BF2S Forums Why are Africa and the Middle East so Fucked Up?

Average IQ.

And you're bringing this forums average IQ down by posting here.

It never was.

Besides stupidity, some cultures never learned the benefits of cooperation towards the common good.

Africa hasn't come close, the ME is just a mess of squabbles, occasionally united under brutal overlords, Western democracies are rapidly losing the ability - look at US and Australian politics.....

I've not said anything of the kind. It explains why some continents have advanced and others have failed.
Chinese are smarter on the average than Europeans.

I never got this intelligence and prosperity argument. Asians are smarter than Euros on these test. Doesn't make 50% of China not illiterate peasant farmers. People from India do shit on these test. People from India are second only to Asians in terms of education achievement in the U.S.

LOL. dilderp genuinely thinks that the different races have evolved different mental capacities.

yeah great analogy about sunburn between two different races - sunburn, a biological process determined by skin pigmentation, evolved locally and specifically according to exposure to surface sunlight. intelligence, evolved as a faculty hundreds of thousands of years ago and not affected by any local or specific environmental (i.e. sensory) exposures. that really holds up well!

by the way, cultural/environmental determinism is a very crude theory, a staple of early 20th century geography and anthropology departments, and it was outed by science and a new wave of positivist social sciences - where the data did not back-up this ideologically inflected, racialist view, at all - and has been considered total anathema in serious scholarship ever since. you are spouting an ideology, not anything related to scientific fact. there is no such thing as an 'african IQ' or an 'asian intelligence', superior- or inferior- to europeans, or south americans, or eskimos. we all share the same basic hardware. there is no determinism. the factors that determine how successful a nation are are historical-political and sociological, not biological. statements such as 'chinese are more intelligent than europeans' are fucking laughable. not to mention your ugly racism which shines through in every post. how is a chinese brain more intelligent than european? you're telling me your average rice-paddy farmer has a bigger intellectual capacity than rousseau or descartes? ok. it must be so if we diverged 100,000 years ago, right? i mean surely if we've all evolved different brain capacities according to race and location, the chinese pizza-boy must technically have a better (latent/potential) intellect than wittgenstein? it's all pre-determined by biology? you fucking idiot.

the reason china looks better on paper than europe right now is because of an extreme societal push on education - a willed 'catching up' on a grand scale. similarly the reasons why africa and the middle-east look 'behind' (which is an extremely contextual and historically relative term) is because of recent developments over the last few centuries. a few centuries is NOTHING in the history of civilization/culture, and it is a SPECK in the history of actual biological development. 600 years ago the middle-east was culturally and intellectually far ahead of the european dark ages. great asian civilizations in japan and china were having incredible political and cultural developments during the same time as the late roman empire, quite unbeknownst to one another. 'ahead' and 'behind' are so relative, and so vague. during the time of rome and carthage, in the vast (western) unexplored swathes of central africa, there were huge kingdoms and civilizations, which were all hugely rich on gold and minerals, and all hugely advanced in terms of culture and sophistication. the carved masks of benin far surpassed any technical ability seen in the european-world since the ancient greek+egyptian zeniths. a bunch of niggers! doing art! better than the white man! with their inferior brains! can you believe it! historical accounts abound of african kings trekking into hubs such as cairo/alexandria and practically destroying the local roman/white economy with their vast wealth (gold being a notable example; gold being a scarce and highly-prized material in the late roman era, whereas african societies further south had it in spadeloads; they were literally giving it away as gifts of good will to streetmerchants). so many african kingdoms were significantly richer than even the great mediterranean trading hubs. hardly behind in the dark ages, is it?

the reason europeans got so ahead is that we started to base our society on trade+commerce before any organising political principle. we started to sell everything, in short. it drove technological innovation, innovation which we had no scruples in using to legitimate and dominate other cultures, and then in turn reap and sell their own assets. we played an incredibly efficient and rapacious global game for the last 400 years. that is why africa has 'lagged' behind, and why it still struggles; it is still being plundered, ffs. the african elites are still neo-colonial, west-friendly bourgeoisie puppet despot regimes. africa and the middle-east are 'behind' only in the terms of the global capitalist game - a game we devised and made the rules for, and a market that we (unsurprisingly) dominate. we still take all of africas extremely valuable mineral wealth for a pittance, because we are the ones dictating the value and prices on the global market. we still employ slave labour in these developing countries, because we dictate the wage rate. not because they are societally inferior, or biologically incapable of reason or thought on our level. that is such a fucking ridiculous view.

dilbert you are essentially a bedroom dwelling troll, loser, and now a bitter racist. congrats buddy. go read a book.

Last edited by aynrandroolz (2012-10-21 05:45:30)

They were mostly colonized areas. So its only the fault of France, Great Britain, Spain, Portugal etc.

Dilbert_X wrote:

You can try to convince me that all races, which generally diverged ~100,000 years ago, all separately, independently and in entirely different environments evolved exactly the same type and level of cognitive ability if you like

cultural/environmental determinism is a very crude theory, a staple of early 20th century geography and anthropology departments, and it was outed by science and a new wave of positivist social sciences - where the data did not back-up this ideologically inflected, racialist view, at all - and has been considered total anathema in serious scholarship ever since. you are spouting an ideology, not anything related to scientific fact. there is no such thing as an 'african IQ' or an 'asian intelligence'

always pretty funny that the empiricist STEM guys that make their livings out of facts and figures can end up as mouthpieces for such virulently racist and outdated garbage.

aynrandroolz wrote:

Dilbert_X wrote:

You can try to convince me that all races, which generally diverged ~100,000 years ago, all separately, independently and in entirely different environments evolved exactly the same type and level of cognitive ability if you like

cultural/environmental determinism is a very crude theory, a staple of early 20th century geography and anthropology departments, and it was outed by science and a new wave of positivist social sciences - where the data did not back-up this ideologically inflected, racialist view, at all - and has been considered total anathema in serious scholarship ever since. you are spouting an ideology, not anything related to scientific fact. there is no such thing as an 'african IQ' or an 'asian intelligence'

always pretty funny that the empiricist STEM guys that make their livings out of facts and figures can end up as mouthpieces for such virulently racist and outdated garbage.

It has a strong history: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/William_Sh … d_genetics

Dilbert_X wrote:

You can try to convince me that all races, which generally diverged ~100,000 years ago, all separately, independently and in entirely different environments evolved exactly the same type and level of cognitive ability if you like

The only race that diverged 100kya was Homo sapiens from Hiedelbergensis. For 2 millions years before that erectus occupied the greater parts of Africa and Eurasia. We met them and their lineages with erections, not just spears. Our species has constantly been interbreeding with other similar hominids as well as among the far flung groups of sapiens. Trade and nomadism are not some recent inventions. The only genetic differences between modern human populations are entirely superficial.

rdx-fx wrote:

Perhaps being a hellish tribal shithole, with a misogynistic primitive religion is what they like?

It's like, their culture.. and stuff.. man! You gotta.. like.. respect their traditions and culture and stuff.. it's all, like, moral relativism man!  Can't be applyin' Western standards to their culture!  Before you talk down on honor killings, misogyny, and beheadings - you should.. like.. give it a try once or twice!

/sarcasm

What makes it hellish though? What differentiates small town life in the American Midwest from small village life in Africa? Their lack of access to televisions and computers? Most of the strife in Africa today, as well as in the Middle East and South Asia stems from colonial governments coming in and setting up arbitrary borders in order to govern and manage more effectively. We expect the central governments of these 'nation-states' to perform the actions we assign to our own governments when they lack the tools to do so.

European and East Asian states performed a series of actions in order to arrive at the modern state. Most of these actions occurred within the last few hundred years. Even post-Columbus, Europe still had problems with roving packs of mercenaries and highwaymen preying on the populace, or nation-states going to war and destroying the countryside at the drop of a hat. There's only a few steps that separates what you think of as a hellish tribal shithole and the modern paradise and it mostly stems from the legibility of Africans.

What makes a modern state? Well, for Europe, it began with the assignment of family names so that the governments could track individuals. This has evolved to the requirement for things like social security numbers, licenses etc. When you can track individuals you can assess taxes on them, you can track property transactions, etc. The next step taken by most modern governments has to do with tracking property and property values via cadastral maps. When you have a legible property system it's much easier to assess taxes on land, anticipate output, and if you're of the central planner variety, distributing equipment as necessary to improve that output. If the people are living on communal farms and supplementing their food supply with hunting like much of Africa does, things like 'who owns what' is completely illegible to people outside of that specific village.

In order to do the first two, you need to create a common system of measurements. Before Napoleon instituted the metric system in France, every local village and town had their own arbitrary system for measurements. Units like 'a stones throw' were common. Lastly, in order for a nation to be effectively 'modern', you need a generally universal culture that all members of the nation can identify with and call their own. Common language, common history etc are what define states today.

You can look at Africa as 'uncivilized', but they aren't all that different from where everyone else was before the rise of the modern nation-state and the codified laws, modern taxation and professional armies. Generally, African governments rule a few modern cities and the countryside is largely illegible to those in power. Efforts to make people more legible are always met with resistance, because they mean taxes and bureaucrats meddling in village life. Realistically, Africa needs to go through an evolution where each country overthrows it's central government and rewrites the map along better balanced regional lines (think Yugoslavia). Until that happens, you'll continue to end up with shit like the Rwanda genocide once a generation. They could, instead, follow the model of France and force uniformity with the use of force, but that is taboo to the rest of the world now. We'd end up with Facebook videos calling for the deposition of the tyrannical regime.

tl;dr, the western world expects far too much from the governments of African nations to impose their will on the populace in order to stop warring bands, genocide, or whatever else it is we see on tv. There's nothing inherently different between a small town in the American Midwest and a village in Central Africa except for modern conveniences provided by electricity. They have their own history, art, culture, and governments. Honestly, who's to say that we, with 'Honey Boo Boo' on television, are superior?

Guillaume Raynal wrote:

"The legislator must first consider the climate, the air, and the soil. The resources at his disposal determine his duties. He must first consider his locality. A population living on maritime shores must have laws designed for navigation.... If it is an inland settlement, the legislator must make his plans according to the nature and fertility of the soil....

It is especially in the distribution of property that the genius of the legislator will be found. As a general rule, when a new colony is established in any country, sufficient land should be given to each man to support his family....

On an uncultivated island that you are populating with children, you need do nothing but let the seeds of truth germinate along with the development of reason.... But when you resettle a nation with a past into a new country, the skill of the legislator rests in the policy of permitting the people to retain no injurious opinions and customs which can possibly be cured and corrected. If you desire to prevent these opinions and customs from becoming permanent, you will secure the second generation by a general system of public education for the children. A prince or a legislator should never establish a colony without first arranging to send wise men along to instruct the youth...."

People actually still think like this. That's the scary part... That last paragraph was basically our policy in Iraq and Afghanistan.

or

Etienne Condillac wrote:

"My Lord, assume the character of Lycurgus or of Solon. And before you finish reading this essay, amuse yourself by giving laws to some savages in America or Africa. Confine these nomads to fixed dwellings; teach them to tend flocks.... Attempt to develop the social consciousness that nature has planted in them.... Force them to begin to practice the duties of humanity.... Use punishment to cause sensual pleasures to become distasteful to them. Then you will see that every point of your legislation will cause these savages to lose a vice and gain a virtue.

This shit is repulsive.

Last edited by Jay (2012-10-21 16:59:35)