If sub-Saharans were, as a whole, compatible with any form of civilization higher than "tribal hunter-gatherer", they'd have advanced beyond the Stone Age at some point during the several thousand years that literally every other large group of humans on Earth began to develop metalworking, large-scale agriculture, large scale construction projects, cities, plumbing, intercontinental trade, ocean-going vessels, and all the other things that come together to form complex societies. According to the current Out-of-Africa theory of human expansion, they even had a several-millennia long head start before nomadic humans on every other continent settled down and started building civilizations. If human equality were a real thing, sub-Saharan Africa would have had at least one or two civilizations as advanced as the Middle East, the Mediterranean, Northern Europe and East Asia around 1000-1500AD. Instead they can't even match Egypt or Greece circa 3000 years ago. Sub-Saharan Africa's backwardness cannot be a result of colonization and oppression because it was already thousands of years behind the rest of the world before Arab and later European "colonizers" ever set foot there.
I read an article a few months ago. Neanderthals were supposed to be good in science and math...homosapiens were better in social skills. They intermarried and bred. The article was referring to Asians and Europeans from a long time ago. Africans are homosapiens without the Neanderthal DNA. That is why a lot of times you hear different health exceptions for Africans, like sickle-cell anemia, and kidney function GFR. (It is right on my blood test results, if you are not African, this is the reference #; if you are African, then this is your reference #). I am not trying to be racist, and you can look this up in your own. Point being, Neanderthals are viewed as lower down the evolution scale than homosapiens but apparently they had some good genes that mixed in with some homosapiens who lived outside Africa and maybe that is why Asians/Caucasions developed/excelled in certain areas. Also, dont ignore the effect of climate on civilization. Temperate climate zones is where the advancement occurred because too hot or too cold is not conducive to things other than survival.
Greater Neanderthal admixture is the likely explanation for why humans who left Africa advanced more rapidly than those who remained; climate probably less so, given that those who migrated across the Bering Strait and became the "indigenous" peoples of the Americas advanced at least as far as the early Egyptians in Central and South America at latitudes closer to Africa, whereas in North America in climates more similar to Europe they largely remained hunter-gatherers. The "climate theory" of civilization development is mostly just another cope to avoid accepting the reality of sub-Saharans.
If sub-Saharans were, as a whole, compatible with any form of civilization higher than "tribal hunter-gatherer", they'd have advanced beyond the Stone Age at some point during the several thousand years that literally every other large group of humans on Earth began to develop metalworking, large-scale agriculture, large scale construction projects, cities, plumbing, intercontinental trade, ocean-going vessels, and all the other things that come together to form complex societies. According to the current Out-of-Africa theory of human expansion, they even had a several-millennia long head start before nomadic humans on every other continent settled down and started building civilizations. If human equality were a real thing, sub-Saharan Africa would have had at least one or two civilizations as advanced as the Middle East, the Mediterranean, Northern Europe and East Asia around 1000-1500AD. Instead they can't even match Egypt or Greece circa 3000 years ago. Sub-Saharan Africa's backwardness cannot be a result of colonization and oppression because it was already thousands of years behind the rest of the world before Arab and later European "colonizers" ever set foot there.
If colonization is so bad explain Hong kong?
I read an article a few months ago. Neanderthals were supposed to be good in science and math...homosapiens were better in social skills. They intermarried and bred. The article was referring to Asians and Europeans from a long time ago. Africans are homosapiens without the Neanderthal DNA. That is why a lot of times you hear different health exceptions for Africans, like sickle-cell anemia, and kidney function GFR. (It is right on my blood test results, if you are not African, this is the reference #; if you are African, then this is your reference #). I am not trying to be racist, and you can look this up in your own. Point being, Neanderthals are viewed as lower down the evolution scale than homosapiens but apparently they had some good genes that mixed in with some homosapiens who lived outside Africa and maybe that is why Asians/Caucasions developed/excelled in certain areas. Also, dont ignore the effect of climate on civilization. Temperate climate zones is where the advancement occurred because too hot or too cold is not conducive to things other than survival.
Greater Neanderthal admixture is the likely explanation for why humans who left Africa advanced more rapidly than those who remained; climate probably less so, given that those who migrated across the Bering Strait and became the "indigenous" peoples of the Americas advanced at least as far as the early Egyptians in Central and South America at latitudes closer to Africa, whereas in North America in climates more similar to Europe they largely remained hunter-gatherers. The "climate theory" of civilization development is mostly just another cope to avoid accepting the reality of sub-Saharans.