Rowan Croft the gran torino

Boom_Bap

RWCNT wrote: »

Where does the Jamaican bobsleigh team stand in all this?

Cool, always running cool

recedite

Wibbs wrote: »

Actually Black Americans don't swim nearly as much as White Americans and their rates of drowning are much higher. There are quite a few cultural reasons for this.

That's the first time I ever heard of somebody drowning "for cultural reasons".

Certainly, but not specifically "African" and far more descendants of African slaves. So Black athletes from the US, USA, Caribbean, but much less so Nigeria.

West Africa is the common genetic link there, and you'll see more Nigerian teams doing well in the future as their organisation and facilities improve.

Well leaving aside the rumours and exposes of doping among a few of those training camps, yes there may be something to that in populations that have adapted to higher altitudes and are also more likely to be very lightly built, both attributes that lead to more of a population being more adept at long distance running, though useless for sprints. Tibetan populations have even more genetic adaptations to higher altitudes but you don't see them troubling marathons as they tend to be shorter of limb and heavier set.

Columbians seem to be well adapted to altitude and do well in the Tour de France mountain stages. Rift Valley tribes do well in marathons.
There's probably a combination of different factors involved, and I don't pretend to know what they all are. Results however, speak for themselves.

recedite

Wibbs wrote: »

Froome is as White as I am and that's saying something.

He sure is, but that kinda proves my point.
In his early days of speeding through the African bush on a mountain bike with his black buddies, he always arrived back home first. That cannot have been a social construct or "for cultural reasons".

ohnonotgmail

recedite wrote: »

He sure is, but that kinda proves my point.
In his early days of speeding through the African bush on a mountain bike with his black buddies, he always arrived back home first. That cannot have been a social construct or "for cultural reasons".

so you are saying that a white guy was genetically superior to his black friends?

recedite

ohnonotgmail wrote: »

so you are saying that a white guy was genetically superior to his black friends?

Do you ever give up this stupid lark of trying to trick people into saying something that you can than report to the mod, just to get them banned? Its infantile.

No, I did not say that, I said he was the fastest on a bike.

ohnonotgmail

recedite wrote: »

Do you ever give up this stupid lark of trying to trick people into saying something that you can than report to the mod, just to get them banned? Its infantile.

No, I did not say that, I said he was the fastest on a bike.

I have no idea what you are on about so i'll leave you to your crackpot theories.

recedite

ohnonotgmail wrote: »

I have no idea what you are on about so i'll leave you to your crackpot theories.

Yeah, right.

batgoat

recedite wrote: »

Do you ever give up this stupid lark of trying to trick people into saying something that you can than report to the mod, just to get them banned? Its infantile.

No, I did not say that, I said he was the fastest on a bike.

In fairness, you're trying to push a narrative that white people are inherently more intelligent than black people. You're just attempting to do so under the guise of genetics to make your opinion sound more credible.

Boop1

This insane, I have lurked here for almost two decades. And I think this is the worst thread I have ever seen.
It started off as a chat about Quisling Gran Torino.
From that we have had someone doxxed, discussed the finer points of eugenics and now someone is posting crack point theories about other posters.

Boop1

batgoat wrote: »

In fairness, you're trying to push a narrative that white people are inherently more intelligent than black people. You're just attempting to do so under the guise of genetics to make your opinion sound more credible.

This!!!

Boop1

recedite wrote: »

That cannot have been a social construct or "for cultural reasons".

What does this even mean?

dingledosser

Boop1 wrote: »

Anyone have a link to the video where he talks about being in the British Army?

Certainly, here you go: https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=1l4tqqA746I

recedite

batgoat wrote: »

In fairness, you're trying to push a narrative that white people are inherently more intelligent than black people. You're just attempting to do so under the guise of genetics to make your opinion sound more credible.

Nope I did not mention that, or push that narrative at all.
But seeing as you have brought it up, I agree the stats from around the world show that is generally true on average. The stats also show that East Asians are in general a little bit smarter than whitey. Go Korea.

recedite

Boop1 wrote: »

This insane, I have lurked here for almost two decades. And I think this is the worst thread I have ever seen.

20 years and only 10 posts? Pull the other one.

batgoat

recedite wrote: »

Nope I did not mention that, or push that narrative at all.
But seeing as you have brought it up, I agree the stats from around the world show that is generally true on average. The stats also show that East Asians are in general a little bit smarter than whitey. Go Korea.

And the statistical difference in relation to East Asians is generally viewed as cultural. Eg in South Korea, students are in school from 8am until 10.30pm. There's an entirely different attitude towards education but that's not related specifically to genetics.

recedite

So its merely a social construct or "for cultural reasons"?

Dr Brown

recedite wrote: »

So its merely a social construct or "for cultural reasons"?

I wonder would the fact that men are generally taller than women also be down to "cultural reasons " ? :rolleyes:

Wibbs

recedite wrote: »

That's the first time I ever heard of somebody drowning "for cultural reasons".

Nonetheless that is a large part of it. Blacks didn't get nearly the same access to swimming pools in decades gone by(and most cluster in urban areas) and so far fewer learned to swim and that lack gets passed onto their kids. People tend to follow their parents regardless of background or population genetics.

West Africa is the common genetic link there, and you'll see more Nigerian teams doing well in the future as their organisation and facilities improve.

Possibly, though more likely that descendants of the slave trade have more of the traits that allow for more of them to reach some elite level sports. As I pointed out those same descendants also have much higher rates of diabetes and cardiovascular disease than their West African cousins. It's not conjecture. These show in specific genes that are more prevalent in the former group.

Wibbs

Dr Brown wrote: »

I wonder would the fact that men are generally taller than women also be down to "cultural reasons " ? :rolleyes:

Well, technically... "Culture" is a broad church and it also plays a part in mate selection which over time leads to certain traits coming to the fore. Women selecting for taller men over time leads to more taller men over time, men electing for more petite women ditto. Diet is another factor, cultures with more protein and fats in the diet lead to taller people overall. We see this in Asians who are second and third generation Americans. They're taller than their grandparents. In the European medieval the rich could almost be mistake for a different "race" as they were taller than the peasants. Wealthy women could be taller than poor men.

recedite

Wibbs wrote: »

Nonetheless that is a large part of it. Blacks didn't get nearly the same access to swimming pools in decades gone by(and most cluster in urban areas)

Come off it

I was an adult when the first swimming pool was built in my area. I learned to swim in the sea, but it was too cold for most of the year. And still is.

recedite

Wibbs wrote: »

Well, technically... "Culture" is a broad church and it also plays a part in mate selection which over time leads to certain traits coming to the fore. Women selecting for taller men over time leads to more taller men over time, men electing for more petite women ditto. Diet is another factor, cultures with more protein and fats in the diet lead to taller people overall. We see this in Asians who are second and third generation Americans. They're taller than their grandparents. In the European medieval the rich could almost be mistake for a different "race" as they were taller than the peasants. Wealthy women could be taller than poor men.

So you're saying pygmies just need a bit of feeding up, and they will turn into Usain Bolt?

Patty Hearst

Wibbs wrote: »

It's an interesting take, though hardly novel. Though I can see a few issues with some parts and do wonder if getting to specialised means many reserarchers get blinkered and don't know or read about other areas of sciences that butt up to theirs. EG:

You will sometimes hear that any biological differences among populations are likely to be small, because humans have diverged too recently from common ancestors for substantial differences to have arisen under the pressure of natural selection. This is not true. The ancestors of East Asians, Europeans, West Africans and Australians were, until recently, almost completely isolated from one another for 40,000 years or longer, which is more than sufficient time for the forces of evolution to work.

Clearly the author hasn't been reading much on population shifts as in Europe alone there have been a fair number of waves of gene influx from outside over that time(never mind archaic admixture around and before that time). The European of today is a very different animal to the European of 40,000 years ago, even 10,000 years ago, when Middle eastern farmers crossed the continent. Take the Basque peoples, they consider themselves apart from the surrounding populations and more ancient, and their language is, but the Basques today are mostly the same as those around them and a different set of genetic lines from Basques of 5000 years ago. Here in Ireland the original Palaeolithic and mesolithic lines were almost completely replaced. West African genes have also been a bit of a muddle, albeit more geographically local, even Australians who were isolated for a long chunk of time, had at least one extra genetic influx around (IIRC) 6000 years ago, around the time when the dingo came along(the tourists brought their doggies. As you do ).

I don't doubt adaptations can happen quite quickly. The genes for digesting gluten and especially lactose in milk spread like wildfire within Europe and the ME remarkably rapidly. I would suspect they can happen much faster than we think today. A couple if generations faster actually. Epigenetics is gaining more traction as an area of interest in this very area(though my 19th century fist shakes at the come back of Lamarckism by another name ) A couple of researchers have mused that maybe the Irish have a higher level of coeliac disease than other European populations because we relied more on the potato than grains for carbs over a few centuries, so more lost the ability to process gluten.

Indeed, and that should tell you all you need to know about biases, subtleties and co factors in this field. The Irish are pretty much genetically identical to Scots, Welsh and English, which showed slightly higher IQ's in tests, the bulk of which were taken many decades ago and "concluded" the highest IQ among a band that stretched across the middle of Europe, the Germanic and the Saxon. The Latins were also below par, which says it all. The Italians alone have made contributions to advancement of the sciences and art and all the rest that the Dutch or the Germans could only dream of. And then there's the Greeks. If we went back to the early medieval when the Irish were blossoming intellectually no doubt their interested parties would have held the English and others to be a little slower by comparison.

There is some evidence to show the ancestors of the Atlantic slave trade in Africans can have an advantage there. Through that trade there were horrific and powerful selection pressures. Even making the journey resulted in large losses. Those that survived that and survived the hostile working lives would surely have been the strongest among them. On the other hadn't the same population has higher kidney disease, diabetes and cardiovascular illness than the populations of their African cousins that remained in Africa.

Though again culture comes into it. If it was just that African ancestry folks were athletically superior on average then they'd dominate every sport. But they don't. There have been no Black Tour De France cycle race winners for example, but they do dominate much of track and field and sports like basketball. For a start they're cheaper to get into. Running requires bugger all but a flat surface and shoes and in the US basketball courts are everywhere and free to use and the local culture expects to see the kids getting into those sports. The Venus sisters were seen as oddballs by their peers for being into tennis. Consider the Tour De France again. The vast majority of winners over its more than a century history have been French, Dutch, Italian, Spanish and the like. All countries with a long history in kids taking up cycling as a pastime and sport. Germans and Scandinavians were thin on the ground because their kids didn't. Americans started to make inroads after a couple of Americans did well in the 80's as rank outsiders and this encouraged more to take it up and almost exclusively among European Americans. One might apply a similar framework to academic performance too and I would strongly suspect it would fit too.

Great post, I have to say I don't agree with everything in it at all, its just I'm try to find studies quoted from the most 'liberal' sources to post here, as any source considered remotely 'right wing' will be automatically rejected by many here.

iebamm2580

Just 1 question, are people saying its possible for Africans to have physically superior genes but not possible for whites to have genetically superior intelligence? If all environmental conditions are equal.

recedite

iebamm2580 wrote: »

Just 1 question, are people saying its possible for Africans to have physically superior genes but not possible for whites to have genetically superior intelligence? If all environmental conditions are equal.

Good question, but you'll notice they are very reluctant to agree to the first part being true, because it would logically lead to the possibility that the second part might also be true.
Don't hold your breath waiting for one of them to answer.

Patty Hearst

recedite wrote: »

Good question, but you'll notice they are very reluctant to agree to the first part being true, because it would logically lead to the possibility that the second part might also be true.
Don't hold your breath waiting for one of them to answer.

This is what happens when ideology begins to supersede Science and objective reality.

Any evidence that contradicts the ideological position must be denied, explained away and ultimately science denial becomes the norm.

There are a lot of parallels between contemporary Leftists/Progressives/Liberals (whatever you want to call them) and Young Earth creationists.

Wibbs

iebamm2580 wrote: »

Just 1 question, are people saying its possible for Africans to have physically superior genes but not possible for whites to have genetically superior intelligence? If all environmental conditions are equal.

Well, it doesn't work like that. Were it so simple. But that's the problem with complex systems, people want simple answers to simple questions. That's more comforting no matter what side of any debate you care to mention. Again were things so simple.

Oh and BTW I would have no issue with finding out that one population had a higher number of intelligent/stronger/more emotionally stable individuals than another. I also don't buy into the whole "there's no such things as race and we're all identical", though "race" is too simplistic a definition. EG native Australians and Maasai are both "black", but are very different populations with very different genetic lines and histories. I'd also believe culture over time affects populations in both positive and negative ways and influence what genes are promoted and/or switched on, or lay dormant.

So take the earlier debate on sub Saharan Africa and the lack of innovation compared to Europe and Asia. Let's imagine that the germs, geography, climate explanation is the reason(and I'd have a few issues with that). OK, but then that begs further enquiry on how that lack of innovation over so long will affect the populations living in such a place. So for example if innovation is not a priority in a culture innovators are not valued and aren't any more likely to reproduce over time, indeed may even be less likely to. This would mean over time the "innovation genes"(horribly simplistic, but for illustration) will become less common in that population. It doesn't mean there aren't innovative people in the population, but that there are going to be fewer of them compared to a population whose environment of many centuries valued innovation. So for example I wouldn't be one bit surprised to find that the Native Australian population have on average lower IQ's and fewer innovators than the Chinese population. Indeed, I'd be more surprised to find the opposite were true.

recedite

Wibbs wrote: »

Well, it doesn't work like that. Were it so simple. But that's the problem with complex systems, people want simple answers to simple questions. That's more comforting no matter what side of any debate you care to mention. Again were things so simple.

Oh and BTW I would have no issue with finding out that one population had a higher number of intelligent/stronger/more emotionally stable individuals than another. I also don't buy into the whole "there's no such things as race and we're all identical", though "race" is too simplistic a definition. EG native Australians and Maasai are both "black", but are very different populations with very different genetic lines and histories. I'd also believe culture over time affects populations in both positive and negative ways and influence what genes are promoted and/or switched on, or lay dormant.

So take the earlier debate on sub Saharan Africa and the lack of innovation compared to Europe and Asia. Let's imagine that the germs, geography, climate explanation is the reason(and I'd have a few issues with that). OK, but then that begs further enquiry on how that lack of innovation over so long will affect the populations living in such a place. So for example if innovation is not a priority in a culture innovators are not valued and aren't any more likely to reproduce over time, indeed may even be less likely to. This would mean over time the "innovation genes"(horribly simplistic, but for illustration) will become less common in that population. It doesn't mean there aren't innovative people in the population, but that there are going to be fewer of them compared to a population whose environment of many centuries valued innovation. So for example I wouldn't be one bit surprised to find that the Native Australian population have on average lower IQ's and fewer innovators than the Chinese population. Indeed, I'd be more surprised to find the opposite were true.

You didn't answer the question. You just went on a virtue signalling rant which can be paraphrased as "I'm what you guys can call the sensible middle ground".

Wibbs

recedite wrote: »

You didn't answer the question. You just went on a virtue signalling rant which can be paraphrased as "I'm what you guys can call the sensible middle ground".

Clearly you have near zero clue about genetics and population genetics and how culture and environment interact. You are just another one of those - and they're on all sides - craving the most simplistic answer possible and have the horn for anyone who will provide one.

Never mind I clearly stated that "I wouldn't be one bit surprised to find that the Native Australian population have on average lower IQ's and fewer innovators than the Chinese population. Indeed, I'd be more surprised to find the opposite were true". That's hardly "middle ground" and the "liberals" you despise will have a shitfit reading that, so hardly virtue signalling, or would you only be satisfied with me saying "niggers are naturally more stupid. Good basketball players though"?

mcmoustache

Wibbs wrote: »

would you only be satisfied with me saying "niggers are naturally more stupid. Good basketball players though"?

I feel like the last few pages have been an effort by some to get others to say just that.

iebamm2580

Wibbs wrote: »

Clearly you have near zero clue about genetics and population genetics and how culture and environment interact. You are just another one of those - and they're on all sides - craving the most simplistic answer possible and have the horn for anyone who will provide one.

Never mind I clearly stated that "I wouldn't be one bit surprised to find that the Native Australian population have on average lower IQ's and fewer innovators than the Chinese population. Indeed, I'd be more surprised to find the opposite were true". That's hardly "middle ground" and the "liberals" you despise will have a shitfit reading that, so hardly virtue signalling, or would you only be satisfied with me saying "niggers are naturally more stupid. Good basketball players though"?

Why did some populations as you say promote innovators and others not all them years ago? Has be reasons for this too. Essentially I was talking as of O'Day anyway and not how we got to today.

batgoat

recedite wrote: »

You didn't answer the question. You just went on a virtue signalling rant which can be paraphrased as "I'm what you guys can call the sensible middle ground".

Pretty sure Wibbs has never been accused of virtue signalling... So more an issue in terms of your attitude.

iebamm2580

batgoat wrote: »

Pretty sure Wibbs has never been accused of virtue signalling... So more an issue in terms of your attitude.

Yeah have admit wibbs don't post to please any side. His posts are well thought out and informative, but too much at times ha.

Wibbs

iebamm2580 wrote: »

Why did some populations as you say promote innovators and others not all them years ago? Has be reasons for this too. Essentially I was talking as of O'Day anyway and not how we got to today.

Innovation requires a few things in place, one of the biggest is the ability to transmit ideas. Take modern humans. Go back 100,000 years and modern humans and Neandertals were pretty much on a par regarding technology(in some ways they were ahead). They were stronger and actually had slightly larger brains and had survived through countless ices ages and other climate change. But we won. How?

One thing starts to become evident with us soon after; we formed larger groups and we had extended trade links. They mostly formed small family groups and appear to have territorial areas and had almost no trade. So their population remained small and steady over time and innovation was extremely slow and mostly absent for many tens of thousands of years. You could have had a Neandertal Einstein, but their innovations would stay very local and would have died with them. Innovations may have even been frowned upon as bad joojoo as change might upset their delicate balance(Andaman islanders today have that attitude towards the novel).

Consider this: by the time early Europeans were painting caves and carving sculptures that culture was the same from Spain through Germany and France. That was the extent of their contacts and routes for the transmission of information and innovation(and genes). Neandertals hadn't a hope.

Consider the device you're reading this on now. Personal computers first got popular in the late 70's early 80's, but never really made much headway beyond nerds in the general population, but look what happened ten years later when they became connected through the web. Now your granny is on Facebook.

So looking a Southern Africa or Australia, yes there were trade routes, but not nearly to the degree there were in Europe or Asia, so innovation was less likely to spread. There were also not nearly as much cultural cohesion like in Europe or Asia with religions and big states/empires that would build on those innovations over time and get into competition, externally and internally over time which also drives innovation like a wildfire. Australia had thousands of different tribes, but also has the most different languages over geography of anywhere on earth. If one guy had built a better mousetrap he couldn't even describe it to another guy from only a hundred miles away.

recedite

Wibbs wrote: »

Clearly you have near zero clue about genetics and population genetics and how culture and environment interact. You are just another one of those - and they're on all sides - craving the most simplistic answer possible and have the horn for anyone who will provide one.

Never mind I clearly stated that "I wouldn't be one bit surprised to find that the Native Australian population have on average lower IQ's and fewer innovators than the Chinese population. Indeed, I'd be more surprised to find the opposite were true". That's hardly "middle ground" and the "liberals" you despise will have a shitfit reading that, so hardly virtue signalling, or would you only be satisfied with me saying "niggers are naturally more stupid. Good basketball players though"?

Mehh.. I know enough to know why you would be shaking a fist at Lamarckism on discovering epigenetics, and I know enough to be able to point out to you why the best sprinters are of West African descent, but the best marathon runners are of East African.
The fact that you have brought Australia into the conversation for the first time leads me to believe that you already knew exactly what the answer was, to the question you posed above, so there was really no need to pretend you would, or would not, be surprised by the answer.
Nor any need to post the vulgar response which you haven't quite claimed ownership of.
Just one simple honest answer to the original question would have sufficed.

ohnonotgmail

recedite wrote: »

Mehh.. I know enough to know why you would be shaking a fist at Lamarckism on discovering epigenetics, and I know enough to be able to point out to you why the best sprinters are of West African descent, but the best marathon runners are of East African.
The fact that you have brought Australia into the conversation for the first time leads me to believe that you already knew exactly what the answer was, to the question you posed above, so there was really no need to pretend you would, or would not, be surprised by the answer.
Nor any need to post the vulgar response which you haven't quite claimed ownership of.
Just one simple honest answer to the original question would have sufficed.

The best sprinters currently are of west african descent but oddly enough not actually from west africa. It is almost like it is more complicated than you want it to be.

Skylinehead

recedite wrote: »

Mehh.. I know enough to know why you would be shaking a fist at Lamarckism on discovering epigenetics, and I know enough to be able to point out to you why the best sprinters are of West African descent, but the best marathon runners are of East African.
The fact that you have brought Australia into the conversation for the first time leads me to believe that you already knew exactly what the answer was, to the question you posed above, so there was really no need to pretend you would, or would not, be surprised by the answer.
Nor any need to post the vulgar response which you haven't quite claimed ownership of.
Just one simple honest answer to the original question would have sufficed.

Dishonest questions don't deserve proper answers.

iebamm2580

Nixonbot wrote: »

Dishonest questions don't deserve proper answers.

What dishonest question?

Boom_Bap

Listen lads, you haven't seen how fast I can sprint yet and I'm from North East Finglas.

recedite

Nixonbot wrote: »

Dishonest questions don't deserve proper answers.

The question was an honest question. I can understand people not wanting to give an honest answer when doing that might make it seem like they are being a dick.
But in that situation, just say nothing.

recedite

Boom_Bap wrote: »

Listen lads, you haven't seen how fast I can sprint yet and I'm from North East Finglas.

Being chased by a Garda car doesn't count.

ohnonotgmail

recedite wrote: »

The question was an honest question. I can understand people not wanting to give an honest answer when doing that might make it seem like they are being a dick.
But in that situation, just say nothing.

An honest answer was given by somebody who knows what they are talking out. You just didn't like the answer.

iebamm2580

ohnonotgmail wrote: »

An honest answer was given by somebody who knows what they are talking out. You just didn't like the answer.

Thanks for clarifying it was an honest question at least.

ohnonotgmail

iebamm2580 wrote: »

Thanks for clarifying it was an honest question at least.

your question at least was honest. some others not so much

greencap

soooo, anyway, as a side note i see that alex jones has publicly admitted to being a psychotic.

i wonder how that will go down with the patriots fighting the nwo.

Trump Is Right

Wibbs wrote: »

or would you only be satisfied with me saying "niggers are naturally more stupid. Good basketball players though"?

It would be a fairly racist thing to say, but at least you'd be closer to making an actual point... instead of what you normally do, which is ramble on like some old nut that escaped from the funny farm!! :pac:

Don't get me wrong wibbster, you do make the occasional interesting point... but unfortunately one is usually forced to wade through a river of waffle to find that nugget. (which is a shame, because I do enjoy those occasional little nuggets)

You seem to have a problem with simplistic theories... but you know, sometimes the simple answer is the correct one!

batgoat

Trump Is Right wrote: »

It would be a fairly racist thing to say, but at least you'd be closer to making an actual point... instead of what you normally do, which is ramble on like some old nut that escaped from the funny farm!! :pac:

Don't get me wrong wibbster, you do make the occasional interesting point... but unfortunately one is usually forced to wade through a river of waffle to find that nugget. (which is a shame, because I do enjoy those occasional little nuggets)

You seem to have a problem with simplistic theories... but you know, sometimes the simple answer is the correct one!

So you're resorting to abuse instead of making a well formed point?

Wibbs

Trump Is Right wrote: »

It would be a fairly racist thing to say,

Fairly racist?

You seem to have a problem with simplistic theories... but you know, sometimes the simple answer is the correct one!

When it comes to human beings almost never.

batgoat wrote: »

So you're resorting to abuse instead of making a well formed point?

Almost certainly because he doesn't have one to make. If he did he'd make it.

pablohoney87

Trump Is Right wrote: »

You seem to have a problem with simplistic theories... but you know, sometimes the simple answer is the correct one!

Yup almost never. The theory which is normally correct is the one which makes the least (in number or reach) assumptions.

There's not a racist theory out there which doesnt make some sort of unfounded or previously debunked assumption.

Trump Is Right

pablohoney87 wrote: »

Yup almost never. The theory which is normally correct is the one which makes the least (in number or reach) assumptions.

There's not a racist theory out there which doesnt make some sort of unfounded or previously debunked assumption.

Or perhaps some people just like the feeling of moral superiority they get, when dismissing any racial theories! (no matter how well founded or logical)

Theory: Africans are less productive and less capable than other ethnicities and regions in the world on average. They were colonized and taken as slaves, because their societies were less advanced and they lacked the ability to fight off more advanced nations/cultures! And many of these historical weaknesses are still evident within Africa in the present day...

But the fact remains, they were weak and less advanced long before the colonial period and long before any white man decided to interfere in the region. So the idea that all of Africa's present day problems and challenges, are somehow the fault of the white man / western powers... frankly it's a load of BS!

Other regions in the world were colonized. Other regions have dealt with poverty, war, famine etc etc... and yet some of these other regions have been making much more progress than the African continent.

Plenty of evidence to support a theory such as this, but many people's moral impugnation will prevent them from acknowledging such facts. It's unpalatable to many, therefore it must be untrue... even if it's not!

(Btw - I shouldn't need to state this, but I will anyway... I do not support or condone the practices of colonization, slavery or any other racially motivated aggression etc)

ohnonotgmail

Trump Is Right wrote: »

Or perhaps some people just like the feeling of moral superiority they get, when dismissing any racial theories! (no matter how well founded or logical)

Theory: Africans are less productive and less capable than other ethnicities and regions in the world on average. They were colonized and taken as slaves, because their societies were less advanced and they lacked the ability to fight off more advanced nations/cultures! And many of these historical weaknesses are still evident within Africa in the present day...

But the fact remains, they were weak and less advanced long before the colonial period and long before any white man decided to interfere in the region. So the idea that all of Africa's present day problems and challenges, are somehow the fault of the white man / western powers... frankly it's a load of BS!

Other regions in the world were colonized. Other regions have dealt with poverty, war, famine etc etc... and yet some of these other regions have been making much more progress than the African continent.

Plenty of evidence to support a theory such as this, but many people's moral impugnation will prevent them from acknowledging such facts. It's unpalatable to many, therefore it must be untrue... even if it's not!

(Btw - I shouldn't need to state this, but I will anyway... I do not support or condone the practices of colonization, slavery or any other racially motivated aggression etc)

Can you point me towards the science behind your particularly stupid argument?