holmes didn’t claim it was. Are you going to answer the questions he/she asked, though?
Yes what are the differences between Europeans and Africans, be sure to list them all.
Diamond here’s a link to a lecture that Diamond gives, that explains my “hypothesis” way better than i can, since I am no expert. Once you read it, if you do we can discuss. If you choose not to, then there we go.
And please note, I have claimed there were multiple reasons for the difference, not just geographic.
Also note, it is not up to me to assess you “hypothesis”, it is up to you to defend with citations or logic and if you are unable to, to withdraw it.
So far you have done neither.
I can also assume that since there will be similarities, you will tell us which differences negate the similarities and how that affects the outcome of the results.
Right?
Ah, I’ll toss ya a bone…
BTW, brazil, you have a present chance to defend your honour.
I think it is clear that the sub-saharan nations have all been exploited, heavily, by the colonizing powers. in most cases (except for South Africa), very little of the wealth extracted ever came back. take the case of the Belgian Congo (now Zaire?). The Belgians built railroads and highways, but only to allow the transport of ores, raw materials, etc., out of the country. So what use was a road connected a port with a mine-only good for one thing. Beyond this, they never built any infrastructure. So travel in Africa is difficult and expensive. tha alone makes for a low-functioning economy.
I’d just like to say - the default assumption seems to be that Africa is some sort of unique hellhole, but AFAIK, South/Central America and parts of Asia aren’t that much better off.
They can be, just as Protestantism and Catholicism function as ethnicities in Northern Ireland, or Islam and Hinduism function as ethnicities in India.
Not only that but apparently under Leopold about half the population (~10 mil) was decimated, I wonder if Cesar’s rule over England was that cruel.
And I agree with this. The big difference is that in the last 20 years and especially in the last 10 years, Latin America and Asia have been trending upwards, while Africa is trending flat. So the handwringing over “What’s wrong with Africa!?” is a couple wrings overwrought.
By the inexorable laws of logic one continent has to have the worst record of economic development, and just now it happens to be Africa.
The critical difference (for purposes of my hypothesis) is that the people of sub-Saharan Africa are (generally speaking) less intelligent on average than the people of Europe.
I am aware of that, but I prefer to assess your hypothesis one reason at a time. Unless you are claiming that all the factors have little or no effect alone, that it’s some kind of synergy at work?
And it’s not up to me to assess yours. However I find it interesting to do so.
I am happy to outline later in a little more detail why I believe that my hypothesis is correct. After that, if you want to challenge it in a reasonable fashion, I will try to respond to your challenge. (Or concede, if appropriate.)
Interesting and you consider that statement to be a valid hypothesis? So then if I had responded to your question, as to what the difference was between sub-saharan Africa and Europe geographically, with the statement, “Sub-Saharan Africa was (generally speaking) of a warmer climate than Europe”; you would have accepted that as a valid discussion point?
Just trying to pinpoint the level of discussion you are going to engage in…because IMO you are at a pretty low level and I have no desire to waste bandwidth.
Absolutely.
If you feel it’s a waste of your time, please feel free to leave the discussion. I’m taking part because I find it interesting.
Except you’re not taking part in any meaningful way.
That’s nonsense, and ironic, since your only contribution to this thread is to basically invite me to engage in a meta-debate. Sorry, but I decline your invitation. I’m interested in discussing the issue raised by the original poster.
Because people do not do the things that make it possible to change their bad situations- in part because of culture, in part because repressive and unpopular leaders are propped up with foreign arms. So things just ferment and build up pressure instead of changing. It’s only when people clearly can see no future for themselves- when they can’t find ANY work, when they can’t get food- that change happens. And by then it is too late for peaceful change.
The young urban men, who are the most affected by these bad situations because they rely on work (as opposed to small-scale farming and the support of family) to live. So they are the ones that get upset. And when you have a bunch of hungry, hopeless young men, you get war.
IMHO “tribal differences” are exaggerated in our imagination. Yes, there are tribal tension throughout Africa. But these are largely just a cover for economic tensions. One area is more prosperous than another or has more representation in the government, and people get upset. Hell, this is the premise for every civil war.
I mean, we could think about the North and the South in the US Civil War as a matter of “tribal tension.” One side hates the other because they have a different way of life, different location, different economic system and different set of values. We don’t, because we have no desire to paint Americans as irrational savages. And yet when we look at any number of wars in Africa that have basically the same premises, we call it tribal warfare.
There are some parallels:
-WV is a resource rich, poor state
-the mineral wealth is extracted and leaves the state
-the infrastructure is poor
-the state is saddled with corrupt, self-serving politicians
-high infant and elderly mortality
-an upper class that exploits the poor
We “know” no such thing. We have never adequately defined intelligence. We have never demonstrated that “measuring” it is anything more than the imposition of particular cultural prejudices (both within and between cultures). There is every bit as much agreement on an understanding of “God” as there is on claims regarding intelligence.
Why? So that you can engage in your standard game? Not worth the time.
In fact, I seriously considered giving you a Warning for this nonsense. For now I’ll let it pass.
Key differences:
[ul]
[li]WV has basic infrastructure that allows for commerce (electricity, water, roadways, stores)[/li][li]WV does not have foreign powers giving heavy arms to the rebel group de jour[/li][li]WV has a functioning education system that is not modeled on an obsolete colonial model[/li][li]WV’s doctors, scholars, scientists, teachers and thinkers do not uniformly flee the place[/li][li]WV has systems that allow private enterprise- reasonable and understandable tax laws, a straight forward permit system, etc.[/li][li]WV safeguards private property. You generally cannot expect a government official to seize your business arbitrarily, and houses have deeds that can be enforced by courts[/li][li]WV does not have a large number of endemic diseases (malaria, TB, extreme AIDS rates) that sap the strength of it’s most productive workers[/li][/ul]
Another aspect of Sub-Saharan Africa’s geography that hasn’t been specifically mentioned here yet is that much of its climate is unstable in a way that the more temperate regions of Europe and North America are not. Droughts and flooding make for poor agriculture if they can’t be reliably predicted. These people had much less incentive to change over from a nomadic hunter-gatherer lifestyle to an agricultural one than inhabitants of temperate zones. And thus far, agriculture has generally been seen as a sine qua non for technological development.
One thing that puzzles me, though. There was plenty of commerce between the Mediterranean region and Sub-Saharan Africa, dating quite far back. I would have thought that any climate that could support zebras could also support horses, although I could be wrong about that, of course. Why weren’t domestic horses brought back? Or camels?