Warning

 

Close

Confirm Action

Are you sure you wish to do this?

Confirm Cancel
Member Login

Site Notices
Posted: 5/18/2005 9:21:45 PM EDT
[Last Edit: 5/18/2005 9:22:10 PM EDT by M4]
Lets start this with the disclaimer that slavery is bad. Let me also point out that I am simply asking a question here based on a few observations.

There's a lot of evidence to suggest, beyond a reasonable doubt, one of, if not the earliest location of early human beings was on the continent of Africa. Fossil records support this, clearly. If nothing else, Africa was populated at least as early as anywhere else.

Some migrated north, in to Europe, and populations evolved, over many, many years in to people that look like most modern Europeans do today. This evolution took place over tens of thousands of years.

Given the fact that we know, bear minimum, Africa and Europe had populations existing in their respective locations at the same time.

Each population had the same basic needs, outside of any cultural considerations. Food, shelter, child mortality rates, security. These things are important to every group of people, and have absolutely no reflection on cultural considerations. All populations need food, shelter, want healthy children to keep the societies going and want security in the likely event of conflict.

Ok, so here's the question:

By the 1500's, when the African slave trade was in full swing, how do you explain the differences between the forces brought to bear on the African populations by the Europeans...and the Africans complete inability to match that in even the slightest way to prevent being enslaved?

While the Europeans, in their own populations, knew how to seperate metals from rock, made very advanced weapons and tools, had a vast knowlege of sailing & maritime navigation, made textiles, produced medicines, domesticated livestock for food, farmed crops, built huge castles, understood tides, stars, math and a whole miriad of other impressive tools and contributions to their own success. It's a very long list...but you get the idea.

While on the other hand, Africans, who had been in their respective location for at least as long, were chasing dinner throught the jungles, wondering around the wilds for vegetatation to eat, used very primative weapons and tools, knew nothing of textiles, wore animal skins, had no clue what was going on beyond the visual range of their own shores. Again, the list of what they didn't have is very long...but you get the idea.

Two populations, with the same basic needs. Both lived in each location far at least the same amount of time. One was vastly more advanced, while the other struggled on every level. Their basic needs being the same. Food, shelter, security and general health.

Why the incredible disparity between them?

(Here's a hint - Look at these two groups back then and all the way through today. See any narrowing of the gap?)
Link Posted: 5/18/2005 9:30:29 PM EDT
Temperate climates do better than jungles and deserts for economics. North Africa in its Muslim heydey were great economic and educational centers probably an exception. You have exceptions like Manaus in the amazon and Las Vegas in the desert....
Link Posted: 5/18/2005 9:34:28 PM EDT

Originally Posted By cobra-ak:
Temperate climates do better than jungles and deserts for economics. North Africa in its Muslim heydey were great economic and educational centers probably an exception. You have exceptions like Manaus in the amazon and Las Vegas in the desert....



Just does not come close to addressing the gap I talked about that reached every facet of life. Framing and agriculture were not precluded my climate nor resources in either location. That's just one of many examples.
Link Posted: 5/18/2005 9:34:36 PM EDT
[Last Edit: 5/18/2005 9:36:11 PM EDT by slash-5]
A couple of popular theories (not that I necessarily agree...):

1) Cultures with more pronounced seasons must learn to store for the winter. This leads to an agricultural community as opposed to a hunter-gatherer type of community. Plus, very little of Africa lends itself to real farming as practiced by the Europeans.
2)In addition, winter provides a lot of time to "tinker" with stuff. This can be directly linked to many advancements.
3) It is a controversial, but proven fact that Africans have a lower IQ than Europeans. that being said, it is also true that Middle Easterners/Asians have the highest. Figure that one out.
4) Priorities of culture. European culture values progression, conquest and advancement. African culture values family, and tradition. One leads natually to inventions, the other leads to consistancy.

There ya go.
Link Posted: 5/18/2005 9:35:39 PM EDT
Trade routes. There are good trade routes from the mediterranean basin through the middle east, india, and on to China. Knowledge and technology can go along those trade routes. Thus its not an Africa/Europe thing. In the classical period Carthage (Africa) was every bit the city state that Sparta or Corinth was.

Oh, and the other cause is Christianity, but we wouldn' t want to mention that, might set off the usual shouting match.
Link Posted: 5/18/2005 9:35:53 PM EDT
The answer to the question is "Giant Squid"

Link Posted: 5/18/2005 9:37:31 PM EDT
Pelican...would make CCW easy.
Link Posted: 5/18/2005 9:38:12 PM EDT
[Last Edit: 5/18/2005 9:55:02 PM EDT by M4]
Pssst...here's a hint.



ETA: New graphic since the hysterics (MallNinja ) started sooner than expected. Draw your own conclusions.
Link Posted: 5/18/2005 9:40:39 PM EDT
So you're here to push Stormfront talking points?

It's been a while since the boys and I DDoS'd stormfront and co..
Link Posted: 5/18/2005 9:42:04 PM EDT

Originally Posted By MallNinjaMuzzleflash:
So you're here to push Stormfront talking points?

It's been a while since the boys and I DDoS'd stormfront and co..



Yeah nooob.....you got it. Bullseye.
Link Posted: 5/18/2005 9:42:55 PM EDT
Scuse me for not spending months and months on this website. Carry on!
Link Posted: 5/18/2005 9:43:46 PM EDT

Originally Posted By MallNinjaMuzzleflash:
Scuse me for not spending months and months on this website. Carry on!



Hell, for that matter, why spend another minute?

Link Posted: 5/18/2005 9:49:18 PM EDT

Originally Posted By M4:
Pssst...here's a hint.

library.thinkquest.org/26070/media/eng/231.gif





Uhm - so are you asking a question, or providing an answer?


You might find the book "Guns, Germs and Steel" (or something like that) interesting. It deals exactly with questions like that - and relates the answers to things like the variety of cultivable grains, domesticable animals, etc. Interesting reading.

Another possible point is that harsh winters creates stronger evolutionary pressure to select for intelligence as a survival trait. It's a lot harder to survive in Northern Europe than it is in warmer climates. However - when you;re busy trying to survive a tough winter, there's also less time to developed mathetmatics, astronomy, complex legal codes, etc - so that might be a wash.


My theory is that Denmark is in the ideal eveolutionary location. Danes are the most intelligent and advances Homo Sapiens around - but they are also quite lazy, and so didn't bother with aquaducts and astronomy and philosophy.
Link Posted: 5/18/2005 9:57:57 PM EDT
[Last Edit: 5/18/2005 10:00:07 PM EDT by M4]

Originally Posted By DK-Prof:

Originally Posted By M4:
Pssst...here's a hint.

library.thinkquest.org/26070/media/eng/231.gif





Uhm - so are you asking a question, or providing an answer?




Mostly asking.

Though I do agree there are a big amount of variables unique to each population, that, to me, doesn't come close to accounting for the HUGE gap. Each should excel at something. When one doesn't excel at all....it's more than the sum of a few environmental variables.

Remember, food, shelter, security & health. Vital to both. It would appear, even with a casual glance that one group excelled in all these areas, while the other excelled at none....despite being essential to each.
Link Posted: 5/18/2005 9:58:40 PM EDT

Originally Posted By M4:

Originally Posted By DK-Prof:

Originally Posted By M4:
Pssst...here's a hint.

library.thinkquest.org/26070/media/eng/231.gif





Uhm - so are you asking a question, or providing an answer?




Mostly asking.

Though I do agree there are a big amount of variables unique to each population, that, to me, doesn't come close to accounting for the HUGE gap. Each should excel at something. When one doesn't excel at all....it's more than the sum of a few environmental variables.



Roses are red
Violets are blue
Shut the fuck up
You fucking stormfront goose stepper
Link Posted: 5/18/2005 10:02:06 PM EDT

Originally Posted By M4:

Originally Posted By DK-Prof:

Originally Posted By M4:
Pssst...here's a hint.

library.thinkquest.org/26070/media/eng/231.gif





Uhm - so are you asking a question, or providing an answer?




Mostly asking.

Though I do agree there are a big amount of variables unique to each population, that, to me, doesn't come close to accounting for the HUGE gap. Each should excel at something. When one doesn't excel at all....it's more than the sum of a few environmental variables.



It's more complicated that just a few environmental variables (at least the argument in "Guns, Germs and Steel"). Seriously - i'd recommend it. It's an interesting read, and while I am not convinced by all the conclusions, I found many of the arguemnts very plausible and through-provoking. Essentially, the question posed in the book is "WHY was it Europeans who discovered and spanked the South Armericans, and not the other way around?" - so it's not quite focused on the Africa vs. Europe question, but it DOES also address some of those issues (like grains and animals, etc).

Link Posted: 5/18/2005 10:02:28 PM EDT
[Last Edit: 5/18/2005 10:04:40 PM EDT by M4]

Originally Posted By MallNinjaMuzzleflash:
Roses are red
Violets are blue
Shut the fuck up
You fucking stormfront goose stepper



Translation: My intellectual rope in this long <--->, and once again, I've reached the end...so....I'll attempt to distract from the total absence of content in my post by adding 1 part hysteria, 2 parts moron.


M4:
Don't forget a dash of shut the fuck up noob!

Link Posted: 5/18/2005 10:02:53 PM EDT

Originally Posted By MallNinjaMuzzleflash:
Roses are red
Violets are blue
Shut the fuck up
You fucking stormfront goose stepper



Here's a hint: You have no idea what's going on here. You are not a mod. You are not going to be a mod. You are not even going to be a member terribly long. The quieter you are, the longer you;ll last.
Link Posted: 5/18/2005 10:04:10 PM EDT
I you're really interested in this subject I suggest the book "Guns, Germs and Steel." Excellent book that addresses this very issue. Much of it has to with the groups of plants and animals native to the area which were suitable for domestication at the early stages, as well as the suitability to use domesticated plants and animals from other regions. It's a long book and will provide almost all the answers you need.
Link Posted: 5/18/2005 10:04:12 PM EDT
[Last Edit: 5/18/2005 10:04:40 PM EDT by MallNinjaMuzzleflash]
Jesus christ, if I were a racist or a "white seperatist" or whatever buzzword is in fashion today at least I'd have a pair about it.
Link Posted: 5/18/2005 10:05:05 PM EDT

Originally Posted By DK-Prof:

It's more complicated that just a few environmental variables (at least the argument in "Guns, Germs and Steel"). Seriously - i'd recommend it. It's an interesting read, and while I am not convinced by all the conclusions, I found many of the arguemnts very plausible and through-provoking. Essentially, the question posed in the book is "WHY was it Europeans who discovered and spanked the South Armericans, and not the other way around?" - so it's not quite focused on the Africa vs. Europe question, but it DOES also address some of those issues (like grains and animals, etc).




I read lots of history, but I could not stay awake long enough to get 100 pages into that book. I keep hoing that I'll run across a review somewhere that encapsulates the thesis and cionclusion. I can probably fill in the facts and reasoning, but 2 or 3 tries convinced me that that guy wasn;t writing for me.
Link Posted: 5/18/2005 10:06:06 PM EDT

Originally Posted By MallNinjaMuzzleflash:
...




Just give it a rest already. Nobody is impressed by your antics.



Plus - your behavior in another thread tonight pretty much mark YOU as a troll. So instead of harassing others (and violating the CoC), why don't you relax. Free advice.

Link Posted: 5/18/2005 10:07:18 PM EDT

Originally Posted By MallNinjaMuzzleflash:
Jesus christ, if I were a racist or a "white seperatist" or whatever buzzword is in fashion today at least I'd have a pair about it.



I doubt that. You're clearly an ill-informed twit, but you show no pride in that classification. Hell, you probably won't even admit to being an ignorant troll. Why would you behave differently about being a racist?
Link Posted: 5/18/2005 10:08:41 PM EDT
Ok, ok, wait- I'll play nice!

So, you post a picture of a bunch of protohumans with small brains compared to a large brained homo sapiens (with the exception of neanderthal man who had slightly larger braincase capacity).

You seem to be pushing the point that there is some other issue at stake than cultural or geographical location. You also say the hysterics started 'sooner than usual' so you expected people to react in some way (so who's trolling?).. soo..

What's your point? What are you trying to prove? :D :D
Link Posted: 5/18/2005 10:09:27 PM EDT
Link Posted: 5/18/2005 10:11:45 PM EDT
[Last Edit: 5/18/2005 10:14:30 PM EDT by M4]

Originally Posted By sherrick13:

Originally Posted By slash-5:
A couple of popular theories (not that I necessarily agree...):

1) Cultures with more pronounced seasons must learn to store for the winter. This leads to an agricultural community as opposed to a hunter-gatherer type of community. Plus, very little of Africa lends itself to real farming as practiced by the Europeans.
2)In addition, winter provides a lot of time to "tinker" with stuff. This can be directly linked to many advancements.
3) It is a controversial, but proven fact that Africans have a lower IQ than Europeans. that being said, it is also true that Middle Easterners/Asians have the highest. Figure that one out.
4) Priorities of culture. European culture values progression, conquest and advancement. African culture values family, and tradition. One leads natually to inventions, the other leads to consistancy.

There ya go.



Number 4, it's all about culture.



So security is a cultural thing? Health of your people? Being common to every culture...certainly the ones mentioned here, neither is culturally relivant. It's a matter of survival, plain and simple and equally vital to both.
Link Posted: 5/18/2005 10:12:33 PM EDT

Originally Posted By M4:

So security is a cultural thing? Health of your people?



I don't understand this post.
Link Posted: 5/18/2005 10:15:45 PM EDT

Originally Posted By FLAL1A:

Originally Posted By M4:

So security is a cultural thing? Health of your people?



I don't understand this post.



Yes you do...

Next he will break out his hood and cross.
Link Posted: 5/18/2005 10:16:31 PM EDT

Originally Posted By FLAL1A:

Originally Posted By M4:

So security is a cultural thing? Health of your people?



I don't understand this post.



The quote that came from was addressing a post that identified "cultural variables" as the main reason.

Health of a population and the security of a population are matters of survival, neither culturally unique. Thus a "cultural differences" don't explain the differences in these areas between Africans and Europeans.
Link Posted: 5/18/2005 10:18:15 PM EDT
[Last Edit: 5/18/2005 10:18:54 PM EDT by M4]

Originally Posted By Max_Mike:

Originally Posted By FLAL1A:

Originally Posted By M4:

So security is a cultural thing? Health of your people?



I don't understand this post.



Yes you do...

Next he will break out his hood and cross.



Did I miss the notice on the home page that tonight was Hysterical Lunatics from Tennessee Night?
Link Posted: 5/18/2005 10:19:56 PM EDT
Don't let anyone distract you. Please, continue!
Link Posted: 5/18/2005 10:20:52 PM EDT
It's not just Africa its the whole world vs Europe back then. Look at the Americas. The Spainards killed thousands of incans with about 120 soldiers with no casualties to themselves.

I have thought about this and really wont get an answer except being labeled a racist.
Link Posted: 5/18/2005 10:25:39 PM EDT
Would you say that there are innate capability differences between caucasians and those of other races? Or would you say it comes from caring about "your people", your tribe, and that the differences aren't really an issue, but a desire to cleave to one's own is a natural desire that should not be pointed at as racism or a harmful activity?
Link Posted: 5/18/2005 10:29:27 PM EDT
[Last Edit: 5/18/2005 10:30:52 PM EDT by FLAL1A]

Originally Posted By M4:

Originally Posted By FLAL1A:

Originally Posted By M4:

So security is a cultural thing? Health of your people?



I don't understand this post.



The quote that came from was addressing a post that identified "cultural variables" as the main reason.

Health of a population and the security of a population are matters of survival, neither culturally unique. Thus a "cultural differences" don't explain the differences in these areas between Africans and Europeans.



I don't know that there's a case to be made for a distinction between Africans and Europeans on those two points. That's why I said I don't understand the post. I assume that a Tutsi will kill a burglar or child molester as quickly as a Viking; indigenous Africans fought wars over perceived security issues as readily as did/do Europeans. As to health, most of the world has been the source of as little genuine medical advancement since the 19th c. as has Africa -- by which I mean, if you eliminate Britain, the US, Germany, and France, everybody would still be treating cholera with leeches.

It is certainly true that African culture - like most non-Anglo-Saxon cultures - is backward. I suspect that that's because the kind of cooperation and forethought required for survival in much of Europe isn't required for day-to-day survival in most of Africa. Research seems to indicate that Africans as a group have lower IQs than Europeans as a whole, but I doubt very seriously that the average African is meaningfully dumber than the average European. It certainly doesn't mean, for example, that Jacques Chirac is smarter than Thabo Mbeki.

Africans who come straight from that continent to the US do about as well as anybody else, and generally better than African-Americans. My vote is for culture. Africans who come here are (a) the cream of the crop in terms of motivation and (b) are presumably looking to dump the culture they left behind.
Link Posted: 5/18/2005 10:31:33 PM EDT
An interesting thing about IQ scores is they are calibrated to measure the intelligence of an educated white man. Black males from other countries who come to the US for college have their IQ scores rise exponentially, right into where they mesh with (and sometimes exceed) scores for 'whites'.
Link Posted: 5/18/2005 10:37:35 PM EDT
[Last Edit: 5/18/2005 10:49:44 PM EDT by Max_Mike]

Originally Posted By Jerret:
It's not just Africa its the whole world vs Europe back then. Look at the Americas. The Spainards killed thousands of incans with about 120 soldiers with no casualties to themselves.

I have thought about this and really wont get an answer except being labeled a racist.



Sorry but you bought a myth. Steel weapons and armor helped but that is not what won in the end.

The Spanish never conquered anything with just 120 soldiers. The Spanish when they moved in to the Americas made NATIVE allies; the NATIVE allies made up the vast bulk of Spanish forces or aided the Spanish. The Spanish made these Allies through a combination of diplomacy, intimidation, and exploiting tribal hatreds.

For example the Spanish assembled a MASSIVE army of NATIVE allies in the final assault of the Aztec. Tens of thousands of Indians marched with the Spanish to overthrow the Aztec because the Aztec had so badly abused the other local tribes through slavery and taking of captives for human sacrifices.

The exact same thing happen with the Inca the Spanish were aided by local tribes because of their abuse at the hands of the Incas.

Furthermore before some here buy the bull that Anglo-Saxons (European in general) are some how intellectually (racially) superior I would look at how a few thousand Romans managed to take the Whole of England and part of Scotland when these supposed intellectually superior Anglo-Saxons forefathers had steel just like the Romans… In other words the Anglo-Saxons forefathers faired no better than Africans or American Indians against just superior training. The Romans considered the inhabitants of the British Isles to be savages when the got there…
Link Posted: 5/18/2005 10:45:10 PM EDT
Link Posted: 5/18/2005 10:50:12 PM EDT
Where'd m4 go? :(
Link Posted: 5/18/2005 10:52:28 PM EDT

Originally Posted By Max_Mike:

Furthermore before some here buy the bull that Anglo-Saxons (European in general) are some how intellectually (racially) superior I would look at how a few thousand Romans managed to take the Whole of England and part of Scotland when these supposed intellectually superior Anglo-Saxons forefathers had steel just like the Romans… In other words the Anglo-Saxons forefathers faired no better than Africans or American Indians against just superior training. The Romans considered the inhabitants of the British Isles to be savages when the got there…



Those were Celts. Whole different culture/ethnicity. But hey, what's a few hundred years among friends? I don't think that Anglo-Saxons are "racially" superior, but I think it is beyond serious dispute that Anglo-Saxon culture is immeasurably superior to anything else out there.
Link Posted: 5/18/2005 11:02:47 PM EDT
[Last Edit: 5/18/2005 11:07:38 PM EDT by Max_Mike]

Originally Posted By FLAL1A:

Originally Posted By Max_Mike:

Furthermore before some here buy the bull that Anglo-Saxons (European in general) are some how intellectually (racially) superior I would look at how a few thousand Romans managed to take the Whole of England and part of Scotland when these supposed intellectually superior Anglo-Saxons forefathers had steel just like the Romans… In other words the Anglo-Saxons forefathers faired no better than Africans or American Indians against just superior training. The Romans considered the inhabitants of the British Isles to be savages when the got there…



Those were Celts. Whole different culture/ethnicity. But hey, what's a few hundred years among friends? I don't think that Anglo-Saxons are "racially" superior, but I think it is beyond serious dispute that Anglo-Saxon culture is immeasurably superior to anything else out there.



I don't think you believe that Anglo-Saxons are "racially" superior and was not addressing you, my apologies if you got that impression.

I said Anglo-Saxons forefathers, I said forefather intentional instead of Celts to emphasize there is no inherent superiority there... and I realize Anglo-Saxons are cultural different form the Celts and one of the reason for this is the Romans largely wiped out Celtic culture in England. After the Roman collapse the Celts were wide open to conquest and assimilation by other groups. That aside my point was exactly what happen to the Inca and Aztec happen to the Anglo-Saxons forefathers.
Link Posted: 5/18/2005 11:27:09 PM EDT
QUOTE:
By the 1500's, when the African slave trade was in full swing, how do you explain the differences between the forces brought to bear on the African populations by the Europeans...and the Africans complete inability to match that in even the slightest way to prevent being enslaved?

M4, you DO know that a percentage of slaveholders and slavetraders in Africa
were Africans who sold their African slaves to Arab and European slavetraders, don't you?
Link Posted: 5/18/2005 11:35:04 PM EDT
[Last Edit: 5/18/2005 11:38:33 PM EDT by Max_Mike]

Originally Posted By ARDunstan:
QUOTE:
By the 1500's, when the African slave trade was in full swing, how do you explain the differences between the forces brought to bear on the African populations by the Europeans...and the Africans complete inability to match that in even the slightest way to prevent being enslaved?

M4, you DO know that a percentage of slaveholders and slavetraders in Africa
were Africans who sold their African slaves to Arab and European slavetraders, don't you?



You are correct...

Europeans DID NOT go in to interior Africa for damn near another 300 years… As a rule Europeans simply did not survive to make it out. The whole of the New World was explored before Europeans found the source of the Nile. So does this fact make Africans or Arabs racially superior to Europeans?

There is a reason Africa is called The Dark Continent and it is not because the inhabitants are black. It was called The Dark Continent because it ate European expeditions.
Link Posted: 5/19/2005 1:24:21 AM EDT

Originally Posted By ARDunstan:
M4, you DO know that a percentage of slaveholders and slavetraders in Africa
were Africans who sold their African slaves to Arab and European slavetraders, don't you?



I'm well aware.
Link Posted: 5/19/2005 1:29:41 AM EDT
[Last Edit: 5/19/2005 1:36:52 AM EDT by M4]

Originally Posted By FLAL1A:

Originally Posted By M4:

Originally Posted By FLAL1A:

Originally Posted By M4:

So security is a cultural thing? Health of your people?



I don't understand this post.



The quote that came from was addressing a post that identified "cultural variables" as the main reason.

Health of a population and the security of a population are matters of survival, neither culturally unique. Thus a "cultural differences" don't explain the differences in these areas between Africans and Europeans.



I don't know that there's a case to be made for a distinction between Africans and Europeans on those two points. That's why I said I don't understand the post. I assume that a Tutsi will kill a burglar or child molester as quickly as a Viking; indigenous Africans fought wars over perceived security issues as readily as did/do Europeans.



My point is that one culture was using metal & advanced tools for everything from hunting to warfare. They used it because it was MUCH better than stone. Africans would have greatly benifited from it's use too. But they never got beyond stone and bone tools. Why? The needs were the same the discrepancy in advancements were not even close. Needs the same, anvancement in that direction, just the Europeans. No metal in Africa I suppose?

How about firearms? Europeans had them...why...because they were MUCH better than spears. Again, a tool used for a common need, but only one had them. Why? You think an African back then would have chosen a spear over a gun if given the choice? Of course not. Especially when the Dutch ships rolled in to enslave hundreds of thousands of them. Back to the universal need for effectively securing your people. Again, disproportionate.
Link Posted: 5/19/2005 2:54:55 AM EDT
Link Posted: 5/19/2005 3:17:10 AM EDT

Originally Posted By M4:


My point is that one culture was using metal & advanced tools for everything from hunting to warfare. They used it because it was MUCH better than stone.



Thats an error in your thinking. They did have metal weapons and tools. Part of the problem is African culture has risen and fallen many times. The kingdom of Axum (modern day Ethiopa) was very advanced and was a contemporary of Rome, but they fell to the Muslim conquests. After that it was a Muslim culture, not an African culture.

African culture has had the unfortunate luck of competing against the most vibrant cultures in every age except during the primacy of Egypt. Egypt was conquered by Greece and later Rome and later the Muslims.. Axum competed with Rome and fell to the Muslims. After the Muslim occupations were the unending series of colonial rules until the modern day. Now they compete against the US and Europe (and now China).

I see you keep responding negatively to those who assume your a racist, but I'm finding it hard not to assume that myself. Can you tell us what you think the difference was?

Then perhaps we can have a discussion.
Link Posted: 5/19/2005 3:27:29 AM EDT
Well Europe had many different cultures and ethnic groups cramed together. This happend for various resons ( rome, the Mongals) Well these cultures would fight each other ALOT. And War breeds Teachnology. They all advanced at basicaly the same pace and were never able to completely destroy their neighbors.

While as Africa is big. and while they wared amungst themselves it was more of raids and such. they stayed very tribal and seperated from each other. Add to that any time a group started to gain technology they were wiped out by the peoples of the mideast region.
Link Posted: 5/19/2005 3:27:49 AM EDT
[Last Edit: 5/19/2005 3:42:15 AM EDT by ultramagbrion]
Hmmmm........post 1000
Giant Squid(I love calimari)

And as far as the rest of this tippy toe around the racial supremacy issue goes, we evolved because we realized we had to.
A major landmark in knowledge? I think not.
If you can live in a steady climate for pretty much the whole year round,why evolve?Why better yourself? Why try harder if you dont have to?
Complacency results from the sheer act of surviving another day.Some people have higher goals than just finding food and a piece of ass.And if your neighbors and fellow villagers arent worried about tomorrow,well hell,why should you?

A million different reasons for the 'whys' of advancement,or lack of, can be formulated,but IMO,one only needs to look at the simple human factor of reasoning that is involved and that is.........why bother?

As far as what has transpired over the last few hundred years.........and the last 50-75 in particular,Id say that some societies need to work alot harder at playing catch-up ball.
Id dare say that all-in-all,we as a human race are pretty much equal with regards to our potential at knowledge.Its just that some races and cultures need to excercise a little more effort.

Its just plain too easy to blame your inability/refusal to evolve beyond a primitive society on a desire to retain your 'culture' and heritage.




Link Posted: 5/19/2005 8:26:12 AM EDT

Originally Posted By MallNinjaMuzzleflash:
An interesting thing about IQ scores is they are calibrated to measure the intelligence of an educated white man.



Get a clue - that's not been the case since the 60s.
Link Posted: 5/19/2005 9:40:31 AM EDT
[Last Edit: 5/19/2005 9:48:28 AM EDT by M4]

Originally Posted By Dino:
I see you keep responding negatively to those who assume your a racist, but I'm finding it hard not to assume that myself. Can you tell us what you think the difference was?

Then perhaps we can have a discussion.



Point out significant contributions from the entire continent of Africa...ever. Make your list.

Now do the same for Europe.

Place lists side by side. Notice how one looks like a post-it note and the other an encyclopedia?

A disparity that great, has reasons well beyond culture & geography. It seems rather clear Africa is largely absent of any significant intellectual contributions on a global scale.

This is not a guess on my part, this is fact...whether or not it's a "fun" fact, it's still a fact. If stating that qualifies me as "racist", you are very misguided. It qualifies me as honest.
Link Posted: 5/19/2005 11:57:19 AM EDT

Originally Posted By M4:

Originally Posted By cobra-ak:
Temperate climates do better than jungles and deserts for economics. North Africa in its Muslim heydey were great economic and educational centers probably an exception. You have exceptions like Manaus in the amazon and Las Vegas in the desert....



Just does not come close to addressing the gap I talked about that reached every facet of life. Framing and agriculture were not precluded my climate nor resources in either location. That's just one of many examples.

There sure is a gap, an economic gap, the city of Las Vegas uses more energy than the entire subsaharan. the bottm line is the dollar sign....
Top Top