blacks had bronze in nigeria thousands of year ago during the time of the bantu migration, read about the benin bronzes, why are you retards so ignorant and set in your rigid ways about what blacks can and can't do, and its always a lack of information that fuels this retarded way of thinking, you are always seeking information that preserves your confirmation bias so you are always getting surprised about discoveries that are completely normal

>>16917575
> benin bronzes
I already knew about those, though I will admit to not being the most educated on this particular topic.

> why are you retards so ignorant and set in your rigid ways about what blacks can and can't do, and its always a lack of information that fuels this retarded way of thinking, you are always seeking information that preserves your confirmation bias so you are always getting surprised about discoveries that are completely normal

I didn't make this thread with any racist intent, though the discoveries aren't "normal" as other groups had very significant transitional periods while SSA had a transition that was rather sudden in most areas despite evidence pointing towards independent invention.

>>16917584
My reason for making this thread was basically to see what others favor as an explanation: foreign introduction, weird independent invention, or something in between.

>>16917584
1) the point is that technology flowed from west africa to the rest of subsaharan africa, so if they already had bronze, they couldn't as well have transitioned from stone to iron, the bantu got their iron from west africa and transmitted it to the nilotes, khoisan, the pygmies and the hunters and gatherers of east africa, the dorobo, ogiek, hadza, etc, the only other places that maybe had it were the horn and north africa, but it likely had already been transmitted from the middle east, the same case goes for domestication, africa already had camels, donkeys and even cows--the zebu kind that is different from the auroch ancestor of europe and central asia--already domesticated, so africa was not some stone age hunter gatherer back water where europeans brought everything like poltards would have you believe, we need to get rid of this kind of retarded thinking, same case goes for subsaharans mating with a ghost species--it might be true but is completely retarded hill to die on since any two random humans regardless of race have less genetic diversity btn them compared to chimps--our closest species, wolves, dogs, etc, yes that is crazy when you are looking at phenotypes but is an actual fact, on average, the largest genetic differences are largely due to in-population differences rather than btn two populations--the genetic variation btn two people in the same population, a village, or a tribe is greater than that of two people from different populations, an example is your neighbour or friend might be taller or have autism compared to you, that difference is observed in another population in another corner of the world, so in this sense, you are less genetically diverse from a person who isn't taller or who doesn't have autism but is considered a different race,

>>16917589
2) and this is all due to the fact that there was a genetic bottleneck that happened 75k years ago that left maybe 2 to 10k humans alive, and those humans interbred with each other and led to what we currently have today

>>16917589
>the genetic variation btn two people in the same population, a village, or a tribe is greater than that of two people from different populations
I've heard this claim before and it's still bizarre people try to claim it.
Small local populations will all share a significant number of recent common ancestors, yet apparently they didn't inherit the same DNA from those ancestors?
Can someone convincingly explain how this is true? I don't mean schizophrenically explain it, or ideologically and aggressively explain it, I mean explain it in a way a well-adjusted person would respond to.

>>16918072
>Small local populations will all share a significant number of recent common ancestors
if those common ancestors were common enough, they would be inbred, but this doesn't happen on average so its not true

Yuck.

>>16917571
>Blacks leaped
We dooz b gud at jumpin'. Gud at cashing ballz 2.
>>16917584
>No racist intent
U jus b mad dat niggaz b leepfroggin' u cracka azz bitches in beetleurgy

It's pretty interesting they seemed to have figured out iron mettalurgy while the rest of the world was still using bronze, their method is by all accounts independent from their neighbours.
>>16917575
they figured out mettalurgy long before the bantu migration but it's why they displaced everyone else because they were the superior farmers

>>16917575
The benin bronzes were literally just centuries old and made after contact with whites

>>16920777
Ife bronze is older

That's all cute, but still a bunch of violent humanoids that love to rape in 2026

>>16918072
its misleading on purpose.
for example, you could compare the size of horses and donkeys and argue, that there is higher variation within groups than between. with horses, you get everything from a 60kg shetland pony to a 800kg draft horse. the average horse and donkey are much closer. so you basically compare group averages to ingroup variation.
its technically correct, but a disingenuous statistical argument. but you better make that argument, if you want to keep your job in academia.

>>16921617
this is retarded on purpose, how many shetland ponies or draft horses are there compared to the average horse or donkey? you are trying to pass off outliers as some sort of significant population, when we are discussing the variability within and without entire races of people numbering billions, we are not discussing pygmies, or negritos because they are not the average

>>16921955
there used to be millions of draft horses, because thats what dragged our shit around before ICEs and theres still tons of different pony breeds that are smaller than donkeys. and you can also look at things like fur colour.
there is a higher ingroup variation between horses than there is between the average horse and donkey. therefore saying that horses and donkeys are different is specieist.
but I'm glad you agree that this argument is retarded on purpose.

>>16922301
there used to be tonnes of different humans, now they don't exist--but horses and donkey do, also this argument is a complete failure in analogy since horses and donkeys don't produce fertile offspring, its obvious you chose it because you can't find any good analogy to present your retarded argument as plausible