True, but the Mongols were in a very similar condition- landlocked within the vast steppes of Asia with navigable rivers only on the periphery. Yet they succeeded in unifying while the Africans did not. The possession of horses was also a huge advantage, although Africans were exposed to them after the Arab invasions.
@@dragenmaster5385 Can you name a year? The Arab invasions of Sub-Saharan Africa came in the 9th century. Obviously the North Africans had horses, but they didn't cross the Sahara.
Yeah, the best part is the atlas projection we use makes africa look a good 30% smaller than it actually is, if not moreso. I only recently figured out just how insanely large Africa actually is. Kind of like how if you look at that atlas you also get this weird idea of Canada, Greenland, and Scandinavia being miniature continents in their own right. I've seen some *ahem* "woke" individuals even saying that atlas exists due to the race card. I wouldn't go that far, but I would argue we need a better 2d map of the world or just give our kids a digital globe program for schools.
@@StarSage66 Google realised people were taking the piss out of them for using the Mercator Projection and it's distortion of size, now google maps uses a globe.
From my limited experience, living in N Nigeria, I see some validity in your theory. Nigeria is so rich in resources, including oil, gas, agriculture and minerals. But, there are really 2 Nigerias. First, there is the north, which is arid, Muslim and home to several tribes, but mostly the Hausa and Fulani. The south is more lush, humid, partially coastal, Christian and dominated by Igbos and Yorubas. They have a general distrust of each other, which stems from the Biafra civil war. From my understanding, the boarders were decided by the British.
weren't europeans killing each other long before africa and starting world wars??? am also nigerian and this is completely utter nonsense, it as dumb as saying: "in the morning, i took my bath so now i am angry" , then in the afternoon i said : "there is sun outside so i am sad", and at night said: " everywhere is dark so now i will kill people on the street" people just make dumb assumptions and always talk about how bad africa is but if you go to usa califonia you will see homeless people everywhere on the street, maybe i should make a video that it is because of the winter weather and that everybody feel cold and that is why homeless people cant pay rent and don't have a job
@@jyde50 The thing is those were conflicts between *countries*, not civil wars. And the civil wars there were happened because of idelogy, and other factors. The thing is they had an opportunity for way more stability within their nations because their borders weren't determined by outsiders.
@@Frankondor and how may civil wars had africa had? nigeria only had one that was only with one tribe( igbos, biafra war) and it wasn't really a war did not last long at all, your logic is flawless, countries are alway devided, usa, had the north and the south , and still today the south still has a different accent from the north, german had the belin wall that was within germany borders.
@@jyde50 en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Central_African_Republic_Civil_War_(2012%E2%80%93present) en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/South_Sudanese_Civil_War en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Somali_Civil_War ://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sudanese_conflict_in_South_Kordofan_and_Blue_Nile en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sudanese_nomadic_conflicts en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/First_Sudanese_Civil_War en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Second_Sudanese_Civil_War en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ethnic_violence_in_South_Sudan en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Libyan_Civil_War_(2011) en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Second_Libyan_Civil_War en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Djiboutian_Civil_War en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rwandan_Civil_War en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rwandan_genocide en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Republic_of_the_Congo_Civil_War_(1997%E2%80%931999) en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chadian_Civil_War_(1965%E2%80%931979) And I could do this all day. Pretty much all of these were caused, either fully or in large part because of ethnic tensions inside the country. There are other ways division can prop up, but having ethnic tensions leading to civil wars or unrest doesn't set a good base for development at all.
@@jyde50 Africa is literally synonymous to civil war/ethnic tensions. Point at pretty much any african country and you have (or had in the last 50 years) either ethnic tensions (at best) or a full blown civil war. Europe doesn't have those since the late XVI century (the last big civil war period being caused by the Reformation, Luther and HRE shattering) with one exception: Balkans. Countries there seem to be in a permanent state of trying to destroy each other for...at least 10 centuries now? USA wasn't divided by ethnicity. It was divided by economic lines. South was dependant on one economic structure, north on the other. They literally had a war over economic differences (of course, the winners, as they always do in history, created a narrative where they also had a noble cause for the war, in this case being abolition of slavery). Germany wasn't divided because of ethnicity either. While every region of modern day Germany is somewhat different from the other (and that's exactly why like 100 states existed there before unified Germany was formed), they're all Germans. And Austrians are pretty much Germans too (or at least they used to be before the XX century), that's why the unification wars (of the late 1850s-1870s) were fought between Prussia (with minor allies) and Austria (with Saxony and some other minor allies). As for the divide you're talking about, the one with the wall in Berlin, well... That divide happened because Germany after WW II was divided into occupation zones of USSR (East Germany) and Soon-to-be-created-NATO (West Germany). It had nothing to do with ethnicity.
There is a book called: " the accidental super power ". It says most of the success of United states is due to its geographic location and river systems. Similar to the theory in here. It's a good read....
@@jyde50 so what you are saying is either A. super powers are 100% random there is no way to possibly predict them, or B. some ethnicities or cultures are inherently better than others. because you just said that the third option is bullshit. maybe you should think through the implications of what you say? my personal take is that it the ability of a group to become great is a mix of culture(but explicitly not ethnicity) and resources that group has available to them and opportunity to use both. so Means(resources) motive(culture) and opportunity if you will.
@@marvalice3455 actually there is no such thing as super power, it goes like this, countries with huge population will eventually have the largest economy, 100 years from now 200 years from now, whatever, but eventually it will happen, countries that can produces weapons will be stronger, its not rocket science, usa only thinks its controls the world because everyone agreed to use the dollar to trade , it everyone come today and decide to drop the dollars in the next 5 years, usa wont have sanctions powers, if usa was such a super power why cant it fight tiny north korea? superpower is just what countries say to boost their egos it really doesn't exist. also taking about geography its a lie, as long as your country produces food and water, that that all you need. he his just overanalyzing it.
Some scholars say the crushing heat, imposing desertification, lack of tractable animals, and difficulty in water control led to Africa's problems, not to mention colonialism. Other scholars point to other nations that have dealt with any or all of these challenges. What's sad is that the ravages of colonialism, poor local governance, and local warfare are evident everywhere...
Most of it is people in there need to be good at thing like study. If you are smart, you "can" change it. Imagine 1 milion smart people or at least educated people. Education is a key to make big changing
heat and humidity and pollution and noise and crowdedness more brutal than central America and west Africa and west Australia never impeded ancient india heat is definitely a non factor since the most populated region in the world since recorded history and likely before has always been the subcontinent
@@somerandomguy7458 the cold and hot deserts of India are nowhere near insignificant to be discounted like that, greater India wasn't small enough to be considered a European country more cooperation also means more in-fighting which lead to its demise in multiple centuries for 4 millennia and a looted outflow of triple digit trillions to the thieves of this world also the bio-diversity has been quite dangerous for millennia so no it wasn't easier to stay there Africans forced people to stay tribal, india overcame heat, crowds and the geography to stay the biggest economy for two and a half thousand years despite the challenges possibly for even longer none of what you said discounts heat being a non factor of/for africa's impediment
You missed two key geographical characteristics of Africa that impacted the peoples there. The lack of navigable rivers deep into the heartland, and the lack of deepwater sea ports. Cheers, Russ
Another one is the lack of high protein grains. The grains of the Near East -- wheat, rye, millet, einkorn -- are high in protein. Rice, the staple of East Asia, is not far behind. Cassava, the staple in sub-Saharan Africa, is starchy and less nutritious. An army marches on its stomach.
@@wasabista1613 This is not correct. 1) Millet and rice are native to Africa and were both domesticated before the introduction of Cassava. 2) Cassava is not native to Africa. It's from Brazil and was introduced by Europeans.
I once read that Africa is also limited by rivers that are not practical for commercial shipping and thick jungles that limit trading on border regions.
It would be possible with ports connecting to massive train networks to have a modern stable trading economy. Unfortunately the infrastructure and investment required to start it in the first place just isn't there, let alone the politics involved in having international train routes through so many countries.
I also was told Africa has limited potential for ports bc either the coastline is deserts or mountainous. Which may be true since white peoples will hit the beach no matter what the country is
Interesting observation. Some other reasons: The lack of fast growing straight trees that can be used to build ships with. The lack of a cold sterilizing winter that kills off many disease carrying insects.
Also the deserts limit the number and lenght of rivers, where water was the primary source of ancient cheap transport while the coast, the best place where metropolis grew in africa faces mostly ocean while early Europe had the much calmer Mediterraneum to trade from.
You know who were the first people to sail the sea? Egyptians. You don't need pines to build ships, you only need them for specific kinds of big masts.
It helps to think of this place, not as a single continent, but a collection of regions: the Sahara, Guinea (West Africa where Nigeria & Ghana are), Congo, Riftland (Africa east of the Great Rift valley), & Agulhas (the southern region of Africa splitting the Atlantic & Indian ocean). This approach allows you to tackle things more realistically, more in depth, & less generalized. That being said, the climate did hinder Africa, as Atlas said in another video, the heat did disable many nations, but not to the point of hopelessness. Guinea & Congo are still very fertile lands & many peoples thrived in these places & Riftland as well. But another factor that hit these regions hard was the fact that they were so geographically split apart & separated from Eurasian & Saharan civilizations. In Eurasia, wealth was able to freely travel along all the trade routes, & make all of Europe & Asia very wealthy (except for the rural parts), but these regions were split from Eurasia so extremely less trade happened in these regions with Eurasia. A lot less wealth flowed & climate encouraged traders to skip the Sub Sahara & stick to Eurasia because of the East to West constant climates. Guinea (West Africa) was the wealthiest civilization here because of its relative proximity to the Mediterranean. In conclusion, the Sub Sahara thrived in many respects, but because East-West trade routes in Eurasia didn't link up as much with Guinea, Congo, Riftland, & Agulhas these regions suffered
The success of the Silk Road as mode for the exchange of people, goods, technology and ideas is a clear example of the benefits of a long horizontal geography.
Akhibrass good comment as the new Silk Road is liable to have a strong uniting influence along with the www. Have you ever heard that civilization building the pyramids were responsible for cutting down trees which led to a desert condition? Now I’ve heard that the global elite prize the African blood for its high adrenochrome levels. I hope that’s not true but I’ve observed a high excitability (emotional, is that the proper word?) quotient for years in both young and old. Is it at all true that northern people are more cold blooded? I guess it takes all kinds. Anyway, back on track....those trees need to be replaced which , of course, requires water projects. In California during drought periods which have been intermittent for 17,000 years at least, we have to irrigate even huge walnut trees for agricultural productivity. I look forward to the OBOR Initiative beginning the TRANSAQUA project so Africa will be a beautiful garden again. Xi's great leadership in China is mitigated somewhat by a shadow government just like in the US, I'm guessing, so it looks like there will be some obstacles to establishing a global maritime and land Silk Road community of sovereign nation states. An underwater tunnel connecting Asia and North America with high speed rail will indeed make the Silk Road perfect. We are happy to be able to watch these developments❣️
CNN is Fake News today I’ve suddenly become aware from watching Jennifer Hammond that 15 new cases of Ebola are found every week in the DR! I spoke just this week with a Congolese immigrant in my little town of Roanoke, VA CDC hasn’t a clue what to do for an outbreak not since they handled the TB outbreak. Obviously with USA dope 72,000 fatalities last year they are useless anymore. I keep up with the news the best I can staying close to the internet.
@CNN is Fake News oh, come on it's always the United States that started slavery. I am kidding, but it does amaze me how it's always focused on us. America didn't start it and it still goes on. Oh, Brazil had over 5 million slaves brought in.
Boa Gaming “Confessions of an Economic Hitman” was a welcome book for me although Ramsey Clark, Esq. had hinted in the ‘50’s that US aid was a 2 sided sword. The rule of gold has made slaves of all of us but now the ‘natives seem to be getting restless’😳. I do feel a sea change coming-protests in so many countries and many not controlled by the usual covert operations of USA🙀all I can say is 👀&🙏🏽. Stick with Truth the best we can. I think everyone of our species that chooses to stick with Truth and Beauty does magnify the Creator in some small way. At least we’re not still sacrificing virgins much😏. I like the way Vernadsky looks at our progress....increasing complexity as our noösphere expands.
@CNN is Fake News islam and mohammed (a.s) always encourages to give freedom to the slaves....since the beginning of islam....search and you can easily find that...ypu are a liar busterred
Interesting theory. Climate would seem to be contributing factor, but I think the relatively slow development of Africa has more to do with the lack of navigable waterways than climate diversity. Ancient civilizations needed water for efficient transportation of people, goods, and (most importantly) ideas. Europe is 1/3 the size of Africa, and its entire eastern side is land locked. Africa is 3x the size of Europe and is completely surrounded by water. And yet, Europe has more coastline than Africa because of it's relatively jagged outline. There are many, many natural harbors along Europe's coast, and relatively few along Africa's coast. The continental shelf along Africa's entire west coast is relatively shallow, so large ships can not approach it. People and goods have to be transferred to smaller boats to approach land, whereas Europe's harbors can accommodate docking for direct transfer of both. Europe also has many more navigable rivers in its interior. It's not a surprise that the only navigable river in Africa (the Nile) happens to be the only place that ancient civilization flourished on the continent.
Also, shouldnt you have had thriving and trading cultures along the coastlines then? Which i wouldnt say is really the case, only after colonialists landed. Except for the mediterranean coastlines ofc
@@t.ra-larchangelofthugnezz9010 there were thriving trading cultures in the west cost. Some of those used shells that came from the other side of the continent as currency. Edit : in fact these traders were a big part in sourcing slaves for the slave trade in many cases.
@@jacquesmichaud6877 sadly the Congo is not navigable all the way to the ocean due to falls near the mouth. Unlike the Rhine/Nile/danube that connected inland areas to the sea in premodern times
This theory is right. If african geography were different(lets say), then great civilizations would develop there And, thinking about this, this happened in the Americas too. We see, the inca empire develop in the same climate(andes mountain), the same goes to the aztecs(mexican highlands). In other places in this continent, the climate were more diverse, and so was the tribes. Makes sense, doesnt it?
I'd sort of been thinking recently about how in Eurasia you have "Western" (Europe and Middle East) and "Eastern" (India and China, primarily) cultures. And then you have Africa and the Americas with nothing similar. Eurasia is special not just because of being wide, but also being so huge. Even with all the empty space, the vast majority of humanity lives in Eurasia.
@@Jack-sq6xb This makes sense, too, because the Sahel is roughly a single climate region, sort of the Eurasian model on a smaller scale. Likewise, there are civilizations not unlike the Incas in Africa, especially along the huge lakes in the Great Rift Valley, which were largely cut off from points north and south because of climate geography and a lack of easily navigable rivers. The Incas, too, were mostly isolated, hemmed in by the Andes, the Atacama, and the Amazon rainforest.
Actually, this theory should be expanded by the fact that most of Africa has basically no climate variations throughout the year, so the tribes there weren't forced to develop technology to maintain a certain diet all year round. So for example, in the Congo Rainforest, fruit grow without any stop for winter, autumn or spring. It's eternal summer there. Unlike Europe or China, which had some harsh winters that forced those civilisations to develop technology for storing crops harvested in the summer
@@jack2719 In fact, it's the other way around. Only the ones who were forced to invent such technologies, were able to develop such high IQs evolutionarily.
Having access to resources is different from having the capacity to develop those resources. Africa has all the resources, but the people had no clue on how to use them. Even if they had discovered Vibranium, at best they most probably would have made trinkets out of the raw ore, to worship some mythical deity, because there was nobody to show them that metal can be melted.
I've shared this video with every person I've ever met, as a precursor to why I am studying to become a high school geography teacher (in America). 🇪🇷🇺🇸🇪🇷🇺🇸
I'm African and I've had this belief since 2005 when I visited Europe. I thought it was just me. It's common sense to deduce when you study the climate and location of the continents
isnt that the issue of seeing things on one perspective scale? you have a geographical perspective while a sociologist would see a political socio-economical perspective, a general wold see a military perspective, a theist would see a religious perspective. the art is combining everything into a comprehensive understanding of what causes or hinders the flourishing of civilization.
Help I'm A Rock what do you mean. Haven’t you seen the guy that created the traffic light or peanut butter or new ideas. Secondly, I already saw a comment of yours. Don’t generalize black people
Help I'm A Rock I’m not trying to play the victim card, but I’ll have too. YOU are acting live we weren’t deprived of our human rights force to work under white people and were segregated, this infact already caused many damages. Not allowed to learn how to read because the whites feared we would be smarter than them. Honestly it’s like you can’t understand that “circumstances” make us who we are
@@egoxagony4623 Get over it. Africans aren't the only ones who suffered slavery. Go study your history. Even the people who colonized you were once victims too. Don't blame race for human nature.
Ha ha, nice. But I guess the video above didn't say "Empires are limited to their own climate zones" but that "Common cultures develop in their own climate zones." Yes, the Roman Empire invaded northern European climates all the way up to Hadrian's wall, were apparently civilisation ended. But then why did Rome fall? (Huge question worth a Phd.) Many factors, including internal political division, the fact that most of Rome's good farming soil had eroded to the bottom of the Mediterranean sea, and that it's administration had become too hop heavy for the units of energy coming into the empire to sustain the workers at the bottom. (Joseph Tainter). Add in this geographical / cultural equation, and it's game over for Rome!
This theory actually makes a ton of sense. A lot of my family is from Sudan (mostly Muslim, Arab, and fairer skinned than Southern Sudanese people) and there's definitely a lot of distrust between the two groups. A lot of this conflict could be due to the fact that Sudan falls in the desert part of Africa while South Sudan is located in the Sahel region. Thanks for the video!
It's less a consequence of the geography, and more a consequence of the borders that were superimposed by the British, which didn't take into account the different ethnic groups (cultures) living in Sudan. and once vastly different cultures are exposed to land disputes over capitalistic purposes (oil and other natural resources) it led to an ethnic cleansing perpetrated by the dominant (arab in this case) faction. This happens all over the world in areas such as the Middle East and Central/South America, and it's mostly due to colonial interferrence (from Europe, and more recently the US) of the same kind.
@@Y.E.S.249 but, Africa had the lack of unity which enabled Europe to come in and impose these borders in the first place. Hence, the gist of this video.
that's a complete lie in every sense of the word. africa is being turned into a massive desert because of climate change and every country is coming over to practically pillage the land dry.
@@joedatius well you are just basically describing the whole fucking wolrd, sadly. Still, África has one of the most diverse ecological regiones and it still holds some balance, unlike other places.
Tom Stamos - Everyone who says liberalism is a mental disorder is either 12 years old or knee deep into Republican propaganda. Liberalism is as valid of an ideology as conservatism, and its followers are certainly less racist. So yeah, fuck off back to James Allsup or one of the 20+ propaganda channels you’re probably subscribed to.
Dear Internet, Finally some ORIGINAL content and some things you can learn in digestible 5-7 minute videos. We need to support a channel like this with subscriptions. (Just saying....and no, i dont know content creator).
Atlas Pro They will. Your content is that interesting. And not all of us are care about dumb celebrities. You'll be at 500,000 by end of the year. At least
I don't think that you have properly taken into account the size of Africa. While the different climates would prevent a giant empire from dominating the whole continent the individual climate zones in Africa are still very big, big enough for powerful states to exist (as you mentioned Egypt, Ethiopia and Mali). For example South Africa (approximately corresponding to the Mediterranean climate zone of the south) is as large are modern day France, Germany and Poland combined but until the 19th did not develop any powerful centralized states. Japan deserves a mention since it is tall rather than wide and so has different climates as well as being relatively isolated but still developed a centralized political system and industry/technology.
Japan's climate variance is akin to like comparing Florida to Maine. Most of the island is temperate deciduous forest, but leading into sub tropical forest in the south.
Japan become advanced when they actively learn the knowledge, technology, and culture of the western world after breaking out of their isolationist state. It mean that the empire is actively modernize
When Ethiopia go to war with Italy during their first war. They actually win because they have more firearms and their firearms are more modern then the Italian after they bought it from the german. It was cause by their king when the king actively modernize the nation
I think it's really important to note that there is no easy answer to why Africa wasn't home to more empires. So many reasons including geography could have or could not have, contributed to this.
In my 60 years on this planet problems are never solved by elaborate schemes and complicated plans. Simple, basic, easily understood solutions usually solve problems. An example is writing in zero gravity. Scientists engineered a pressurized pen that ruins clothes to this day. Engineers drew plans for the pen with a pencil. The solution to the problem was simply in front of them, a pencil. Geography, why deal with people that can't help you survive. No grocery stores back then. Less energy to kill them and take what they want. Imagine intelligent policies using this theory as a consideration.
I agree. This forced people to develop calendars so they would know when to plant. They also needed to have a longer time horizon and be able to defer gratification. They had to plant in the spring so they could harvest in the fall, and then store enough food, and chop enough wood, so they could survive the long winter. They had to learn about crop rotation, plant breeding, animal husbandry, etc. These intellectual challenges weeded out those with the lowest IQ. Meanwhile in Africa, hunter-gatherers would wake up every morning and go hunting. They only had to be smarter than the animals they wanted to eat. They didn't have to think long term. Just survive the day. Tomorrow will take care of itself.
@@ziovanni77 No it doesn't. It means that to live in Europe you need a management cycle but to live in africa investing in a mangment cycle is a waste of reasources. It's a cultural neccesity, not a genetic predisposition.
@@dernwine sure,in the short term.But isn't cultural/environmental pressures under a long period of time an agent for evolutionary variation?To be clear I am not taking a clear stance regarding intelligence levels of different peoples.Just arguing the op's point.
@@ziovanni77 Not really. For starters you're taking the assumption that a colder climate is the only evolutionary pressure people are facing, as if disease, more dangerous fauna, and Africas own climactic variation (yes Africa also has seasons, it's just that the temperature tends to stay "warm") don't force constraints and planning on humans living there. Secondly can you actually prove a correlation between living in Europe prior to civilisation and being more intelligent? I doubt it. While you might be able to argue that living in Europe = more difficult than living in africa (see point one why I disagree) you then have to extablish that increased expenditure of energy on an already highly energy intesive brain is an evolutionary advantage in a part of the world where energy shortages are common.... lets face it squirrels plan for the winter, that stuff doesn't necessarily require high brain power, and if you can't produce food for 4 months of the year evolution can select for lower intelligence.
A detailed explanation would require a 50 page or more research paper lol. There are so many factors. He did a great job of condensing an idea into a bite size digestible.
I don't think he did though. Actually knowing the history of Rome and China it was kind of cringy. Also religion had more to do with Ethiopa's Independence than its climate or culture. I think there is something to the argument in general. Especially when you start talking about how the ecology shifts all the time in Africa. Therefore if your arid for a few generations then you become more tropical for a generation or two. Then the next 100 or so years you slip into slahiel climate.
@@ipaja5515 White man is not responsible for Africans poor development, sure they did influenced it in the latest centuries but who influenced it before the white man to stay underdeveloped?
@@nomad8166 do some research. Yes, parts of Africa were underdeveloped before the european invasion but other parts were very developed. U heard of Great Zimbabwe that the european tried to lie was a semetic peoples construction in Zimbabwe because it was a highly developed community. The european didn't want to attribute this great African construction to Africans. That many artefacts in european museums were stolen from Africa, e.g. Benin bronze age artefacts. And u have to remember the romans considered the anglo-saxon a barbarian before they arrived there.
Literally 15 seconds before you touched on it, I immediately realized that those 1000+ different tribes made the slave trade easy pickings: Nobody in Africa had another tribes back (as they were more than likely warring with them just prior to the Slave Trade).
@Lumiel Utter non-sense of you both. There are no traces of it. But the conflicts nowadays all are connected to foreighn religions and borders drawn by creatures not familiar to this planet till this day. You creatures would blame cow farts for the damage done by you.
@Mø Nälayé The people who get "offended" by people like us calling what happened in Africa Pre- Slave Trade, are the same people enslaved, themselves: Mental slavery: living under labels of "Black", "White", and "Brown"... and "African- American", "Caucasian", and "Latin- American", etc. That dude^^ proved his own ignorance; especially with the ridiculous "cow farts" comment.
@Mø Nälayé I really love this comment. It's so rare to read commentary on this topic that isn't coloured by S-J-W or Alt-Right Dogma. You don't let the white man off the hook, or the Africans either (like you say, if you've got a load of P.O.W's on your hand and some bunch of outsiders fortuitously show up willing to take them off your hands in exchange for guns, trade goods or whatever why the hell wouldn't you ?) You don't forget the Arab slave trade either. The Arabs didn't limit themselves to black slaves, they raided as far as Iceland and Ireland and one of the reasons for the founding of the US Marine Corps was to combat Arab slavers. However they probably took more Black slaves then the transatlantic slave trade did and while it's not easy to compare monsters, it may be that some of their practices were even crueler than that of the European slave Traders. Also there's a good deal of evidence that the transatlantic slave trade was mostly funded by Jewish bankers, although that's not a can of worms that I particularly want to open the lid on. Your analysis of the role of African history, colonial and pre-colonial and in particular the role of Africa's geography was both concise and persuasive. People ARE the same wherever you go- by which I mean people everywhere are creeps and if people can use some accident of history, geography or biology i.e. disease to dominate another people they won't hesitate to do so. Of course such conquering peoples rarely acknowledge the advantage fate has dealt them preferring to credit intelligence, industriousness, etc, etc, while of course similarly running down those who find themselves subservient. Yes of course culture , national character and so on is important in the way these things play out but for example if you conquer a land where 90% of the inhabitants are wiped out by germs that YOU brought, albeit inadvertently, such as was the case in Central America with the conquistadors (not even minding the fact that they were mounted on horseback and carried firearms) it makes your achievements looks somewhat less impressive ...
@CNN is Fake News My use of the words "Pre Slave Trade" is alluding to the ignorance of the majority: Most people only recall that between West Africa & the Europeans to the 13 Colonies. Hence, Why I wrote "Pre Slave Trade" (for the people in the back who aren't paying attention).
I though i would find more "triggered" comments here but i'm actually surprised at the level of intelligent debate going on in the comments. And for that, i will give it a "Like". Very interesting video.
Hitori Bocchi the video attracts the “better” (however you judge goodness of a comment by) comments. If the comments suit you, the video should, in theory, suit you. If the comments contain angry people debating the video, the in theory, probably isn’t the best explainer of whatever subject. I think its an okay system to judge videos on, but watch the video and just see if it suits you is probably the better way
Help I'm A Rock IQ has nothing to do with ethnicity, just circumstances. If the circumstances are right a black kid will do better than a white kid that doesn’t have the same circumstances
K A why should I. Was it not them that were over policed, that’s were given less education, that was red lined, that was treated badly by the government, yet they still flourish(respectively)
Back in college when we studied history our professor mentioned something similar to what you discussed.. like how geography influences unity and cohesion of a culture. In the Philippines (my country) we have this problem of "slow development" as well, we have many provinces/tribes/"subcultures(?)" which makes it difficult for us to make decisions as one and to understand each other's values, therefore to grow as one country ideally united with just one mindset. We have 7,000++ islands, so many varied dialects, tribes, habits, religion... People from Luzon have different values most have "colonial mentality", those in Visayas are more aggressive, Mindanao have Muslims which the government have to take into account when making decisions. Point is, geography cannot be disregarded when it comes to the behavior(?) of a nation/culture.. it definitely has influence. I also think weather is a big factor. Those who live in tropical islands I see as friendlier and cheerful as the sun is a major influence when it comes to mood. In fact in psychology depression is related to cold weather like in areas with long winters people literally get "winter blues" and part of treatment is exposure to UV/light to uplift the mood.
We need a binding force that will unite us... I wonder what could it be? Now I understand BBM.... he wants to create a solid foundation that is necessary for building a prosperous nation.
I found that theory to be pretty intriguing. There are subtle forces around us that shape our lives which we aren't even aware of. It isn't until we challenge our preconceived notions that we enter a deeper realm of understanding.
Thank you so much, A Kenyan here, Kikuyu tribe. this is good. Don't worry the social dynamics will evolve and grow ,maybe not in our time but sure enough they will. The end of ethnic conflict will come.
@Adam Defibaugh true that. But the European borders made things worse in some cases because it grouped different people together. Its was made even worse by the divide and rule methods
Would be interesting to see the climate regions of South America overlapped with thier national boundaries. Could help to see if the videos thesis works out there too
@@deinemam7115 This idea is being questioned recently. There were some cities found that used to exist in the jungle.The reason why they were not discovered before - the main building materials for these people was wood and it all rotten away by now in the rain and warmth.
Roger Propes in social hypothesis like this and the stoned ape theory are still called theory in title only. Its not for scientific theory but it is true for social
Isn't it true that today we have the 'law of gravity', i.e. everybody agrees on it, the 'theory of evolution', i.e. not everybody is willing to believe in the evidence yet, and the 'hypothesis' that there may be life on another planet, i.e. we just don't have enough evidence to know yet? And 500 years ago we just had the 'hypothesis' of heliocentricity and gravity? My hypothesis is that given enough people on our planet finite recombinant DNA will start producing identical but unrelated twins, but I can't prove it.
Racists focus on exclusively on skin color as a differentiating trait. Black Africans , White Europeans, and 'yellow' Orientals are different in many other significant ways--body hair, epicanthic folds, height, lactose tolerance etc., why not the way our brains work? This is not to imply superiority of any trait, just marked observable distinctions.
@@malcolmt7883 you can't test climate and geography under real scale lol. you can juste look at what happened and try to understand why. i think this climate and geography theory makes a lot of sense and can be apply to much more place on earth
Congratulations. Your post is on target and beautifully narrated. I would add still another geographic constraint : native animal domesticated species available in a shorter variety than in Euroasia
Truuuuuee; everything about Africa makes farming a lot more difficult and there was less need with the lack of seasons so it was better just to stay in hunter gatherer phase to find food, and make different progress elsewhere like with music. Being exposed to either people like yourself or people different but directly near you probably also hindered the need for making more technically advanced weapons
I think part of it also has to do with the fact that Africans just didn't need to innovate as much. Africa was the place were we evolved as a species, so Africans were naturally well suited to many areas of the continent. Europe and Asia, on the other hand, demanded human innovation for our prolonged survival. Aided by geography, all of these innovations spread throughout Eurasia while Africans managed to live almost as they had since the origin of our species.
No actually africa is the only place on earth that naturally keeps us in check viruses evolved to kill us parisites to inhabite us The harshness of africa forced our intellegence
This is not true. Africa is one of the harshest places for humans to live. Which makes sense as it was the catalyst for our ancestors to start developing bigger and bigger brains. It had an abundance of dangerous megafauna, diseases jumping from closely related species (like HIV in modern times), and incredibly harsh biomes like the Savanahh filled with tsetse flies. The bantu farmers, a group which colonised much of Sub-Saharan Africa, were a relatively new group with technological innovations that allowed them to do so. The geography of Africa slowed this down though, and when Europeans came they were barely finished spreading and had done so so slowly it was barely remembered by those at the starting point (i.e no cohesive identity/culture among Bantu farmer groups).
Eurasia basically easy mode, if you watch other videos about the domestication of animals in eurasia compared to the americas you'll see this added to supporting that eurasia is easymode zone.
geography def has a significant impact and the theory has merits, but it's also very important to NOT be too deterministic - human societies and cultures are often motivated and influenced by factors beyond the climate and geography!
As myself being a north African, i can affirm the validity of this theory. here for example in southern Algeria alone, we witness various incidents of ethnic nature which ARE very much driven by climactic and regional conflicts.
@@TheMediocreDev there are differences in intelligence, but among healthy individuals it is negiligible. Humans are vastly intelligent and capable of a lot of things. The differences are due to geography, and climate. Equatorial nations are poor, not because of intelligence difference, but GEOGRAPHY. Jated Diamond argues in his book Guns, Germs and Steel that Europeans and Asians got an enormous head start because of geography: some plants lend themselves to agriculture by producing energy-dense seeds which are easily harvested and which have a long shelf life after drying the Mediterranean climate was ideal for growing these plants Europe/Asia has a long east/west strip which allowed agriculture to propagate the Americas have regions with the same climate, but the dominant axis is north/south so those areas are separated and constrained; agriculture wasn't able to propagate the same way the Indigenous Australians could never have invented agriculture because the domesticatable plants simply weren't present, likewise with many other places agriculture meant that an individual could generate more food than they required, which enabled specialisation and a division of labour, which in turn enabled innovation certain types of animals lend themselves to domestication (especially important is a herding instinct); almost all these animals were present in Europe/Asia, and absent elsewhere domesticated livestock added to the food surplus, and added mobility living at close quarters with the domesticated livestock led to disease transmission, and after some time a "herd immunity" within the human population; the indigenous peoples who were later invaded had not acquired such immunity and were heavily impacted by diseases brought by colonists/conquerors On top of that, the alphabet was invented in the Mediterranean region whixh enabled transmission of knowledge, which enabled growth of knowledge, which imparted military abd commercial advantage With these advantages, the rest of the world didn't have a chance. At least, not for the first 10,000 years. But oil became incredibly important a bit over a century ago, and the existing empires were absolutely smashed by WWI. We're at the beginning of a new chapter. A Chinese diplomat was asked what he thought of the French Revolution and he replied, "It's too early to tell". That's probably pretty true.
If you are north African I feel sorry for your country I hope the rest of you don't share your mentality. For you are clearly a victim of white supremacist brainwashing lol
What about South America though? It is much taller than it is wide, yet it was unifies by the Incan Empire, and then again by the Spanish Empire. Also, Chile today is a very wealthy country despite being like 100 miles wide and stretching through many different climate zones
The Incan Empire expanded mostly through the Andes, which due to the altitude shares a climate. And the Spanish Empire broke apart, so it was not a success.
@@LNSS_v every empire in history has broken apart so on basis of that because the Spanish Empire broke apart, no empire has been a success. Yet we probably consider the Roman Empire, the Mongol Empire, the Persian Empire, the Alexandrian? Empire, Empire of China, etc. quite succesful. I agree on the Inca though. Due to the Andes similar climate and their way of connecting the empire by roads and overall government administration kept it together for a long time.
@@claymusicoff5663 Obviously depends on when you consider the Spanish Empire started and ended. I would say that from around 1520 - Charles V of Spain and Holy Roman Emperor to around 1808 with the Spanish American Wars of Independence. I would say 288 years is still a long time
Very interesting hypothesis. My country Kenya has very variable climate ranging from deserts to green highlands. We also have over 50 tribes. I have observed that different tribes inhabit different climatic zones and tribal boundaries neatly match the climatic boundaries in many cases.
South America disagrees strongly. The Incans basically did everything you said could not happen in Africa, but in SA. Peru itself has 95% of all climates in one country, yet they seems to get along just fine.
Part of this was due to being able to demistice, something africa couldnt to the same extent. Also, most great native empires didnt really interact much.
Theres this country in africa called tanzania, ome of the.largest countries in the continent, 70% of it is uninhabitable due to one insect,the tsetse fly. It causes sleeping sickness or trypanasomiasis. Africas tough conditions are the only reasons why europeans werent able to replicate what they did to s.america in the continent. To.live in africa u have to be naturally designed to live there
@@emw1994 They did, honestly though, South Africa has enviable weather and climate and access to a well placed beach. None of which poor neighbors have. To the North East is a country very regularly hit with tropical storms of varying strengths. To the north, an Arid savanna with little rain and 75% Kalahari. To the north west, a country mostly dominated by desert, which is the reason for the Capivri strip
The South American Nations are also far younger. Many of them formed well after the Declaration of Independence was signed in the United States which is pretty much in the modern era by comparison. They were also formed by colonials. Not the native people.
Let's not forget that most native Americans died out and were replaced with Europeans who brought a fully fleshed out culture and way of life. That's why there are large, functioning countries in the Americas that span over different climate zones
@@paulatano1746 pero los imperios tenian un mismo clima los azteca centro de mexico,mayas la peninsula de yucatan y centroamerica y los incas peru lo puedes ver ahora en mexico tenemos cuatro grupos grandes los del norte desertico los del centro mas templado los del sur con clima tropical y los de la peninsula de yucatan
People are poor. Not countries. All other races flourish and have defeated poverty in Africa. Whites, Asians, Arabs... It's just blacks who can't seem to sort their shit out
Very interesting, Another issue was the tse-tse fly in sub-saharan africa which made large scale horse breeding impossible. So people couldn't travel far fast to trade and spread ideas and build empires as fast and far as they were supposed to. Horses make things go a lot faster. But places like the sahel which didn't have that problem saw vast empires like Mali, Ghana and Songhai. They were supercharged by both the horse and camel.
@@billjames4771 well any well-educated person on this topic knows that sub-Saharan Africans domesticated everything from cattle to horses. Even hyenas. I dont know where you get your lies from
no domesticating of animals by sub-Saharans, flies or no flies. That they later copied Mediterranean muslins or Europeans....sure. They also were later taught to read and write, but they NEVER developed reading and writing on their own. Maybe the flies had something to do with it? Or maybe crocodiles. Or hippos, or elephants. But whatever excuses you come up with does not change the facts.
@@billjames4771 the only fact is that what you are saying is complete garbage. No one is making any excuses or copying anyone. There were different writing systems developed in sub-saharan africa without Europeans or muslims. Scholars have also written about it. You are clearly not very bright.
@@marvingroves8456 In the scientific world a Theory is something recognized as most likely true. It's an idea that's supported by a lot of evidence and hasn't been proven wrong.
That book is trash. It's been refuted so many times it's not even funny anymore. Biology is a large component that he completely ignores due to ideological reasons.
@@Jay-fp8iy Oh the irony that you accuse him of relying on a refuted theory due to ideological reasons, whilst basing your own entire theory about biology on one single study which has been refuted even more times
Academia is 99% just copying statements, facts, theories, and opinions of other academics to fellow academics in the Hope's that you can convince some academics to let you put those quotes in a journal so other academics can read those restated theories in the Hope's that if enough academics read the same restated theories that it will become the coveted "generally accepted" theory and you become elevated to being the Chad Academic
Climate theories of population groups is a very old theory, it’s how the Greeks theorized the origin of different skin colors. most of Jared diamonds book isn’t even his own original thoughts, but that’s just how academia works, building and connecting pre established ideas.
I got that book as a present one Christmas and it had a lot of good points which I had thought about, geography is the physical context upon which animals peoples cultures etc exist, I don't think geography alone determines everything but it sets parameters of what's possible, but I think the influence of culture is also a big factor if secondary to physical geography
@Lafaye Reid get over yourself. Africa is the faction in Age of Empires that is still throwing poo at eachother while the top two are about to walk on the moon.
@Lafaye Reid because it's a game about progression and one faction always gets pathetically left behind. That's Africa. Pathetically left behind. Nobody can blame imperialism because they were 10,000 years behind the rest of the world before anyone showed up.
actually it is a theory. a hypothesis is a theory that can be PROVED through future experimentation. Until we invent time travel this a theory. I do agree though he made a lot a very good points throughout the video
@@dave1805 I think you've got that wrong and the original comment is correct. A theory can be tested and proved;...The theory of gravity, the theory that earth revolves around the sun, theory of evolution. A hypothesis can become a theory.
Also I think the Sahara desert was a huge obstacle. It was like some kind of dry ocean which prevented the Europeans to trade with the resource rich nations of Central Africa. Without it, technology and resources would have been more or less evenly split and there wouldn't have been such a huge disparity when colonization eventually happened.
Surprising, trade thrived across the Sahara, and in a lot of ways in can be seen as just another body of water, with few capable of living in it, but many traveling through it. But it did distance major African countries from the civilizations of Europe and Asia. It was also a lot smaller not too long ago, and much more of it was only semi-arid.
It is quite interesting how each region lead the world at some point in human history only to later lag behind, Africa may have started human culture, but then lagged behind after that, the middle east lead at some point, Asia lead at some point, with each invention a barrier is removed shifting the balance of power, colonization removed barriers in Africa, modern medicine helped slowly progress the continent, to develop a region the culture needs to really be developed enough and be able to pull of the work needed to get things done, new regional powers usually arise with the times and they are products of their times, culture plays a key role in the development of technology and economy, some cultures do stagnate if they live in relative isolation from everyone else or if they adopt terrible ideas.
That is not relevant. It is about the important regions and those must be similar and connected enough. Indian deserts are small. The mountains are far in the north and were not a part of the core.
Geography itself shouldn’t be overplayed. The Scramble for Africa is to blame. Violence ensued and landlocked nations were stunted. And, Europe wasn’t “forced” to engage in imperialism, it was a decision to line the rich’s pockets rather than improve their people’s livelihoods.
Why was Europe able to be imperialist towards Africa then? Some countries, like Japan, China, and Turkey, were able to fight and win against Europeans, so they didn't get colonised. And Europe was "forced" to engage in imperialism. "Europe" was full of hostile countries trying to kill each other. If the British and French hadn't got Africa, the Germans and Italians would have. The scramble for Africa was a competition between European powers because the African nations were not strong enough to win against them, and they couldn't afford to let their enemies get them. This was the 19th century after all.
Going to stop you on the "Rich by Imperialism myth" the act of Empire was a negative to most of the nations that did it with it at best being economically even. Europe only conquered the World to prove that they COULD not because of some wealth based nonsense as old Feudal ideas of Prestige didn't die out amongst the upper classes until WW2.
And it's all because Europe is like a circle. Well, not really, I'm simplifying, but it's a circle. Kinda. And Africa looks like a triangle. Europe needs less effort to push forward - circle has it easier than the square. Or triangle. Whatever, details doesn't matter in science. This is only a theory, but it had to be like that, because if you check out African flags, they are rectangles and Portugal have a circular thingy on its flag - PT was a great empire because that circle and Ethiopia has more than 4 tribes, same as angles in square and about the same as in triangle and it's poor. Try to run with a big, glass replica of Africa (yo). You can't and even if you'd do it, you can fall down and cut your throat. Another point of theory - they had to be careful when they were running with their glass replicas of Africas, so Europe invaded it.
@ Fetts4ck Well then why don't you give us an educated more realistic map then? So you're saying that continental Europe isn't dominated by cold / temperate forests in the north with a small polar region and a dry Mediterranean climate in the south? Middle east isn't dominated by small mediterranean climate and largely desert / arid climate? Sub-continent / indochina aren't almost completely tropical? China isn't temperate? Central Asia isn't arid? Siberia isn't polar? With patches of Alpine due to the Himalayas and Alps. Yes he glossed over certain regions but it wouldn't disprove his point. Obviously he's not going to put local / regional variations down as that's due to topographical features which would be exhausting. The point is that Africa due to its multi-lateral latitudes has two very different arid zones in very different locations as well as broken grassland zones and two mediterrannean zones at the opposite ends of the continent, this completely limits communication, trade and distribution of wealth and resources! Are you debating this theory? How would your understanding change this? Look at central asia, the large swathes of semi-arid steppe and grassland enters upon the temperate climates of east asia to the right and onto the middle eastern desert and aridlands to the west. This has cultivated a pattern of communication, trade and distribution which has led to large empires such as the Mongols, Huns, Scythians, Parthians even the Greeks at one stage... this has been a pattern over 2500 years. Are you debating this? How would your understanding of the climates of Eurasia affect that simple theory. What African Empire spanned one grassland zone, the jungle and desert to get to the other zones? Huh? And yes this is just ONE factor.... but a factor that isn't diputed by your superior 'knowledge' of Eurasian geo-climate zones. So go on then, show us your 'better' map that proves that a common geography hasn't helped certain Empires / civilizations in Eurasia... I'm a History teacher and Geography teacher and literally the first thing we do when looking at certain Empires is to look at the Geography of their lands and how similarities / variations helped them whether it was the Romans or the Chinese... so go on then.
@Suffer No Fools basically a hypothesis is the step before getting a theory. A hypothesis can be made by anyone and doesn't need any kind of logical explanation, while a theory needs evidence, verification and so on. So you can come up with a hypothesis on why the sky is blue, but you need a theory to attempt explaining it (Tell me if I'm wrong here!)
@@jamedlamed3982 well the climate zones are a fact, but everything else isn't. There is no hard scientific evidence that this is the reason why Africa is the way it is. Facts are testable, but this situation is way too unique and complex for it to ever be tested, so there probably won't ever be facts
OMG really, i always thought about some of those aspects being the reason for the problems of the African Continent (beyond the colonialism). Obviously the theory is way more complete than my thoughts, but that's cool.
These Climate maps bother me. It is too vague and broad. The temperate climates of Europe and East Asia Do Not connect and the caucuses mountains are temperate. Steppes have grass and deserts don't. South Africa is not Mediterranean, it's a similar climate to Southeast Australia. And Morocco is more M mediterranean than that.
But u gotta at least admit that England, Holland, and Germany, have much more in common with each other than with Italy or Spain. Even Southern California naturally ended up looking like Italy...
5 ปีที่แล้ว +4
There are "micro climates" too. Like the Kush Valley Steppes.
Ramsay Bolton To say Japan was isolated as heck is like saying the island of Great Britain was isolated as heck. Both were heavily influenced by the outside world and were thus able to at least keep up with the times. The main difference between the two is that Japan stuck with isolationism and rarely left their homeland until the modern era. And the only reason Japan is a powerhouse today is well frankly because of the US and the rise of globalization. I think the main reason you don’t see these great civilizations out of Africa is simply because they weren’t connected to the rest of the world. The North African civilizations and Ethiopia were exceptional because they were very keen on trading.
@Ramsay Bolton i dunno, Prussia had a decent climate for agriculture man. Their core territories lay almost entirely on the European Plain, ripe for urban expansion and agriculture. The weather wasn't too bad, and they had historic access to the Baltic. What made Prussia a formidable military power was fueled moreso by individuals hoping to strengthen their empire militarily due to Prussia's geopolitical layout. Bordering Austria, the Polish-Lithuanian Commonweatlh (and later congress Poland, i.e Russia) and with thinly stretched borders, there was an inherent need to solidify their control over them, AND to outpace their enemies military speaking (and of course beating them into submission as Bismarck did with Austria in 1866).
My ancestors and nationality is on the very east coast of Africa. We've always been able to use the spice route trade from the top of the Red Sea to the bottom to our advantage. Those chaps on the opposite side of the continent of us. West Africa. They have not had the same ability as we have had. West Africa and East Africa alike have the Sahara desert above us making it nearly impossible to trek to the top. The primary difference with EAST Africa where I come from and WEST Africa where the blacks of America come from is neighbors. In East Africa even though we're cut off from the world by the Sahara desert the same as West Africa. The key differnce is, all we have separating us from the next continent and people over is the Red Sea. That's roughly 20 miles from the African east coast tip to the next continent over in Asia where the nations Yemen and Saudi Arabia lie. Every people, kingdom and power could not have been without the incorporation of its neighbors. West Africa and literally all of Africa central Africa and below has been disabled from doing that because of Geography. The Congo is what really made it impossible for the Africans below the Congo to migrate out. The Congo and everything in it might as well be a continent all its own. #FACTS. Africa is the best continent in human existence in terms of life sustainment and existing. The geography for half of its (West and south of central Africa) inhabitants is the worst thing to happen to any of the continents ever though. It's pure logic and history that proves my theory right. My area of Africa only ended up the way it did because we were not isolated by desert, water and distance as West and southern Africa was and is. I'm really happy this video exists. I've known this about Africa since I was a kid. I grew up in America but American history taught me things about my color (black people) that I knew didn't happen to my culture. That's because I'm from Eritrea/Ethiopia. The geography and the history we've had with people of the other continents would not allow such an atrocity as the Atlantic slave trade to happen. And I'm proud to say I'm very close to becoming an American high school geography teacher. Knowing what I know, being of the ancestory I am. Being a teacher is my best tool to be able to educate and improve the mindset of the young black child in America. Black doesnt mean slavery. Black history doesn't mean shackles, Jim Crow, civil rights ect. There's so much more. I'm a living breathing example of that. And the best gift I think I can give the world is properly educating and enlightening our future generations 🌍🌎🌏
Nice hypothesis but Ethiopia is actually an counter-example for everything you explained before. It's the only African country that was never colonized by neither Europeans or Arabs and it has a "unifying" climate but it was never successful in modern times: it's one of the poorest countries, even for African standards (as of 2018, there were only 16 countries with lower HDI than Ethiopia). A far better example for me would be Botswana.
ethiopia is in such a desolate state, for the same reason somalia is war somalia in the 80s was shaping up to be strongest country on the continent, boasting the largest military in africa and having a strong economy, built with soviet funding then they started a war with ethiopia, which they thought was going to be ez pz at first that was a fair assessment, as somalia occupied more than 3/4 of the country in less than a year the remaining 1/4 of ethiopia meanwhile, had a communist revolution which the soviet union immediately jumped in to fund withdrawing their funding for somalia in the process, and joining the ethiopian counter-offensive, by bombing somalia to dust which, for the detriment of both somalia and ethiopia, included their occupied territory and thanks to this war, the horn of africa is now dirt poor and has fallen victim to chinese colonization
"did not keep up technologically (except Wakanda)". Nice one. I am in Africa. People over here are pretty low-energy about everything except if it's self-enrichment, materialism. Don't expect much to change.
@@issadraco532 Actually, survival in Europe is much easier than in Africa. First, stable predictable rainfall. Second, a colder climate allows to store food surpluses. I can go on and on. You base your logic on the false premise.
@@michaelcrockis7679 I disagree. Europe is far more hostile. With harsh winters that will not allow you to grow anything. Making you plan in advance and ration your food.Not to mention build structures that will insulate you against harsh conditions. You (as a society) would also need to make clothing, need to keep track of provisions, have a method to keep track of the seasons, understand and practice agriculture as game is not plentiful(well not as plentiful as Africa). Africa in general(not counting the desert regions) is plentiful regarding fruits, vegetables and game to eat. You are also closer to the equator meaning that its warmer. Hence you do not necessarily need to keep track of the seasons if you are close to the equator you can grow food all year round. You do not need to build structures with insulation in mind as its unlikely you will die from hypothermia unless you wish to live in a mountainous region. I think the most dangerous factors for living in Africa is the wildlife and possible diseases that come with the region.
@@GIRRIG001 It inflicts me pain to say, but all the things that you've mentioned are just not true. The vast cold expanses of Eurasia were inhabited since times immemorial by Neolithic people advanced much less than any Africans contemporary to them or modern Africans. It is not so hard to live in a cold climate. Every lemming, bear, deer or a wolf can do that. So could our ancestors. There is no need to be a Duke of London or an Isaac Newton to survive in high latitude. The cradle of the European Civilisation is not Lapland It is Mediterranean - Fertile Crescent and Greece. A mild climate, no snow whatsoever. All the Northlings were dumb barbarians most of the History. The thing that you are trying to do is to extrapolate today's visible gap to eternity. Probably, to justify the present state of the things. Presumably, to sleep well at night. Sadly, this extrapolation is just not correct. We should understand that the dominance of the European countries in the course of the last 200 years is just a small bulge on the long human history, which spans hundreds of thousands of years. Most of that time there was no technological gap between north and south. Hides and stones, that's all. And biologically, the difference between Africans and Europeans is no more than such between two Europeans one ginger and one with black hair. We all, black and white, are Cro-Magnon men, mostly as clever by our nature as the first Homo sapiens. The same amount of neurons in the brain, you know. So, to say that the African people are crap is like to say that the winner of the second place in swimming at the Olympics is a bad swimmer. We all lasted for millennia. It counts for something. Moreover, the given time is not enough to create a substantial genetic difference. The real difference is in the construction of society. It's in human nature to explain the complexity of a society by the cleverness of its people. In fact, it is quite opposite. Because of specialization people in complex societies are less clever and less prominent in general. Social structure cares about them. They have no need to be great to survive a day since no one doesn't need to be a great hunter to buy a chicken in the grocery store. And they are just cogs in the machine. The machine is great, not individuals. The masses are pretty dumb in all ages. So, we need to invent a good theory about how civilizations born and evolve without saying 'those people were just too stupid to do something'. Probably, they were not. And the last thing. There are so many things that can kill a human. We know our local threats, but know nothing about threats in distant lands. So we just tend to inflate the importance of threats we familiar with. Dozens of venomous snakes and insects, poisonous plants, the death from overheating and thirst - just a brief list of things average inhabitant of Europe shouldn't even have known of, ever. People telling stories about easy life in Africa just recite kid's tales, where ostriches hide their heads in the ground, in other words, rubbish written by the wannabe writers of the times when uncharted territories were marked as 'here there be dragons and dog-headed people'. Life was never easy in no place on the Earth.
when the europeans invaded they sacked the continent, decimated the populations, and even brought african slaves to work on extracting resources. america experienced the same thing as africa at the hands of europe.
@@asherpikesgoldenmoralcinem5770 sorry don't wanna be rude or offend you but thats a very ignorant statement man. Brazil is the one country with the most diversity of biomes in the world. However Brazil in turn doesn't include mountainous regions like Peru, Colombia, Chile, Bolivia does. Meanwhile Argentina, Chile can stretch as far south as south africa. etc. If you look up a map you'll see the thick Amazon jungle is located in the heart of the continent, meanwhile all the other areas have many different biomes. Although the biomes are smaller than in Africa they are as varied. Basically what I mean to say with all my rambling is that @Tim Ponder South America hasn't experienced the same thing because the hypothesis shown in this video is wrong. Some points are not, it's factual that they are vertical for example, but what does that prove? they are combined in a way that distorts to prove his own point, and his arguments brushes over a whole lot of other things regarding the "dooming" of a continent. This video is actually a great example of a problem with fallacies we have in video essays, news articles, etc. right now. Sorry for the long ramble.
Elftzar Don’t be sorry for your long ramble. It was interesting. I don’t have much to really argue against lol I mean ur right. Ofcourse it’s not all a jungle. I would assume then that empires grew more in South America because the people simply were capable of traveling into different biomes? Like pre-Spanish Times. Or did they stick to their own biomes still idk too lazy to do my own research.
I recently had the idea of trying to write a story with the setting of a country comprising both land and sea (split into the north and south) so this video is really interesting in that sense to me! As a sidenote there's *tons* I don't understand about global geography or history, so as an amateur writer I think I'll just try have fun writing this little story about stormchasing, sharks, etc. rather than try take on anything like capturing proper realistic historical events and geographical facts or writing social commentary lmao
Climate zones per se are just one factor, as one can see with Mali. Many other factors play into the ways human history took. Mali is also a very bad example of pure post-colonial struggles or climate zone determinism because historically the very much precolonial Mali Empire formed in that very region.
Yes, while modern China does not have a single climate, the heart of the Chinese empire, were almost the entire population lives, where all the cities are, and all the agriculture exists, does roughly fall under the same east coastal temperate climate.
Layluck in the modern world, yes, but historically Shenzhen was hardly populated at all. Shenzhen only had a population of 30,000 even in 1980 while Chang’an (historical capital of many Chinese dynasties and located in the temperate region near the north) had a population of 1 million in 700ad. Beijing also had an estimated population of 1 million in 1500ad.
Don't be so fucking dense. China, for most of it's history, was mostly just in that temperate region. As China grew in power though, having two fertile rivers to feed a huge population and room for invention, allowed the Chinese to eventually be able to conquer the more rugged landscapes to the west in later portions of it's history. And comparing Beijing to Shenzhen is like comparing Chicago to Atlanta. Both are in a temperate climate, and while the temps vary, they are both more or less close to the same biome.
@@AtlasPro1 Neither does India, and modern India is smaller then what Hindu empires where stretching from Afghanistan (Hindu Shahis) to Indonesia (Sri Vijaya). From Central Asia (Shakas) to Sri Lanka (Cholas), to Champa Hindu kingdom in Vietnam. All Hindu empires were a coalition like the UK to form the great Dharmic kingdom. and if you can't include SE Asian islands as part of your freaking map, then don't talk about Asia. SE Asia is as much part of Asia as China or India.
I'm pretty sure if Africa wasn't enslaved, colonized, and distributed by different "powers" for *centuries* and didn't have to focus on fighting for their independence, they could be more modernized and have the tools needed to thrive.
@@Chasstful I couldnt agree more. And its a shame to see all these comments: im from africa, this makes sense. ofcourse it makes sense to you, your an idiot, you dont even realize the problem lies with yourself :D
@Kj_mast_er No it wasn't. Its time to accept reality my man. I know it must be hard realizing you have no historical societies but you can change that going into the future. But hypothetically even if Eygpt was entirely black, you being an African American come from the opposite end of Africa, so you aren't even close to be related. That would be a like a Russian claiming his ancestors built the Mongolian empire.
From where did you get this idea? Even Kenya, which was the libtards' poster child of Africa is going backward. South Africa has nose-dived since 'democracy' took over. Africa is septic.
Chris Malan Most of the fastest growing economies are in Africa. South Africa’s GDP has gone down in recent years but that is normal as it happens to all countries, you guys just like to exaggerate it when it comes to Africa. South Africa’s gdp has tripled since 1994. Even I, a South African, can see my country changing, 5 years ago when I went into a poor inland town near me all the houses were tin but now I go there and most of them are brick and I see lots of houses being built. Africa is taking off and you can’t hide it.
@@TamimLB There is a large disconect between gdp and the well being of people. GDP can only be exploited by those who levy taxes, the average joe will get bare minimum of it.
Baltu Lielkungs Gunārs Miezis And you can see that becoming better in Africa, takes time but it’s happening. You guys said the same thing about Asia when it was rising.
@@TamimLB Even at its worst Asia was never like Africa. Asia had writing thousands of years ago and used the wheel. England lit the flame of enlightenment in India and they could take it further. Africa went backward when the colonial powers left. The infrastructure crumbled. Much of Asia was held back by communism which is a system contrary to human nature. Humans don't work if they can't reap the benefits of working. Communism stifled individual innovation. All the indications are that Africa will be a basket case forever. Ghana went independent in 1957... The cause is not fixable. Like most of life, the cause has to do with certain numbers.
Trying to make up an alternative history story where Africa becomes kind of a super power between 1960s and 2000 but seems kinda impossible to pull that of realistically in just 40 years
I recommend to re-define it's countries borders and sub regions withing countries considering ethnicity, culture, religion and other factors like geography, also to let regions and sub regions different from each other to act as independent territories, and they are to be controlled by a central government, which has been formed combining similar regions together ! I believe, that way Africa's new nations(there'll be old nations too) will find it much easier to overcome the difficulties and become prosperous countries.
Further division of the African continent/people would be steps backwards. We have been forced to become what we are now, but now with the help of the Internet different groups of people are in contact more, realizing our similarities, and becoming more unified than we have ever been. The best solution is for the different people groups/countries to try and put in place deliberate measures to accelerate this. For example, Malawi and Zambia consider themselves as cousins, and South Africans, Batswana, Basotho, Swatis, and even Namibians have very close linkages, and they all realize this. They are all better off unifying than redrawing and redefining their borders. Each individual country has geographical advantages and disadvantages, and merging would create mutually-beneficial conditions for everyone.
I have wondered about this my whole life and you just summerised it in one short video. I have no idea how you researched this, but man what a good job. Thank you
The same can be said about Japan in some ways. Rough, inhospitable and leads to scattered tribes that wage war on each other for centuries. Unlike Africans however, the Japanese were smart enough to pick up on new trends when they came around. When Africa came into contact with the Roman Empire they could have through traders adopted some of the traits and technologies that were clearly better than their own. But yeah, that place has the same problem today that it had 3000 years ago, just with better weapons and slightly improved technology.
There are hills in different places, but the only really mountain ranges are the Alps, and the Pyrenees, which both basically form borders between major countries.
@@panzerkind2190 You don't need 3800+ meter ranges to have a diverse climate map on account of topography. The guy who made this video blatantly ignored the facts that didn't back up his simplistic point.
I don’t know. The main similarity is the amount of different climates due to the vertical nature of the continent which affect the region’s development, similar to what is happening in Africa.
A funny thing to consider is the influences as well. Africa was dominated by Europeans until the mid 20th century then “independent.” South America may have dodged that bullet due to the US Monroe Doctrine. Borders weren’t formed to deliberately make weak client states
What I find interesting with South America is that the Andes strip advanced pretty quickly in contrast to the Amazon but that's not surprising considering the geography. I recommend everyaody to read Guns, Germs and Steel.
Lol they got wiped out by 600 europeans. Africa had many more great civilazations then South America:) The answers are really easy and natural. Race is a myth for stupid people. Culture and skin color is real, race is not.
@@arthurradwanski4099 Why Sub-saharan? You pretend Northern Africa is not Africa? Mali empire, Aksum, Songhai, Zimbabwe empire, Egypt, carthage, Mthethwa Empire.. thats just a google search, i am sure a historian could name a few others.
@@whatwhat3432523 Egyptians have more in common with the Middle East than with Africa. There's a reason why there are no relevant ancient ruins across Africa. They had no empires.
@@HumanTres Of course they had, i just listed some of them. Egyptians are Africans, and there are ancient ruins in many parts of Africa. The vast majority of the people in Africa comes from small tribes, the same as in South America. That`s why there are few empires in those continents. There have just ever been 3 major ones in South America..
I used to treat it very seriously. Later, when I was watching a rebuttal I was even embarrassed that I actually knew that wheat was inferior to potato/corn or rice, which according to theory should have doomed Europeans.
@@FelipeKana1TLDR key arguments: 1) Wheat has inferior crop yields to potato/corn or rice 2) Zebras were actually tameable when in XIXth century colonisers bothered to try, no good reason to think that wild horses were any nicer. 3) Claim that all domesticated animals were specially friendly is contradicted by historical records describing auroch as the total opposite of that. 4) Claim that limiting factor for animal domestication was their availability is contradicted by Russians recently domesticating foxes. 5) Actual studies concerning spread of corn in Americas contradict claims that there was any real issue with moving plant on north-south axis. Actual video got self-censored. As posts to other video platforms get often shadowbanned, I suggest to google for “jared diamond alt hype”. Watching it was quite surreal as the author is rather rude and politically radical, but nevertheless when filter out the arguments are logical and mainstream science. If you are unable to stand that person, just follow his links to the original studies. Please post later your opinion, I’m curious.
A lot of what he said "rings bells" with what I learned as a geography major concentration in the 1060s. Another aspect NOT touched on is the almost total lack of good ocean harbors - the "too smooth" coastline in about every direction - which led the peoples to look away from the sea and becoming traders. The notion that the climatic belts in the lattitudes was key is fascinating. Another important aspect in my earlier studies, not discussed at length here, but brought out as important by Atlas Pro, is the crazy quilt way the colonizers built the individual states they eventually left behind. Great job over-all, but I'll need to view and listen to this again, because of its very fast-pace style.
Yeah that’s right, it was the geography of Africa that made it a backwater, which is why Europeans didn’t turn Rhodesia and South Africa into a bread basket.
Which part of the video did you not watch the theory is europeans were more advanced due to trade and being more unified so much for high iq and listening skills
Zach Fake Last Name But the Boers and Rhodesians still turned their countries into breadbaskets that fed all of Africa. Biology/race, not climate, is clearly the determinant factor here.
I think it has a lot to do with seasons. Africa, as a whole, has much more steady day-to-day conditions. When you moved out of Africa you had to either adapt to winter, summer, fall, and spring, conditions or die off. I think this accelerated the interest in inventing new technologies to help them survive the harsh winters. Just a thought.
White People I agree, that sounds very plausible, but there are still underdeveloped nations in cold climates like Greenland and the tribes in the arctic
@@NegativeAccelerate That's a good point but those arctic tribes tended to live as hunter-gatherers and moved around a lot in search of food rather than in a society with large urban areas. Society in East Asia, the Middle East, and Europe had already been living in urban areas with large populations which provided a perfect environment for innovation whereas the Arctic Tribes, although they had to adapt to the changing seasons, never settled down long enough to develop an urban society.
This guy gets it. Having to create technology provides a slight advantage down the road that accumulates with others to provide a real advantage eventually.
Most of subsaharan Africa, especially the grasslands and many bordering "dry season forests"/"woodland savanna's" do have seasons: dry and wet, with dry seasons that last about half the year in which little useful to humans grows, and varied sets of adaptations can be required to survive, including (in dry seasons) food storage (not unlike winter in temperate zones) and finding water and varying food sources by season. Also, the video is not very well informed regarding African history and the history of more advanced African societies, and thus is somewhat misleading; empires, kingdoms, and states certainly were not limited to Mali and Egypt. It is true though that (in Africa and outside Africa) places with river systems and other navigable waterways often were more favorable to the development of advanced cultures (in West Africa, the Niger River, which extends through Mali and much of Nigeria, was one such system, as was Lake Chad, The benue River in Nigeria, The Senegal River, and the Limpopo River in what is now Zimbabwe. Many kingdoms/states/empires also evolved in elsewhere in Africa-particularly in Western Africa-e.g Benin, Ife, Ashanti, Igbo Ukwu, Nok, Great Zimbabwe and others (see below) (some quite ancient and others medieval-many based around fortified cities and towns and often known for their high-quality court arts in metals, terra-cotta and textiles), such as the cultures of Benin kingdom, the Nok, the Ife kingdom of Nigeria (and other related ones also of the Yoruba ethnic group at Owo, Odu and Ijebu), Igbo Ukwu, Djenne Jeno, Dhar Tichitt, Ashanti, Mali, Songhai, the kingdoms of the Cameroonian grasslands (such as those of the Bamileke Bamoum, and Bafut (there were also, albeit smaller, states in parts of Central Africa like the Kingdom of Kongo, of the Bakuba, and the Luba), and in parts of Southern Africa (like the medieval semi-feudal stone fortress building cultures of Great Zimbabwe, Khami, Mapungubwe, Thulamela and Dhlo Dhlo) At least one script, nsibidi, was also developed in subsaharan Africa in the SouthEastern Nigeria region (which was ideographic, somewhat like Chinese characters, but unlike most other scripts), which was used by a range of tribes in the regions (such as the Igbo, Ejagham, Ibibio, Efik, Ogoni, etc) en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nsibidi To give one example (pottery-only invented independently a few times) from the mesolithic, Africa was the site of one of the earliest inventions of pottery around 9-10,000 bc (before the Middle East or Europe) separate/independent from but parallel to another invention of pottery in East Asia around 12,000 bc. Both of those inventions predated the later invention of pottery in the Middle East (between Asia and Africa), where it did not appear until around 7,000bc (but may have been independently there too, albeit later), then later spreading to Europe from the Near East. The regions in Africa pottery is first attested are at the Ounjougou site in Central Mali West Africa and el Saggai in the Central Sudan around the same time as at Mali but slightly later. "The emergence of pottery in Africa during the 10th millennium calBC: new evidence from Ounjougou (Mali)" By E Huysecom doc.rero.ch/record/19037/files/mag_epa_2.pdf Evidence indicates that peoples in S.E Nigeria were among the first peoples to smelt iron (beginning around 2,000 bc) in one of the few independent inventions of iron metallurgy (the other being in Turkey around the same time). The Nok culture of central Nigeria were also early users of Iron. "Iron and its influence on the prehistoric site of Lejja" www.academia.edu/4103707/Iron_and_its_influence_on_the_prehistoric_site_of_Lejja
Also, a lot of Africa is landlocked, and the rivers are not very good for transporting goods. Also, Africa is bloody huge.
True, but the Mongols were in a very similar condition- landlocked within the vast steppes of Asia with navigable rivers only on the periphery. Yet they succeeded in unifying while the Africans did not. The possession of horses was also a huge advantage, although Africans were exposed to them after the Arab invasions.
@@michaelmccabe3079 nope not after the arab invasions, way before that
@@dragenmaster5385 Can you name a year? The Arab invasions of Sub-Saharan Africa came in the 9th century.
Obviously the North Africans had horses, but they didn't cross the Sahara.
Yeah, the best part is the atlas projection we use makes africa look a good 30% smaller than it actually is, if not moreso. I only recently figured out just how insanely large Africa actually is. Kind of like how if you look at that atlas you also get this weird idea of Canada, Greenland, and Scandinavia being miniature continents in their own right. I've seen some *ahem* "woke" individuals even saying that atlas exists due to the race card. I wouldn't go that far, but I would argue we need a better 2d map of the world or just give our kids a digital globe program for schools.
@@StarSage66 Google realised people were taking the piss out of them for using the Mercator Projection and it's distortion of size, now google maps uses a globe.
From my limited experience, living in N Nigeria, I see some validity in your theory. Nigeria is so rich in resources, including oil, gas, agriculture and minerals. But, there are really 2 Nigerias. First, there is the north, which is arid, Muslim and home to several tribes, but mostly the Hausa and Fulani. The south is more lush, humid, partially coastal, Christian and dominated by Igbos and Yorubas. They have a general distrust of each other, which stems from the Biafra civil war. From my understanding, the boarders were decided by the British.
weren't europeans killing each other long before africa and starting world wars??? am also nigerian and this is completely utter nonsense,
it as dumb as saying: "in the morning, i took my bath so now i am angry" ,
then in the afternoon i said :
"there is sun outside so i am sad",
and at night said: " everywhere is dark so now i will kill people on the street"
people just make dumb assumptions and always talk about how bad africa is but if you go to usa califonia you will see homeless people everywhere on the street, maybe i should make a video that it is because of the winter weather and that everybody feel cold and that is why homeless people cant pay rent and don't have a job
@@jyde50 The thing is those were conflicts between *countries*, not civil wars. And the civil wars there were happened because of idelogy, and other factors. The thing is they had an opportunity for way more stability within their nations because their borders weren't determined by outsiders.
@@Frankondor and how may civil wars had africa had? nigeria only had one that was only with one tribe( igbos, biafra war) and it wasn't really a war did not last long at all, your logic is flawless, countries are alway devided, usa, had the north and the south , and still today the south still has a different accent from the north, german had the belin wall that was within germany borders.
@@jyde50 en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Central_African_Republic_Civil_War_(2012%E2%80%93present)
en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/South_Sudanese_Civil_War
en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Somali_Civil_War
://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sudanese_conflict_in_South_Kordofan_and_Blue_Nile
en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sudanese_nomadic_conflicts
en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/First_Sudanese_Civil_War
en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Second_Sudanese_Civil_War
en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ethnic_violence_in_South_Sudan
en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Libyan_Civil_War_(2011)
en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Second_Libyan_Civil_War
en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Djiboutian_Civil_War
en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rwandan_Civil_War
en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rwandan_genocide
en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Republic_of_the_Congo_Civil_War_(1997%E2%80%931999)
en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chadian_Civil_War_(1965%E2%80%931979)
And I could do this all day. Pretty much all of these were caused, either fully or in large part because of ethnic tensions inside the country.
There are other ways division can prop up, but having ethnic tensions leading to civil wars or unrest doesn't set a good base for development at all.
@@jyde50 Africa is literally synonymous to civil war/ethnic tensions. Point at pretty much any african country and you have (or had in the last 50 years) either ethnic tensions (at best) or a full blown civil war. Europe doesn't have those since the late XVI century (the last big civil war period being caused by the Reformation, Luther and HRE shattering) with one exception: Balkans. Countries there seem to be in a permanent state of trying to destroy each other for...at least 10 centuries now?
USA wasn't divided by ethnicity. It was divided by economic lines. South was dependant on one economic structure, north on the other. They literally had a war over economic differences (of course, the winners, as they always do in history, created a narrative where they also had a noble cause for the war, in this case being abolition of slavery).
Germany wasn't divided because of ethnicity either. While every region of modern day Germany is somewhat different from the other (and that's exactly why like 100 states existed there before unified Germany was formed), they're all Germans. And Austrians are pretty much Germans too (or at least they used to be before the XX century), that's why the unification wars (of the late 1850s-1870s) were fought between Prussia (with minor allies) and Austria (with Saxony and some other minor allies).
As for the divide you're talking about, the one with the wall in Berlin, well... That divide happened because Germany after WW II was divided into occupation zones of USSR (East Germany) and Soon-to-be-created-NATO (West Germany). It had nothing to do with ethnicity.
There is a book called: " the accidental super power ". It says most of the success of United states is due to its geographic location and river systems. Similar to the theory in here. It's a good read....
its nonsense absolute bullcrap
@@jyde50 so what you are saying is either A. super powers are 100% random there is no way to possibly predict them, or B. some ethnicities or cultures are inherently better than others.
because you just said that the third option is bullshit. maybe you should think through the implications of what you say?
my personal take is that it the ability of a group to become great is a mix of culture(but explicitly not ethnicity) and resources that group has available to them and opportunity to use both. so Means(resources) motive(culture) and opportunity if you will.
@@jyde50
You obviously never read that book..... it figures!
@@marvalice3455 actually there is no such thing as super power, it goes like this, countries with huge population will eventually have the largest economy, 100 years from now 200 years from now, whatever, but eventually it will happen, countries that can produces weapons will be stronger, its not rocket science, usa only thinks its controls the world because everyone agreed to use the dollar to trade , it everyone come today and decide to drop the dollars in the next 5 years, usa wont have sanctions powers, if usa was such a super power why cant it fight tiny north korea? superpower is just what countries say to boost their egos it really doesn't exist. also taking about geography its a lie, as long as your country produces food and water, that that all you need. he his just overanalyzing it.
@@jyde50 "no such thing as a super power"
persia: am I a joke to you?
Some scholars say the crushing heat, imposing desertification, lack of tractable animals, and difficulty in water control led to Africa's problems, not to mention colonialism. Other scholars point to other nations that have dealt with any or all of these challenges. What's sad is that the ravages of colonialism, poor local governance, and local warfare are evident everywhere...
Most of it is people in there need to be good at thing like study. If you are smart, you "can" change it. Imagine 1 milion smart people or at least educated people. Education is a key to make big changing
Most of rich people are smart on something & educated people from young age
heat and humidity and pollution and noise and crowdedness more brutal than central America and west Africa and west Australia never impeded ancient india
heat is definitely a non factor since the most populated region in the world since recorded history and likely before has always been the subcontinent
@@ydid687 India was not mostly a desert, and was much smaller, so more cooperation. Africa basically forced people to stay tribal
@@somerandomguy7458 the cold and hot deserts of India are nowhere near insignificant to be discounted like that,
greater India wasn't small enough to be considered a European country
more cooperation also means more in-fighting which lead to its demise in multiple centuries for 4 millennia and a looted outflow of triple digit trillions to the thieves of this world
also the bio-diversity has been quite dangerous for millennia so no it wasn't easier to stay there
Africans forced people to stay tribal, india overcame heat, crowds and the geography to stay the biggest economy for two and a half thousand years despite the challenges possibly for even longer
none of what you said discounts heat being a non factor of/for africa's impediment
You missed two key geographical characteristics of Africa that impacted the peoples there. The lack of navigable rivers deep into the heartland, and the lack of deepwater sea ports. Cheers, Russ
Another one is the lack of high protein grains. The grains of the Near East -- wheat, rye, millet, einkorn -- are high in protein. Rice, the staple of East Asia, is not far behind. Cassava, the staple in sub-Saharan Africa, is starchy and less nutritious. An army marches on its stomach.
Uh... cheers? 🥂
*nervous laughter translation into crying*
What about Eurasia?
@@wasabista1613 This is not correct. 1) Millet and rice are native to Africa and were both domesticated before the introduction of Cassava. 2) Cassava is not native to Africa. It's from Brazil and was introduced by Europeans.
@@BigJbaz2 , thanks for the correction. Today I believe cassava is the most widely used staple in sub-Saharan Africa. Is this not correct?
I once read that Africa is also limited by rivers that are not practical for commercial shipping and thick jungles that limit trading on border regions.
It would be possible with ports connecting to massive train networks to have a modern stable trading economy. Unfortunately the infrastructure and investment required to start it in the first place just isn't there, let alone the politics involved in having international train routes through so many countries.
11m 7m vid
@Kizz moron is the name of a pepper in spanish..however seem not reference here
Kizz I agree
I also was told Africa has limited potential for ports bc either the coastline is deserts or mountainous. Which may be true since white peoples will hit the beach no matter what the country is
Interesting observation. Some other reasons: The lack of fast growing straight trees that can be used to build ships with. The lack of a cold sterilizing winter that kills off many disease carrying insects.
Also the deserts limit the number and lenght of rivers, where water was the primary source of ancient cheap transport while the coast, the best place where metropolis grew in africa faces mostly ocean while early Europe had the much calmer Mediterraneum to trade from.
You know who were the first people to sail the sea? Egyptians. You don't need pines to build ships, you only need them for specific kinds of big masts.
And winter doesn't kill of insects lol. Do we not have insects in temperate climates?
I'd also add the lack of area that can be used for year sustainable farming also impeded a lot of development.
The Art of Code the clay soil is also terrible for large-scale agriculture
It helps to think of this place, not as a single continent, but a collection of regions: the Sahara, Guinea (West Africa where Nigeria & Ghana are), Congo, Riftland (Africa east of the Great Rift valley), & Agulhas (the southern region of Africa splitting the Atlantic & Indian ocean).
This approach allows you to tackle things more realistically, more in depth, & less generalized. That being said, the climate did hinder Africa, as Atlas said in another video, the heat did disable many nations, but not to the point of hopelessness.
Guinea & Congo are still very fertile lands & many peoples thrived in these places & Riftland as well. But another factor that hit these regions hard was the fact that they were so geographically split apart & separated from Eurasian & Saharan civilizations.
In Eurasia, wealth was able to freely travel along all the trade routes, & make all of Europe & Asia very wealthy (except for the rural parts), but these regions were split from Eurasia so extremely less trade happened in these regions with Eurasia.
A lot less wealth flowed & climate encouraged traders to skip the Sub Sahara & stick to Eurasia because of the East to West constant climates. Guinea (West Africa) was the wealthiest civilization here because of its relative proximity to the Mediterranean.
In conclusion, the Sub Sahara thrived in many respects, but because East-West trade routes in Eurasia didn't link up as much with Guinea, Congo, Riftland, & Agulhas these regions suffered
modern definitions of continents is so problematic i don't know why they still insist on keeping it.
So being *THICC* is more useful than being tall is the thing I learned from this video
VectorImage I would rather have a thick bitch then a tall one any day of the week.
@infernovoid Playing tall and having alot of vassals for me is more fun than being a big blob like the Roman Empire or Rússia.
😂😂😂
That's it...
Pro tip
I’ll have a little talk with the CEO of Geography then
Praying is always beneficial. God does want to talk with you, he¨s missing you.
timomastosalo that could work
Yo this timo guy just straight up told you to pray to god in response to ur comment. The fuck
Idk I like the way my country is we have a lot of life in Africa.
is your name Karen?
This theory is called geographical determinism. It was described in detail in the 1997 book "Guns, germs and steel" by Jared Diamond.
Ah, I see you're a (wo)man of intelligence as well!
I watched a video about this in my Human Geography class :D
And it was false then as it is now.
@@sophiaperennis2360 Just because you don't want something to be true doesn't make it false.
Sophia Perennis how so?
6:05 (Bill Wurtz History of the entire world I guess flashback)
_They never got Ethiopia-_
Communism destroyed Ethiopia.
And also,
_They never got Thailand_
*Mamma Mia-Italiano* enters the chat
69th like
*Laughs in Mussolini*
Seems like a-frican nightmare
Justin S good one!!!
I see the pun there
agggggh, it burns.
Gold.
you sly dog
The success of the Silk Road as mode for the exchange of people, goods, technology and ideas is a clear example of the benefits of a long horizontal geography.
Akhibrass good comment as the new Silk Road is liable to have a strong uniting influence along with the www. Have you ever heard that civilization building the pyramids were responsible for cutting down trees which led to a desert condition? Now I’ve heard that the global elite prize the African blood for its high adrenochrome levels. I hope that’s not true but I’ve observed a high excitability (emotional, is that the proper word?) quotient for years in both young and old. Is it at all true that northern people are more cold blooded? I guess it takes all kinds. Anyway, back on track....those trees need to be replaced which , of course, requires water projects. In California during drought periods which have been intermittent for 17,000 years at least, we have to irrigate even huge walnut trees for agricultural productivity. I look forward to the OBOR Initiative beginning the TRANSAQUA project so Africa will be a beautiful garden again. Xi's great leadership in China is mitigated somewhat by a shadow government just like in the US, I'm guessing, so it looks like there will be some obstacles to establishing a global maritime and land Silk Road community of sovereign nation states. An underwater tunnel connecting Asia and North America with high speed rail will indeed make the Silk Road perfect. We are happy to be able to watch these developments❣️
CNN is Fake News today I’ve suddenly become aware from watching Jennifer Hammond that 15 new cases of Ebola are found every week in the DR! I spoke just this week with a Congolese immigrant in my little town of Roanoke, VA
CDC hasn’t a clue what to do for an outbreak not since they handled the TB outbreak. Obviously with USA dope 72,000 fatalities last year they are useless anymore. I keep up with the news the best I can staying close to the internet.
@CNN is Fake News oh, come on it's always the United States that started slavery. I am kidding, but it does amaze me how it's always focused on us. America didn't start it and it still goes on. Oh, Brazil had over 5 million slaves brought in.
Boa Gaming “Confessions of an Economic Hitman” was a welcome book for me although Ramsey Clark, Esq. had hinted in the ‘50’s that US aid was a 2 sided sword. The rule of gold has made slaves of all of us but now the ‘natives seem to be getting restless’😳. I do feel a sea change coming-protests in so many countries and many not controlled by the usual covert operations of USA🙀all I can say is 👀&🙏🏽. Stick with Truth the best we can. I think everyone of our species that chooses to stick with Truth and Beauty does magnify the Creator in some small way. At least we’re not still sacrificing virgins much😏. I like the way Vernadsky looks at our progress....increasing complexity as our noösphere expands.
@CNN is Fake News islam and mohammed (a.s) always encourages to give freedom to the slaves....since the beginning of islam....search and you can easily find that...ypu are a liar busterred
Interesting theory. Climate would seem to be contributing factor, but I think the relatively slow development of Africa has more to do with the lack of navigable waterways than climate diversity. Ancient civilizations needed water for efficient transportation of people, goods, and (most importantly) ideas. Europe is 1/3 the size of Africa, and its entire eastern side is land locked. Africa is 3x the size of Europe and is completely surrounded by water. And yet, Europe has more coastline than Africa because of it's relatively jagged outline. There are many, many natural harbors along Europe's coast, and relatively few along Africa's coast. The continental shelf along Africa's entire west coast is relatively shallow, so large ships can not approach it. People and goods have to be transferred to smaller boats to approach land, whereas Europe's harbors can accommodate docking for direct transfer of both. Europe also has many more navigable rivers in its interior. It's not a surprise that the only navigable river in Africa (the Nile) happens to be the only place that ancient civilization flourished on the continent.
Still related to geography though.
Also, shouldnt you have had thriving and trading cultures along the coastlines then? Which i wouldnt say is really the case, only after colonialists landed. Except for the mediterranean coastlines ofc
@@t.ra-larchangelofthugnezz9010 there were thriving trading cultures in the west cost. Some of those used shells that came from the other side of the continent as currency. Edit : in fact these traders were a big part in sourcing slaves for the slave trade in many cases.
@@jacquesmichaud6877 sadly the Congo is not navigable all the way to the ocean due to falls near the mouth. Unlike the Rhine/Nile/danube that connected inland areas to the sea in premodern times
Hmm
This theory is right. If african geography were different(lets say), then great civilizations would develop there
And, thinking about this, this happened in the Americas too. We see, the inca empire develop in the same climate(andes mountain), the same goes to the aztecs(mexican highlands). In other places in this continent, the climate were more diverse, and so was the tribes. Makes sense, doesnt it?
I'd sort of been thinking recently about how in Eurasia you have "Western" (Europe and Middle East) and "Eastern" (India and China, primarily) cultures. And then you have Africa and the Americas with nothing similar. Eurasia is special not just because of being wide, but also being so huge. Even with all the empty space, the vast majority of humanity lives in Eurasia.
They did have Great civilizations like Mali and Ghana and the Swahili, they were all in the same climate zone as well
@@Jack-sq6xb Yes, he said in the video
@@Jack-sq6xb This makes sense, too, because the Sahel is roughly a single climate region, sort of the Eurasian model on a smaller scale. Likewise, there are civilizations not unlike the Incas in Africa, especially along the huge lakes in the Great Rift Valley, which were largely cut off from points north and south because of climate geography and a lack of easily navigable rivers. The Incas, too, were mostly isolated, hemmed in by the Andes, the Atacama, and the Amazon rainforest.
@@j.s.7335And also it’s willingness to colonize.
so the new empire of Antarctica shall soon rule the world?
i always knew the penguins were plotting. those fuckers are up to something.
khalid salah lol bro you made my day haha 😂
Nah russia and united states are gonna war over it. The the Victor will claim all the oil for themselves.
@@antolak1590 I wonder if Australia will support America for a quick buck
@@antolak1590 Ever heard of the Emu war? The US and Russia will have next to no chance against the Penguin Covenant.
Actually, this theory should be expanded by the fact that most of Africa has basically no climate variations throughout the year, so the tribes there weren't forced to develop technology to maintain a certain diet all year round.
So for example, in the Congo Rainforest, fruit grow without any stop for winter, autumn or spring. It's eternal summer there.
Unlike Europe or China, which had some harsh winters that forced those civilisations to develop technology for storing crops harvested in the summer
Kortess its why Europeans and East Asians have such high IQs, only the smart ones could figure out how to survive the changing climate extremes
@@jack2719 In fact, it's the other way around. Only the ones who were forced to invent such technologies, were able to develop such high IQs evolutionarily.
What a bunch of bullshit
Why though?@@TheAltieresdelsent
Altieres Del-Sent I guess basic thinking is too much for you.
They didn't have access to Vibranium.
No. Its longer than wide.
Those selfish Wakandans are hoarding it for themselves
Exactly
Having access to resources is different from having the capacity to develop those resources. Africa has all the resources, but the people had no clue on how to use them. Even if they had discovered Vibranium, at best they most probably would have made trinkets out of the raw ore, to worship some mythical deity, because there was nobody to show them that metal can be melted.
@@patricklove4895 😁
I've shared this video with every person I've ever met, as a precursor to why I am studying to become a high school geography teacher (in America). 🇪🇷🇺🇸🇪🇷🇺🇸
@menses randomly lag laughter okay
Good for you. Owning a Globe brings some understanding. I hear theydon't teach Geography any more, though .
@@BOBXFILES2374a I will!
I'm African and I've had this belief since 2005 when I visited Europe. I thought it was just me. It's common sense to deduce when you study the climate and location of the continents
isnt that the issue of seeing things on one perspective scale? you have a geographical perspective while a sociologist would see a political socio-economical perspective, a general wold see a military perspective, a theist would see a religious perspective.
the art is combining everything into a comprehensive understanding of what causes or hinders the flourishing of civilization.
The Gulf stream is part of the too. The north of Canada and north of Asia is Colder than the north of Europe despite being in the same latitude
Help I'm A Rock what do you mean. Haven’t you seen the guy that created the traffic light or peanut butter or new ideas. Secondly, I already saw a comment of yours. Don’t generalize black people
Help I'm A Rock I’m not trying to play the victim card, but I’ll have too. YOU are acting live we weren’t deprived of our human rights force to work under white people and were segregated, this infact already caused many damages. Not allowed to learn how to read because the whites feared we would be smarter than them. Honestly it’s like you can’t understand that “circumstances” make us who we are
@@egoxagony4623 Get over it. Africans aren't the only ones who suffered slavery. Go study your history. Even the people who colonized you were once victims too. Don't blame race for human nature.
Historians: Empires are limited to their own climate zones.
Britain: Hold my tea.
Ha ha, nice. But I guess the video above didn't say "Empires are limited to their own climate zones" but that "Common cultures develop in their own climate zones." Yes, the Roman Empire invaded northern European climates all the way up to Hadrian's wall, were apparently civilisation ended. But then why did Rome fall? (Huge question worth a Phd.) Many factors, including internal political division, the fact that most of Rome's good farming soil had eroded to the bottom of the Mediterranean sea, and that it's administration had become too hop heavy for the units of energy coming into the empire to sustain the workers at the bottom. (Joseph Tainter). Add in this geographical / cultural equation, and it's game over for Rome!
This hold my tea, hold my beer comment is getting so old. Time to move on to something else.
@@warriorsrule9350 No
They didn't have tea until they colonised Asia.
@@warriorsrule9350
Hold my fish and chips
This theory actually makes a ton of sense. A lot of my family is from Sudan (mostly Muslim, Arab, and fairer skinned than Southern Sudanese people) and there's definitely a lot of distrust between the two groups. A lot of this conflict could be due to the fact that Sudan falls in the desert part of Africa while South Sudan is located in the Sahel region. Thanks for the video!
It's less a consequence of the geography, and more a consequence of the borders that were superimposed by the British, which didn't take into account the different ethnic groups (cultures) living in Sudan. and once vastly different cultures are exposed to land disputes over capitalistic purposes (oil and other natural resources) it led to an ethnic cleansing perpetrated by the dominant (arab in this case) faction. This happens all over the world in areas such as the Middle East and Central/South America, and it's mostly due to colonial interferrence (from Europe, and more recently the US) of the same kind.
Truly the borders should’ve been redrawn by their native African locals rather than the Europeans.
@@Y.E.S.249 but, Africa had the lack of unity which enabled Europe to come in and impose these borders in the first place. Hence, the gist of this video.
@@GM-xo7yy africa didn't even exist, they were states before Europeans arrived
Most of africa before colonization was constant wars and bickering between the rival tribes.
I would not say it is DOOMED. It is one of the last places in the world that maintains ecological balance.
African here. China is working on correcting that.
that's a complete lie in every sense of the word. africa is being turned into a massive desert because of climate change and every country is coming over to practically pillage the land dry.
@@joedatius well you are just basically describing the whole fucking wolrd, sadly. Still, África has one of the most diverse ecological regiones and it still holds some balance, unlike other places.
@@NoiseThatLaughs sadly, major powers over the World love to do that kind of shit.
Africa doesn't feed itself, and most African countries are dependant on Foreign Aid for survival!
How on Earth is that 'balanced' ??
Earth is now on my list of bullies
Tom Stamos -
Everyone who says liberalism is a mental disorder is either 12 years old or knee deep into Republican propaganda. Liberalism is as valid of an ideology as conservatism, and its followers are certainly less racist.
So yeah, fuck off back to James Allsup or one of the 20+ propaganda channels you’re probably subscribed to.
@@incendiarybullet3516 Where I come from, liberals are the conservatives.
Offended much .... its not a bully 🤣🤣🤣 thats like saying mother nature is a bully 🤔🤔
200th like.
Bantz I didn’t even realise I had more than 5 likes until u just told me I had 200 oof
Dear Internet,
Finally some ORIGINAL content and some things you can learn in digestible 5-7 minute videos.
We need to support a channel like this with subscriptions. (Just saying....and no, i dont know content creator).
Let's hope the internet hears you ;)
Atlas Pro They will. Your content is that interesting. And not all of us are care about dumb celebrities.
You'll be at 500,000 by end of the year. At least
I'd be happy to just get to 1000 by the end of the year :P
Atlas Pro You're sweet. Shoot higher!
I'll take what I can get honestly :)
I don't think that you have properly taken into account the size of Africa. While the different climates would prevent a giant empire from dominating the whole continent the individual climate zones in Africa are still very big, big enough for powerful states to exist (as you mentioned Egypt, Ethiopia and Mali).
For example South Africa (approximately corresponding to the Mediterranean climate zone of the south) is as large are modern day France, Germany and Poland combined but until the 19th did not develop any powerful centralized states.
Japan deserves a mention since it is tall rather than wide and so has different climates as well as being relatively isolated but still developed a centralized political system and industry/technology.
But Japan is so small that it fits entirely in temperate climate
Japan's climate variance is akin to like comparing Florida to Maine. Most of the island is temperate deciduous forest, but leading into sub tropical forest in the south.
Japan become advanced when they actively learn the knowledge, technology, and culture of the western world after breaking out of their isolationist state. It mean that the empire is actively modernize
When Ethiopia go to war with Italy during their first war. They actually win because they have more firearms and their firearms are more modern then the Italian after they bought it from the german. It was cause by their king when the king actively modernize the nation
On those 3 countries there's a major river flowing through
I think it's really important to note that there is no easy answer to why Africa wasn't home to more empires. So many reasons including geography could have or could not have, contributed to this.
In my 60 years on this planet problems are never solved by elaborate schemes and complicated plans. Simple, basic, easily understood solutions usually solve problems.
An example is writing in zero gravity. Scientists engineered a pressurized pen that ruins clothes to this day. Engineers drew plans for the pen with a pencil. The solution to the problem was simply in front of them, a pencil.
Geography, why deal with people that can't help you survive. No grocery stores back then. Less energy to kill them and take what they want.
Imagine intelligent policies using this theory as a consideration.
@@andrewkaukeseems like dustless pencil is still simplerr than pen.
The frozen winter put cultures in the Northern Hemisphere into a project management cycle of continuous improvement.
I agree. This forced people to develop calendars so they would know when to plant. They also needed to have a longer time horizon and be able to defer gratification. They had to plant in the spring so they could harvest in the fall, and then store enough food, and chop enough wood, so they could survive the long winter. They had to learn about crop rotation, plant breeding, animal husbandry, etc. These intellectual challenges weeded out those with the lowest IQ. Meanwhile in Africa, hunter-gatherers would wake up every morning and go hunting. They only had to be smarter than the animals they wanted to eat. They didn't have to think long term. Just survive the day. Tomorrow will take care of itself.
@@dcanaday That is reasonable!It does implicate a higher intelligence level for the non Africans though
@@ziovanni77 No it doesn't. It means that to live in Europe you need a management cycle but to live in africa investing in a mangment cycle is a waste of reasources. It's a cultural neccesity, not a genetic predisposition.
@@dernwine sure,in the short term.But isn't cultural/environmental pressures under a long period of time an agent for evolutionary variation?To be clear I am not taking a clear stance regarding intelligence levels of different peoples.Just arguing the op's point.
@@ziovanni77 Not really. For starters you're taking the assumption that a colder climate is the only evolutionary pressure people are facing, as if disease, more dangerous fauna, and Africas own climactic variation (yes Africa also has seasons, it's just that the temperature tends to stay "warm") don't force constraints and planning on humans living there.
Secondly can you actually prove a correlation between living in Europe prior to civilisation and being more intelligent? I doubt it. While you might be able to argue that living in Europe = more difficult than living in africa (see point one why I disagree) you then have to extablish that increased expenditure of energy on an already highly energy intesive brain is an evolutionary advantage in a part of the world where energy shortages are common.... lets face it squirrels plan for the winter, that stuff doesn't necessarily require high brain power, and if you can't produce food for 4 months of the year evolution can select for lower intelligence.
the climate breakdown of eurasia is much more complex than you make it out to be
Ya but so is africa
He generalized an idea
A detailed explanation would require a 50 page or more research paper lol. There are so many factors.
He did a great job of condensing an idea into a bite size digestible.
I don't think he did though. Actually knowing the history of Rome and China it was kind of cringy.
Also religion had more to do with Ethiopa's Independence than its climate or culture.
I think there is something to the argument in general. Especially when you start talking about how the ecology shifts all the time in Africa. Therefore if your arid for a few generations then you become more tropical for a generation or two. Then the next 100 or so years you slip into slahiel climate.
It isn’t the topic
Sum Arbor no the Italian tried to take all of Ethiopia but the Ethiopians got guns knew the climate and kicked Mussolini's ass
Every thing was peaceful until the different climate zone attacked.
the arid invasion
@@skinnylegend-7330 no. The white man invasion
@@ipaja5515 White man is not responsible for Africans poor development, sure they did influenced it in the latest centuries but who influenced it before the white man to stay underdeveloped?
@@ipaja5515 whipepo
@@nomad8166 do some research. Yes, parts of Africa were underdeveloped before the european invasion but other parts were very developed. U heard of Great Zimbabwe that the european tried to lie was a semetic peoples construction in Zimbabwe because it was a highly developed community. The european didn't want to attribute this great African construction to Africans. That many artefacts in european museums were stolen from Africa, e.g. Benin bronze age artefacts.
And u have to remember the romans considered the anglo-saxon a barbarian before they arrived there.
“Geography is destiny.” - Abraham Verghese
Literally 15 seconds before you touched on it, I immediately realized that those 1000+ different tribes made the slave trade easy pickings:
Nobody in Africa had another tribes back (as they were more than likely warring with them just prior to the Slave Trade).
@Lumiel Utter non-sense of you both. There are no traces of it. But the conflicts nowadays all are connected to foreighn religions and borders drawn by creatures not familiar to this planet till this day.
You creatures would blame cow farts for the damage done by you.
@Mø Nälayé
The people who get "offended" by people like us calling what happened in Africa Pre- Slave Trade, are the same people enslaved, themselves:
Mental slavery: living under labels of "Black", "White", and "Brown"...
and "African- American", "Caucasian", and "Latin- American", etc.
That dude^^ proved his own ignorance; especially with the ridiculous "cow farts" comment.
@Mø Nälayé I really love this comment. It's so rare to read commentary on this topic that isn't coloured by S-J-W or Alt-Right Dogma. You don't let the white man off the hook, or the Africans either (like you say, if you've got a load of P.O.W's on your hand and some bunch of outsiders fortuitously show up willing to take them off your hands in exchange for guns, trade goods or whatever why the hell wouldn't you ?) You don't forget the Arab slave trade either. The Arabs didn't limit themselves to black slaves, they raided as far as Iceland and Ireland and one of the reasons for the founding of the US Marine Corps was to combat Arab slavers. However they probably took more Black slaves then the transatlantic slave trade did and while it's not easy to compare monsters, it may be that some of their practices were even crueler than that of the European slave Traders. Also there's a good deal of evidence that the transatlantic slave trade was mostly funded by Jewish bankers, although that's not a can of worms that I particularly want to open the lid on. Your analysis of the role of African history, colonial and pre-colonial and in particular the role of Africa's geography was both concise and persuasive.
People ARE the same wherever you go- by which I mean people everywhere are creeps and if people can use some accident of history, geography or biology i.e. disease to dominate another people they won't hesitate to do so. Of course such conquering peoples rarely acknowledge the advantage fate has dealt them preferring to credit intelligence, industriousness, etc, etc, while of course similarly running down those who find themselves subservient. Yes of course culture , national character and so on is important in the way these things play out but for example if you conquer a land where 90% of the inhabitants are wiped out by germs that YOU brought, albeit inadvertently, such as was the case in Central America with the conquistadors (not even minding the fact that they were mounted on horseback and carried firearms) it makes your achievements looks somewhat less impressive ...
@CNN is Fake News
My use of the words "Pre Slave Trade" is alluding to the ignorance of the majority:
Most people only recall that between West Africa & the Europeans to the 13 Colonies.
Hence,
Why I wrote "Pre Slave Trade" (for the people in the back who aren't paying attention).
@CNN is Fake News Bit ironic coming from someone promoting the 'fake news' movement.
I though i would find more "triggered" comments here but i'm actually surprised at the level of intelligent debate going on in the comments. And for that, i will give it a "Like". Very interesting video.
Good for you, found at least 2 racists in one thread trying to backup their logic with "science"
Hitori Bocchi the video attracts the “better” (however you judge goodness of a comment by) comments. If the comments suit you, the video should, in theory, suit you. If the comments contain angry people debating the video, the in theory, probably isn’t the best explainer of whatever subject. I think its an okay system to judge videos on, but watch the video and just see if it suits you is probably the better way
Help I'm A Rock it is a great Excuse. It’s even backed up. Civilization land that flourish have better geography simple. Learn new things every day
Help I'm A Rock IQ has nothing to do with ethnicity, just circumstances. If the circumstances are right a black kid will do better than a white kid that doesn’t have the same circumstances
K A why should I. Was it not them that were over policed, that’s were given less education, that was red lined, that was treated badly by the government, yet they still flourish(respectively)
Back in college when we studied history our professor mentioned something similar to what you discussed.. like how geography influences unity and cohesion of a culture. In the Philippines (my country) we have this problem of "slow development" as well, we have many provinces/tribes/"subcultures(?)" which makes it difficult for us to make decisions as one and to understand each other's values, therefore to grow as one country ideally united with just one mindset. We have 7,000++ islands, so many varied dialects, tribes, habits, religion... People from Luzon have different values most have "colonial mentality", those in Visayas are more aggressive, Mindanao have Muslims which the government have to take into account when making decisions. Point is, geography cannot be disregarded when it comes to the behavior(?) of a nation/culture.. it definitely has influence. I also think weather is a big factor. Those who live in tropical islands I see as friendlier and cheerful as the sun is a major influence when it comes to mood. In fact in psychology depression is related to cold weather like in areas with long winters people literally get "winter blues" and part of treatment is exposure to UV/light to uplift the mood.
You are right. I would say also the cultures are product of the geography and climate
We need a binding force that will unite us... I wonder what could it be?
Now I understand BBM.... he wants to create a solid foundation that is necessary for building a prosperous nation.
And geography and climate are related aswell
Do you guys support Federalism?
I found that theory to be pretty intriguing. There are subtle forces around us that shape our lives which we aren't even aware of. It isn't until we challenge our preconceived notions that we enter a deeper realm of understanding.
Thank you so much, A Kenyan here, Kikuyu tribe. this is good. Don't worry the social dynamics will evolve and grow ,maybe not in our time but sure enough they will. The end of ethnic conflict will come.
@Adam Defibaugh true that. But the European borders made things worse in some cases because it grouped different people together. Its was made even worse by the divide and rule methods
Oi, that first location is in my country, Uganda. It's called Sipi falls. A very nice place.
"Being Taller Is Bad"
South America: **Intense Sweating**
well and most civs there were restrained to mountain regions
Would be interesting to see the climate regions of South America overlapped with thier national boundaries. Could help to see if the videos thesis works out there too
@@deinemam7115 This idea is being questioned recently. There were some cities found that used to exist in the jungle.The reason why they were not discovered before - the main building materials for these people was wood and it all rotten away by now in the rain and warmth.
@@Leerill South America has very few seas
Europe by other side has too much seas
The Inca Empire was based off of the Mountainous regions of South America.
Doomed is a strong word. Africa is not doomed, it is finding itself in this new age.
Regardless of the accuracy of this, he has a hypothesis, not a theory.
Roger Propes in social hypothesis like this and the stoned ape theory are still called theory in title only. Its not for scientific theory but it is true for social
Isn't it true that today we have the 'law of gravity', i.e. everybody agrees on it, the 'theory of evolution', i.e. not everybody is willing to believe in the evidence yet, and the 'hypothesis' that there may be life on another planet, i.e. we just don't have enough evidence to know yet? And 500 years ago we just had the 'hypothesis' of heliocentricity and gravity? My hypothesis is that given enough people on our planet finite recombinant DNA will start producing identical but unrelated twins, but I can't prove it.
Roger Propes evolution is a scientific fact, but it is still studied in many ways
A theory is not an idea. A hypothesis has to be testable. A theory is an explanation of a naturally occuring phenomenon
Racists focus on exclusively on skin color as a differentiating trait. Black Africans , White Europeans, and 'yellow' Orientals are different in many other significant ways--body hair, epicanthic folds, height, lactose tolerance etc., why not the way our brains work? This is not to imply superiority of any trait, just marked observable distinctions.
Imagine being Africa
_This comment was made by Eurasia gang_
A TROLL!!!
@@vlc-cosplayer Isn't the world a large rock floating in space? Waiting to be melted via the Sun?
@@vlc-cosplayer We will be dead long before that, at temperatures above 100 Celsius we'd already be dead.
@@vlc-cosplayer Yes, it is enough, where I live in Southern Europe, it can go to 45 º in the summer and it is already unbearable. I cannot imagine 60º
We were *always* at war with Eurasia
No, the word is hypothesis, it's not a theory.
I was about to say the same. I swear people need to go back to school or read a dictionary once or twice.
whatever name you use it, it makes sense anyway
@@zijkhal8356 thanks for clarifying
Although a hypothesis has to be testable. Maybe we'll just call it a politically correct idea.
@@malcolmt7883 you can't test climate and geography under real scale lol.
you can juste look at what happened and try to understand why. i think this climate and geography theory makes a lot of sense and can be apply to much more place on earth
Congratulations. Your post is on target and beautifully narrated. I would add still another geographic constraint : native animal domesticated species available in a shorter variety than in Euroasia
Truuuuuee; everything about Africa makes farming a lot more difficult and there was less need with the lack of seasons so it was better just to stay in hunter gatherer phase to find food, and make different progress elsewhere like with music. Being exposed to either people like yourself or people different but directly near you probably also hindered the need for making more technically advanced weapons
I think part of it also has to do with the fact that Africans just didn't need to innovate as much. Africa was the place were we evolved as a species, so Africans were naturally well suited to many areas of the continent. Europe and Asia, on the other hand, demanded human innovation for our prolonged survival. Aided by geography, all of these innovations spread throughout Eurasia while Africans managed to live almost as they had since the origin of our species.
No actually africa is the only place on earth that naturally keeps us in check viruses evolved to kill us parisites to inhabite us
The harshness of africa forced our intellegence
@@palebluedot7435 And yet somehow, the people who live here show very little of it.
@@SaraRoseVaughan intellegence and knowledge are seperate
@philip trevor no it really hasnt
This is not true. Africa is one of the harshest places for humans to live. Which makes sense as it was the catalyst for our ancestors to start developing bigger and bigger brains. It had an abundance of dangerous megafauna, diseases jumping from closely related species (like HIV in modern times), and incredibly harsh biomes like the Savanahh filled with tsetse flies.
The bantu farmers, a group which colonised much of Sub-Saharan Africa, were a relatively new group with technological innovations that allowed them to do so. The geography of Africa slowed this down though, and when Europeans came they were barely finished spreading and had done so so slowly it was barely remembered by those at the starting point (i.e no cohesive identity/culture among Bantu farmer groups).
Eurasia basically easy mode, if you watch other videos about the domestication of animals in eurasia compared to the americas you'll see this added to supporting that eurasia is easymode zone.
The ice age was easy.
@_ craig _ You got it, those are the only 2 factors when looking at civilization progress. Amazing
@_ craig _ Nothing says good weather and fertile land like half of the continent being a desert.
@_ craig _ domesticated animals are the first step in a growing society. Eurasia had loads of them. Google it
@_ craig _ google river civilizations and fertile crescent
geography def has a significant impact and the theory has merits, but it's also very important to NOT be too deterministic - human societies and cultures are often motivated and influenced by factors beyond the climate and geography!
Have you watched the start of the video?
@@agamemnonofmycenae5258 he did mention how the cultural diversity of africa like all diversities made it weak
Like what? Other cultures who came from other climates and geography?
i think he addressed most of these other factors in the video
Could you share some of these factors.
1:03
*Putin has joined the conversation*
As myself being a north African, i can affirm the validity of this theory. here for example in southern Algeria alone, we witness various incidents of ethnic nature which ARE very much driven by climactic and regional conflicts.
Holocaust happened, American/French revolution happened, WWI/II happened, Balkan wars happened, Bloody Sunday happened
@@TheMediocreDev there are differences in intelligence, but among healthy individuals it is negiligible. Humans are vastly intelligent and capable of a lot of things. The differences are due to geography, and climate.
Equatorial nations are poor, not because of intelligence difference, but GEOGRAPHY. Jated Diamond argues in his book Guns, Germs and Steel that Europeans and Asians got an enormous head start because of geography:
some plants lend themselves to agriculture by producing energy-dense seeds which are easily harvested and which have a long shelf life after drying
the Mediterranean climate was ideal for growing these plants
Europe/Asia has a long east/west strip which allowed agriculture to propagate
the Americas have regions with the same climate, but the dominant axis is north/south so those areas are separated and constrained; agriculture wasn't able to propagate the same way
the Indigenous Australians could never have invented agriculture because the domesticatable plants simply weren't present, likewise with many other places
agriculture meant that an individual could generate more food than they required, which enabled specialisation and a division of labour, which in turn enabled innovation
certain types of animals lend themselves to domestication (especially important is a herding instinct); almost all these animals were present in Europe/Asia, and absent elsewhere
domesticated livestock added to the food surplus, and added mobility
living at close quarters with the domesticated livestock led to disease transmission, and after some time a "herd immunity" within the human population; the indigenous peoples who were later invaded had not acquired such immunity and were heavily impacted by diseases brought by colonists/conquerors
On top of that, the alphabet was invented in the Mediterranean region whixh enabled transmission of knowledge, which enabled growth of knowledge, which imparted military abd commercial advantage
With these advantages, the rest of the world didn't have a chance. At least, not for the first 10,000 years. But oil became incredibly important a bit over a century ago, and the existing empires were absolutely smashed by WWI. We're at the beginning of a new chapter. A Chinese diplomat was asked what he thought of the French Revolution and he replied, "It's too early to tell". That's probably pretty true.
If you are north African I feel sorry for your country I hope the rest of you don't share your mentality. For you are clearly a victim of white supremacist brainwashing lol
What about South America though? It is much taller than it is wide, yet it was unifies by the Incan Empire, and then again by the Spanish Empire. Also, Chile today is a very wealthy country despite being like 100 miles wide and stretching through many different climate zones
The Incan Empire expanded mostly through the Andes, which due to the altitude shares a climate. And the Spanish Empire broke apart, so it was not a success.
@@LNSS_v every empire in history has broken apart so on basis of that because the Spanish Empire broke apart, no empire has been a success. Yet we probably consider the Roman Empire, the Mongol Empire, the Persian Empire, the Alexandrian? Empire, Empire of China, etc. quite succesful. I agree on the Inca though. Due to the Andes similar climate and their way of connecting the empire by roads and overall government administration kept it together for a long time.
Munchausenification yeah but the Spanish didn’t even hold it for that long
@@claymusicoff5663 Obviously depends on when you consider the Spanish Empire started and ended. I would say that from around 1520 - Charles V of Spain and Holy Roman Emperor to around 1808 with the Spanish American Wars of Independence. I would say 288 years is still a long time
Munchausenification not really. Especially when it comes to empires
As an African, I find this very interesting and somehow true. Couldn't nail it further. Good job man
From what country?
@Pneumonocolvocanomicroscopicsilicolvocano-coniosis africa is not a country dude
@Pneumonocolvocanomicroscopicsilicolvocano-coniosis how the hell do you pronounce ur name
@@wibbliams uvuvwevwevwe onyetenyevwe ugwemubwem ossas
@Pneumonocolvocanomicroscopicsilicolvocano-coniosis It happened to me again this morning 😂
Very interesting hypothesis. My country Kenya has very variable climate ranging from deserts to green highlands. We also have over 50 tribes. I have observed that different tribes inhabit different climatic zones and tribal boundaries neatly match the climatic boundaries in many cases.
Habari, I'm kenyan (kalenjin) too and this is quite accurate
South America disagrees strongly. The Incans basically did everything you said could not happen in Africa, but in SA. Peru itself has 95% of all climates in one country, yet they seems to get along just fine.
They definitely produced great cities and long lasting buildings even in Jungles and on mountain tops..
Part of this was due to being able to demistice, something africa couldnt to the same extent. Also, most great native empires didnt really interact much.
Theres this country in africa called tanzania, ome of the.largest countries in the continent, 70% of it is uninhabitable due to one insect,the tsetse fly. It causes sleeping sickness or trypanasomiasis. Africas tough conditions are the only reasons why europeans werent able to replicate what they did to s.america in the continent. To.live in africa u have to be naturally designed to live there
@@TheMrgoodmanners explain the Dutch south Africans. They used innovation to make South Africa farmable.
@@emw1994
They did, honestly though, South Africa has enviable weather and climate and access to a well placed beach. None of which poor neighbors have. To the North East is a country very regularly hit with tropical storms of varying strengths. To the north, an Arid savanna with little rain and 75% Kalahari. To the north west, a country mostly dominated by desert, which is the reason for the Capivri strip
Your hypothesis would need to hold to to comparison to S America which is also longer than it is wide and runs longtitudinally.
The South American Nations are also far younger. Many of them formed well after the Declaration of Independence was signed in the United States which is pretty much in the modern era by comparison. They were also formed by colonials. Not the native people.
America was less developped than Eurasia.
So it works.
Much of South America is similar, a lot of it is made up of rain forest with some grasslands in Argentina and mountains along the Western coast
Let's not forget that most native Americans died out and were replaced with Europeans who brought a fully fleshed out culture and way of life. That's why there are large, functioning countries in the Americas that span over different climate zones
@AstoundingPilot -SW- Europe is far more fragmented than south America.
The opposite happened in the americas before europeans, south and central american natives were more advanced than US and Canada natives
Tenés razón! Supongo que la geografía determinista no puede explicar eso
@@paulatano1746 pero los imperios tenian un mismo clima los azteca centro de mexico,mayas la peninsula de yucatan y centroamerica y los incas peru lo puedes ver ahora en mexico tenemos cuatro grupos grandes los del norte desertico los del centro mas templado los del sur con clima tropical y los de la peninsula de yucatan
most "advanced", they didn't even invent the fucking wheel the most basic of it all.
@@yetlin8386 more advanced than US and Canada natives, not most. And the wheel invention didn't happen everywhere, it was copied though
People are poor. Not countries. All other races flourish and have defeated poverty in Africa. Whites, Asians, Arabs... It's just blacks who can't seem to sort their shit out
Very interesting, Another issue was the tse-tse fly in sub-saharan africa which made large scale horse breeding impossible. So people couldn't travel far fast to trade and spread ideas and build empires as fast and far as they were supposed to. Horses make things go a lot faster. But places like the sahel which didn't have that problem saw vast empires like Mali, Ghana and Songhai. They were supercharged by both the horse and camel.
sub-saharan africa never domesticated animals
@@billjames4771 well any well-educated person on this topic knows that sub-Saharan Africans domesticated everything from cattle to horses. Even hyenas. I dont know where you get your lies from
no domesticating of animals by sub-Saharans, flies or no flies. That they later copied Mediterranean muslins or Europeans....sure. They also were later taught to read and write, but they NEVER developed reading and writing on their own. Maybe the flies had something to do with it? Or maybe crocodiles. Or hippos, or elephants. But whatever excuses you come up with does not change the facts.
@@billjames4771 the only fact is that what you are saying is complete garbage. No one is making any excuses or copying anyone. There were different writing systems developed in sub-saharan africa without Europeans or muslims. Scholars have also written about it. You are clearly not very bright.
@@apricotbranding what different writing systems did the sub-Saharans develop? When. What is your source? You seem to be the only one aware of them.
So set Africa to wumbo?
😂😂😂
UNDERRATED COMMENT
lol!
Now I have to go watch that episode.
Well then it would be upside down
Please don't say 'only a theory' when you mean hypothesis.
I mean.....he said theory, not Theory........but yeah....
It is a theory tho
@@marvingroves8456 In the scientific world a Theory is something recognized as most likely true. It's an idea that's supported by a lot of evidence and hasn't been proven wrong.
Nobody above has learned anything from the philosophy of science.
Sad!
It just a theory a gameeee theory
This is the thesis of Guns, Germs, and Steel, by Jared Diamond.
It's very similar
That book is trash. It's been refuted so many times it's not even funny anymore.
Biology is a large component that he completely ignores due to ideological reasons.
@@Jay-fp8iy Refuted by who?
@@Jay-fp8iy Oh the irony that you accuse him of relying on a refuted theory due to ideological reasons, whilst basing your own entire theory about biology on one single study which has been refuted even more times
@@Jay-fp8iy Nice of you to tell that it was refuted while neglecting to back that claim up with anything, or eloberate further why it is so.
Guns, Germs, and Steel: The Fates of Human Societies by Jared M. Diamond, you basically just restated parts of his book
I'm glad he did because I'd have never heard it otherwise. Too many books in the world can't read them all.
Academia is 99% just copying statements, facts, theories, and opinions of other academics to fellow academics in the Hope's that you can convince some academics to let you put those quotes in a journal so other academics can read those restated theories in the Hope's that if enough academics read the same restated theories that it will become the coveted "generally accepted" theory and you become elevated to being the Chad Academic
Climate theories of population groups is a very old theory, it’s how the Greeks theorized the origin of different skin colors. most of Jared diamonds book isn’t even his own original thoughts, but that’s just how academia works, building and connecting pre established ideas.
@@arthas640 Facts
I got that book as a present one Christmas and it had a lot of good points which I had thought about, geography is the physical context upon which animals peoples cultures etc exist, I don't think geography alone determines everything but it sets parameters of what's possible, but I think the influence of culture is also a big factor if secondary to physical geography
Ahh Africa, constantly divided by ...*checks notes* ... geography?
its actually denmark fucking everyone over
They waz kangz
@Lafaye Reid get over yourself. Africa is the faction in Age of Empires that is still throwing poo at eachother while the top two are about to walk on the moon.
@Lafaye Reid In Age of Empires? I usually play as India because nobody wants to go to war with Ghandi.
@Lafaye Reid because it's a game about progression and one faction always gets pathetically left behind. That's Africa. Pathetically left behind.
Nobody can blame imperialism because they were 10,000 years behind the rest of the world before anyone showed up.
The words “just” and “theory” do not belong together. This should be called a hypothesis.
Matpat has to host Game Hypothesis now
actually it is a theory. a hypothesis is a theory that can be PROVED through future experimentation. Until we invent time travel this a theory. I do agree though he made a lot a very good points throughout the video
Depends on the definition being used
@@aaroncatoe1531 😂😂😂
@@dave1805 I think you've got that wrong and the original comment is correct. A theory can be tested and proved;...The theory of gravity, the theory that earth revolves around the sun, theory of evolution. A hypothesis can become a theory.
Also I think the Sahara desert was a huge obstacle. It was like some kind of dry ocean which prevented the Europeans to trade with the resource rich nations of Central Africa. Without it, technology and resources would have been more or less evenly split and there wouldn't have been such a huge disparity when colonization eventually happened.
Surprising, trade thrived across the Sahara, and in a lot of ways in can be seen as just another body of water, with few capable of living in it, but many traveling through it. But it did distance major African countries from the civilizations of Europe and Asia. It was also a lot smaller not too long ago, and much more of it was only semi-arid.
It is quite interesting how each region lead the world at some point in human history only to later lag behind, Africa may have started human culture, but then lagged behind after that, the middle east lead at some point, Asia lead at some point, with each invention a barrier is removed shifting the balance of power, colonization removed barriers in Africa, modern medicine helped slowly progress the continent, to develop a region the culture needs to really be developed enough and be able to pull of the work needed to get things done, new regional powers usually arise with the times and they are products of their times, culture plays a key role in the development of technology and economy, some cultures do stagnate if they live in relative isolation from everyone else or if they adopt terrible ideas.
@@Tethloach1 there is no such thing as the middle east. Ethiopia lead the world for thousands of years
@@jeffblack5534 Which thousands? Lol. Perhaps when mankind was only found there
@@kenobi6257 from 6000 bc to like 600 bc
I found this a very good explanation. As Geography teacher I concur with what is said in the video.
India DOESN'T have a unified climate. We've got a hodge podge of Tundra, Alpine, Desert, Wetlands and Tropical.
yeah india is like a mini Africa almost
Hmm
No big country has a unified climate*
perhaps except Canada or Siberia
@@user-go8fs2vq9z settle down
That is not relevant. It is about the important regions and those must be similar and connected enough. Indian deserts are small. The mountains are far in the north and were not a part of the core.
Lack of access to the coast and navigable rivers are arguably more important geographic factors.
I'd say navigable rivers definitely, but many parts of Africa had access to coastal areas
@@Cindy99765 They do, but they have terrible bay areas for building great harbours.
Nice beaches though.
Some of the most impressive African archaeological sites were city states on the east coast.
Lol those ARE geographic factors!
@@Zarastro54 Read OPs post again carefully.
Jared Diamond talked about it in his book, "Guns, Germs, and Steel". The same theory applies to the Americas.
That's right I wonder if our guy read this he should
PERSONALLY I hate Diamonds theory, making geography the main element that is. There’s clearly also an unrelated cultural component
@@johnroache6012 a lot of things are related due to a rabbit's hole of cause and effect, but I see what you're saying.
Shame it was unscientific nonsense.
*merica*
Geography itself shouldn’t be overplayed. The Scramble for Africa is to blame. Violence ensued and landlocked nations were stunted. And, Europe wasn’t “forced” to engage in imperialism, it was a decision to line the rich’s pockets rather than improve their people’s livelihoods.
Yeah because Africa was a thriving utopia right before the 1800’s 🤡
Why was Europe able to be imperialist towards Africa then? Some countries, like Japan, China, and Turkey, were able to fight and win against Europeans, so they didn't get colonised. And Europe was "forced" to engage in imperialism. "Europe" was full of hostile countries trying to kill each other. If the British and French hadn't got Africa, the Germans and Italians would have. The scramble for Africa was a competition between European powers because the African nations were not strong enough to win against them, and they couldn't afford to let their enemies get them. This was the 19th century after all.
@@雷-t3jwhy are u acting like africans didnt fight back
@@雷-t3jdont try to justify it
Going to stop you on the "Rich by Imperialism myth" the act of Empire was a negative to most of the nations that did it with it at best being economically even. Europe only conquered the World to prove that they COULD not because of some wealth based nonsense as old Feudal ideas of Prestige didn't die out amongst the upper classes until WW2.
As an African I really appreciate and like this video.
Thank you
Shout out from South Africa 🇿🇦
You really oversimplified the climat zones in eurasia, like really badly
Of course, because giving realistic picture would show that this theory doesnt hold at all.
@@markoliimatainen2565 oohhhhhh yeah you are right 😂😂😂 how silly i was
Tbh his theory is very litle gripp tho
And it's all because Europe is like a circle. Well, not really, I'm simplifying, but it's a circle. Kinda. And Africa looks like a triangle. Europe needs less effort to push forward - circle has it easier than the square. Or triangle. Whatever, details doesn't matter in science. This is only a theory, but it had to be like that, because if you check out African flags, they are rectangles and Portugal have a circular thingy on its flag - PT was a great empire because that circle and Ethiopia has more than 4 tribes, same as angles in square and about the same as in triangle and it's poor. Try to run with a big, glass replica of Africa (yo). You can't and even if you'd do it, you can fall down and cut your throat. Another point of theory - they had to be careful when they were running with their glass replicas of Africas, so Europe invaded it.
@@KrzysiuNet best comment.
@
Fetts4ck
Well then why don't you give us an educated more realistic map then?
So you're saying that continental Europe isn't dominated by cold / temperate forests in the north with a small polar region and a dry Mediterranean climate in the south?
Middle east isn't dominated by small mediterranean climate and largely desert / arid climate?
Sub-continent / indochina aren't almost completely tropical? China isn't temperate? Central Asia isn't arid? Siberia isn't polar? With patches of Alpine due to the Himalayas and Alps.
Yes he glossed over certain regions but it wouldn't disprove his point. Obviously he's not going to put local / regional variations down as that's due to topographical features which would be exhausting.
The point is that Africa due to its multi-lateral latitudes has two very different arid zones in very different locations as well as broken grassland zones and two mediterrannean zones at the opposite ends of the continent, this completely limits communication, trade and distribution of wealth and resources! Are you debating this theory? How would your understanding change this?
Look at central asia, the large swathes of semi-arid steppe and grassland enters upon the temperate climates of east asia to the right and onto the middle eastern desert and aridlands to the west. This has cultivated a pattern of communication, trade and distribution which has led to large empires such as the Mongols, Huns, Scythians, Parthians even the Greeks at one stage... this has been a pattern over 2500 years. Are you debating this? How would your understanding of the climates of Eurasia affect that simple theory. What African Empire spanned one grassland zone, the jungle and desert to get to the other zones? Huh? And yes this is just ONE factor.... but a factor that isn't diputed by your superior 'knowledge' of Eurasian geo-climate zones.
So go on then, show us your 'better' map that proves that a common geography hasn't helped certain Empires / civilizations in Eurasia...
I'm a History teacher and Geography teacher and literally the first thing we do when looking at certain Empires is to look at the Geography of their lands and how similarities / variations helped them whether it was the Romans or the Chinese... so go on then.
More of a hypothesis than a theory but good video.
He clearly doesn't know the difference.
@Suffer No Fools basically a hypothesis is the step before getting a theory. A hypothesis can be made by anyone and doesn't need any kind of logical explanation, while a theory needs evidence, verification and so on.
So you can come up with a hypothesis on why the sky is blue, but you need a theory to attempt explaining it
(Tell me if I'm wrong here!)
@@MaxAndHisBike ya, this is more of a fact than a theory
He said that at the beginning... >: |
@@jamedlamed3982 well the climate zones are a fact, but everything else isn't.
There is no hard scientific evidence that this is the reason why Africa is the way it is. Facts are testable, but this situation is way too unique and complex for it to ever be tested, so there probably won't ever be facts
OMG really, i always thought about some of those aspects being the reason for the problems of the African Continent (beyond the colonialism). Obviously the theory is way more complete than my thoughts, but that's cool.
You are a brave man trying to encourage healthy debate in a sea of trolls. I wish you strength. Look forward to more content 👍
These Climate maps bother me. It is too vague and broad. The temperate climates of Europe and East Asia Do Not connect and the caucuses mountains are temperate. Steppes have grass and deserts don't. South Africa is not Mediterranean, it's a similar climate to Southeast Australia. And Morocco is more M mediterranean than that.
Where in Europe would South Africa be more aligned with
But u gotta at least admit that England, Holland, and Germany, have much more in common with each other than with Italy or Spain. Even Southern California naturally ended up looking like Italy...
There are "micro climates" too. Like the Kush Valley Steppes.
@@averongodoffire8098 None of the above. I said Southeast Australia.
@@pallmall7385 I know. I said nothing about that.
Cool video! But isn't this hypothesis postulated by Jared Diamond in his book Guns, Germs and Steel?
yeah this is geographic luck
That's right, it's the same theory.
...yup, Africa is like the Americas in this regard...
Ramsay Bolton To say Japan was isolated as heck is like saying the island of Great Britain was isolated as heck. Both were heavily influenced by the outside world and were thus able to at least keep up with the times. The main difference between the two is that Japan stuck with isolationism and rarely left their homeland until the modern era. And the only reason Japan is a powerhouse today is well frankly because of the US and the rise of globalization.
I think the main reason you don’t see these great civilizations out of Africa is simply because they weren’t connected to the rest of the world. The North African civilizations and Ethiopia were exceptional because they were very keen on trading.
@Ramsay Bolton i dunno, Prussia had a decent climate for agriculture man. Their core territories lay almost entirely on the European Plain, ripe for urban expansion and agriculture. The weather wasn't too bad, and they had historic access to the Baltic.
What made Prussia a formidable military power was fueled moreso by individuals hoping to strengthen their empire militarily due to Prussia's geopolitical layout. Bordering Austria, the Polish-Lithuanian Commonweatlh (and later congress Poland, i.e Russia) and with thinly stretched borders, there was an inherent need to solidify their control over them, AND to outpace their enemies military speaking (and of course beating them into submission as Bismarck did with Austria in 1866).
My ancestors and nationality is on the very east coast of Africa. We've always been able to use the spice route trade from the top of the Red Sea to the bottom to our advantage.
Those chaps on the opposite side of the continent of us. West Africa. They have not had the same ability as we have had.
West Africa and East Africa alike have the Sahara desert above us making it nearly impossible to trek to the top. The primary difference with EAST Africa where I come from and WEST Africa where the blacks of America come from is neighbors.
In East Africa even though we're cut off from the world by the Sahara desert the same as West Africa. The key differnce is, all we have separating us from the next continent and people over is the Red Sea.
That's roughly 20 miles from the African east coast tip to the next continent over in Asia where the nations Yemen and Saudi Arabia lie.
Every people, kingdom and power could not have been without the incorporation of its neighbors. West Africa and literally all of Africa central Africa and below has been disabled from doing that because of Geography.
The Congo is what really made it impossible for the Africans below the Congo to migrate out. The Congo and everything in it might as well be a continent all its own. #FACTS.
Africa is the best continent in human existence in terms of life sustainment and existing. The geography for half of its (West and south of central Africa) inhabitants is the worst thing to happen to any of the continents ever though.
It's pure logic and history that proves my theory right. My area of Africa only ended up the way it did because we were not isolated by desert, water and distance as West and southern Africa was and is.
I'm really happy this video exists. I've known this about Africa since I was a kid. I grew up in America but American history taught me things about my color (black people) that I knew didn't happen to my culture. That's because I'm from Eritrea/Ethiopia. The geography and the history we've had with people of the other continents would not allow such an atrocity as the Atlantic slave trade to happen.
And I'm proud to say I'm very close to becoming an American high school geography teacher. Knowing what I know, being of the ancestory I am. Being a teacher is my best tool to be able to educate and improve the mindset of the young black child in America.
Black doesnt mean slavery. Black history doesn't mean shackles, Jim Crow, civil rights ect. There's so much more. I'm a living breathing example of that. And the best gift I think I can give the world is properly educating and enlightening our future generations 🌍🌎🌏
Nice hypothesis but Ethiopia is actually an counter-example for everything you explained before. It's the only African country that was never colonized by neither Europeans or Arabs and it has a "unifying" climate but it was never successful in modern times: it's one of the poorest countries, even for African standards (as of 2018, there were only 16 countries with lower HDI than Ethiopia). A far better example for me would be Botswana.
What about Italy? They conquered the area
@@JC60143 They occupied Ethiopia for less than 8 years, can't compare it with full-on colonization...
It's prophesied to become an end time Superpower. It is a strong African Nation.
ethiopia is in such a desolate state, for the same reason somalia is
war
somalia in the 80s was shaping up to be strongest country on the continent, boasting the largest military in africa and having a strong economy, built with soviet funding
then they started a war with ethiopia, which they thought was going to be ez pz
at first that was a fair assessment, as somalia occupied more than 3/4 of the country in less than a year
the remaining 1/4 of ethiopia meanwhile, had a communist revolution
which the soviet union immediately jumped in to fund
withdrawing their funding for somalia in the process, and joining the ethiopian counter-offensive, by bombing somalia to dust
which, for the detriment of both somalia and ethiopia, included their occupied territory
and thanks to this war, the horn of africa is now dirt poor and has fallen victim to chinese colonization
Exacty! Also Parts of asia such as south asia has a lot of poverty.
"did not keep up technologically (except Wakanda)". Nice one. I am in Africa. People over here are pretty low-energy about everything except if it's self-enrichment, materialism. Don't expect much to change.
@@issadraco532 Actually, survival in Europe is much easier than in Africa. First, stable predictable rainfall. Second, a colder climate allows to store food surpluses. I can go on and on. You base your logic on the false premise.
@@michaelcrockis7679 I disagree. Europe is far more hostile. With harsh winters that will not allow you to grow anything. Making you plan in advance and ration your food.Not to mention build structures that will insulate you against harsh conditions. You (as a society) would also need to make clothing, need to keep track of provisions, have a method to keep track of the seasons, understand and practice agriculture as game is not plentiful(well not as plentiful as Africa).
Africa in general(not counting the desert regions) is plentiful regarding fruits, vegetables and game to eat. You are also closer to the equator meaning that its warmer. Hence you do not necessarily need to keep track of the seasons if you are close to the equator you can grow food all year round. You do not need to build structures with insulation in mind as its unlikely you will die from hypothermia unless you wish to live in a mountainous region. I think the most dangerous factors for living in Africa is the wildlife and possible diseases that come with the region.
@@GIRRIG001 It inflicts me pain to say, but all the things that you've mentioned are just not true. The vast cold expanses of Eurasia were inhabited since times immemorial by Neolithic people advanced much less than any Africans contemporary to them or modern Africans. It is not so hard to live in a cold climate. Every lemming, bear, deer or a wolf can do that. So could our ancestors. There is no need to be a Duke of London or an Isaac Newton to survive in high latitude. The cradle of the European Civilisation is not Lapland It is Mediterranean - Fertile Crescent and Greece. A mild climate, no snow whatsoever. All the Northlings were dumb barbarians most of the History. The thing that you are trying to do is to extrapolate today's visible gap to eternity. Probably, to justify the present state of the things. Presumably, to sleep well at night. Sadly, this extrapolation is just not correct. We should understand that the dominance of the European countries in the course of the last 200 years is just a small bulge on the long human history, which spans hundreds of thousands of years. Most of that time there was no technological gap between north and south. Hides and stones, that's all. And biologically, the difference between Africans and Europeans is no more than such between two Europeans one ginger and one with black hair. We all, black and white, are Cro-Magnon men, mostly as clever by our nature as the first Homo sapiens. The same amount of neurons in the brain, you know. So, to say that the African people are crap is like to say that the winner of the second place in swimming at the Olympics is a bad swimmer. We all lasted for millennia. It counts for something. Moreover, the given time is not enough to create a substantial genetic difference. The real difference is in the construction of society. It's in human nature to explain the complexity of a society by the cleverness of its people. In fact, it is quite opposite. Because of specialization people in complex societies are less clever and less prominent in general. Social structure cares about them. They have no need to be great to survive a day since no one doesn't need to be a great hunter to buy a chicken in the grocery store. And they are just cogs in the machine. The machine is great, not individuals. The masses are pretty dumb in all ages. So, we need to invent a good theory about how civilizations born and evolve without saying 'those people were just too stupid to do something'. Probably, they were not. And the last thing. There are so many things that can kill a human. We know our local threats, but know nothing about threats in distant lands. So we just tend to inflate the importance of threats we familiar with. Dozens of venomous snakes and insects, poisonous plants, the death from overheating and thirst - just a brief list of things average inhabitant of Europe shouldn't even have known of, ever. People telling stories about easy life in Africa just recite kid's tales, where ostriches hide their heads in the ground, in other words, rubbish written by the wannabe writers of the times when uncharted territories were marked as 'here there be dragons and dog-headed people'. Life was never easy in no place on the Earth.
depends where in Africa you are.
@@michaelcrockis7679 we wuz kangs?
why hasn't South America experienced the same thing then?
Tim Ponder Because we have cocaine.
Tim Ponder cause South America is all like a huge jungle. Whereas Africa is split by many biomes
when the europeans invaded they sacked the continent, decimated the populations, and even brought african slaves to work on extracting resources.
america experienced the same thing as africa at the hands of europe.
@@asherpikesgoldenmoralcinem5770 sorry don't wanna be rude or offend you but thats a very ignorant statement man. Brazil is the one country with the most diversity of biomes in the world. However Brazil in turn doesn't include mountainous regions like Peru, Colombia, Chile, Bolivia does. Meanwhile Argentina, Chile can stretch as far south as south africa. etc. If you look up a map you'll see the thick Amazon jungle is located in the heart of the continent, meanwhile all the other areas have many different biomes. Although the biomes are smaller than in Africa they are as varied. Basically what I mean to say with all my rambling is that @Tim Ponder South America hasn't experienced the same thing because the hypothesis shown in this video is wrong. Some points are not, it's factual that they are vertical for example, but what does that prove? they are combined in a way that distorts to prove his own point, and his arguments brushes over a whole lot of other things regarding the "dooming" of a continent. This video is actually a great example of a problem with fallacies we have in video essays, news articles, etc. right now. Sorry for the long ramble.
Elftzar Don’t be sorry for your long ramble. It was interesting. I don’t have much to really argue against lol I mean ur right. Ofcourse it’s not all a jungle. I would assume then that empires grew more in South America because the people simply were capable of traveling into different biomes? Like pre-Spanish Times. Or did they stick to their own biomes still idk too lazy to do my own research.
I recently had the idea of trying to write a story with the setting of a country comprising both land and sea (split into the north and south) so this video is really interesting in that sense to me!
As a sidenote there's *tons* I don't understand about global geography or history, so as an amateur writer I think I'll just try have fun writing this little story about stormchasing, sharks, etc. rather than try take on anything like capturing proper realistic historical events and geographical facts or writing social commentary lmao
It's very interesting how a seemingly simple thing like climate can have such a big effect
Climate zones per se are just one factor, as one can see with Mali. Many other factors play into the ways human history took. Mali is also a very bad example of pure post-colonial struggles or climate zone determinism because historically the very much precolonial Mali Empire formed in that very region.
The legend 27 I do not think climate was the reason!
john hansberry also due to the gulf stream
Except China doesn't have a single climate
Yes, while modern China does not have a single climate, the heart of the Chinese empire, were almost the entire population lives, where all the cities are, and all the agriculture exists, does roughly fall under the same east coastal temperate climate.
Layluck in the modern world, yes, but historically Shenzhen was hardly populated at all. Shenzhen only had a population of 30,000 even in 1980 while Chang’an (historical capital of many Chinese dynasties and located in the temperate region near the north) had a population of 1 million in 700ad. Beijing also had an estimated population of 1 million in 1500ad.
Don't be so fucking dense. China, for most of it's history, was mostly just in that temperate region. As China grew in power though, having two fertile rivers to feed a huge population and room for invention, allowed the Chinese to eventually be able to conquer the more rugged landscapes to the west in later portions of it's history. And comparing Beijing to Shenzhen is like comparing Chicago to Atlanta. Both are in a temperate climate, and while the temps vary, they are both more or less close to the same biome.
@@AtlasPro1 Neither does India, and modern India is smaller then what Hindu empires where stretching from Afghanistan (Hindu Shahis) to Indonesia (Sri Vijaya). From Central Asia (Shakas) to Sri Lanka (Cholas), to Champa Hindu kingdom in Vietnam. All Hindu empires were a coalition like the UK to form the great Dharmic kingdom. and if you can't include SE Asian islands as part of your freaking map, then don't talk about Asia. SE Asia is as much part of Asia as China or India.
This while climate thing is a silly cope. It's the people that determine how an area evolves... Not the weather or the type of dirt they have lmao
You forgot about Vibranium
I'm pretty sure if Africa wasn't enslaved, colonized, and distributed by different "powers" for *centuries* and didn't have to focus on fighting for their independence, they could be more modernized and have the tools needed to thrive.
😂😂😂😂
My gosh... my mind has just been opened... though if I think about it, it actually makes allot of sense.
Nah, its just another attempt to justify Arica's wretched condition.
@@Chasstful well it is better in the South then further up
@@Chasstful I couldnt agree more. And its a shame to see all these comments: im from africa, this makes sense. ofcourse it makes sense to you, your an idiot, you dont even realize the problem lies with yourself :D
@@MakkerDon I think he's talking about why huge civilizations didn't form there
04:00 Egypt conquered large parts of Asia at the height of their power reaching as far as Southern Syria.
Is Syria not part of Asia?
He is talking about just africa, not everywhere else
Chance Templeton wait yeah it is its part of the Asian continent
Yes dessert
@Kj_mast_er No it wasn't. Its time to accept reality my man. I know it must be hard realizing you have no historical societies but you can change that going into the future.
But hypothetically even if Eygpt was entirely black, you being an African American come from the opposite end of Africa, so you aren't even close to be related. That would be a like a Russian claiming his ancestors built the Mongolian empire.
I’m glad Africa is finally taking off. They are starting to develop really well.
From where did you get this idea? Even Kenya, which was the libtards' poster child of Africa is going backward. South Africa has nose-dived since 'democracy' took over. Africa is septic.
Chris Malan Most of the fastest growing economies are in Africa. South Africa’s GDP has gone down in recent years but that is normal as it happens to all countries, you guys just like to exaggerate it when it comes to Africa. South Africa’s gdp has tripled since 1994. Even I, a South African, can see my country changing, 5 years ago when I went into a poor inland town near me all the houses were tin but now I go there and most of them are brick and I see lots of houses being built.
Africa is taking off and you can’t hide it.
@@TamimLB There is a large disconect between gdp and the well being of people. GDP can only be exploited by those who levy taxes, the average joe will get bare minimum of it.
Baltu Lielkungs Gunārs Miezis And you can see that becoming better in Africa, takes time but it’s happening. You guys said the same thing about Asia when it was rising.
@@TamimLB Even at its worst Asia was never like Africa. Asia had writing thousands of years ago and used the wheel. England lit the flame of enlightenment in India and they could take it further. Africa went backward when the colonial powers left. The infrastructure crumbled. Much of Asia was held back by communism which is a system contrary to human nature. Humans don't work if they can't reap the benefits of working. Communism stifled individual innovation.
All the indications are that Africa will be a basket case forever. Ghana went independent in 1957... The cause is not fixable. Like most of life, the cause has to do with certain numbers.
Trying to make up an alternative history story where Africa becomes kind of a super power between 1960s and 2000 but seems kinda impossible to pull that of realistically in just 40 years
I recommend to re-define it's countries borders and sub regions withing countries considering ethnicity, culture, religion and other factors like geography, also to let regions and sub regions different from each other to act as independent territories, and they are to be controlled by a central government, which has been formed combining similar regions together ! I believe, that way Africa's new nations(there'll be old nations too) will find it much easier to overcome the difficulties and become prosperous countries.
Further division of the African continent/people would be steps backwards. We have been forced to become what we are now, but now with the help of the Internet different groups of people are in contact more, realizing our similarities, and becoming more unified than we have ever been. The best solution is for the different people groups/countries to try and put in place deliberate measures to accelerate this. For example, Malawi and Zambia consider themselves as cousins, and South Africans, Batswana, Basotho, Swatis, and even Namibians have very close linkages, and they all realize this. They are all better off unifying than redrawing and redefining their borders. Each individual country has geographical advantages and disadvantages, and merging would create mutually-beneficial conditions for everyone.
I have wondered about this my whole life and you just summerised it in one short video. I have no idea how you researched this, but man what a good job. Thank you
Egypt was said to have more grassland when pharaoh ruled thousands of years ago, not desert at all.
Why were they limited around the Nile then?
It's the river where the fresh water came from to support agriculture. Simple logic.
that's a lie only the areas around the Nile were grasslands maybe you thinking of Mesopotamia
Their concept of the world is also much smaller since they never seen a globe.
That's incorrect, the Sahara was grassland thousands years before the egyptians
The same can be said about Japan in some ways. Rough, inhospitable and leads to scattered tribes that wage war on each other for centuries. Unlike Africans however, the Japanese were smart enough to pick up on new trends when they came around. When Africa came into contact with the Roman Empire they could have through traders adopted some of the traits and technologies that were clearly better than their own. But yeah, that place has the same problem today that it had 3000 years ago, just with better weapons and slightly improved technology.
Some tribes did.
Ethiopia adopted Christianity and Mali adopted Islam.
The African Kingdoms of Nubia,Meroe Axum, Blemmyes did. They just limited contact.
i think hes referign to technology. not religion@@Kaiserboo1871
Japanese were "smart enough"
You nailed the real problem that everyone likes to dance around why every country in Africa is backwards.
@@stuka80 75IQ I know.
when doing Africa "that doesn't include for highlands."
when doing Europe "Yeah that's all there is."
yeah scots, switz, hahaha
There are hills in different places, but the only really mountain ranges are the Alps, and the Pyrenees, which both basically form borders between major countries.
@@panzerkind2190 You don't need 3800+ meter ranges to have a diverse climate map on account of topography. The guy who made this video blatantly ignored the facts that didn't back up his simplistic point.
@@panzerkind2190 Don't forget Norway is full of mountains.
The_Kind Panzer what about the scandinavian mountains, carpathians, dinaric alps, Caucasus?
Colombian here. It's exactly the same in South America. Including the highland climates.
Where's the equivalent of the sahel?
I don’t know. The main similarity is the amount of different climates due to the vertical nature of the continent which affect the region’s development, similar to what is happening in Africa.
Biscuit Head Exactly.
A funny thing to consider is the influences as well. Africa was dominated by Europeans until the mid 20th century then “independent.” South America may have dodged that bullet due to the US Monroe Doctrine. Borders weren’t formed to deliberately make weak client states
What I find interesting with South America is that the Andes strip advanced pretty quickly in contrast to the Amazon but that's not surprising considering the geography. I recommend everyaody to read Guns, Germs and Steel.
meanwhile aztecs and incas flexing with their longer and skinnier land lol
Lol they got wiped out by 600 europeans. Africa had many more great civilazations then South America:) The answers are really easy and natural. Race is a myth for stupid people. Culture and skin color is real, race is not.
@@whatwhat3432523 name me more than 3 great sub Saharan african civilizations and you can have that point
@@arthurradwanski4099 Why Sub-saharan? You pretend Northern Africa is not Africa? Mali empire, Aksum, Songhai, Zimbabwe empire, Egypt, carthage, Mthethwa Empire.. thats just a google search, i am sure a historian could name a few others.
@@whatwhat3432523 Egyptians have more in common with the Middle East than with Africa. There's a reason why there are no relevant ancient ruins across Africa. They had no empires.
@@HumanTres Of course they had, i just listed some of them. Egyptians are Africans, and there are ancient ruins in many parts of Africa. The vast majority of the people in Africa comes from small tribes, the same as in South America. That`s why there are few empires in those continents. There have just ever been 3 major ones in South America..
Read "Guns, Germs, and Steel".
I used to treat it very seriously. Later, when I was watching a rebuttal I was even embarrassed that I actually knew that wheat was inferior to potato/corn or rice, which according to theory should have doomed Europeans.
@@useodyseeorbitchute9450 please could you say further about those criticisms, or maybe provide some link to them? Would love to read it.
@@FelipeKana1TLDR key arguments:
1) Wheat has inferior crop yields to potato/corn or rice
2) Zebras were actually tameable when in XIXth century colonisers bothered to try, no good reason to think that wild horses were any nicer.
3) Claim that all domesticated animals were specially friendly is contradicted by historical records describing auroch as the total opposite of that.
4) Claim that limiting factor for animal domestication was their availability is contradicted by Russians recently domesticating foxes.
5) Actual studies concerning spread of corn in Americas contradict claims that there was any real issue with moving plant on north-south axis.
Actual video got self-censored. As posts to other video platforms get often shadowbanned, I suggest to google for “jared diamond alt hype”. Watching it was quite surreal as the author is rather rude and politically radical, but nevertheless when filter out the arguments are logical and mainstream science. If you are unable to stand that person, just follow his links to the original studies.
Please post later your opinion, I’m curious.
@@FelipeKana1 Let's see whether it would be possible to link to competitor:
www.bitchute.com/video/qvaxPH3ftUQ/
[hope it works]
@@useodyseeorbitchute9450 i remember reading in my history book about how corn improved, almost saved sub saharan africa.
A lot of what he said "rings bells" with what I learned as a geography major concentration in the 1060s. Another aspect NOT touched on is the almost total lack of good ocean harbors - the "too smooth" coastline in about every direction - which led the peoples to look away from the sea and becoming traders. The notion that the climatic belts in the lattitudes was key is fascinating. Another important aspect in my earlier studies, not discussed at length here, but brought out as important by Atlas Pro, is the crazy quilt way the colonizers built the individual states they eventually left behind. Great job over-all, but I'll need to view and listen to this again, because of its very fast-pace style.
Yeah that’s right, it was the geography of Africa that made it a backwater, which is why Europeans didn’t turn Rhodesia and South Africa into a bread basket.
this
Which part of the video did you not watch the theory is europeans were more advanced due to trade and being more unified so much for high iq and listening skills
enyamouth69 Keep blaming everything else.
@LagiNaLangAko23 didn't you watch the video? Because of geography they were at a disadvantage and didn't have the technology to do so.
Zach Fake Last Name But the Boers and Rhodesians still turned their countries into breadbaskets that fed all of Africa. Biology/race, not climate, is clearly the determinant factor here.
I think it has a lot to do with seasons. Africa, as a whole, has much more steady day-to-day conditions. When you moved out of Africa you had to either adapt to winter, summer, fall, and spring, conditions or die off. I think this accelerated the interest in inventing new technologies to help them survive the harsh winters. Just a thought.
White People I agree, that sounds very plausible, but there are still underdeveloped nations in cold climates like Greenland and the tribes in the arctic
@@NegativeAccelerate That's a good point but those arctic tribes tended to live as hunter-gatherers and moved around a lot in search of food rather than in a society with large urban areas. Society in East Asia, the Middle East, and Europe had already been living in urban areas with large populations which provided a perfect environment for innovation whereas the Arctic Tribes, although they had to adapt to the changing seasons, never settled down long enough to develop an urban society.
This guy gets it. Having to create technology provides a slight advantage down the road that accumulates with others to provide a real advantage eventually.
Most of subsaharan Africa, especially the grasslands and many bordering "dry season forests"/"woodland savanna's" do have seasons: dry and wet, with dry seasons that last about half the year in which little useful to humans grows, and varied sets of adaptations can be required to survive, including (in dry seasons) food storage (not unlike winter in temperate zones) and finding water and varying food sources by season. Also, the video is not very well informed regarding African history and the history of more advanced African societies, and thus is somewhat misleading; empires, kingdoms, and states certainly were not limited to Mali and Egypt. It is true though that (in Africa and outside Africa) places with river systems and other navigable waterways often were more favorable to the development of advanced cultures (in West Africa, the Niger River, which extends through Mali and much of Nigeria, was one such system, as was Lake Chad, The benue River in Nigeria, The Senegal River, and the Limpopo River in what is now Zimbabwe. Many kingdoms/states/empires also evolved in elsewhere in Africa-particularly in Western Africa-e.g Benin, Ife, Ashanti, Igbo Ukwu, Nok, Great Zimbabwe and others (see below) (some quite ancient and others medieval-many based around fortified cities and towns and often known for their high-quality court arts in metals, terra-cotta and textiles), such as the cultures of Benin kingdom, the Nok, the Ife kingdom of Nigeria (and other related ones also of the Yoruba ethnic group at Owo, Odu and Ijebu), Igbo Ukwu, Djenne Jeno, Dhar Tichitt, Ashanti, Mali, Songhai, the kingdoms of the Cameroonian grasslands (such as those of the Bamileke Bamoum, and Bafut (there were also, albeit smaller, states in parts of Central Africa like the Kingdom of Kongo, of the Bakuba, and the Luba), and in parts of Southern Africa (like the medieval semi-feudal stone fortress building cultures of Great Zimbabwe, Khami, Mapungubwe, Thulamela and Dhlo Dhlo)
At least one script, nsibidi, was also developed in subsaharan Africa in the SouthEastern Nigeria region (which was ideographic, somewhat like Chinese characters, but unlike most other scripts), which was used by a range of tribes in the regions (such as the Igbo, Ejagham, Ibibio, Efik, Ogoni, etc)
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nsibidi
To give one example (pottery-only invented independently a few times) from the mesolithic, Africa was the site of one of the earliest inventions of pottery around 9-10,000 bc (before the Middle East or Europe) separate/independent from but parallel to another invention of pottery in East Asia around 12,000 bc. Both of those inventions predated the later invention of pottery in the Middle East (between Asia and Africa), where it did not appear until around 7,000bc (but may have been independently there too, albeit later), then later spreading to Europe from the Near East. The regions in Africa pottery is first attested are at the Ounjougou site in Central Mali West Africa and el Saggai in the Central Sudan around the same time as at Mali but slightly later.
"The emergence of pottery in Africa during the 10th millennium calBC: new evidence from Ounjougou (Mali)" By E Huysecom
doc.rero.ch/record/19037/files/mag_epa_2.pdf
Evidence indicates that peoples in S.E Nigeria were among the first peoples to smelt iron (beginning around 2,000 bc) in one of the few independent inventions of iron metallurgy (the other being in Turkey around the same time). The Nok culture of central Nigeria were also early users of Iron.
"Iron and its influence on the prehistoric site of Lejja"
www.academia.edu/4103707/Iron_and_its_influence_on_the_prehistoric_site_of_Lejja
@@skellagyook Real life does not show that.
I saw this a when it came out and now convinced my teacher to let me do a research paper on this topic.