Why isnt Africa more advanced than white countries?

Islam failed to take over the west as it did much of subsaharan Africa, and colonialism cut short the natural consolidation of power in Africa just at a time when a few kingdoms were about to break out of the pack.

 

Here come's the "you're ignorant I'll ignore you entire post" argument like I said.

BTW, I like how you ignored the difference b/w africans and africans americans in the US. Can't touch it?

 

Please, try being reasonable.

I'm not going to waste my time answering your foolishness nor anyone else's.

 

I'm surprised to see you coming down on that side of the debate, Spiritus.

Of course, despite its unpopularity, it's a reasonable hypothesis. But it's never been proven. For instance, Africans in Africa have IQs near 70, while Americans of African descent have IQs closer to 85. What's the reason for the gap? Genetics? Were only the smart blacks sold into slavery?

Whatever any of us may think, a lot of psychologists have been studying the issue of race and intelligence over a lot of years without getting close to an answer. From what I gather, some studies support a genetic interpretation for intelligence gaps between ethnic groups, while other studies support a more environmental explanation. But it just isn't settled science (like, say global warming, on which there is a clear scientific consensus which people like to ignore).

Honestly I'd be happy to find more input from impartial researchers, but most of the ones I know of are openly conservative racists (like Richard Lynn), or ideologues and frauds (like it appears Stephen Jay Gould was). It's too bad, because people might be able to do something about it if we knew what the cause was. Even a genetic explanation wouldn't need to be a big deal. What if it turned out that African Americans just didn't process Vitamin E very well, and that taking a few vitamins over the lifespan could dramatically increase their IQs?

Still a lot of unknowns.

 

why do white people have lower IQs than Asians ?
why is there not a single world religion invented by a white man ?
why are white Americans not as physically gifted as black ?

 

I may be shooting myself in the foot with this, but from what I have seen, many African-Americans in the United States are not willing to nurture and cultivate their inherent intellectual nature. I'd heard that Stanley "Tookie" Williams, the Crips gang leader executed in California for a murder, was actually a very intelligent man. His talents were wasted first in the streets, and then in a cell of San Quentin's Death Row, and finally extinguished on the gurney of the death chamber.

As much as I dislike her, Oprah Winfrey is an example of an African-American who took her intellect into something that made her much more prosperous.

I think there is a lot of mismanagement of the African continent that could be rectified with responsible investment in their economies to jumpstart the entire continent. I think it is horrible that we have ignored over a billion of our fellow humans behind developmentally.

 

I realize you are trying to be a bit troll-esque in your questions, but frankly, those are pretty good questions. So what's your take on them?

 

Natural harbors. Durban's harbor is I think, the only natural one in sub Saharan Africa. Sure you can dredge and create artificial ones now, but that wasn't an option 2,000 years ago.

 

thank you. on Asian IQ - i think it's a mix of culture and genes. math and science requires left brain being the dominant side, and i would not be surprised if Asians for whatever reason are more prone to it. i also think culturally the Asian culture, especially Chinese, are very homogenous and feel intelligence is their best asset to make up for the physically weaker limits as they are smaller than their European and black counter parts.

as for religion - i think the white man's early religions (Celtic, Germanic, Viking) were too ethnocentric and didn't allow for non-white's to convert. on the other hand, Islam and Christian (although Middle Eastern based) didn't give as much clout to race and ethnicity.

as for black physical abilities - i would say at least American blacks were genetically honed in during slavery as the strong ones were chosen over the weak. but even parts of Africa you do see black men being physically stronger - probably just a result of evolution - same reason tigers are more powerful than bobcats

 

Like I said, there are many exceptions and many many outliers, as our genetics are so diverse and admittedly so similar. But I know that evolution is not random chance - there has to be a reason that the innovators are in Europe and Asia and the people in Africa stayed where they were technologically. I have no actual facts to back this up, just extrapolation and logic.

I'd really like to make clear to everyone I am not racist. I never have been, I attack racists all the time. I don't think anything less of anybody for phenotypes, indeed I judge people solely on character. I would never imply that blacks are dumber than Europeans. To me it has nothing to do with skin colour, nor should it - it has to do with genetic diversity with regards to the way different people live their lives. In fact, there's nothing wrong necessarily with wanting, as the Africans did, to stay where you are and not risk adventure. The problem is their isolation form everyone else and their incompatibility with other human societies. Individual Africans may join Western society but African society, as it stands, is not compatible. In one human lifetime it's impossible to see the trend, but over thousands of years it gradually shows up.

Just to clarify: if you're some African scientist in some lab and you're going to come call me a racist, don't. I'm not talking to you. You're a very valuable member of this species. I'm talking, in general, of the condition that existed and for the most part still exists in Africa (continuance of tribal societies and constant brutal warfare with little technological development outside of that adopted from other human societies) and the possible mentality that causes it.

Again: doesn't have anything to do with skin colour. I may be over-stressing that but people assume that if I critique Africa, I'm racist.

Honestly, objectively speaking, I'm not sure how you can't critique Africa. It's a hellhole for the most part.

 

So you think someone as wise and educated as Thomas Sowell is rejecting hard science then?

 

Once again I recommend "Guns, Germs and Steel, by Jared Diamond. It is a very good overview of that specific issue and he reaches a very different conclusion- but if you are curious you will find his premise intriguing.

The short answer is geography. But read the book and make up your own mind whether it makes sense to you.

 

I tend to take the side of nature as opposed to nurture, as it were (though not completely). Regardless of where you are, if you weren't a risk-taking cave man, you wouldn't bother seeing what's over that hill in the distance if you think there's significant risk to it. But the adventurous type would.

I really think genetics plays far more of a role in everything we do than we're normally aware of.

 

Like I said- read the book- even if you disagree with his conclusions- his exploration of the idea should open your eyes to things you weren't aware of- certainly did for me.

 

Agree with you genetics no doubt plays a significant role, the geography thing is a load of rubbish. There were many empire around the world before the west got on board that wagon. Niall Ferguson explains his 6 killer apps as to why in the following vid and debunks geography. The reason these apps come into existence is intelligence allows for it via the culture, its inventions (yes including weapons) ect - logic, reason, laws and fair trade rise to the top with intelligence.

[video=youtube;xpnFeyMGUs8]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xpnFeyMGUs8[/video]

 

I don't really care if you're racist or not. It sounds like you are invoking a genetic explanation for disparities between racial groups. This is something I could believe, but hasn't been made clear. You can't just hop over to Google Scholar and settle it by reading the latest research.

We do know that African Americans average around 85 on IQ tests normed to place white Americans at 100. We also know that test bias isn't an issue , since culture free tests asking questions about lines and dots still show the same gaps. Similar tests given to other groups worldwide give some Asians higher than whites (I recall the Japanese scoring around 105) and Africans in Africa scoring very low. The question, of course, is why, and whether anything can (or should) be done to ameliorate the gaps.

Uh, no. Do you want me to quote the part of my post you quoted in your response to show why what you said makes no sense?

I don't really know why you're responding to me, but OK, I'll bite.

First of all, I think it bears mentioning that Africa isn't just a monolithic thing; Egypt was quite the civilization in its heyday. And if you look at various indicators, like, say, life expectancy, you see they vary a lot between African countries. Here's a false color map of life expectancies worldwide from wikipedia:



You can see Libya's got a life expectancy better than Eastern Europe or Asia (75+ years) and Egypt isn't too bad either (70+ years). Meanwhile Angola shows up with an average life expectancy less than 40 years. So that makes it somewhat difficult to talk about Africa all together and all at once. Presumably what people in this thread are talking about is "all of Africa south of the Sahara."

But to address your post more directly, In the past fifty years, more than $1 trillion in development-related aid has been transferred from rich countries to Africa. Nobody is ignoring Africa, and the global community has gone to great lengths trying to improve Africa. It hasn't worked. What is needed more than anything is a clear understanding of the problem. There's no way anything is going to be solved without that. Unfortunately, I don't think we have it yet.

Oh, the pain. Yes, by all means, read Guns, Germs, and Steel. There you will find out how New Guineans are smarter than Westerners (except that they aren't), and how the African animals are impossible to domesticate (except that the Indians domesticated Elephants, except that ostriches are today farmed all over South Africa, and except that the Africans had cattle for so long that many East Africans evolved lactose tolerance).

Now, these objections don't totally kill Jarred Diamond's theory. But anyone who has read it should wonder why, after generations of contact with advanced civilizations, many nations in Africa continue to flounder - or why African Americans don't do as well as White Americans. Guns, Germs, and Steel just doesn't explain that.

 

Much to our surprise, the reason why Greeks did not show a close relatedness with all the other Mediterraneans analyzed (Tables 5, 6 and Figs 1–3) was their genetic relationship with sub-Saharan ethnic groups now residing in Ethiopia, Sudan and West Africa (Burkina-Fasso). Although some Greek DRB1 alleles are not completely specific of the Greek/sub-Saharan sharing, the list of alleles (Table 5) is self-explanatory. The conclusion is that part of the Greek genetic pool may be sub-Saharan and that the admixture has occurred at an uncertain but ancient time.



The origin of the West African Black ethnic groups (Fulani, Mossi and Rimaibe sampled in Burkina-Fasso) is probably Ethiopian (26, 27) (Fig. 4). The Fulani are semi-nomadic hunters and gatherers and one of the few people in the area to use cows’ milk and its byproducts to feed themselves and to trade; their facial parameters show a Caucasian admixture. The Rimaibe Blacks have been slaves belonging to the Fulani and have frequently mixed with them (27). The Nuba people are now widespread all over Sudan, but are descendants of the ancient Nubians that ruled Egypt between 8th–7th centuries B.C. and later established their kingdom at Meroe, North Khartoum. Two kinds of Nubians were described in ancient times: Reds and Blacks, probably reflecting the degree of Caucasian admixture. Both the Oromo and Amharic peoples live in the Ethiopian mountains (27). They obviously have in common a genetic background with the west-African groups mentioned above. Linguistic, social, traditional and historical evidence supports an east-to-west migration of peoples through the Sahel (southern Sahara strip), although this is still debated (26, 27).

Thus, it is hypothesized that there could have been a migration from southern Sahara which mixed with ancient Greeks to give rise to a part of the present day Greek genetic background. The admixture must have occurred in the Aegean Islands and Athens area at least (Figs 1 and 2). on why this admixture is not seen in Crete is unclear but may be related to the influential and strong Minoan empire which hindered foreigners establishment (10). Also, the time when admixture occurred could be after the overthrown of some of the Negroid Egyptian dynasties (Nubian or from other periods) or after undetermined natural catastrophes (i.e.: dryness). Indeed, ancient Greeks believed that their religion and culture came from Egypt (4, 25).

http://www.makedonika.org/processpaid.aspcontentid=ti.2001.pdf

 

I agree with you wholeheartedly. Saharan Africa is indeed, well on its way toward democracy. The Arab Spring started in Saharan Africa, after all, and has had the most success there. Egypt is widely considered the cultural capital of the Arab world.

I will admit to the mea maxima culpa. Right after I had posted my response, a friend of mine reminded me that some people from the African continent balk at being considered "African" and they prefer to be addressed as "Nigerian", "Chadian", "Kenyan", or "Burkinabe".

Westerners have little understanding of what life is like in Sub-Saharan Africa, just like Europeans didn't have an appreciation for the cultures of the Native Americans. During the scramble for Africa and then the decolonization that peaked in the 1960s, a great disservice was placed on the people of Sub-Saharan Africa. Peoples were grouped together based on geopolitical terms instead of sociopolitical terms. If the colonial powers-that-were had an understanding of the differing societies, then they would have likely gerrymandered together countries based upon tribal lines which would have lessened some of the civil warfare that rocked the continent for decades.

I agree. Hell, we can start throwing money toward developing a warp drive for a spaceship, but until we understand what the hell we're doing, it'll be a money-pit. Same thing with Africa.

I will certainly have to do some serious studying on this topic once I finish other projects, especially since one of my novel ideas revolve around African geopolitics.

 

Don't waste your time. It's a liberal wet-dream book that explains the reason for white supremacy is because we carried sickness wherever we went due to being in close proximity with domesticated animals, and thus wiped out poor indigenous populations with our diseases and rifles.

It's basically just another Marxist driven attempt to explain the differences in civilization without having to bring up genetic possibilities.
It also doesn't bring into the equation culture or political structures at all.

I think they made a PBS documentary about it that you can suffer through in an hour if you're curious.

 

Well in Diamond's defense- he doesn't claim that New Guineans are smarter- but he points out that essentially all humans are smart. And his point about domesticated animals is that most animals are not compatable with domestication- and that very, very few new species of animals have been domesticated in the last two hundred years despite the advances of our technology. Diamond addresses the issue of elephants and domestication- pointing out something that I didn't realize- that domesticated elephants are essentially all wild born, and captured in the wild.

Unlike cattle or horse or dogs, elephants have never been bred to domesticity- they are captured and domesticated.

Anyway- agree or disagree- Diamond's point is that the core domesticated animals of human civilization- cow, horse, sheep, goat, donkey etc were along the Euro-Asian axis- and that other areas- such as the America's and Sub-Saharan Africa- and Australia- had a much more limited range of stock options to develop. Its an intriguing argument- and perhaps he is not correct, but I haven't heard a better argument yet.

Correct- Diamond's 'grand theory' pretty much ends with the age of exploration- and doesnt' explore the ramifications of colonization or slavery. Why certain nations have flourished in the last 200 years while others haven't.

As I suggested to the OP- read more books- Diamond's is just one of many but it is a good place to start- and Diamond's book is more specifically addressing the OP's question than any other I have seen.

- - - Updated - - -

Well that is the viewpoint of some of Diamond's more biased opponents.

 

Ah, you're a novelist? If it's about Africa it's probably on topic; what's your book about?

 

Yup.

Biased.

Meaning his entire work is tainted by the stink of agenda.

 

I will bite. What is your alternative and counter explanation.

And seriously- what is possibly 'Marxist' about anything Diamond said?

 

The fact is you aren't going to get any books on race with any meaning in a nation whose elite pride itself on diversity above all other things.
Someone might be offended.

So instead we get people inventing crack pot theories meant to avoid offending anyone first and foremost. An honest book about race, civilization and genetics has about as much hope in America as would an amnesty bill for 20 million Mexican nationals in Nazi Germany.

- - - Updated - - -

Don't have time tonight. Tomorrow sure.