Europeans, until a few more centuries ago, had no writing and a similar level of agriculture.
So what?
Given an age of Homo Sapiens of around 300,000 years, all of humanity had no writing and no agriculture for about 98% of its existence. Trying to make a point about “advancement” when you are quibbling over whether groups achieved a particular level after 98% of human history or 99% of human history or even 99.7% of human history when the “less advanced” groups are capable of mastering the same levels of advancement as soon as they are exposed to new technologies is silly and demonstrates an ignorance of history far more than it identifies the intellectual capacities of any group. Based on your attempt at a point, Egyptians are far more advanced than, say Germans, having established a written language over a thousand years prior to those Germans–who never invented such a language, having borrowed theirs from the Romans who borrowed from the Etruscans and Greeks who borrowed from the Phoenicians and so on.
Few peoples or societies invented much in the way of writing, agriculture, or technology. Everyone else stole it or had it thrust upon them. Claiming that a group is less capable because they were more distant than other groups from the actual point of origin of any of those inventions is silly.
The Kingdom of Nubia was a thriving trade empire back when Glorious Rome was still a bunch of sheep fuckers squatting the Capitoline - they even built pyramids before the Egyptians co-opted the idea. The people of Benin built the largest man-made structure on the face of the Earth (before or since. Yes, it even dwarfed the Great Wall of China). Mansa Musa I of Mali was so stinking rich and so generous with his bling, his pilgrimage to Mecca caused a devaluation of gold - it devastated the economy of the entire Middle East for decades. That’s just off the top of my head, and I know next to nothing about African history.
To say you are woefully ignorant of that which you speak is akin to saying the Pacific is large-ish and somewhat wet.
I am only talking brain-wise here: Why is it commonly accepted that schizophrenia, depression, addiction, alcoholism, ADD and sociopathic behavior are genetically based, and can be passed down to offspring. All related to genes. But even though smart parents continue to produce smart children, and marginally intelligent people have barely intelligent offspring, many refuse to accept that intelligence could have anything to do with parentage (genetics).
Excellent straw man. No one here has suggested that intelligence has nothing to do with genetics. But there is no evidence that some populations/races/ethnicities have higher or lower genetic tendencies towards intelligence than others.
Wow, the ease/speed/persistence that highly speculative, race-tinged, genetic deterministic assumptions are disseminated (and held up as fact) in popular culture, shows to me the strong need for some basic regulatory guidelines in the ethics of such claims.
Long story short, back in 2005 twopapers were published by Bruce Lahn’s team that claimed that two variants of microcephalin and ASPM (found predominantly in Eurasian opposed to West African populations) have been “strongly selected” and then made grasping tentative links toward brain function and landmarks of human development (“it possibly drove humans to learn writing, civilization, etc”).
Much like CraterLayer is still doing today, many racialists held this speculative conjure by Lahn as scientific proof specifically for the mental inferiority of the “Black race”. However by 2007 no follow up studies supported the many claims that these variants underwent positiverecent selection nor regulated brain size/intelligence.
But “the damage” can said to already have been done as we can see people still citing the original paper in support of the original speculative claims.
The frequency was found to be low among the Han Chinese, and quite high among the peoples of New Guinea. Do you see how this is a problem for your thesis?
You mean the filthy degenerates who invented trivialities like gunpowder and a thriving bureaucracy with unheard of levels of literacy and social complexity , vs. the luminaries that brought the world the penis gourd?
First of all, this is no longer true-- 50% of Chinese now live in urban areas. How many debunked claims are you going to make before admitting you are mistaken?
Secondly, do you have any evidence that these “Chinese peasants” have less intelligence than their urban cousins?
Also please explain why you think the girl shouldn’t be classified as “white” and the guy shouldn’t be classified as “black” from a biological point of view.
Not that there’s anything wrong with penis gourds. As Jared Diamond points out, New Guineans are exceptionally competent in their environment. Errors in judgement or pattern recognition in the jungles of New Guinea are likely to result in early death.
