Why is Africa so backwards still?

Post Reply New Topic

1. The Nile and the "fertile crescent" was along a waterway and sea with trade routes. Dessert kept enemies at bay for the most part. Egyptian civilization did not appear to practice much "expansion" and for whatever reason, Egypt advanced culturally in spite of being somewhat isolated from the rest of the world. If their population stayed within healthy limits, and they had no issue growing the food they needed to prosper, there is no reason why their culture could not flourish. The north-south in this case is a very-very short distance. We're talking about THOUSANDS of miles, not a couple hundred.

2. Again, Greece had trade routes all over the Aegean and Mediterranean seas. Internal trade may have been difficult, but it existed...hence the significant cultural deviations from one city-state to another. Not enough trade for a uniform cultural development, but enough that as a "nation" they had a cultural identity.

3. For Asia, there can be many reasons. I know China has some significant mountain ranges. I also know many cultures may not progress more than they deem necessary. Europe had expansionist inclinations. The east-west availability of land made rapid growth and expansion possible. In Africa, this is not so except maybe at the widest point which happens to be at the equator...not the most hospitable place for agriculture. If you were in Ethiopia, you could migrate to Guiena and find your crops and livestock would be suited for the area. If you were in Namibia and migrated north, your crops and animals are not going to adapt as well.

I have read "Guns, Germs and Steel" as well (along with "Collapse" and "The Third Chimpanzee") but many of Mr. Diamond's theories are nonsensical, especially the "East-West vs. North-South" axis one. He also is rather cleverly Eurocentric, not racist but Eurocentric, in the fact that he barley describes why India did not industrialize, for example. I find Pommeranz's "the Great Divergence" far more reasonable in its arguments.

If you mean backwards as in undeveloped by our standards then i would say its much to do with season invarience. They are people who's ancestors never had to deal with the summer/winter cycle so have never faced natural hardship. Only sudden floods or droughts.

But always remember that the first stone tools were made in Africa, and the first cave paintings. They kick started the human race and i reckon they will still be here after we have blown each other to bits.

1. Your argument seems to conflict with your previous post's argument with regards to Egypt's isolation.

2. Extensive trade routes also existed in the Precolumbian Caribbean and from Mesoamerica to the Interior Plateau; this is in the "north-south" axised continent of North America, by the way.

3. Europe had "expansionist inclines" because it was a backwater to compared to every other civilization it knew, behind India, the Islamic World and China in virtually every way. They had a cold climate and/or tiny states and thought they were superior to everyone else because they had "the one true faith", while they were also threatened by the nearby Ottomans and their vastly richer and more advanced civilization. This is why Pizarro captured and killed Atawallpa, the head of the largest empire on Earth, and one that was in many, if not most, respects ahead of Spain, such as in its economic system, its wealth, its infrastructure and the quality of life its people, of every class, had.

What are you talking about the Chinese "not progressing more than they deem necessary" (which is basically what you are saying, despite using "many cultures" as the agent in the clause?) Printing, movable type printing, paper, gunpowder, guns, rockets, the Bessemer process, copper-nickel, the pound lock, paper, Pascal's Triangle, many forms of calculus, natural gas harvesting and storage...need I go on? These all were invented in China before anywhere else on Earth over a period of more than a millennia yet you say that the Chinese were content with their already extremely advanced technology?

As for the tropical rainforest climates and agriculture, have you ever heard of Ife, the Maya Civilization or the Khmer Empire? All grew up in the tropical rainforest, and the first 2 without any significant external influence, certainly less than the Classical Greeks had from Egypt in its writing system or from Mesopotamia in its crops. And let us not forget the very early New Guinean agriculture, almost as early as the Fertile crescent, which largely developed in the tropical rainforest.

Ah. The infamous appeal to "the infamous appeal to political incorrectness". If somebody acknowledges that what they are saying is politically incorrect, then they are practising rhetorical trickery, and what they are saying must be wrong! And if Master Pedant does not like certain truths about race, then they must be "rude", "offensive" and "racist"!



It is predictable that Thomas Sowell, as a black academic, would peddle this propaganda, and it is predictable that you, as a mixed-race person, would repeat it. I've found it's quite common for mixed-race people to want everyone else to feel as rootless as they do, starting (naturally enough) with the members of the majority racial population they live among (who therefore most definitely must not be allowed to have any positive feelings about themselves as a race).

By the way, the implication in your previous sentence - that the sorts of people you would label as "racist" are incapable of seeing weaknesses in their own race - is false. For example, it is quite common for people on the so-called "White right" to wonder what biological flaw exists among White people to make so many of them gullible enough to take the egalitarian propaganda peddled by non-Whites at face value.

PS - Merry Christmas!

"Africa"?
The whole continent?
You do realize that it's a really f*****g big continent with a whole lot of very distinct countries on it, right?
A traveling nurse came through our ER once who was born, raised, and trained in the Congo. He was one of the most competent individuals I've ever met, one of less than a dozen I've met who could do my job better than I can, and could easily have been a doctor if he had cared to. He liked traveling from place to place as an RN. It's not fair for one person to represent an entire country, much less a continent, but he sure made a favorable impression.

I'm not saying Africa hasn't produced intelligent people. There are a lot of very smart Africans. I'm just saying the entire continent suffers MAJOR problems. Nobody can deny that.

Alright, let us say that the Western concept of "race" does correlate to intelligence. Why then, if Europeans are so much smarter than Subsahelian Africans, did the Europeans take so long to conquer it? For that matter, why is their so little difference in culture between the relatively distantly related Hadza and !Kung Peoples, yet such great difference in culture between the relatively far more closely related Han Chinese and the Oneida?

Do you know that Africa has more genetic diversity than any other continent? Why then, according to your pseudocscientifically racist theory, did one haplogroup, a concept which is scientifically valid, by the way, or another not out compete the vast majority the others; for that matter, why did 1 haplogroup not conquer the entire tropical center of the continent, such as haplogroup L2 of East Africa, L1 of Central Africa or for that matter haplogroup L3 of East Africa which, in giving rise to the many haplogroups of Europe and the western Pacific Rim which you consider to be superior intellectually, not conquer the entire continent of Africa? Why was it the Bantus of Haplogroup E1b1a, from West Africa, not the Ethiopians of the supposedly superior haplogroup L3a, that came to dominate the vast majority of the African continent?

See, your pseudoscientific racist theory is just rubbish as you can see from just looking at a diagram of haplogroups and their distribution.

The other poster clearly was using rhetorical trickery to cover their ass (as well as citing a contentious book as irrefutable evidence of inherent racial differences explaining IQ differentials).



Certain claims, which haven't been definitively demonstrated nor do they deserve the moniker of "truth". Nice question-begging, though, it seems that you are sly despite your narrow gene pool. And since the posters statements bring offense to quite a few people, it's pretty clear that they're "offensive" and "rude" (that doesn't negate their truth, but it also doesn't support their truth either). And since the said poster is assuming intellectual superiority of one race to another, they're clearly being "racist". Perhaps you aren't as sly as I thought - maybe the narrowness of your gene pool has limited your critical thinking skills and your really believe the crap you're spouting.



Uh, no, it's not. Quite a few ultraconservative African-Americans have tried to distinguish themselves from their ethnicity, albeit generally culturally rather than in the sense of being racial exceptions. Sowell could just have easily taken the book, which talks mainly about how the poor having lower aggregate IQ scores demonstrates their "intellectual inferiority" and demonstrates the naturalness of their position in the socioeconomic system, and say "well, my positions on the natural meritocracy have been validated and I'd like to thank Herrnstein for further demonstrating my uniqueness - one African-American with enough IQ to merit membership in the aristocracy!"

Regardless, you've really evaded his points. What's the matter, does it hurt your belief system to realize that the "evil geniuses" you hate so much really didn't fare well on IQ tests in a language they were unfamiliar with and hence realize how invalid the use of IQ tests under certain conditions are? Conditions that you're pseudo-scientific racism depends on?



If I'm "rootless" I'm pretty sure it'd involve the fact that my father was adopted and raised by a very reclusive couple, rather than by any inherent fact concerning my ancestry. Regardless, does it bother you to note how heterogeneous the human species in general really is, or is your pseudo-scientific racism solely a result of your innate lack of critical thinking - induced by the narrowness of your gene pool?



Compared to disregarding everyone of a specific skin pigmentation as inherently dense and only - potentially - superior in physical terms, arguing what flaw leads to "Whites" being so generous to others is pretty f*cking mild.

Regardless, what hierarchy do Pseudo-scientific racist white nationalists like yourself see within Caucasians (probably your nationality first in terms of intellect)?



Happy Holidays, maybe if you post your address I can send you some good ol' Metis artwork.

I hope, reflecting on the narrowness of your own gene pool, it doesn't bum you out that much. Perhaps some time watching Britain's much beloved inbred family of Germanic descent will help.

"White" people by definition are mongrels there is no white race.
are an Irishman and a Greek are the same race?
really?
an Estonian and an Italian?
an Englishman and a Pole?
please
At least a Metis is a designer mix (like a labradoodle)

The problems in Africa probably stem from colonialism and the slave trade, it also partially stems from different cultures trying to exert their influence even today.

Its true. I have also read that it is difficult for farmers in many places in Africa to make a profit because there is free food in the form of aid that out-competes them. So they have no choice but to sell at very, very low prices and are thus barely able to survive themselves. It would make a lot more sense to invest in businesses in Africa and to encourage farmers to grow larger amounts of produce, than simply giving everything to them (and little, at that). At least, that's how I tend to see it. Not that I suggest cutting off all aid, I think that would be a rather inhumane thing to do. Its a rather complex situation...

Would also add that these aid groups don't bother to do any research. For example putting wells in place when people believe their ancestors are in the ground and it causes their ancestor's spirits to disappear when you dig holes in the ground.

Well (durp), of course they are in the ground. Where do you bury your dead? =/

Good intentions, bad execution.

Maybe because the European climate forced the indigenous Europeans to come up with ways of survival that involved more than mere hunting and gathering?

Maybe indigenous Europeans had to accommodate themselves to the seasons more so than the indigenous Africans did - why develop an intensive agriculture and textile industry when you could wander around nearly naked and gather your food from wherever you found it?

Maybe indigenous Europeans needed to understand their environment more than the indigenous Africans did - why concern yourself with observing changes in the weather on an almost daily basis when seasonal changes were more significant?

Maybe, just maybe I haven't a clue what I am talking about, what with not being an Anthropologist.

I had to read this four times.
I agree with you?
I need to go to bed.