Fiddy Shit-holes

Also Bin Laden is in Africa.

:sleep

"#1: Europe has a different climate than Africa. The African climate is far more suitable for a nomadic way of life, while the European climate is more suitable for a static way of farming. The European situation therefore makes the forming of large villages, towns and cities more likely, and cities contribute a lot to an advancing civilization.

#2: European culture is largely based on large scale warfare and expansionism. This makes larger nations much more likely to develop, and larger nations tend to display a faster development than small communities. Also, it adds a lot to technological advancement, which also brings along many other benefits.

#3: European culture is largely based on Roman culture, which was largely based on Greek culture, etc. A tradition of technology, politics and warfare greatly aids the development of nations."
------------


So its not possible in Africa, well what about the egyptians. Their civilization was extremely advanced. But they were arab, not negroid.

Think about it. A million years ago we all walked out of Africa. It was for a reason. It sucks to live there, unless your a lion.

because those fucks don't like to work and we pay tax for them so they can buy some ammo.

I meant the "ignorant" quite literally, as in unaware of a number of important factors in the matter. Not aimed at you specifically either.
Many people who know little about history think the current state of affairs is here to stay, and for some reason they often believe that the current western civilization is bound to stay on top for all eternity. Meanwhile, they make statements about how Africa has had thousands of years to develop a civilization but hasn't, even though Africa has in fact developed civilizations and the same could have been said about Europe only a (relatively) short while ago.
Also, many people with little knowledge of the situation think change would be relatively easy, and think a few decades (2, or 5 maybe) should be enough to accomplish it.

Now, as for the comparison to Russia, Russia changed in a completely different way. It already had an existing and fairly efficient power structure, which only needed to be reformed.
Africa, on the other hand, can be seen as an undeveloped anarchy. It lacks infrastructure, industry, capital, etc. The different nations are badly put together, and there are tons and tons of different groups with only their own interests in mind. That makes reform extremely hard even if the majority of people are willing.

What's the difference? It's a group of people, most are of the same region and therefore the same race just like Africans are.

Antonio give us some crime stats which proves this.
Child rape is a major concern child rape in South Africa one of their beliefs "Petit said he was also told of child rape by individuals who believe that sex with a virgin will cure them of HIV/AIDS"

Murder is another big problem
Violence in South Africa "The Economist recently reported that the US had 16 110 murders but in South Africa in 2001 (The most recent available figures) - there were 21 108 murders. This is even more shocking considering that the US is 6 times larger than South Africa only about one in 10 South African murderers ended up in jail. "

and I can go on and on but won't.

Sorry, trying again!

Actually, prior to the spread of the Sahara desert...(which by the way was primarily due to vast overgrazing by goats in the last thousand years or so), most of Egypt was in fact VERY arable land which was quite suited to static farming and had large slow rivers which helped with trade....not to mention it's access to the Mediteranean, which exposed them to trade with other civilizations like the Greeks and Romans.

Don't waste your time on rooster. He's just a troll with very little interest in facts.

just come to the logical truth, negroids minds arent as advanced as other races. Dosent mean they are bad people or anything, but all the evidence and logic supports it.

not politically correct to say it, but this is closest to the correct answer.


anywhere you go in the world, (not just in Africa) where you see "black" people living, the conditions will be substandard.

Ok, come on then, bring on the "evidence". Let's see how easy it is to refute.

Edit: "evidence" needed double quotes :glugglug

Sub-Sahara Africa's climate is suitable for farming -- moreso than Europe, even. This is one of the reasons European colonialists all wanted to settle here.

Northern Africa is obviously a desert climate, and yet the Caliphite and Ottomon Empires managed to flourish in this climate. Although these countries are now far behind their Western counterparts, they're ridiculously far ahead of their sub-sahara neighbors, who happen to be black.

Ever seen the movie Zulu?

The Caliphite Arab culture arguably started the Renaissance. The Moors invaded Southern Italy and Spain, and brought with them their culture -- art, music, and literature, as well as a bit of tradition.. At this time, Europe was in the dark ages. and this spread to France from Spain, and to Northern Italy from the South, sparking the Renaissance, which in turn brought about the Enlightenment. But anyway, the point of that was just to say that European culture arguably came from the Middle East/Northern Africa.

But regardless, this cultural point does not excuse Africa from being shit. Africa had just as much time to develop a decent civilization and cultural infrastructure as Europe, or Asian, or anyone else in the world (all of which do in fact have some sort of tradition). Sub-saharan Africa is the only inhabitable part of the world that is such a shitty place to live. The only decent part of it was settled by Europeans.

Quote:

So, all matters considered, it's simply impossible to compare the two. The "thousands of years" have much less to do with development than a combination of random and coincidental factors. If Africans had lived in Europe, chances are they had developed advanced civilizations.

Hm.. have you looked at any statistics of sub-Saharan Africans living abroad?

India had colonialism too - they only became a sovereign nation in 1948. They have more than 1000 languages - but English is the language they use for communicating with the outside world.

India is slowly becoming a force to be reckoned with - programming, Internet, etc.

Still immense poverty of course - but there's light at the end of the tunnel.

Africa - on the other hand - seems hopeless. I've talked to people who have lived there. Europeans might settle in Africa, work hard, get a farm or some other kind of business going - and the Africans will point at them and say: "Oh, some more white racists. They only came here to oppress the Africans". Instead of LEARNING, they often take on the role as the eternal victims.

Yea, I know: the climate, wars, diseases, the bad effects of colonialism, etc. Lots of excuses - but still: Why don't they get on with the job and get some business going? There are endless possibilities.

Can you compare Africa and India? If so, India is doing the right thing and Africa is not.

Sub-Sahara Africa's climate is by no means more suitable for farming than that of Europe. It has droughts fairly frequently, the climate ranges from subtropical to tropical and much of the area consists of inhospitable land (desert, savanna, etc). In other words: what you said is nonsense.
The reason European colonialists wanted to settle the area is largely because of non-food farming. Something that has a completely different effect on the development of a region.

As for the difference in cultures between northern Africa and sub-Sahara Africa, please note the geographical isolation from which the sub-Sahara area suffers. Geographical isolation tends to severely hinder the development of cultures.
Cultures generally flourish when they come into contact with other cultures, not when they are cut off from other cultures.

Ofcourse there have been a few instances of large scale warfare in the area. A few instances, however, does not make a prolonged tradition of large scale warfare.

The Moors were heavily influenced by Greek and (to a lesser extent) Roman culture. For instance, their medical tradition was largely taken from Greek culture. If you take one of the most influential arab philosophers, Averroes, you see that his works are actually largely based on Aristotle.
What the arab culture mainly did was bringing ancient Greek and Roman culture back to Europe (where the church had suppressed it for a long time - if it hadn't been for Hunain ibn Ishaq we probably wouldn't have much of the writings of the Greek philosophers left).

I simplified it a bit, but the main point still stands. Europe had a tradition to build on.

Geographical isolation, an inhospitable climate, no tradition to build on, exploitation by colonists, nations formed without any consideration for the actual tribes of people living in the area, less than a hundred years of independancy for most of the nations and extreme trade barriers are some of the main reasons for the situation being the way it is. That's not an opinion, that's a fact.

Let me rephrase:
If Africans had been the original inhabitants of Europe, chances are they would have had developed advanced civilizations.

The black people living in other countries today are an entirely different subject and debate (one that I would gladly engage in at another time).

Get out ASAP. I'm just glad my family saw the writing on the wall right before the shit hit the fan. Both in Zim and in SA.

You are comparing a highly advanced civilization that goes back at least 5000 years to an area that has been populated by nomadic tribes and small villages up until a few hundred years ago?

Aside from that, I would dispute your claim that there's light at thge end of the tunnel for India. It suffers from an extreme overpopulation which is still continuing to grow, and a quarter of the people living in India do not have sufficient means to even get an adequate diet.

I know. The comparaison isn't perfect.

Still: I like the dynamism of India. They're going high-tech. I miss that dynamism in Africa. Maybe it's there - in e.g. South Africa - but there's too little of it.

The dynamism of India is admirable indeed. I think it would be wrong to place too much value on their tech achievements though. Remember, it's a huge country, and the fact that part of it is doing well and making great progress doesn not mean the same can be said for the majority. The government, though, should be commended for their emphasis on education.

Also, the overpopulation in India is worrisome. If nothing is done about it, it will severely screw things up for them. I believe they're growing with about 15 million people a year right now, and if things continue this way India's future is rather bleak.

africa is a land blighted by corrupt communist dictators, gangsters and criminal politicians. full of anti business laws, state monopolies, ravaged by war and corruption over diamonds/oil etc. the list goes on but it all comes back to the leaders of the "liberated" who are, for the most part, nut cases who have no clue how to run a country, and I include SA in that.

edit: in other words, age old problem with communism: the idiots are in charge and they killed or chased away all the smart ones

those women are HOT...can't blame them for fucking so much ;-)


ok, carry on ...

True. I have a faible for Indian women too. :)

But weren't they the original inhabitants? Didn't the first modern humans evolve in africa and make several great migrations out of africa fanning out across the globe, adapting to their environments, evolving? While those who stayed behind live in primitive tribal groups to this day. Don't you think it's possible the long history of european warfare evolved not only the civilizations but the people themselves? Allowing the most clever and perhaps deceitful and ruthless to survive while in africa physical attributes are more important for survival, such as being able to run very quickly away from predators and withstand heat and disease long enough to have 100 kids before dying of starvation at a young age?

disclaimer: Just a thought. I really don't know what the hell I'm talking about. I don't mean any offense to anyone and I don't think these are facts. I just think that not being willing to consider such possiblities because it's not politically correct is rather narrow minded.

Don't live where it does not rain!

That would actually be a possibility, had it not been for a lack of time for that to happen. Evolution is a fairly slow process, and it requires a long time and almost complete geographical isolation to occur.
The "long" history of warfare in Europe is only long from a cultural perspective, not from an evolutionary perspective.

Humans are actually genetically speaking an extremely homogenous species. A difference in skin and hair really isn't that much of a difference, genetically speaking. (just look at different breeds of dogs for examples of what genetic diversity within a species holds)

Sure it's possible that some races within the human race are slightly more intelligent than others, but considering the spread in the intelligence of individuals - which is always present - only a large difference could be used as an explanation for such a difference in living conditions, if you want to use the difference in intelligence as one of the main reasons.
Such a large difference, however, would be far more visible in iq tests and such, even if you do not consider the possibility of those being culturally slanted.

All factors considered, a genetic difference makes far less sense than a combination of historical, cultural, geographical and political reasons for the current situation.

Yeah, you're probably about right.

Come over to Atlanta,

being poor goes across all the races

I am not going to pretend to be an expert on evolution, but would the physical racial characteristics of a person not be enough to prove that there was enough time to evolve? I know about phenotypes and genotypes, and all that crap, but for one race (for example Asians) to be physically weaker than European and African peoples, could that not be seen as a form of divergent evolution?

Also, I would like to see punkworld's proof for the claim 'Humans are actually genetically speaking an extremely homogenous species. A difference in skin and hair really isn't that much of a difference, genetically speaking. (just look at different breeds of dogs for examples of what genetic diversity within a species holds)'.

I don't necessarily doubt it, but I did have a University teacher once claim that 'because the gene's that cause skin colouring are so close between White's, Black's, etc, it means we are all the same'. The logic she used was quite stupid, but she even went on to give reference to a scientist (who studied this) that claimed this was proof that there really is no difference between races. Punkworld seemed to be relying on the same kind of logic (I could be wrong).

Ofcourse that's evolution. Maybe I wasn't entirely clear (beer + not enough sleep), but what I meant was that the likelihood of significant evolutionary changes and thus differences regarding intelligence is very small.

There are a few visible physical differences, but those are genetically extremely small. There is no reason to believe the differences with regards to intelligence should be bigger.
In order for the state of affairs in Africa to be caused by these differences, they would have to be bigger than can be assumed from theories on different evolutionary paths (war vs no war etc.), existing differences in other areas (skin, hair, body type) or current scientific data (iq test differences etc.).

I still find that logic incredibly stupid.

Its been proved with DNA testing from different races and ethnic backgrounds. There is no difference. Groups of people just evolve differently.

do a search on the "HUMAN GENOME Project"

everyone has 99.9% have the same code. You can't tell a person's race by looking at their DNA unless you know their family tree.

What was really amazing is that it was found that two monkey's will have more of difference than two humans would

Even with the last 100 years humans are still changing. Just read that car seats have to change because people are lot bigger and taller than it use to

Ah, you edited.

I probably could find the proof for my claim, but then I'd have to go through a few dozen books on the subject (I read it in one of those last year or so, but since this isn't my specialization I don't keep references to studies and such).

Google would be a good bet though:
http://www.google.com/search?sourcei...lly+homogenous

Don't know if the specific study I'm basing this on is in there, but it should give some info.

The reasoning I'm using is not so much logic as it is science. Individual differences far outweigh racial differences genetically. (white person A has a rather large chance of genetically being more like black person B than like white person C) Race does exist, it just isn't an important factor in determining genetic similarity.
Also, in comparison to other species humans are fairly genetically homogenous. (the dog species vs skin/hair difference example was mainly intended to make this rather complicated and abstract subject a bit more understandable)

So you'd find it a better idea to assume something for which no data whatsoever exists? Even when most recent studies point in the exact opposite direction?

If that's the case, I consider it an honour to be considered stupid by the likes of you :1orglaugh

Although you are largely correct, there is one big BUT...

Although we've mapped the human genes, we don't know yet what everything does, and what everything does in combation with eachother.

So, it is theoretically possible that there are functional differences between the races with regards to other things than the obvious. However, assuming that without further proof is ridiculous, and in most cases it's probably more based on ideology than on science. (since science does point in the opposite direction)

dont know. never been. but i would never call anyplace that has as much natural beauty as Africa, a shithole. if it's ruined, people ruined it.

Nice try, but you were yet to point me to any conclusive data. Your claim that because the difference in physical appearances between different races is the result of only small genetic differences, may be valid no doubt. But to than claim that as a result this almost certainly PROVES that intellectually differences are also minor to non-existant is indeed stupid.

I will check out the search results, though I am sure I could find equally convincing articles (by equally 'qualified' people) to support contradictary views. Come to think of it, I already see a contradiction between the human geonome project and the first result shown in Google. What is it .1% difference, or 15%?

I actually did not look at the Google results before posting the Google link, and by no means support any articles or studies it may yield.

However, the .1% vs the 15% should be quite obvious. There is no vs. The .1% refers to changes within the human race, the 15% is 15% of the .1%, not of the whole. 15% actual difference is a lot more than, for instance, the difference between humans and chimps.

I'd have expected even you to pick up on that one.


Also, what you quoted from me is:
"There are a few visible physical differences, but those are genetically extremely small. There is no reason to believe the differences with regards to intelligence should be bigger."

I never said the opposite is true though. At this point, we only have very limited knowledge about the subject. Actually believing anything about it would be stupid.
We can, however, look a likeliness with the limited information we have. And, based on the knowledge we have right now, large differences in intelligence between races are rather unlikely.
Reasons for that are the small differences in other areas (which is enough reason for an educated *guess* about this particular area), but also our current knowledge about genetics (racial difference is very small when compared to individual difference) and iq test results.

I never said anything is "proven" with regards to genetics. We only have "likely" at this point in time. I think I already made that quite clear in my previous posts.

Can your feeble mind comprehend the fact that we do not have conclusive data at this time?

It is a mixture of many things, manly when the colonizers split the lands up, they gave no regard to what tribe lived where, that's why you get big languages like Swahili spoken in many countries. And that's why you get Hutus and Tutsus fighting each other. And ofcourse the caos that came after the countries gained their liberty, were the strongest simply would take power, and stay untill someone else would grow stronger.
It is not because of the colour of the people that live there! Just look at C-America, many Asian countries, and even S-America, Argentina and Chile have had some real disturbing dictatorships, and those countries are mainly populated by white people (as oposed to indigenous people of C-America). And look at the difference between South and North Korea, I mean every home in S-Korea has at least a 2mb internet connection, while people in the norht are litterally starving to death. It has nothing to do with race, and all to do with lack of democracy!

No kidding. And that is what makes people like my Uni lecturer, and you, sound like total dicks.

By the way, for my part I believe that culture, etc plays a more important role in a nations prosperity than race necessarily. However I also believe all this bullshit 'we are totally equal' (without any real proof) is crap.

I said this all along. If you fail to pick up on what is plainly said, that's your problem.

I questioned you in my first post, and you continued along the same line anyway.

So do I. We aren't exactly the same, as is shown quite clearly by the physical differences.

There is even a chance that there are huge differences we don't know about yet, it just isn't very likely. Small differences, however, are very likely.

I've said this all along, you were the one disagreeing with it :2 cents:

My line:
"the likelihood of <b>significant</b> [bold font added now] evolutionary changes and thus differences regarding intelligence is very small"

There are obvious differences we know about, and there are probably differences we don't know about as well.

But - very important - *assuming* or *believing* these differences are much larger than the ones we know about, contradict the early indications of current research and contradict findings of studies like iq tests is foolish.
It could be the case, but with our current knowledge that chance seems small. Small is not the same as non-existant. This is a discussion about likelihood, not certainty.

POVERTY ...
We allow it to continue.
It's our fault.

That's almost embarrassingly simplistic thinking.