Anonymous 2023-02-22 (Wed) 14:11:11 No. 12464
Africa is the second-largest landmass on the face of the planet after Eurasia, you do realize that right
Anonymous 2023-02-22 (Wed) 14:11:54 No. 12465
They didn't develop the material conditions in which all the things like cultural assimilation, racism, etc. (things that killed of this type of diversity elswhere) would have been useful on a large scale. Go to precolumbian america and see the same stuff. Or really any place before early empires. Plus your map has diversity correlating heavily with areas that have thick forests so I'd say the lack of easy transportation is also a factor.
Anonymous 2023-02-22 (Wed) 14:50:49 No. 12467
Eurasia is less ethnically and lingually diverse and so are continents with less landmass than Africa. Africa stands out.
That‘s probably it. That reminds me of how the advent of nation states in Europe also curbed ethnic diversity and therefore created more ethnic homogeneity. Africa also didn‘t have that many empires which would have also lead to more homogeneity.
Anonymous 2023-02-22 (Wed) 14:57:43 No. 12468
lower density of population for it's size,making each village its own thing,and it's cultural division was encouraged by the colonization progress early on while starting to convert the population to an homogenized culture around the 1900's,before WW1 happened and the end of colonialism,so they didn't experience the assimilation nation states of Europe and asia did over centuries except in some places like south africa.
most of them were protectorates of the french and british,and not proper men on the grounds colonies,as opposed to portuguese and spanish colonies which happenned much earlier and had the time and numbers to "assimilate" the native population.
Anonymous 2023-02-22 (Wed) 15:45:27 No. 12469
Complete nonsense deez nuts
Anonymous 2023-02-22 (Wed) 20:17:52 No. 12473
Linguistic and cultural heterogeneity comes from the fact that historically there weren't large centralised states/empires.
Genetic heterogeneity is due to the lack of population bottlenecks. All non-Africans trace their ancestry to a few people that lived 80K to 60K years ago that travelled outside of Africa. Meanwhile African groups can be so genetically divergent that the only common link is Y-DNA Adam and mtDNA Eve who lived around 300K years ago (though this is an extreme case and most are slightly more divergent than Eurasians).
Anonymous 2023-02-22 (Wed) 21:04:16 No. 12475
>>12465 >They didn't develop the material conditions in which all the things like cultural assimilation, racism, etc. (things that killed of this type of diversity elswhere) would have been useful on a large scale. Go to precolumbian america and see the same stuff
Precolumbian Americas is the literal exact opposite, the least diverse population on Earth. It's such an extreme example that there was literally a theory that the entire two continents were populated by the descendants of ~70 (not a typo) people who crossed the land bridge.
Anonymous 2023-02-22 (Wed) 21:13:01 No. 12476
Yeah, and it was also the most recently inhabited place on Earth with the natives crossing the Bering around only 20K years ago.
Also interesting is that the southern tip (the last place to be ever settled) was predictably home to a very small amount of ethnic groups.
Anonymous 2023-02-22 (Wed) 21:23:49 No. 12477
OP asked about both ethnic and linguistic diversity, I think the post you replied to only considered the latter.
Anonymous 2023-03-14 (Tue) 05:07:13 No. 12620
>>12464 >second-largest landmass on the face of the planet after Eurasia
largest landmass on the face of the planet after Eurasia*
>>12467 >Eurasia is less ethnically and lingually diverse
Lmao the Indian subcontinent and China are already a universe onto their own, let alone the rest