I highly recommend the book Guns Germs and Steel by Jared Diamond. Quotes from that web page:
“JD’s main thesis is that” Eurasians domination “occurred not because of racial differences in intelligence, etc. but rather because of environmental differences.”
Uganda seems to have maintained some old traditions despite western imperialism.
…and? Behaviour that society in general frowns on still persists in Western culture too. Look at crimes commited by Pagan Black Metal musicians, for instance, it forms a close analogue. There’s nothing uniquely African about relict behaviours persisting into the 21st C.
The thing Dr Diamond missed is the persistence of that unluckiness for certain groups. The “racial” groups he does not believe have “racial differences in intelligence” have proved remarkably resistant to being brought up to par even when exposed to the same lucky environmental privileges other groups have. Europeans and other invaders made sub-saharan Africa quite productive despite its supposed disease-ridden and geographical disadvantages, and sub-saharan groups have failed to achieve intellectual par despite exposure to more successful cultures. Witness, for example, the economic successes of South Africa under European control, or the lack of success of sub-saharan blacks worldwide in STEM (Science, Technology, Engineering, Math) fields.
Dr Jared’s is a comfortable position that disparate outcomes are entirely the result of historic environmental luck. (For example, he mentions “discovering” agricultural methods as if a lucky European turned over a rock and there it was.) To date his implication that there are no innate differences among successful groups is entirely unsupported by actual facts. Here in the US, for example, self-identified “blacks” whose genetic heritage is perhaps 80 or 90% sub-saharan ancestry underperform self-identified “whites” whose genetic inheritance is 95+% white even when nurturing influences such as parental education and wealth are greater for the self-identified black group.
The modern world requires a deep bench of relatively capable people to create and maintain modern infrastructure, be it transportation, communication, manufacture or whatever. Without that deep bench, progress is utterly dependent on imported expertise–always spotty and inconsistent, and frequently supplied with ulterior motive if not outright rapaciousness.
Consider Mr Mugabe’s dilemma: Continue being dominated by successful white invaders, or turn the farms over to the incompetent. Bummer of a choice.
As we’ve been through before, I’m a black man with a high IQ working in a STEM field.
If someone gave me a farm to run however I think I’d suck at it, so I guess I’m another teh stupid stereotype.
nm
And probably smart enough to know the outlier does not prove the average.
Which is sorta the point of looking at averages, isn’t it?
The problem with discussing the very sensitive topic of genetically-based group differences is the understandable umbrage felt by individual members of a group being categorized as below-average by any parameter.
With specific respect to “race” grouping average intelligences: It’s frequently an observation trumpeted by the stupidest whites as if a group’s average performance somehow applied to any given highly intelligent black individual–or to them, for that matter. For that reason, I don’t see us having a frank discussion of race any time soon.
Can we please please please keep theories of racial intelligence to another thread? This happens to every thread about Africa, and once it does it completely takes over the thread.
Guns Germs and Steel explains why civilization began where it began. What Jared Diamond overlooks, however, is that once civilization begins it exerts different population pressures than a paleolithic existence. For an explanation of those population pressures, and the effect they have had on the continuing process of human evolution, you should read, The 10,000 Year Explosion: How Civilization Accelerated Human Evolution.
That’s difficult to say; I like to think that European hegemony resulted in a pretty clear and lasting good in areas of Africa’s modern society. I say this cuz colonizers always bring in solid infrastructure, trade links, political stability, economic opportunities and what not; however, they can also bring in some grotesque oppression (Congo, Jamaica) and leave long lasting political hang-ups (Israel/Palestine, India/Pakistan).
Theories of racial intelligence are germane to the topic of whether or not Africa benefited from European imperialism.
Leave Living Colour out of this.
They are not relevant, I specifically said they were off-limits in this thread, and I’m sick and tired of every Africa-related thread being hijacked by posts from the two of you (and other users) using those discussions as a platform for your theories on the inherent inferiority of Africans. The evidence is lacking and your persistence has graduated from grating but civil to simlpy irritating. You’re both getting formal warnings for ignoring my previous instruction, and if you keep doing this in other threads, more warnings are likely to follow.
This topic is emphatically off-limits in this thread, pro and con.
That made me laugh (and given the day I’m having, that’s quite the achievement). Thank you.
That’s one fierce witch-doctor!
Now, my friend the witch-doctor, he’s a lot nicer. He told me what to say.
My friend the witch-doctor, he told me what to do.
I know that you’ll be mine when I say this to you:
Ooo eee, ooo ah ah
Ting tang
Walla walla, bing bang
Ooo eee ooo ah ah
Ting tang
Walla walla bing bang…
Ooo eee ,ooo ah ah
Ting tang
Walla walla ,bing bang
Ooo eee ooo ah ah
Ting tang
Walla walla bing bang!
Leaving alternate streams of Imperialism out of it (I mean, if European or Islamic hadn’t happened, the world would be so different it might have been Chinese or Incan Imperialism instead…) I think Africa would *still *have developed more slowly. Not because of Africans, but because of Africa - the old, tired cratons, the diseases, the whole GG&S package. But it would have developed, and I think mostly from North and South towards the centre. The Bantu Nguni originated in the Equatorial regions, but it was in sub-tsetse fly belt South Africa that they flowered.
I think all it would have taken is a slight agricultural shift for them to move into the fertile Southern Cape and Mediterranean Western Cape of South Africa. A switch from their summer rainfall crops to winter rainfall varieties. Something that trade up the E African coast would have brought them, I think. And then, I think they would eventually have developed along more traditional civilization lines - cities, stone buildings, religion, writing, money…all of these the Nguni were well-primed for, or had already dipped their toes into. Look at Shaka - already building an empire, and changing traditional culture in radical ways. Look at Zimbabwe and Mapangubwe.
Hell, S Africa even had some of those much-prized intellectual Jewish genes - *before *European colonisation. There’d have been no stopping them.
Sorry if that was a violation, **Marley **- I meant it much more lighthearted than that, not seriously…
I don’t think it would have even taken that. Even in our original history, the Xhosa were driven west of the Fish by the Mfecane. If the Boers hadn’t been there, I don’t think they would have stopped. The Khoisan wouldn’t have been able to stop them.
That being said, I don’t know if the Mfecane without the Zulu getting corn from the Portuguese, so the process might have been slower.
Checked the cites.
Nice try but no cigar .
Rearrange the the following words into a well known phrase or saying…
Nothing
You’ve
Got
I think that you have a magazine over there that informs us about the truth about U.F.Os and Alanteans and Cleopatria, and Jesus being Black.
I honestly believe that you’re an honest person,who totally believes in what you’ve posted .
Across the continents I say have a good’un.
Good luck.