Without using racial slurs and stereotypes, can you explain, scientifically, why Africa remained so primitive while the rest of the world advanced so quickly around it?

File: 535 KB, 1624x1824, Africa_satellite_orthographic.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]

Anonymous Thu Sep 6 19:48:32 2012 No.5033627 [DELETED]

Without using racial slurs and stereotypes, can you explain, scientifically, why Africa remained so primitive while the rest of the world advanced so quickly around it?

>>	Anonymous Thu Sep 6 19:50:03 2012 No.5033634 unstable politics equates to a lack of industrial opportunity on the international scale. i dont think this is science. >>/pol/

>>	Anonymous Thu Sep 6 19:51:04 2012 No.5033639 Oh look this thread again. Read Guns, Germs, and Still for an introduction as to why. Also, check your assumptions as there were a number of fairly-advanced civilizations in Africa. Few survived colonialism.

>>	Anonymous Thu Sep 6 19:52:47 2012 No.5033642 no

Anonymous Thu Sep 6 19:52:47 2012 No.5033643

Isolation, hostile environment and lack of critical resources.

Europa was a literal melting pot. With nations and borders being a far different concept than they are today, advancements in language, art, technology, etc, spread quickly, rebounding from one country to another, in which it would be improved and changed, and rebounded around again and again. Ideas spread and were rapidly improved upon and changed.

Civilizations that found themselves in very comfortable and fertile positions, such as long the Nile, would have such an easy time gathering food that it would allow them more time to develop tools and culture. These tools and culture would spread to civilizations that live much harder lives and would not have developed them on their own.

Africa on the other hand, was cut off from the rest of the world largely. They did not have a massive land connection to every neighbor in every direction. Not only that, but Africa may have plenty of resources that benefit more advanced societies, but for primitive man, food is hard to come by, there are hostile predators everywhere, and with no developed infrastructure, language barriers form quickly, leading to hostilities.

It is a similar scenario with Japan. Japan always remained quite a bit behind its Asian neighbors in terms of technology due to its isolation. No where near on the scale of Africa, but a similar principal.

Anonymous Thu Sep 6 19:54:47 2012 No.5033656

Even Charles Darwin stated that the negro was a lesser intelligent human being incapable of sustaining anything beyond the bare minimum of survival.

MULTIPLE studies in the US prove that blacks have lower intelligence than whites

But no, that's not politically correct. We're all equal.

Anonymous Thu Sep 6 19:55:02 2012 No.5033660

>>5033656
>MULTIPLE studies in the US prove that blacks have lower intelligence than whites

Many of those same studies, when preformed in Canada, had blacks scoring above the average, where as native americans scored lower.

Could it be that social and economic environment are to blame here and not race?

Naaah, keep on goosestemping, brother.

Anonymous Thu Sep 6 20:00:17 2012 No.5033674

>>5033627

I'ts called import substitution.

Economic theory suggests that after Africa was basically pillaged and destroyed, Africa decided it didn't want outsiders (understandably so). So, instead of opening borders and sharing knowledge, it kept itself closed in, and closed it's economy off. this is economically and socially devastating since there are no endogenously growing economies after a certain point. when they hit that point, growth didn't stop, it fell. and their growth path shrunk to unseen levels.

>>	Anonymous Thu Sep 6 20:01:02 2012 No.5033677 Most scientists agree that blacks are an inferior race though and even have tests that prove it but the government doesn't let them talk about it because it's not PC

>>	Anonymous Thu Sep 6 20:04:32 2012 No.5033681 >>5033677 >Most scientists agree that blacks are an inferior race that's not true....at all.

>>	Anonymous Thu Sep 6 20:05:17 2012 No.5033684 Lack of reason for others to explore down there, hence; isolation? But who is this Mansa Musa guy anyway...?

>>	Anonymous Thu Sep 6 20:07:47 2012 No.5033695 >>5033677 >Most scientists if you mean "most lowlife scum" (read 'wiggers') you are right

>>	Anonymous Thu Sep 6 20:08:02 2012 No.5033698 >>5033697 give me a single valid up to date source that says that.

>>	Anonymous Thu Sep 6 20:08:18 2012 No.5033697 >>5033681 Yes, it is. Studies have shown time and time again that blacks are less intelligent and more violent than whites, but scientists are pressured into keeping those results secret

>>	Anonymous Thu Sep 6 20:10:02 2012 No.5033702 >>5033698 in b4 'stormfront' source

>>	Anonymous Thu Sep 6 20:15:03 2012 No.5033717 We know that blacks have lower IQ than whites, just as we know that whites have lower IQ than asians. The question is whether it is genetic or not.

>>	Anonymous Thu Sep 6 20:19:32 2012 No.5033729 >>5033717 Which is barely even a question anymore. Asians tested in developing Asian nations score low. Blacks tested in Canada score high.

>>	Anonymous Thu Sep 6 20:20:47 2012 No.5033731 >>5033717 I know the earth is flat as I know that the moon is made out of cheese. The question is whether it is fondue or not.

>>	Anonymous Thu Sep 6 20:21:02 2012 No.5033736 I hate new 4chan. A general hatred of muds was one of the best things about 4chan as opposed to the rest of the PC kiddieshit internet

Anonymous Thu Sep 6 20:22:02 2012 No.5033737

>>5033717

maybe I am missing something here. What scientists say this? Are these the same social scientists that /sci/ so adamantly rejects? Psychologists? Sociologists? Even if you are talking Neuro-science, there are still no objective ways to even start quantifying IQ, whatever IQ even means.

>>	Anonymous Thu Sep 6 20:25:47 2012 No.5033746 >>5033736 The rest got bored, now, why not go back to /b/?

>>	Anonymous Thu Sep 6 20:37:47 2012 No.5033773 >>5033639 That book isn't an ANSWER to the question; it is a proposal of an answer. Don't assume Diamond actually is the final authority on social development.

>>	Anonymous Thu Sep 6 20:37:47 2012 No.5033774 >>5033736 /sci is doing pretty well considering the deterioration of other boards, especially /b

Anonymous Thu Sep 6 20:38:17 2012 No.5033775

>>5033697
You are so wrong. A person's intelligence is based on the culture they grow up with and their general education. I grew up in a white town, with white folks and have above-average intelligence. If genetics were the cause of IQ, then I would turn out like the blacks that grew up in the city 20 minutes away.

>>	Anonymous Thu Sep 6 20:39:32 2012 No.5033778 >>5033773 He isn't, of course, and there is some argument regarding the reality of the book, but it still makes a very good argument and is worth reading, especially in regards to questions like this.

>>	Anonymous Thu Sep 6 20:40:17 2012 No.5033779 They have continually been exploited by white businessmen

Anonymous Thu Sep 6 20:46:03 2012 No.5033791

>>5033660
OP asked to prove why Africa failed to evolve to level of any other country in a scientific aspect.

It has been scientifically proven that black people are less intelligent than whites for the most part.

Science is not racist. Science is neutral. it's just what the evidence suggests. The fact that you don't like or reject the findings is irrelevant.

Anonymous Thu Sep 6 20:49:18 2012 No.5033803

no, but i can guess...

i think it's mostly to do with climate, as humans apparently originated in africa it is their natural enviorment and so they have less environmental pressure and less need to develop technologically to survive. Along those lines, the people that stayed in africa more or less stagnated because the adventurous and 'smarter' left the gene pool.

>>	Anonymous Thu Sep 6 20:52:32 2012 No.5033813 >>5033791 >It has been scientifically proven that black people are less intelligent than whites for the most part. They have shown a correlation, but haven't proven any causes.

>>	Anonymous Thu Sep 6 20:53:17 2012 No.5033816 >>5033791 Science may have shown that black Americans do less well on IQ tests than white Americans. What does this mean other than black Americans being worse at recognizing patterns than white Americans?

Anonymous Thu Sep 6 21:21:02 2012 No.5033917

>>5033627
They do not need to be smart, they got a lot of food , water and sex.
Smarts came when we became many and hard to control, and biology realized growing bigger biceps and kicking everyone in the balls wasn't going to get us much further, so alphas started becoming smater (Ironicaly know a days being smart usually makes you a beta)

>>	Anonymous Thu Sep 6 21:22:47 2012 No.5033920 guns, germs and steel

>>	Anonymous Thu Sep 6 23:12:17 2012 No.5034131 >No one has used the word once this whole thread Impressive

>>	Anonymous Thu Sep 6 23:14:17 2012 No.5034134 Guns Germs and Steel. Read it if you are actually curious.

>>	Anonymous Thu Sep 6 23:19:47 2012 No.5034142 Because they're niggers

sage Thu Sep 6 23:25:02 2012 No.5034147

>>5033627

Except... SubSaharan African states were never conquered until the late 19th century. There's a good reason why it took Europeans hundreds of years to get to Timbuktu (Mali empire capital) or the source of the Nile (Kush, Maasai strongholds, etc).

It seems our perception of the "inferiority" of Africa is due to our forgetting 9th-grade social studies... if we even had it.

Anonymous Thu Sep 6 23:26:33 2012 No.5034148
File: 40 KB, 1357x628, Arable_land_percent_world.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]

well, i can list a number of reasons.
1.) sub-saharan tribes were fairly isolated from the rest of the world and each other; there was not much inter-tribal competition or cooperation to boot. There was no catalyst, anything to cause tribes to coalesce into something larger and more powerful / with greater authority.
2.) Sort of plays into the first point: These tribes and cultures were the gene-seed of all modern humanity. All human diaspora came of them. It's possible that, while the oldest human diaspora outside of Africa is ~50k years old, within Africa, having existed without change in ecosystem or niche for hundreds of thousands of years had the cultures plateaued and locked in a particular mode of subsistence: the cultures developed to just barely sustain their survival well enough, consistently, that there was no catalyst for improvement.
3.) Relative lack of arable land. Sub-saharan Africa has some of the lowest percentage of arable land area of any subcontinent. Arable land is essential to support a large population, and subsequently urbanization and specialization of professions, as well as more advanced professions (such as scribes, engineers, etc.).

>>	Anonymous Thu Sep 6 23:28:02 2012 No.5034150 Okay, better question for you: How do you fix Africa now?

>>	Anonymous Thu Sep 6 23:31:17 2012 No.5034154 >>5033656 In the 19th century black people were even worse than peasants. It was socially acceptable to say that white people are superior to black people. If you want a good answer, read Guns, Germs, and Steel.

>>	Anonymous Thu Sep 6 23:34:02 2012 No.5034160 >>5034154 I meant to say black people were considered worse than peasants.

Anonymous Thu Sep 6 23:36:32 2012 No.5034164

European colonialists were hesitant to venture into Africa (watch the old bugs bunny cartoons, where sometimes on maps they'll have southern africa blacked out as 'dark africa').
The idea of 'dark africa' was that the continent was simply too wild and inhospitable to be tamed. Of course, technology, organization, and manpower eventually changed this, but for quite some time, even the civilized world didn't venture into sub-saharan territory. That the land was inhospitable was probably a contributing factor that prevented the start of primitive civilizations, beyond the tribal stage.

Think of it this way: consider how long modern humans have existed on this planet. Consider how long the human diaspora has existed, at least 50k years. So why is it, only in the last 12k, that we have had any civilization? Well, probably the biggest contributing factor was climate. The Earth is currently in an ice age, but since the end of the Pleistocene we've been in an interglacial where climate temperatures have risen once more to normative levels. It is only in this window that humans have established civilization. All human civilization, not just the Africans, has been at the whim of the natural world. If the temperature and land hadn't been right elsewhere in the world, it doesn't matter the people, it's unlikely civilization would have started, anywhere.
Humans have been very much at the mercy of their environment regardless of their personal strengths and weaknesses, within a relatively small window of opportunity.

Anonymous Thu Sep 6 23:40:47 2012 No.5034174

>>5034150
As someone who has spent time over ten years with the Peace Corps serving in South Africa, I have a few points I'd like to suggest.

Firstly, my suggestions disregard Liberia, Somalia, and the Sudan entirely.

For the rest of Africa, there is a very viable scenario. It would not only help stabilize Africa, but help reverse the damage our misguided food aid has done.

The answer? Spend the money we spend shipping food to Africa on food grown in Africa. Buy food from Africa. No one is producing food or farming in Africa. Why? Because no one will buy it. Free food comes in the form of charitable aid. Why would poor, starving families spend money at the market when they can get free food from aid workers, and spend that money on clothing, tools, etc?

If we buy food from Africa, farming becomes profitable. More people take up farming, a surplus of food begins to grow, now Africa begins to produce its own food, which also boosts their economy.

Make farming a lucrative opportunity.

As for the Sudan, total US military intervention is required. I don't give a fuck what anyone says. I've spoken to marines who had done surveying or guide work through Sudan who said quite frankly that 200 US Marines and air supports would be all that would be needed to 'fix' Sudan.

As for Somalia, they need government. They need to rebuild their country and restructure some semblance of authority. I believe that can only happen from within. Any external force trying to 'fix' Somalia will only be rejected.

(cut for length)

Anonymous Thu Sep 6 23:41:18 2012 No.5034176

>>5034174
That being said, I think as this and the last generation pass on, the next generation of Somalians will be able to move past the grudges, feuds and sense of betrayal that has locked that country in such chaos.

As for Liberia... I honestly don't know. I've never been to any place more fundamentally broken than Liberia. It is hell. It is backwards and wrong in every small and simple way and I can't even imagine any path those people could take that would even begin to fix the absolute maelstrom of insanity they live in.

>>	Anonymous Thu Sep 6 23:43:17 2012 No.5034183 >>5034176 I think that Liberia had very promising future.

>>	Anonymous Thu Sep 6 23:52:47 2012 No.5034197 >>5033656 >Even Charles Darwin stated that the negro was a lesser intelligent human being incapable of sustaining anything beyond the bare minimum of survival. In which text did he state this? Please cite the title and chapter, at minimum.

Anonymous Thu Sep 6 23:54:17 2012 No.5034203
File: 532 KB, 1024x1542, 20120726-174819.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]

>>5033627 Africa remained so primitive
Except that's not really true. Africa has many historic sites showing civilizations about as advanced as the Incas. It got buttfucked super hard by colonialism during the last few centuries. Some areas have recovered into modern cities, some haven't. You can't say an entire continent is a shithole and always was on account of present day Somalia and Ethiopia.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_kingdoms_in_pre-colonial_Africa

>>	Anonymous Thu Sep 6 23:55:02 2012 No.5034205 >>5033627 Nah. Racism on 4chan used to be funny, and kind of lighthearted. I laughed along. Now we've got more people being completely serious about it, and that's why we liberals are more vocal and butthurt now.

Anonymous Fri Sep 7 00:00:02 2012 No.5034213

You can't discuss this question, OP, because certain conclusions are considered inappropriate.

This is demonstrated by the "liberals" (I hesitate to use the term to describe people who are so very illiberal in what they consider appropriate to discuss and debate) in this thread who label anything they disagree with ideologically as "racist".

>>	Anonymous Fri Sep 7 00:05:33 2012 No.5034222 Religion.

>>	Anonymous Fri Sep 7 00:05:33 2012 No.5034223 dem niqqas just be eatin all da watahmelon and purple drank all day erry day

Anonymous Fri Sep 7 00:13:47 2012 No.5034239

>>5034205
That's because stormfags realized the pseudo-anonymity provided the perfect veil of safety from which to trumpet their edgy and novel ideas about how all of humanity's problems can be solved by killing everyone that has a problem. They're like a little kid that just realized how awesome masturbation feels, and they think they've uniquely privy some long-lost hidden secret that's going to revolutionize human civilization.

>>	Anonymous Fri Sep 7 00:15:02 2012 No.5034242 >>5034213 Read the whole thread. I think the matter has been discussed pretty intelligently so far.

>>	Anonymous Fri Sep 7 00:18:48 2012 No.5034246 >>5033677 >>5033697 >>5033791 >>5033656 0/10, go kill yourself >>5033634 Better here than on that shit board /pol/ >>5033627 Tribalism, resource curse, and lack of need to become a more advanced society

Anonymous Fri Sep 7 00:22:02 2012 No.5034250 [DELETED]

>>5034213
you're the only one who has brought up any mention of liberals / conservative right / left / whatever inane labels you have to turn around.
People have been debating differences in races since humans have existed, and most reasonable humans are weary of racists for good reason. I'd say all the vitriol and bigoted drivel that comes from places like chimpout or stormfront is more than enough reason to blame yourselves if we're going to be making generalizations. When one side has proponents that believe institutional racism, genocide, forced sterilization and egregious violations of human rights are an acceptable solution, then one can't help but be wary of possible bigotry existing on their front. Many of you have brought this upon yourself

Anonymous Fri Sep 7 00:24:17 2012 No.5034253

>>5034213
you're the only one who has brought up any mention of liberals / conservative right / left / whatever inane labels you have to throw around.
People have been debating differences in races since humans have existed, and most reasonable humans are weary of racists for good reason. I'd say all the vitriol and bigoted drivel that comes from places like chimpout or stormfront is more than enough reason to blame yourselves if we're going to be making generalizations. When one side has proponents that believe institutional racism, genocide, forced sterilization and egregious violations of human rights are an acceptable solution, then one can't help but be wary of possible bigotry existing on their front. Many of you have brought this upon yourself

>>	Anonymous Fri Sep 7 00:35:03 2012 No.5034271 >>5033656 Lolol First of all, http://fixedgear808.blogspot.com/2012/03/racist-quote-attributed-to-charles.html second of all, >studies >prove

>>	Anonymous Fri Sep 7 00:40:48 2012 No.5034277 >>5033791 >>5033791 >proven >for the most part

Anonymous Fri Sep 7 01:04:32 2012 No.5034307
File: 229 KB, 498x426, 1344047963893.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]

A combination of a few things.
The were not pushing each other to develop technological or sociologically through the normal means of war, or competition.

Then the outsiders that came in undermined them in similar ways that the settlers of the west undermined the Native Americans. Only no one wanted to move in, so they didn't get replaced.

TL;DR Africa is a giant reservation.

>>	Anonymous Fri Sep 7 01:05:32 2012 No.5034309 >>5034307 >They were* fuck

>>	Anonymous Fri Sep 7 01:06:32 2012 No.5034310 >>5033656 >US >intelligence

>>	Anonymous Fri Sep 7 01:16:33 2012 No.5034321 Incan empire, Roman empire, Arab empire, Chinese empire. Never heard about a african (black) empire that improved the human knowledge.

Anonymous Fri Sep 7 01:22:32 2012 No.5034330

Read "guns germs and steel."

TL;DR Eurasia had a critical mass of domesticable plants and animals plus mineral resources and a critical mass of population joined across the same latitude (to allow sharing).

http://www.amazon.com/Guns-Germs-Steel-Fates-Societies/dp/0393061310/ref=sr_1_1?s=books&ie=UTF8&
amp;qid=1346995315&sr=1-1&keywords=guns+germs+and+steel

Thus the cause of the advances was not racial differences. This however does not mean that a history of agriculture and civilization may not have left significant traces on the inhabitants (see e.g. "A Farewell to Alms")

http://www.amazon.com/Farewell-Alms-Brief-Economic-History/dp/0691121354

Anonymous Fri Sep 7 01:28:48 2012 No.5034337

>>5034197
he was misquoted as anyone with internet access can verify in 10 seconds

http://fixedgear808.blogspot.com.au/2012/03/racist-quote-attributed-to-charles.html

"These words came from the book "The Clansman: An Historical Romance of the Ku Klux Klan" written in 1905 by Thomas F. Dixon Jr. It was the second book in a trilogy, preceded by "The Leopard's Spots" in 1902 and followed by "The Traitor" in 1907. "The Clansman" served as inspiration for the 1915 silent movie which glamorized the Ku Klux Klan, "The Birth of a Nation", directed by David Llewelyn Wark "D. W." Griffith."

Anonymous Fri Sep 7 01:29:17 2012 No.5034339
File: 17 KB, 403x271, 0004768425.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]

>>5034203

>Black primitive tribes cant be compared with a civilization with advanced water systems, math knowlegde and yet to be discover techniques of building with hard rocks without modern machines.

Egyptians were mediterranean/arabs. Their own paitings show they used black people as animals to construct temples and pyramids, they were simply slaves.
Copper skin =/= Black person
Deal with it we all are humans but their brain seems to be inferior compared with other races.

>That feel when you saw your grandpa (63) trying to understand how a computer works
>Same feel when I know blacks are the most ancient race

>>	Anonymous Fri Sep 7 01:33:32 2012 No.5034349 If you look at africa sideways it's a horse

Anonymous Fri Sep 7 01:34:02 2012 No.5034352

Droughts. Diseases, especially in hotter, wetter climates. Poor soil for farming, and subsequently a lack of nutritious rich crops. All of the things mentioned are typical of hot equatorial climates. The only successful equatorial civilization were the Incas, and they had a temperate climate because they lived high atop the Andes mountains.

You should also keep in mind it's been less than 400 years since Africa has been substantially inferior to the rest of the world. I think it was 1619 when the Dutch began the slave trade. Far too recent to suggest any sort of racial superiority. Furthermore, there was a time when the black Carthaginians were the wealthy merchants, and the Romans were just poor farmers.

>>	Anonymous Fri Sep 7 01:34:32 2012 No.5034351 >>5034203 Nah, it's the head of Onyx, the pokemon

Anonymous Fri Sep 7 01:36:17 2012 No.5034357

>>5034339
>yet to be discover techniques of building with hard rocks without modern machines.

Stop this stupid shit.

There are no mysteries as to how the Egyptians built their pyramids. We know very well how they did it, where they quarried from, how they moved the rocks, how they calculated, how they carved.

THERE IS NO MYSTERY TO THE PYRAMIDS, JESUS FUCK

>>	Anonymous Fri Sep 7 01:52:47 2012 No.5034379 Guns, Germs, and Steel /thread

>>	Anonymous Fri Sep 7 02:09:47 2012 No.5034416 >http://www.geneticsandsociety.org/article.php?id=3721 >f.u.c.k.i.n.g. o.u.c.h.

>>	Anonymous Fri Sep 7 02:11:32 2012 No.5034424 the curious members left and/or got laughed out of religious based society they went elsewhere and created more curious people who learnt, tested, and made things i'll go with that

>>	Anonymous Fri Sep 7 02:16:18 2012 No.5034437 >>5034424 The intensity of religious devotion present in Abrahamic religions is really mostly limited to those traditions. It is especially not present outside organized religion.

>>	Anonymous Fri Sep 7 02:20:17 2012 No.5034446 >>5034437 >really >mostly pick 1, or 2 if you're a faggot

>>	Anonymous Fri Sep 7 02:25:33 2012 No.5034455 >>5034352 >You should also keep in mind it's been less than 400 years since Africa has been substantially inferior to the rest of the world haha what? >>5034379 ggs is a load of shit, and you are an idiot if you believe in it.

>>	Anonymous Fri Sep 7 02:26:47 2012 No.5034456 >>5033627 Cause they're fucking niggers

Anonymous Fri Sep 7 02:29:48 2012 No.5034463

>>5033643
>They did not have a massive land connection to every neighbor in every direction.

Neither does Britain.

Also did you realize that Africa as a land mass is absolutely studded with different nations and always has been throughout human history?

Anonymous Fri Sep 7 02:33:17 2012 No.5034470

>>5034416

First, as someone who should be familiar with the subject matter, I'm surprised he wouldn't be more careful with his explanation. Of course averages in every trait can be found across all populations; I can take the city of New York and the city of Boston and find average differences in IQ scores, athleticism, average weight, height, criminality, etc., but it wouldn't be meaningful to claim the average Bostonian is superior to the average New Yorkian (New Yorkian?). Because the sample is arbitrary. I can group people according to ancestry, whether or not they have black skin, or dark hair, or can stand on their head, or what flavor of ice cream they like, and find average differences. How these differences arise may be due to any of an infinite number of variables in our universe. The point is, humans are individuals, and no 'race' has a monopoly on intelligence or any given trait, which is why chaining people to this arbitrary category is meaningless, especially when the frequency of traits in a given population, categorized by race or otherwise, is dynamic over time and environmental pressures anyhow. At the end of the day, using the language of race, a now defunct concept, will only give fodder to the bigots who willingly misinterpret the science and propagate a false understanding among laypeople, it will not improve society's ability to discriminate meaningfully for talent.

Secondly, He can be Darwin himself and it really doesn't matter what he claims, there aren't many studies that attempt to establish any link between particular genes and performance on intelligence, such that I'd be surprised he can cite any study in which they found Africa was in need of a particular genotype (that would be easy, wouldn't it? african nations would just have to test to get those africans that had it to donate sperm and eggs to the others).

Anonymous Fri Sep 7 02:47:02 2012 No.5034496

>>5034470
except the average of a fucking race or any society is utterly essential in the success and survival of it.

False understanding of what? the negro is far less intelligent then the white or mongoloid or south asian races. There is nothing complicated about it. Their brains are smaller and dumber.

>race, a now defunct concept,
u wut

>>	Anonymous Fri Sep 7 02:50:17 2012 No.5034506 >>5034470 >a now defunct concept nigger detected

>>	Anonymous Fri Sep 7 02:53:17 2012 No.5034509 >>5034496 >>5034506 >>5034456 Oh look, stormfront niggers found the thread,

Anonymous Fri Sep 7 02:54:33 2012 No.5034511

>>5034147
>>5034203

Why has nobody on the "inherently inferior" side addressed this yet?

The very premise of the thread is false. This isn't an opinion, it's fact. Africa was only colonized/conquered in the late 19th century - there's a reason why it wasn't touched before, and it had nothing to do with Europe not wanting it.

Anonymous Fri Sep 7 03:07:32 2012 No.5034535

>>5034496
>except the average of a fucking race or any society is utterly essential in the success and survival of it.

Again, you're bringing a COMPLETELY SUPERFLUOUS concept of race into this again.
It doesn't add any value to our ability to understand how these differences in frequencies of a particular trait arose, or what can be done with this information, to add concepts like black, white, yellow, red, and brown into the equation.
If you can't see, from overwhelming past precedent, how adding folk-science concepts as race does nothing but provide fodder for supremacists who won't be able to grasp the fact that categorizing individuals' ability by race is arbitrary except that it conveniently fits their worldview.

>is utterly essential in the success and survival of it.
utterly essential? what trait are you talking about? is every trait essential? iq test scores? be specific please.

>>	Anonymous Fri Sep 7 03:08:47 2012 No.5034537 >>5034535 >>5034535 *you can't see

>>	Anonymous Fri Sep 7 03:22:47 2012 No.5034563 File: 1.88 MB, 216x144, 1336043135261[1].gif [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] >http://www.nytimes.com/2006/08/18/education/18schools.html?_r=2&ref=nyregion&oref=slogin >oh look moar ouch

>>	Anonymous Fri Sep 7 07:12:33 2012 No.5034848 >>5034456 0/10

>>	Anonymous Fri Sep 7 08:32:52 2012 No.5034951 If you need examples of black Africans' scientific, archeological and metallurgical advances, read this http://fixedgear808.blogspot.com/2012/07/here-we-go-again.html

>>	Anonymous Fri Sep 7 08:55:08 2012 No.5034969 Don't bother reading Guns Germs and Steel, it's pseudoscience. Read the 10,000 year explosion instead.

Carl Fri Sep 7 09:12:53 2012 No.5034988

>>5034969
>>5034969
>10,000 year explosion

thats a good book.

but you know they are going to dismiss it as racists. he mentions is there the mutation is some southern Africa tribes that makes their skin white also seems to increase how successful they are, even if they only have 1 gene and it makes no noticeable difference in skin color.

Anonymous Fri Sep 7 09:14:53 2012 No.5034993

We're not that much more advanced than them. We're only ahead by a few hundred years because of the opportunities and conditions that were presented to us. A thousand years is literally nothing. I'd imagine a lower average IQ might affect it somewhat but I believe that once a group of animals becomes conscious it doesn't take much for them to advance quickly.

>>	Carl Fri Sep 7 09:22:52 2012 No.5035001 >>5034993 >>5034993 a few hundred? the tribes in south africa just 20 years ago (before the end of apartheid fucked them up when the ANC became the new government) didn't even have the technology some European civilizations had over 20 000 years ago.

Anonymous Fri Sep 7 09:32:37 2012 No.5035014

>>5034164
Indeed. Read Heart of Darkness by Conrad to see what the Europeans thought of SubAfrica. I read it my senior year in HS. The black teacher I had for 10th and 11th grade wouldn't let us read it, but made us read To Kill A Mockingbird, The Color Purple, Black Boy, etc... I loled.

>>	Anonymous Fri Sep 7 09:35:37 2012 No.5035018 >>5034988 >that makes their skin white >it makes no noticeable difference in skin color. what?

MT Fri Sep 7 09:36:52 2012 No.5035019

>>5033627
Humans from Africa _are_ among the most successful species on the planet. They had to leave Africa to do it. Then they came back as imperial colonizers and disrupted the advancement of that civilization just at the moment when social innovations (the development of societies -- kingdoms -- based on more than tribal affiliations). Other regions went through this social evolution earlier, but I wouldn't say they did it faster. Societies in Africa were prevented from enjoying the advancement of large-scale social development by (among other things) colonial conquerors.

Anonymous Fri Sep 7 09:38:07 2012 No.5035025

>>5035019
>Then they came back as imperial colonizers and disrupted the advancement of that civilization just at the moment when social innovations (the development of societies -- kingdoms -- based on more than tribal affiliations).

Actually, they came in a little while after. Contrary to stormfag belief, there were helpings of African societies formed into nations and nation-states before the 1800-1900's.

>>	Anonymous Fri Sep 7 09:39:37 2012 No.5035026 Considering africans could have large civilizations in central africa, i dont know. I assume african's were very remote from europe and just didnt go forward in technology.

>>	Carl Fri Sep 7 09:40:52 2012 No.5035030 >>5035018 its a recessive trait. it was a bit unclear.

MT Fri Sep 7 09:41:23 2012 No.5035031

>>5033656
It's been my experience that people throw around the phrase "politically correct" when they're about to say something they know they should be embarrassed about. We're not "all equal," but our differences are not based on the amount of melanin in our skin. Plenty of white people are morons and assholes (hands over mirror).

Anonymous Fri Sep 7 09:48:07 2012 No.5035039

>>5035031

>but our differences are not based on the amount of melanin in our skin.

Any honest person in a discussion on this topic doesn't think that is the case. If somebody is saying vapid things like "hurf durf they're niggers, inherently inferior to us supreme whites" then they're either trolling or 12. There is a group that is actually interested in the genetic differences of human populations and how this affects behavioral characteristics and intelligence. That group is not well represented on 4chan.

>>	Anonymous Fri Sep 7 09:52:07 2012 No.5035047 >>5035031 >our differences are not based on the amount of melanin in our skin bullshit http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=noFwrMOF2lI

Anonymous Fri Sep 7 10:02:54 2012 No.5035066

1) why do I see way more attractive Asian girls than black girls in my town, even though my town has 4x as many blacks as Asians and, on an average day, I see about four to six times as many black girls as Asian girls?

2) Colonialism in Africa didn't begin in earnest until after 1600. By that time, Chinese ships had reached Persia and Mogadishu, Scandinavian ships had reached Newfoundland, other Europeans were colonizing the Americas, Indian ships were trading with Malaysia and Thailand, etc. Why haven't I heard anything about any kind of African ship-building?

3) Why do blacks score lower than whites on SATs, even when adjusting for income? There was an infographic sourced from a study that concluded that even kids from the highest-earning black families scored, on average, just a few points lower than the lowest-earning white families

4) Why did Arab explorers, some of whom penetrated deep into Africa as early as the 800s, make many of the same observations regarding the intelligence of native Africans that Europeans would come to make a thousand years later?

I wanna know

>>	Anonymous Fri Sep 7 10:03:53 2012 No.5035068 >>5035047 >http://www.youtube.com >Edgy movie trailer purporting to expose "the truth" I'mma pass.

>>	Anonymous Fri Sep 7 10:12:23 2012 No.5035078 >>5035066 Because you're an ignorant racist >>>/pol/

>>	Carl Fri Sep 7 10:15:37 2012 No.5035082 >>5035078 lol. nice argument retard.

Anonymous Fri Sep 7 10:17:22 2012 No.5035083

>>5035066
>1) why do I see way more attractive Asian girls than black girls in my town, even though my town has 4x as many blacks as Asians and, on an average day, I see about four to six times as many black girls as Asian girls?

Because... you're more attracted to features typically expressed by Asians?

>Colonialism in Africa didn't begin in earnest until after 1600

More like after 1800.

>Why haven't I heard anything about any kind of African ship-building?

They had little need to. Remember that human ingenuity requires a specific problem to solve in order to kick in. Africa is basically one big slab of land, with little in the way of gulfs, peninsulas, inland oceans, and so forth. Europe is divided by the Baltic at the top, and the Mediterranean at the bottom. India is a peninsula jutting out into the ocean. China borders several significant island nations as well as many peninsulas that would do less well against naval attacks. There wasn't any need for major shipbuilding societies. North Africans, having a need, did in fact engage in significant shipbuilding, as I'm sure you know.

>>	Anonymous Fri Sep 7 10:19:52 2012 No.5035084 >>5035082 Just because his argument is short and nasty doesn't make it false. After seeing your behavior in several threads over time, I can say that, while somewhat well-spoken, you are still a racist.

Anonymous Fri Sep 7 10:20:52 2012 No.5035085

>>5035078

"[I am] inherently gloomy about the prospect of Africa [because] all our social policies are based on the fact that their intelligence is the same as ours—whereas all the testing says not really."

- James D Watson

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/James_D._Watson

The guy who said that has a PhD in biology and was awarded the Nobel prize in Medicine for discovering DNA

Do you have a PhD in science?
Have you studied genetics or biology at the post-graduate level?
Any insights into human DNA?
Where's your motherfucking Nobel prize?

Speaking of Nobel prizes, why are Africans so pathetically underrepresented in terms of Nobel laureates? Even third-world Asian, Eastern European and Latin American countries fare much better

>>	Anonymous Fri Sep 7 10:21:55 2012 No.5035087 >>5035085 Noooooowww you can fuck off back to >>>/pol/

>>	Anonymous Fri Sep 7 10:25:07 2012 No.5035094 >>5035087 lol getting anally devastated in a debate is solved amicably by conceding defeat, not telling the opposing party to fuck off

>>	Anonymous Fri Sep 7 10:27:07 2012 No.5035098 >>5035083 but we're talking about the part of Africa where niggers live ie below the Sahara

Anonymous Fri Sep 7 10:28:38 2012 No.5035100

>>5035085
There is no genetic basis for that. If you had tribes of white people that were isolated from society for years, they would be dumb as well. You seem to belong to a white tribe of some sort, so my theory stands true.

The intelligence/success(using the word 'success' carefully here) differences between civilized and white people are caused by society and not genetics. That's why in general black Canadians are smarter than white Canadians.

>>	Anonymous Fri Sep 7 10:29:37 2012 No.5035103 >>5035100 civilized black and white people**

>>	Anonymous Fri Sep 7 10:30:07 2012 No.5035107 >>5035100 0/10

>>	Anonymous Fri Sep 7 10:30:53 2012 No.5035109 File: 10 KB, 250x250, 1300198031015.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] >>5035100 >That's why in general black Canadians are smarter than white Canadians What?

Anonymous Fri Sep 7 10:36:07 2012 No.5035114

>>5035107
>>5035109
Show me any study that proves black people are more inclined genetically to be stupid. Can't find any, can't you? That's because there isn't one. All studies concerning black/white intelligence based their conclusions on cultural processes.
Genetically, blacks can reach the same intelligence level of whites, and in some regions they are statistically smarter.

>>	Anonymous Fri Sep 7 10:39:07 2012 No.5035119 >>5035114 http://psychology.uwo.ca/faculty/rushtonpdfs/pppl1.pdf Have fun

>>	Anonymous Fri Sep 7 10:40:24 2012 No.5035120 >>5035114 http://www.udel.edu/educ/gottfredson/30years/Rushton-Jensen30years.pdf Rushton, Philippe J. and Arthur R. Jensen. "Thirty Years of Research on Race Differences in Cognitive Ability."

>>	Anonymous Fri Sep 7 10:47:23 2012 No.5035129 >>5035120 >>5035119 No one cares This isn't stormfront.

Anonymous Fri Sep 7 10:47:38 2012 No.5035130

>>5035119
>>5035120
>implying the differences in IQ are still any basis for different treatment
>implying IQ's haven't been increasing over time and that white IQ's in the 1930's weren't similiar to black IQ's today.
>implying that made any fucking difference in the long run.

just gtfo pleb.

>>	Anonymous Fri Sep 7 10:49:07 2012 No.5035135 >>5033656 Actually, the quote to which you refer was written by Thomas F. Dixon jr, in his novel 'The Clansman'. Darwin was a committed abolitionist. Check your sources next time, you unscientific fucktard.

Anonymous Fri Sep 7 10:49:22 2012 No.5035133

>>5035120
>>5035119
but Asians and Jews are smarter than your average white person, does that mean white people should be made second class citizens? following your own logic of course and bearing in mind that the differences in IQ on genetic differences aren't large enough to warrant differential treatment.

>>	Carl Fri Sep 7 10:51:22 2012 No.5035139 >>5035129 >Show me any study that proves black people are more inclined genetically to be stupid ok, here. >No one cares. This isn't stormfront. >>5035130 who implied that?

>>	Anonymous Fri Sep 7 10:55:23 2012 No.5035146 >>5035133 >>5035130 >different treatment who is talking about that? we are trying to discuss why africa didnt develop. this has nothing to do with treating anyone differently. fuck of you fucking racists.

Anonymous Fri Sep 7 10:55:23 2012 No.5035147

>>5035139
now that i reread the thread, no one in particular although i did get the feeling it was lurking in the background. A common tactic of a lot of stormfront kiddies is to preface their arguments with "scientific" open ended questions. Still it makes me wonder why this thread was started in the first place. anyway good troll for making us angry. 8/10.

>>	Anonymous Fri Sep 7 10:56:52 2012 No.5035151 http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jUxpMBl7RBY What happens when Cultural Marxists get confronted with science

Anonymous Fri Sep 7 10:57:52 2012 No.5035152

>>5035129

Just because you willfully shove your head up your ass doesn't mean everyone who browses /sci/ does.

Believe it or not, some of the people who come to /sci/ are actually very fucking interested in scientific papers. Maybe reading some published science will help them form their own views that will perhaps more accurately explain what they observe around them re: blacks, their intellectual accomplishments and social behaviors, amirite?

>>5035130
False on all three counts. While science is in itself neutral, most of the technology that derives from science makes humans happier or better off in some way.

Even an idiot can understand that a civilization would be better off if all of its constituents were more intelligent.

Anyways, you seem to be preempting yourself in anticipating potential policy prescriptions one may suggest after examining the empirical observations.

Nobody is saying we should treat people with different IQs differently. We are merely trying to establish why blacks fare so poorly on intelligence assessments when compared to whites and Asians, even when adjusting for poverty, income, cultural bias, etc.

Remember, science is neutral...politics isn't.

Anonymous Fri Sep 7 11:03:22 2012 No.5035158

>>5035146
Here is my problem though, primitive is a relative term. If your society is completely shut off from all modern trade routes by geography, its unfair to say you're primitive. Its like asking why the aborigines are native american were primitive compared to european settlers. Technology is a very relative term and each civilization will develop it to the extent that they need it. Europe could have been stayed in the middle ages for a thousand years if there were no incentives for people to improve technology. A similiar process happened in China and Japan where technological progress stagnated once those societies shut themselves off from the rest of the world. Thus asking a question like, why africa remained so primitive is confusing. There are a number of reasons, political upheaval, brain drain, famines, geography, etc etc. We can focus in on IQ but is IQ really the most important factor for technological change? Currently several african countries have growing economies and the highest number of graduate degrees in the U.S are being given to those from african nations. (don't have a link) When people say primitive, they assume every civilization has the same priorities, the same resources, and is starting off on the same foot. its a fallacy that leads to racism and ignorance.

Anonymous Fri Sep 7 11:04:37 2012 No.5035161

>>5035119
Are you stupid? I don't think you even read that study. Just googl'd and pasted here for your "aha" moment, didn't you? Sad.

Anyway, this study is inconclusive. It presents three major models(100% environmental, 50-50 gen/envi, 20-80 envi/gen). Eventually, no model is well-based enough to be preferred over the other models, and genetic evidence are not presented at all.
One thing they overlooked is examining the connection between period and prominent figures. The more we advanced socially, the more non-white notable figures start popping up throughout history(not just in music). There is a clear connection, which basically leads us to lean towards somewhere between the 50-50 and the 100-0 model. Whereas it's obvious that the 100-0 model cannot be true(there are genetic differences no matter how you look at it), there is also no significant genetic advantage, so it is more logical to propose a model in between those two models.
Undoubtedly, even if we assumed that there was a significant genetic advantage, there would still be no reason to dismiss blacks as a potentially smart race. In such a case, it might be harder for them to reach high levels of education but it would not by any means make it impossible. Not to mention that no matter what there will always be quite a fair number of exceptions to that "genetic advantage", which is enough to apply racial rules only to a statistical whole and not a true whole.

Anonymous Fri Sep 7 11:07:07 2012 No.5035174

>>5035152
how is it false on all three counts? IQ isn't a reason to treat anyone differently, IQ have increased over time, and IQ's of whites in the 1930's were similiar to average iq's of whites today. You're focusing in on IQ and putting it in a vacuum without considering all the other factors as well as giving IQ more importance than you should. This whole topic is designed to be as inflammatory as possible. I'm having trouble understanding why you would even want to separate IQ results by race in the first place. Is your IQ test really infallible and a perfect measure of intelligence? I wouldn't say so.

Anonymous Fri Sep 7 11:10:22 2012 No.5035178

>>5035152
You should all stop assuming things. There isn't such a big difference between black and white IQ scores if you take the tests in balanced environments i.e. not in the fucking Bronx. In some regions blacks score higher.
And then you also got the validity of IQ tests, and how accurately they can actually represent intelligence.

also inb4 feynman

Anonymous Fri Sep 7 11:14:53 2012 No.5035183

>>5035158

Oh man, here we go.

> your society is completely shut off from all modern trade routes by geography
Why not...create trade routes? African tribes traded with each other, just as European tribes did. If the Dutch could create a naval trade route from the Netherlands all the way to motherfucking China just because they wanted tea and silk. surely native Ethiopians could have developed a (much, much shorter...even overland!) route to Arabia or Persia?

>Its like asking why the aborigines are native american were primitive compared to european settlers.
Why were South American natives (Maya, Inca, Aztecs) so much more "advanced" than North American natives (Huron, Iroquois, Sioux)?

> Europe could have been stayed in the middle ages for a thousand years if there were no incentives for people to improve technology.
Please explain what incentives existed in Europe that didn't exist in Africa or elsewhere. War? African tribes fought each other endlessly. Trade? Africans traded, as well. Cold? Celts, Vandals, and Goths lived just fine in their primitive huts for hundreds of years. Food? There was an abundance of arable land left uncultivated even before technological innovations boosted agricultural productivity in Europe

> A similiar process happened in China and Japan where technological progress stagnated once those societies shut themselves off from the rest of the world.
Incentives for technological and social progress weren't suddenly eliminated through self-imposed isolation...civil wars, famines, plagues, etc. all still occurred with the same ferocity in China and Japan as they had prior to seclusion

Anonymous Fri Sep 7 11:21:07 2012 No.5035200

>>5035183
>African tribes
>European nations

Stop trolling. Europe obviously had better reasons and more means to develop. African tribes were basically all the same, like one cut-off nation from the rest of the world. Only north-africans and middle-easterns traded in that region and that's why they actually developed.

Anonymous Fri Sep 7 11:24:22 2012 No.5035205

>>5035183
Technology develops through specialization, different environmental circumstances lead to different trades and technologies being developed. I am pretty sure african people are/were in a bigger need to increase their physical strength and capabilities to ensure their survival in this environment than any european ever would have needed, they could just keep chilling in their cold/mediterranean woods and focus on increasing the capabilities of their brains.

Anonymous Fri Sep 7 11:28:07 2012 No.5035215

>>5035183
>shut off from the rest of the world
>HEY GUIZ LETS MAKE A TRADE ROUTE JUST LIKE THAT EVEN IF WE DON'T KNOW ANYONE TO TRADE WITH WITH.

that "create trade route" argument is so fucking retarded i'm not even going to consider it.

>>5035183
We don't know much the maya, aztecs and Incas and you are grossly over simplifying the native american peoples. If you are talking purely about technology, i'd point you to the fact that north and south america are two very different places and both groups of people had different reasons for living the way they did. In China and Japan, if you've perfected the use of gunpowder, most people aren't going to bother improving it. The tokugawa and ming preferred stability to innovation. I could write you a book about the differences between african tribes and europe. Is there a tztzi fly in europe? malaria? the sahara desert? Sudan alone is roughly bigger than france and it barely forms a quarter of the size of africa. Egypt, morroco and algeria were african nations and simply because of their exposure had more advanced technology than others. barring geography aside we could talk about history, competing religions, Gunpowder, paper and translated writing all coming in from asia. fucking fibbonaci himself was educated in africa!http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fibonacci

may i ask you what your credentials are? I'm really curious now. Are you a psychologist? a neurologist? A historian? Anthropologist? What is your background in this field?

Anonymous Fri Sep 7 11:29:37 2012 No.5035216

>>5035161
I actually read the entire study a few years ago.
> and genetic evidence are not presented at all.
This tells me you didn't
>The more we advanced socially, the more non-white notable figures start popping up throughout history(not just in music).
Affirmative Action (political agenda) + media sensationalism (could be said to further said political agenda) + lowered standards for [select] minorities (racism)

>>5035178
>And then you also got the validity of IQ tests, and how accurately they can actually represent intelligence.
Yes, I'm well aware of those who claim that IQ test results should be disregarded (for blacks and latinos only, it seems) because they are "culturally biased."

My question to you: why do Asian immigrants often outperform native whites on these very same IQ tests? Aren't they supposed to be "eurocentric" and "culturally biased?"

>>5035158
>When people say primitive, they assume every civilization has the same priorities, the same resources, and is starting off on the same foot.
1) Priorities: most civilizations seek human cooperation in order to achieve a better life
2) Resources: The Arabs had sand. Seems to me they created a far more advanced and prosperous society when compared with the much-better endowed Africans, especially around 1000 AD
3) Initial conditions: if we all evolved out of a common ancestor, we "started off on the same foot." If we all came out of Africa, we all "started off on the same foot." Actually, I'd say the Africans had a head start, since they didn't have to leave, explore, and adapt to the environment.

>>	Anonymous Fri Sep 7 11:30:37 2012 No.5035219 >>5035215 Ethiopia is on mountains hundreds of feet above sea level. Why bother? I'm sure they felt it wasn't necessary.

Anonymous Fri Sep 7 11:32:52 2012 No.5035226
File: 26 KB, 400x224, stock-footage-dolly-along-hundreds-of-skulls-in-rows-in-a-church-following-the-genocide-in-rwanda.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]

>>5035200

>African tribes were basically all the same

The Hutu and Tutsi would like a word with you.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1994_Rwandan_Genocide

Anonymous Fri Sep 7 11:41:38 2012 No.5035248

>>5035216
No, only assumptions are presented. No evidence whatsoever. You should re-read that study, you clearly don't remember it so well.
And for your 2nd point, that just shows ignorance. You completely disregard the fact that throughout history certain peoples were deprived of any form of higher education and a higher place in society to permit cultural and intellectual progression within those peoples, and while it's true that high.ed institutions allow minorities to enter more easily, the studies themselves are still as difficult, so that point is completely invalid. Regarding political bullshit, that's only true with pop culture.

As for the IQ subject, I was not talking about biased tests. I was talking about the integrity of IQ tests regardless. It's already pretty established that IQ tests do not accurately reflect how smart a person is or can really be, and tests done in balanced regions do not show much difference between the races, and as I've said in some cases blacks scored higher.

>>	Anonymous Fri Sep 7 11:43:07 2012 No.5035253 >>5035226 >1994 Invalid. We are talking about older times here.

Anonymous Fri Sep 7 11:45:22 2012 No.5035261

>>5035216
>1) Priorities: most civilizations seek human cooperation in order to achieve a better life
Define better life? does our society achieve it by waging wars? pleasing a god with blood sacrifices? tilling the soil? inventing new technology? The fact that you're generalizing it so braodly like that makes me think you haven't given this much study at all.
>2) Resources: The Arabs had sand. Seems to me they created a far more advanced and prosperous society when compared with the much-better endowed Africans, especially around 1000 AD
what the fuck is this? an argument? The arabs are also right between Europe and Asia. Yes they live in the dessert. so what?
>3)" If we all came out of Africa, we all "started off on the same foot." Actually, I'd say the Africans had a head start, since they didn't have to leave, explore, and adapt to the environment.
really? so going back to the 1900's if I say one country in africa starts off with 4 college graduates in the entire fucking country, its "starting off on the same foot?" If one country is devastated by floods or famine or is invaded they're on the same footing? If i live in rome, maybe i'm concerned with expanding my empire and increasing trade but if i live in tibet maybe i'm concerned with just lording over my serfs until my sons take over.you obviously know jack shit about this.

Anonymous Fri Sep 7 11:46:07 2012 No.5035263

>>5035216
Moving on to your point about asian immigrants, what is being proved here exactly? A test is given and if you separate results by race, some come out on top and others don't. I could easily readjust the IQ test to make whites come on top. if the test is flawed to begin with and can be argued to not be objective, the people coming out on top is irrelevant. Do you even know why we have affirmative action? to correct for policies whites put into place to discriminate against those who now need it. A "negative" action if you will. Not to mention your tin foil hat is showing.

of course there are genetic differences between races and clines. not a single scientist in the world would dispute this. But the degree to which they matter is up for debate.

Anonymous Fri Sep 7 11:48:52 2012 No.5035271

>>5035248
>You completely disregard the fact that throughout history certain peoples were deprived of any form of higher education and a higher place in society to permit cultural and intellectual progression within those peoples,

Right, which is why there were no great universities in sub-Saharan Africa, and also why blacks (in America) could only "progress intellectually" through instruction at institutions created by whites instead of forming their own colleges and schools?

Deprived? After emancipation, there was nothing stopping blacks from creating their own universities and "progressing." Prior to colonialism, there was nothing stopping blacks from creating their own institutions and "progressing."

>>	Anonymous Fri Sep 7 11:49:07 2012 No.5035277 >>5035248 It should be noted that I am not dismissing genetic differences.

Anonymous Fri Sep 7 11:50:22 2012 No.5035278

>>5035253
>>5035253
THERE WERE STILL DIFFERENT TRIBES THROUGH AFRICA YOU DUMB MOTHERFUCKER. ARE YOU SAYING IT WAS ALL ONE BIG TRIBE SPREAD THROUGHOUT AFRICA? DO YOU EVEN KNOW HOW BIG FUCKING AFRICA IS? JESUS FUCK ITS NOT THE RACISM THAT MAKES ME ANGRY, ITS YOU PRETENDING TO BE A SCIENTIST. WHERE IS YOUR BACKGROUND MOTHERFUCKER? WHAT ARE YOUR CREDENTIALS? JESUS FUCK, WE'VE ALREADY ESTABLISHED THAT GENETICS PLAYS A ROLE IN IQ (IF IQ IS INDEED AN OBJECTIVE MEASURE OF INTELLIGENCE WHICH IT MAY NOT BE ) BUT TO WHAT EXTENT IS UNCERTAIN. YOU THAN PROCEEDED TO SHIT ON HISTORY, ANTHROPOLOGY AND ALL SOCIAL SCIENCES BY TRYING TO ACT SMART. JUST SHUT THE FUCK UP YOU RETARD. 500000/10

Anonymous Fri Sep 7 11:53:23 2012 No.5035287

>>5035271
spoken like an ignorant retard. There were no resources for any african countries to build universities. Congo(or maybe not) i believe only had 4 university graduates in the entire country at the time it was created. Several of the most talented end up leaving their home countries to come to other nations. its not so easy for these countries to just pull universities out of their ass. that kind of shit takes time and money which is kind of fucking hard to do when you have civil wars, dictators, famines, AIDS and general chaos going on.

Anonymous Fri Sep 7 11:54:07 2012 No.5035290

>of course there are genetic differences between races and clines.

that's what we're saying

> But the degree to which they matter is up for debate.
We would say that they matter a whole fucking lot. The whole thread was started with a question asking why Africa remained primitive while the rest of the world advanced around it.

We ascertain that there are significant and substantive differences in intelligence between the races, and that these difference largely explain the cultural and economic situation in Africa.

Perhaps it is wrong to describe them as "primitive." Perhaps that is eurocentric or racist.

Well, why the fuck are they demanding money to "develop?" Why are we sending them aid? What are they trying to develop into? Western-style societies?

>>	Anonymous Fri Sep 7 11:58:07 2012 No.5035296 As as a holder of a bachelor's degree in economics (and an insecure gamma), I need to know something. Do you often talk about economics here? What's your general opinion of economics?

Anonymous Fri Sep 7 11:59:07 2012 No.5035297

>>5035271
Oh my, you obviously are misinformed about many things.
Ever heard of South Africa? Don't be so thick.
Really I'm starting to believe you're just trolling. There are also lots of institutes in middle-African nations. Before that there were just tribes, so no need to expand on that.

The emancipation wasn't worth shit. Racism was still there, hatred, and huge legal differences. Even if black people could open their own institutes, it was unrealistic. Nobody would go there, because most blacks were at the bottom of the socio-economic scale.
Nowadays there isn't really a need for new institutions. They're rarely opened anymore, if at all.

Anonymous Fri Sep 7 12:01:22 2012 No.5035302

>>5035287

Funnily enough, Europe and China managed to ESTABLISH universities and institutions of their own. The victimization complex that Africans exhibit when confronted with their backwardness is both hilarious and pathetic.

"We didn't have the resources to create a university! Instead of building our own, we needed scholars from lands that had built theirs from scratch to come here and do it for us!"

England, which was a fucking island with extremely limited foreign trade at the time (1096), created Oxford University out of nowhere. People just got together to read books and talk about shit; the first foreign scholar didn't arrive until 100 years after Oxford had been established.

>which is kind of fucking hard to do when you have civil wars, dictators, famines, AIDS and general chaos going on

All of those elements were present in Europe since Jesus's time, minus the AIDS, of course.

Anonymous Fri Sep 7 12:01:52 2012 No.5035304

requirements.

Africa is a lush country, many of the peoples there wouldn't have needed to advance away from the hunter gatherer lifestyle of our ancients.
As the Homosapiens first moved north, they encountered a change in their environment, which needed a change of mentality from the early humans.

>>	Anonymous Fri Sep 7 12:02:07 2012 No.5035306 >>5035278 Do yourself a favor and just get out.

Anonymous Fri Sep 7 12:02:37 2012 No.5035307

>>5035290
what are you an idiot? they're trying to provide resources for there people. go back to kindergarten. the word is "poor" and compassionate people like to help those who are less fortunate than us without getting bogged down in cultural chestbeating.

the differences in intelligence are there but are not significant enough to explain poverty. You may be interested to learn that most modern african economies are actually growing today. that most graduate degrees today are being given to those from african nations and asian nations still require food aid despite having allegedly higher IQ's. its a very simple man who lets mislead by statistics. if you would also look historical IQ's for pre industrial societies or even our own country during a time of deep poverty in the 1930's, you would see that IQ's can vary quite a bit. IQ is nothing to get hung up on and "primitive" is a retarded label to employ. These countries are requesting food aid. i don't think they care if its western or eastern as long as its fucking food. whether or not the aid helps or is needed is another discussion altogether. I have a feeling you're reaching out and trying to distract everyone.

>>	Anonymous Fri Sep 7 12:03:08 2012 No.5035309 >>5035302 Go ahead then, try making a university out of mud and wood, and also find professors who will be willing to teach there.

Anonymous Fri Sep 7 12:04:37 2012 No.5035310

>>5035302
and how long did it take them to move past it? especially things like the black plague? quite a long fucking time. your example was in 1096, well in 1096 england was a backwards shithole. today its a rich prosperous country. things take time to move into place. stop thinking you know shit about anything. also what are your credentials?

>>	OSiRiS !OSiRiS3dfk Fri Sep 7 12:05:52 2012 No.5035312 Africa had egyptians. How were they not advanced for their time?

>>	Anonymous Fri Sep 7 12:08:25 2012 No.5035319 >>5035312 Is there anyone besides those wacky afrocentrists that believes ancient Egyptians were black?

>>	Anonymous Fri Sep 7 12:08:39 2012 No.5035321 Jesus, never knew /sci/ had such a raging boner for economics.

Anonymous Fri Sep 7 12:10:23 2012 No.5035325

In a word: disease. Until western medicine, the vast majority of the continent was a malarial pit. Of course Egypt and Timbuktu had flourishing societies until war (Egypt) and Climate change (Mali and the Saharan areas) devastated them; this being the reason why climate change is such a security issue for the world. War, disease, and climate change are the three big destabilizers of human populations.
Historically speaking though, the African continent has enjoyed more civilization throughout its history than most of the rest of the continents.

Anonymous Fri Sep 7 12:10:23 2012 No.5035326

>>5035296

OFF TOPIC
1) There are more economics threads on /sci/ than on /pol/
2) If you have an economics degree and are not making stacks, you have failed
3) Economics is a social science
4) Social science is not real science
5) Physics is real science

Hell, /sci/ laughs at biologists and calls psychology a pseudoscience. I've seen
> biology
> science
> pick one
more than a few times here.

Physicists, chemists, astronomers, and mainstream engineers (eg chemical, electrical, civil, aerospace, computer, mechanical, etc) are the most respected and tend to display their arrogant (and well-deserved, imo) superiority complex on here.

Generally, /sci/ is hostile to non-STEM majors. This is my opinion of the atmosphere after a few years on here

>>	OSiRiS !OSiRiS3dfk Fri Sep 7 12:13:07 2012 No.5035331 >>5035319 What does black have to do with anything? The OP was asking about africa. Not about niggers.

>>	Anonymous Fri Sep 7 12:15:52 2012 No.5035334 >>5033627 lol, you mudbloods are so fuunny sometimes.... you're of lesser intellegence if one race is, look of gridlines and 100th monkey experiment

Anonymous Fri Sep 7 12:16:23 2012 No.5035335

>>5033627
Culture and social aspects, with a small bit of genetics involved
.
Black culture is so anti-intellectual that it's amazingly hilarious...
Very little actually strive for intelligence, even in mainland Africa American media has somehow brainwashed them to want to be Lil-Waynes, pop singers and general famous people.

They focus on #yolo and #swag to make the money, and that's what they're told from birth. "Make money using any means, except for that of a scientific field or even slightly respectable job".

You never hear of that black kid that wants to be a scientist...

Not to mention, most of Africa is a clusterfuck of poverty and drought that even the kids that seek education can't get more than maybe a primary school education.

Then, there's probably something to do with genetics, considering they're basically built to hunt...

It's not just one fact that makes them less intelligent, it's a combination.

>>	Anonymous Fri Sep 7 12:18:08 2012 No.5035343 >>5035335 Hunters are the smartest animals in the evolutionary pool.

Anonymous Fri Sep 7 12:19:37 2012 No.5035344

>>5035312
>Africa had egyptians.

>>5035325
>Of course Egypt and Timbuktu

Yo, we are discussing sub-Saharan Africa, not Northern Africa.

North Africa is far less of a shithole than sub-Saharan Africa. No one believe Egyptians were black. Libyans, Moroccans, Berbers, Tunisians, and Egyptians look the same now as they did in 680 AD - Arab/Middle Eastern, because that's what they are.

>>	Anonymous Fri Sep 7 12:21:23 2012 No.5035350 >>5035343 >Hunters are the smartest animals in the evolutionary pool. Welcome to 50,000 years ago, enjoy your stay.

>>	Anonymous Fri Sep 7 12:22:22 2012 No.5035352 >>5035325 not to mention the cities of gold and libraries that taught the world. sickle cell, defends against malaria btw

Anonymous Fri Sep 7 12:23:22 2012 No.5035355

>>5035326

I'm not that guy, nor am I truly a social scientist, but social science is real and valid science, and it is the basis of a lot of our infrastructure and societal function. Dismissing it is idiotic. You cannot create a modern civilization of natural and mathematical science alone. Physics, chemistry, and biology cannot "make up for" the social sciences in terms of knowledge.

The problem with physics and engineering is that they are the most narrow scientific fields, and they require the least amount of general scientific knowledge. You need only learn physics and mathematics, and perhaps basic chemistry, in order to be a physicist. The amount of general scientific understanding that you must have increases as the "purity" of the sciences decreases, until a certain drop off point where the radically social sciences begin.

Normally this would be a non-issue, were it not for the fact that physicists and engineers on this board like to talk about science a lot. Unfortunately, most physicists are poorly educated outside of physics and math, and so they tend apply very rigid and ill-adapted reasoning to other sciences. For instance, many physicists will attest, when asked, that IQ is a valid measure of intelligence. This is not true by any means, but physics places a priority on easy, quantitative values, and so they attempt to carry this reasoning over to other sciences where such thinking does not do much good.

>>	Anonymous Fri Sep 7 12:23:52 2012 No.5035357 >, considering they're basically built to hunt... like every human being on the world you mean?

Anonymous Fri Sep 7 12:24:23 2012 No.5035358

>>5035331

We are discussing sub-Saharan Africa

>can you explain, scientifically, why Africa remained so primitive while the rest of the world advanced so quickly around it?

North Africa did not remain primitive. North Africa was one of the most civilized geographic areas on the planet numerous times through history: Egypt in 2000 BC, Carthage in 500 BC, the Almohad Caliphate (a major Islamic power) in 1000 BC, various Sultans and shit in 1500 AD

It was the part of Africa south of the desert that remained primitive

>>	Anonymous Fri Sep 7 12:26:37 2012 No.5035364 >>5033627 pyramids & thi ratio, bahgdad battery, star plotting. -justsayin

>>	Anonymous Fri Sep 7 12:27:08 2012 No.5035369 >>5035364 >baghdad battery originated in mesopotamia / persia??

>>	Anonymous Fri Sep 7 12:27:22 2012 No.5035366 >>5035358 Coincidentally, blacks were always a minority in North Africa (which was dominated by brown people)

>>	OSiRiS !OSiRiS3dfk Fri Sep 7 12:33:22 2012 No.5035379 >>5035358 >>5035344 Nowhere in the OP post did it specify that. I was replying to the OP post. Maybe next time you should phrase your questions properly.

Anonymous Fri Sep 7 12:34:07 2012 No.5035382
File: 50 KB, 250x325, Eugen von Bohm-Bawerk.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]

The isolation and environment described at >>5033643 made them unable to develop a dynamic economy. With out the ability to accumulate resources and re-invest them, Subsaharian Africans were stuck with a static economic system for a long period of time.

Static economic systems can last for a hell long time. Europeans got stuck inside the Feudal economic system for over a thousand years, with little scientific, economic or cultural change in this period. This happened because Feudalism is a static economy, with all production being made for subsistence, and no ability to accumulate Capital and expand the economy.

The exact same thing happened to natives all around the world and to the Subsaharian Africans. Under conditions that made the creation of surplus impossible (all production went to subsistence) and thus the accumulation and reinvestment of said surplus impossible, they were stuck in a static, tribal mode of production for long periods of time.

Racial theories of poverty fail to explain how come white Europeans were themselves stuck in the primitive Feudal mode of production for a thousand years, and also fail to explain how come North and South Koreas (who have same resources and similar population genetics) are so fucking different. The reason is simple: Mode of production. Some civilizations existed under static modes of production, and those tend to remain primitive for thousands of years.

>>	Anonymous Fri Sep 7 12:38:07 2012 No.5035389 >>5035358 >Almohad Caliphate (a major Islamic power) in 1000 BC See anything wrong with that statement?

>>	Anonymous Fri Sep 7 12:39:23 2012 No.5035392 Just read "Guns, Germs and Steel" by Jared Diamond >thereyougo

Anonymous Fri Sep 7 12:39:37 2012 No.5035393
File: 106 KB, 500x907, iq.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]

>>5035355

What infrastructure? REAL infrastructure (roads, bridges, ports, trains, skyscrapers, electrical grids, cargo ships, wireless networks, coal mines, nuclear power plants, hydroelectric dams, subway systems, etc.) is created by engineers, and advances in engineering more often than not derive from advances in REAL science.

A man doesn't need formal training in economics to build a business, large or small.

A physicist can vote and form political parties as well as a political scientist.

An engineer can describe the impacts of racism on his community as well as a sociologist.

>For instance, many physicists will attest, when asked, that IQ is a valid measure of intelligence. This is not true by any means, but physics places a priority on easy, quantitative values, and so they attempt to carry this reasoning over to other sciences where such thinking does not do much good.

Intelligence can be quantified and accurate predictions can be made on that basis. It just so happens that people in intellectually rigorous professions, for instance, doctors, physicists, and lawyers, display higher than average IQ (pic related)

>>	Anonymous Fri Sep 7 12:40:22 2012 No.5035395 >>5035389 That would be a typo.

>>	Anonymous Fri Sep 7 12:40:38 2012 No.5035396 >>5035389 huehuehue

Guns, Germs, and Steel debunked Anonymous Fri Sep 7 12:41:22 2012 No.5035397

1. The unrivalled extent of the Eurasian landmass allowed the proliferation of many different civilisations, between which information could be exchanged allowing far greater cross-fertilization of cultures.

Wrong! However unified the Eurasian land-mass may look to a cartographer, it is intractably divided by formidable topographical features. Europe is isolated from Central Asia by the Alps, the Urals, the Caucasus, the Russian Steppes, the Taiga and the Anatolian plateau. East Asia is divided from Central Asia by the Thar desert the Himalayas the Gobi desert and the Tian Shan mountains. No significant cultural exchanges took place between these regions until the 15th century, by which time sub-Saharan Africa and America lagged far behind Europe and China in terms of technology and higher cultural attainment. Sub-Saharan Africa lies as close to the Fertile Crescent, regarded as the cradle of civilisation, as Western Europe and far closer than China.

2. A diverse abundance of potential food crops is necessary in order for settled agricultural communities to flourish.

Wrong! The Inca created a complex civilisation based on the cultivation of two food crops, the potato and maize. Large agricultural communities, like Cahokia in North America, flourished on the exploitation of maize. Western European agriculture was overwhelmingly based on wheat production, China's on rice.

Guns, Germs, and Steel debunked Anonymous Fri Sep 7 12:41:53 2012 No.5035400

>>5035397

3.The European biome contained a greater variety of domesticable crops than Africa and America and these crops were more nutritious.

Wrong! America had indigenous food crops which were more nutritious than European staples. Beans, corn, squashes and peanuts are superior to wheat and, if grown in rotation, create a self-replenishing agricultural cycle. Far from having no viable indigenous staples, Africa had okra, rice, sorghum, millet, the bambara ground nut, black-eyed peas, watermelons and numerous gourds and tubers, as well as immensely useful plants such as the oil palm and the tamarisk. African slaves actually introduced rice cultivation to the United States. The standard refrence on this subject is, "Lost Crops of Africa".

4. Eurasia had more domesticable large mammals than Sub-Saharan Africa or the Americas.

Wrong! Africa has indigenous breeds of sheep, goats and cattle which were spread from the Sudan to the Cape by 200AD. The South Americans domesticated the llama. The North Americans, like the Aboriginals of Australia, almost hunted their domesticable mammals to extinction. Why didn't Europeans hunt horses, cows and sheep to extinction?

5. Only urban civilisations can develop the levels of technological skill and social organisztion required for military conquest.

Wrong! The two greatest conquerors in history, Atilla the Hun and Ghengis Khan came from nomadic tribal civilisations. Rome was overthrown by nomads. The Indus valley civilisation was destroyed by Indo-European barbarians.

Guns, Germs, and Steel debunked Anonymous Fri Sep 7 12:42:37 2012 No.5035403 [DELETED]

>>5035400

7. China lacked the type of convoluted coastline necessary for dissidents to hide out in.

Bizzare! Is Jared Diamond trying to claim that dissidents can only hide on convoluted coastlines? This is about as strange as his assumption that only large bodies of water constitute an effective barrier to trade and travel. China abounds in intractable wastes and remote mountain ranges where bandits and outlaws fled the authority of central government, the most obvious region being the famous water margin.

8. Urban populations are less intelligent than non-urban populations.

Western European civilisation sets a premium on education. Abstract reasoning skills are rewarded by better employment prospects, which in turn create enhanced relationship opportunities, meaning that intelligent people are encouraged to procreate with other intelligent people, unlike in Papua New Guinea, where the physical prowess is far more important than deductive logic.

Europe and China developed the worlds greatest civilisations in regions which were no bigger than the regions inhabited by any other cultures, which enjoyed no great advantages in terms of agricultural potential, which had no special abundance of handy food crops and which had particular disadvantages in terms of climate. Diamond's theory sounds so incontestable because he has edited out substantial volumes of contradictory information with the skill and shamelessness of a Stalin era Commissar.

Guns, Germs, and Steel debunked Anonymous Fri Sep 7 12:43:37 2012 No.5035407

>>5035400

6. The transmission of European diseases helped European nations conquer non-European nations.

Wrong! The European nations had achieved such technological superiority to non-European nations by the colonial epoch, that there could be no serious question of a non-European army successfully resisting an attack by a European army. Europeans conquered huge swathes of territory with tiny armies (Pizzaro). Epidemic disease only became a factor post-conquest. In Africa, India and South America native diseases like malaria were just as deadly to Europeans as European diseases were to the indigenous peoples.

7. China lacked the type of convoluted coastline necessary for dissidents to hide out in.

Bizzare! Is Jared Diamond trying to claim that dissidents can only hide on convoluted coastlines? This is about as strange as his assumption that only large bodies of water constitute an effective barrier to trade and travel. China abounds in intractable wastes and remote mountain ranges where bandits and outlaws fled the authority of central government, the most obvious region being the famous water margin.

Guns, Germs, and Steel debunked Anonymous Fri Sep 7 12:44:22 2012 No.5035410

>>5035407

8. Urban populations are less intelligent than non-urban populations.

Western European civilisation sets a premium on education. Abstract reasoning skills are rewarded by better employment prospects, which in turn create enhanced relationship opportunities, meaning that intelligent people are encouraged to procreate with other intelligent people, unlike in Papua New Guinea, where the physical prowess is far more important than deductive logic.

Europe and China developed the worlds greatest civilisations in regions which were no bigger than the regions inhabited by any other cultures, which enjoyed no great advantages in terms of agricultural potential, which had no special abundance of handy food crops and which had particular disadvantages in terms of climate. Diamond's theory sounds so incontestable because he has edited out substantial volumes of contradictory information with the skill and shamelessness of a Stalin era Commissar.

Anonymous Fri Sep 7 12:50:22 2012 No.5035423

>>5035397
>>5035400
>>5035407
>>5035410

Fucking saved. Thanks for posting. Saw it before but forgot where; Guns, Germs and Steel is a controversial book with a shitload of debate.

>8. Urban populations are less intelligent than non-urban populations.
This made me lol particularly hard when I came across it

Anonymous Fri Sep 7 12:52:08 2012 No.5035426
File: 66 KB, 468x637, 1343306434734.gif [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]

>>5035393

An increase in industrial infrastructure has also led to absolutely incredible increases in social unrest and mental illness rates. Be happy that social scientists exist, because volatile problems like these are often the downfall of civilizations. I want to stress again: mental illness rates are rising very quickly.

>A physicist can vote and form political parties as well as a political scientist.

Voting? Sure. As for forming and participating in parties, that's demonstrably, through statistics and historical example, untrue.

>Intelligence can be quantified and accurate predictions...

You are arguing against your own point here. "Intelligence" has never been defined scientifically, and IQ only measures a narrow part of cognition. This is why social scientists, like psychologists, are important. They make sure that people don't go nuts with this stuff.

Also, that is a horrendous chart. Some of the groups of people, who have radically different IQ measurements, also overlap significantly. For instance, why are "college professors" given their own group? Did the people who made the chart know that you have to become educated in a specific area in order to become a college professor? Where are the sample sizes and methods of measurement? Who did this survey? This is why engineers and physicists cannot into social science. You'd trust any number as long as it was written down.

Anonymous Fri Sep 7 12:55:37 2012 No.5035431
File: 224 KB, 1024x1024, 1343782622514.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]

>>5035426

Also, I just noticed that according to your chart, social scientists are often more intelligent than physicists and non-electric engineers. What are you trying to say here?

>>	Anonymous Fri Sep 7 13:12:52 2012 No.5035462 >>5034142 >>5034456 >>5034506 >>5034509 >>5035039 >>5035098 Tsk.

>>	Anonymous Fri Sep 7 13:14:52 2012 No.5035467 File: 168 KB, 1024x692, niggers.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] >>5035462

Anonymous Fri Sep 7 13:19:07 2012 No.5035478

>>5033627
To be honest, Africa really isn't doing so bad. Africa is progressing and there are factors that should be included that does not involve IQ scores. According to Wikipedia, Southeast Asians only have 3 IQ points above the average African yet countries like Malaysia, Philippines and Singapore are progressing very well to the point that in the year 2030, all three countries will be in the top 50 powerful countries in terms of economic power. Heck, Singapore is already a Developed country.

>>	Anonymous Fri Sep 7 13:22:52 2012 No.5035486 >>5035393 That feel when my IQ isn't even on the chart.

OSiRiS !OSiRiS3dfk Fri Sep 7 13:23:37 2012 No.5035488

>>5035478
>Implying average IQ has anything at all to do with that instead of Singapore having been a trade center for centuries
>Implying africa is progressing without outside assistance.
If anything, Africa is being made to progress in spite of it's infrastructure and people

Anonymous Fri Sep 7 15:43:23 2012 No.5035725
File: 4 KB, 127x120, 1346738438217.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]

>primitive
>advance

Both are subjective, whats so advance about us? That we have flat boxes that can transmit images from point "A" to point "B"? That we have modes of transportation mostly dependent on sources older than civilization itself? Or that we have learned techniques in extending our lives, lives that still are threatened and cut down by the biological rules of nature itself?

No op we are not advance and they are not primitive, we are simply more complex and they more simple. Niether of us are better than the other because both of us are still at the mercy of nature itself. How can we truly call ourselves advance if we can't even defy nature's many protocols? Virtually every so called "advancement" modern society has made has already been done and has occured in nature without the need of so called "man-made technology".

Our so called "advancing" is simply the storage of information already created. Our "knowledge" is just the constant borrowing and redrafting of applications of learned patterns made since who knows when.

No op we are not advance, just simply more complex and theres nothing advanced or foward about that.

Also, for those who don't give a flying fuck about my rant, if you need an answer then it's simply the appreciation and upkeep of knowledge that makes us advance. We value variety and thus we are who we are today.

>>	Anonymous Fri Sep 7 16:07:23 2012 No.5035782 >>5035725 I cannot and will not consider you advance for that comment

>>	Anonymous Fri Sep 7 16:09:22 2012 No.5035789 >Virtually every so called "advancement" modern society has made has already been done and has occured in nature without the need of so called "man-made technology" what?

>>	Anonymous Fri Sep 7 16:11:08 2012 No.5035798 >>5035782 And you know what? I'm perfectly fine with that anon.

Anonymous Fri Sep 7 16:19:07 2012 No.5035813

Because imperialism and colonialism

Diseases everywhere

It also is not as bad as people often think, people's opinion seems to be based on commercials they see of starving kids in africa in some mud huts when really that is like going to a homeless shelter and showing how poor americans are

Anonymous Fri Sep 7 16:19:37 2012 No.5035815

>>5033627 Without using racial slurs and stereotypes, can you explain, scientifically, why Africa remained so primitive while the rest of the world advanced so quickly around it?
>Without using racial slurs and stereotypes
DO NOT LOOK AT THE ELEPHANT IN THE ROOM. THERE IS NO ELEPHANT.

>>5033639 Guns, Germs, and Still
Jared Diamond is a hack

Anonymous Fri Sep 7 16:20:08 2012 No.5035817

>>5035039
One issue is that genetically-dissimilar groups are often grouped together. There is huge genetic variation amongst native populations of Africa, but they all become the same group. And then, for example, Australian aborigines are added into the mix even though they are genetically closer to Austronesian, Indian, and other South Asian populations. Why do they do this? Because they also have phenotypic features of black Africans and have, similarly, limited technological advanced compared to Europeans. The obvious answer is that the environment is the limiting factor, not genetics.

>>	Anonymous Fri Sep 7 16:28:52 2012 No.5035839 People need to be made to read Guns Germs and Steel at fucking gunpoint.

>>	Anonymous Fri Sep 7 16:34:53 2012 No.5035857 Or germpoint

>>	Carl Fri Sep 7 16:39:52 2012 No.5035869 >>5035839 see >>5035397 >>5035400 >>5035407 >>5035410

>>	Anonymous Fri Sep 7 16:39:52 2012 No.5035870 there was no need: - Hunt an antilope ~5h - Eat antilope and fuck bitches ~19h

>>	Anonymous Fri Sep 7 16:45:22 2012 No.5035885 You guys do know that Stormfront people start these threads just to bate others into these discussions so they can spread their racism, right?

Anonymous Fri Sep 7 16:46:08 2012 No.5035891

>>5035869
A lot of that debunking is downright wrong. The one that stands out most is in regards to communicable diseases. The Aztec empire lost about 50% of its population due to smallpox, and Cortez was able to take Tenochtitlan during an outbreak of smallpox that lasted about two months. Disease was an extremely important factor in taking the Americas.

>>	Anonymous Fri Sep 7 16:50:53 2012 No.5035905 Why do people even debate the intelligence of blacks? Just look at a normal black man and you realise something went terrible wrong on the way (Monkey related?)

>>	Anonymous Fri Sep 7 16:52:07 2012 No.5035912 >>5035905 2/10

Anonymous Fri Sep 7 16:57:52 2012 No.5035922

My hypothesis:
The slave trade became a major industry in the late 1600s, to the extent that rulers would conquer other kingdoms just to sell of its people as slaves to the white man. My understanding is that the kingdoms that existed before slavery in Africa were approximately as advanced as most European countries at the time.
The slave trade created a pattern of corrupt government and profit at the expense of advancement.
Why Africa for slavery you ask?
1. They were good at harvesting sugar where it grew, and them running away wasn't a threat because sugar was grown on islands.
2. In the colonies, they were totally bewildered by the environment and lack of a common language that they had no means of running away or rising up.
After Bacon's rebellion proved the use of indentures to be too risky, importing slaves from Africa was the next logical choice.

Advanced search
Text to find
Subject [?]Search by post subject. Leave empty for any.
Username [?]Search for user name. Leave empty for any user name.
Tripcode [?]Search for tripcode. Leave empty for any.
Email [?]Search by email. Leave empty for any.
Filename [?]Search by image filename. Leave empty for any.
From Date [?]Enter what date to start searching from. Format is YYYY-MM-DD
To Date [?]Enter what date to start searching until. Format is YYYY-MM-DD
Image hash
Search in	All Posts OPs Only
Deleted posts	Show all posts Show only deleted posts Only show non-deleted posts
Internal posts	Show all posts Show only internal posts Show only archived posts
Order	New posts first Old posts first
Capcode	All Posts Only by Users Only by Mods Only by Admins Only by Developers
Results	Posts Threads
Action	[ Simple ]

/sci/ - Science & Math