I would guess that many or most countries of 19th century Europe were not basket cases the way that many African nations are today.
And so?
19th Century Europe was different than 19th Century Africa, and 21st Century Europe is different than 21st Century Africa.
You’re the one claiming that Africa would be doing just as well as Europe, if it wasn’t for the problem that black people are stupid.
The point is that if the “tribalism” hypothesis were correct, it would follow that one would expect other “tribalistic” areas to be basket cases like most of the countries in sub-Saharan Africa.
If it’s really true that pre-War Europe was “tribalistic,” one would expect it to be full of basket cases like sub-Saharan Africa is today. (Assuming that the “tribalism” hypothesis is correct). Apparently it was not, which casts doubt on the “tribalism” hypothesis.
No one claimed (or at least I didn’t) tribalism was the sole reason behind all of Africa’s ills. Taking into account geography (and ecology), history (and slavery), economics, politics and tribalism, one can only begin to discuss what has made Sub-Saharan Africa what it is today. Tribalism has become a big part of it and what distinguishes it from other developing regions, but it’s definitely not all of it. No one thing (e.g ‘cuz they dum’) can be solely responsible. History does not exist in a vacuum etc etc.
So what exactly is your hypothesis?
Sure, but it’s possible that one thing is the main or primary reason.
If I have a choice between a simple explanation which fits the facts and a complex explanation, full of ad hoc assumptions and explanations, I’m inclined to go with the simple explanation, even if it’s offensive. Occam and all that, ya know.
However, you have no simple explanation that fits any facts.
You are simply playing ankle-biter to anyone who does not swallow your baited suggestion, (based, as it is, on ad hoc assumptions and explanations).
i know it’s complex and all that, but perhaps you need to understand when and how to apply the razor.
The problem is that the competing theories are not equal. They are not equal because of history, and science, nor even the razor that you misuse.
Africa suffers from a different geography, than Europe. Fact
Africa’s geography, it’s ecosystem didn’t allow for the variety of livestock that Europe had. Fact
Africa suffered a brutal slave trade, which for the first time created slaves basesd solely of the color of their skin and whose slavery status was permament and passed from mother to child. Fact
Those three events alone are unique to Africa. The only country close to that, was South America and they got wiped out by disease before they could be made a slave class.
Your answer to those events which are facts, which are by their nature complex, but are facts none-the-less; is to handwave them away and decide that Africans are dumb.
Why is that?
Perhaps we should apply the razor to you?
No, that’s not quite how things work. You actually have to provide evidence for why you say Africans have lower intelligence.
Neither of the bits I’ve bolded have been shown to be true by you.
Occam’s razor is a guideline to decision making, and not universal law as to truth. Sometimes the explanation is complex. Sometimes you don’t have all the facts.
I think there are a few major factors.
- Colonialism- This is not just history. In Cameroon, the last major opposition candidate was assassinated in the Brussels airport by the French secret service (this was admitted in the autobiography of a high level French politician.) The last time there was a democracy movement, France shipped 40,000 rounds of ammo to the president. Now on a daily basis you see 40 truck conveys of military equipment headed to Chad. And the stuff they’ve done in places like the Central African Republic are even more clearly wrong.
The west has a very real hand in political power in Africa, and while they themselves are not the corrupt leaders, they are the ones that arm them and provide them with a nice place to live out their exile when they feel like they’ve taken enough. In exchange, we get cheap access to natural resources (it’s just a shame this money goes directly into dictator’s pockets and arsenals.)
Of course, all of this gets translated into “why can’t those black people stop killing each other” in our media.
- A culture that respects authority, conformity, and stability to a great degree- Where I was there was a very strict social hierarchy and it was well respected even when everyone knew that the people in charge were doing bad things. Critical thinking, questioning authority and change were not highly valued. I think this attitude leads to a lot of acceptance of bad leaders and a “wait and see” attitude even when things do get so bad.
Then why have there been so many post-colonial civil wars and revolutions in Africa?
Sure I do. The hypothesis that I advanced earlier in this thread. It’s simple and fits the facts very well.
I think that’s due to generally weak central governments of states that are consisting of strong ethnic and religious demographic differences.
This leads you to respect “your own leaders” regardless of their suitability or work. Of course inside these diverse states “your own leaders” are often not those of the different ethnic/religious group.
Quite often there is a lot of bad blood and history (often very recent) between these groups.
And perhaps you do too.
Not at all. My answer to is consider the hypothesis in an objective way. For example, you claim that the geography of sub-Saharan Africa is different than that of Europe and that this is partly responsible for the situation there.
Well, exactly how is it different? And are there any other places which have a similar (or worse) geography? And if so, do those places suffer from similar problems?
That’s the way to evaluate your hypothesis. Not hand-waving, but objective analysis.
Post #21? Please expand on that. Are you talking about genetic or environmental factors?
N.B.: People in underdeveloped countries tend to be less intelligent, at least by IQ measure FWIW, than people in developed countries – and the difference tends to disappear as a country develops and there is better sanitation, nutrition, health care and education; several countries have increased average measured IQ by a standard deviation since WWII, and not because of any change in the gene-pool. See The Bell Curve Wars.
I didn’t say anything about that, since it’s not necessary to decide that question for my hypothesis. If I had to guess, I would say it’s probably a little bit of both.
Your hypothesis is “simple” in the manner of the Creationist declaration that “God did it.” (A declaration that is–like your proposal–actually not simple at all.)
It also fails to “fit the facts” inasmuch as there are different levels of success throughout the region (often in adjacent states) so your “hypothesis” needs to be sufficiently complex to explain why the intelligence differs in a crazy quilt manner across the continent.
I disagree. The concept of “God” postulates an additional, complex entity. On the other hand, we already know that there’s something called “intelligence” out there, which can be roughly measured with tests.
Can you give me some specifics about different countries and different levels of success?
Interesting, then I can assume you are willing and able to explain exactly and in which ways Africans differ from Europeans that have caused such a difference.
Is it brain size? Is it how information is retained? Is is lack of proper nutritrion? Is too much sun? What exactly is the biological difference between the two groups.
You can tell me that right? The exact reason, down to last strand of DNA, yes?
Because your questions, have already been answered. It’s your turn.
This has been addressed in this thread.
This has also been addressed in this thread.
And this
Which you seem to have completely skipped over.
It’s an interesting question, but it’s not analagous to the question I asked you. I am not asking you what geological processes created the geographic differences you claim exist between Africa and Europe. I’m asking you what those differences are.
And feel free to assess my hypothesis in the same way I proposed assessing yours. For example, you could look at groups of people with low average intelligence who are living outside of Africa. Are they suffering from similar problems to those in many sub-Saharan African nations?