly.

Pmuch this

not long enough

You won this thread.

This is the central point I found most laughable. He acts like domesticable animals just appeared waiting for someone to throw a harness or saddle on them. He completely ignores selective breeding for traits which has a well known history and has been studied for centuries. The Russian fox study alone shoots his entire theory out of the water. As just one example: he says the zebra is completely undomesticable but ignores how intractable wild pre-domestic horses were. Look at brzyenskis horse as an example. Experiments have already gone on that show the zebra had promise, but he ignores all that.

I'd think it was an honest mistake, but nobody supposedly that educated would not have at least a tiny grasp of how domestication works. So the alternative is that he's ignoring it on purpose, to bolster his point. Ignoring evidence that discredits a preconceived notion is not anything an actual scientist would do. Purposely omitting historical information and facts to bolster a preconceived notion is nothing a real historian would do.

So what is he?

Oh....right. jared (((diamond)))

>brzyenskis horse
a what fucking horse?
google returns no results

Good one, I forgot about the aurochs.

Another piece of laughable reasoning he uses is the idea that "blacks and browns took advantage of domesticated animals when they had the opportunity, so it's obvious they never had the chance to themselves because they would have!"

That bit of mental gymnastics is like saying some fat cheeto eater in a trailer park could be a 5 star chef just because they ate a plate of 5 star food someone handed them. Gee, when all the work over hundreds of years is taken out, I guess we'll try it!

Oh, also forgot crop and plant breeding. Africans were literal gather societies, no need to breed plant/crop types unlike...well you know, those lucky whites and asians. P.s. asians don't count because they were shy and introspective.

Seriously this book is a train wreck.

Don't know, it was a pretty straightforward translation as far as I can remember. Read it 6-7 years ago. You might be right and I just filtered out all the bullshit. Regardless of the version you pick up, reading Marcus Aurelius is a must for anyone that considers themselves a pragmatist.

Taming is the first step in domestication. And at what point can you say

Oops, meant pryzewalski's horse. Got it confused with cliff B's retarded polack last name, my bad.

its przewalski
and cliff bleszinski
are polish surnames really that hard for you?

>>tying them
>>without rope
You disembowel them and use their entrails instead of rope. Very ancient, very Slavic custom.

You're new here, aren't you

Even leftist historians hate this book. It starts with an incorrect notion (societies that didn't prosper failed due to circumstances completely beyond their control) and cherry picks data points to support that claim.

Yes, it's complete garbage.

Blacks, arabs, mestizo hispanics are all genetically intellectually inferior to whites and Asians. That's it. There s nothing else.

This.

The entire reason for this book is to apologize of the complete failure of people who live in the third world. That's it's reason for existing in the first place.

The real reason is obvious, but if the real reason was widely accepted (as it was as recently as the 1950s) then the globalist's "utopia" of open borders, cheap labor, and race mixing wouldn't occur. And life would get difficult for the international jew who makes his money off the backs foreign labor and cheap money.

Yes, it absolutely is a leftist piece of garbage. There is a good book that blow it out of the water and explores the race/genetic side of it instead of the "muh zebras muh poor dindus never had a chance" but I forget the name of it right now. Anyone remember?

Yeah, anyone know the name?

For you

After having a quick search around I think it could be - A Troublesome Inheritance: Genes, Race and Human History