[ATTACH=full]443850[/ATTACH]
So this is supposed to be one of those award-winning ‘popular science’ books that a pretentious ghaseer like @Sambamba would be seen prominently reading at a Java while sipping on a mocha but I digress. The basic gist of this book is that the apparent reason for Africa’s backwardness is due to the fact that the continent’s native plants and animals didn’t lend themselves too well to domestication hence no agrarian revolution to prelude all other revolutions, instead of the harsh reality that we all know to be true but may be unwilling to openly admit - the subsaharan negro is inherently dim-witted and lazy.
:D:D:D:D:D:D
Then ur clearly an imbecile !
So the maasai and other tribes never had cattle sheep, goats, chicken before the white man discovered afrika? Nor did they cultivate crops like millet, sorghum, beans, sweet potato, cassava etc?
Some people
Here are thick getting through them requires a light-year of preaching others are just pompous can’t gain new knowledge
Can you name at least one animal that was wild in africa and then domesticated
You mean you’re convinced that Europeans developed because they are high IQ than Africans…pity
have you read the book or just arguing for the sake of it ?
Ati dimwitted sub saharan negro, speak for yourself. We was kangz while mzungu was still neanderthal.
IKR
Ostrich
How many people keep ostrich compared to chicken, is it docile
White man did not domesticate anything. Most of the animals and food crops were domesticated in Asia. White man got maiza and potatoes from Americas. Actually, when Spanish brought potatoes to Europe is when their population started growing
Moving goal posts
Wacha ujuaji phaggot. One of the first things massa did when he landed on our shores was attempting to domesticate the zebra. Why had this never occurred to nywele ngumu?
[ATTACH=full]443954[/ATTACH]
So have they been domesticated?
Domestication of animals vs taming of animals. Those are 2 different things
I read Diamond three years back. His book is a hard read but it has good points. In that revised edition I came across, he seeks to discount the theory of strength of
institutions brought up later by writers such as Acemoglu in Why Nations Fail.