On 02/28/2021 01:26 AM, Snit wrote:
> On Feb 27, 2021 at 11:20:07 PM MST, "rbowman" wrote
> <
ia0qve...@mid.individual.net>:
>
>> On 02/27/2021 09:03 PM, Snit wrote:
>>> Domesticated animals. Good environment for wheat and other food sources. Been
>>> a while since I have done any reading on this, but there are a number of
>>> examples. At the same time there were things that were lacking -- things that
>>> people wanted but did not have as much need for. This led to more trade which
>>> led to more advancement.
>>
>> So the first people pushing into northern Europe found domesticated
>> animals?
>
> Your question shows you do not really get the concept of what domestication
> means. One does not find such animals, though one can find animals that are
> better suited for domestication. But domestication is a process done BY
> humans. Unless others had already domesticated the animals they cannot just be
> "found".
No shit, Shakespeare. You cited domesticated animals as a resource in
northern Europe. That didn't happen by itself. Actually the first humans
in the area were hunter gatherers. The current thought is the I Y
haplogroup originated in Europe from the IJ from 30 to 40 thousand years
BP. I1 evolved about 20,000 BP when the area was repopulated from the
Iberian refuge after the LGM.
There are several theories concerning the original home of R1b which is
associated with the Indo-European expansion. The area around the Caspian
is a popular theory. They are the group associated with the
domestication of cattle around 5000 BP, and brought farming to Europe,
as well as parts of west Asia. The original hunter gatherers survived
along side the newcomers. R1b is now the most common haplogroup in
Europe. I M253 is more prevalent in Scandinavia, with more than 50% of
the males in Gotaland carrying that gene.
Personally I'm a hunter gatherer and not a farmer.
Even today if you look at cropland farmers grow the most valuable crop
they can taking in consideration the growing season, soil salinity,
water requirements, and so forth. Oats are tolerant of cool, rainy
weather and do well in northwest Europe. I don't know about the
statement that oats were thought of as animal fodder and shunned. It
reminds me of Jared Diamond's thesis that the Greenland population
collapsed after the optima because the inhabitants wouldn't eat fish.
> Do you know where the term "algebra" comes from? "Algorithm"?
Yes, al-Khwarizmi. Just because a Persian wrote a book about concepts
arising in Greece and India doesn't make the subject matter Persian. Of
course the Persians are another Indo-European people despite the
derailment of their culture by the Moslem hordes. If you look at the
'Golden Age of Islam' you'll find many more Persians than Arabs.
>> North Africa is a completely different game than sub-equatorial Africa.
>
> And now you want to split up Africans to fit your narrative, even as you try
> to be includes with Europe to others to fit your narrative.
Well, duh... Chritiaan Barnard was an 'African' but I truly doubt he
carried African genes. It's genetics, not geography. For someone from a
matrilineal culture that bases many of its claims on putative middle
eastern tribes you should be aware of that.
>> Oh. You never heard about the invention of gunpowder?
>
> If I recall correctly that was made in neither Europe of Africa but in Asia.
Precisely. So somewhere along the way you learned about technologies
that were not invented in Europe. Very good.
>> The Confucian
>> civil service system? The whole 'cradle of civilization' thing? The
>> Sumerian sexegesimal numeric system? In my mercifully brief stint as a
>> teacher I tried to teach that to eighth grade students.
>
> So you are saying you ARE aware of the deep cultural history and level of
> sophistication and advancement in Africa. As we go into later times we get
> Lalibela and some other pretty amazing works.
There you go again, confusing geography with genetics.
>> I suppose you never heard of Augustine of Hippo? The pyramids? Egyptian
>> irrigation techniques? Again, north Africa is completely different from
>> sub-equatorial Africa. Sorry, Wakanda was a creation of Hollywood.
>
> I think you went off talking to someone else there... but you continue to try
> to split Africa even after trying to tie Europe to inventions outside of what
> most would include. Your bias is showing again.
You're not biased?