>>46613106>you claimed that europe was always on top of its land and then the world but that simply isnt true>there was plenty of infighting and invasions from the outsideI absolutely agree with you. I was using the argument of the first guy I responded to, who implied that European empires were proof of their intelligence.
>why didn't black just get into agriculture then?Nowadays farming is big in Africa, but farming is sort of a chance invention. Not every group in the world has the opportunity to invent farming, or borrow it from someone who has. Euros would have stayed hunter-gatherers, if they didn't bump into neighbors who could farm. sub-saharan Africa is somewhat isolated from the rest of the world (by ancient technology standards), so they didn't chance to invent farming, and they didn't meet anyone else who did.
>have you ever considered that races may have evolved certain traits to survive in their respective areasof course, "euros" have cold adaptations and swimming adaptations (long torsos, thin noses, pale coloration), "asians" have extreme cold adaptations (anti-snow blindness eyes, close to the face features), and "afros" have heat adaptations and running adaptations (wide features to reduce heat, dark coloration, long limbs)
>that later might have helped them in setting up an advanced civilization?ehhh, I don't know how much pale skin or long legs helps one become "advanced"
>like higher intelligence?Perhaps, but like I said earlier, if there is truth to racial intelligence (which is already a nebulous concept), then it's a pretty small truth, when many of the differences in technology across the world can be attributed to culture and environment. Human culture is largely nurture, not nature. Euros 5,000 years ago were wiping their hands w/ shit, fucking horses, and destroying civilizations with reckless abandon. Those are all traits that are associated with low intelligence, yet the claim ITT is that they have high intelligence.
