Why some countries are rich and some are poor.

[Maximus Zeebra]

False. This is a historical aberation. Lasting only 1700 or so years at the outer limit. Based on your kind of reasoning, on average, Chinese people have been by far the most developed. There have been MANY points in time where non white civilisations productive capacities outstriped thsoe of whites. Every single civilisation in the mediteranean puts the economic achievements of whites throughout history to shame. The middle east, same deal. Asia. Latin America. At one point mongolia ruled the known world. Europes only had like 600 years at the top spot, and it is the product of civilisational development amongst its neighbours as much as itself. The U.S. is a product of Europe. The idea that the wealth we enjoy is a product of exclusively 'white' civilisation is foolish. Remember who taught you to write, read, count, use gun powder, invented your religion, pioneered agriculture. While we were regressing into the dark ages, in Sotuth America theyw ere building giant pyramids with one step for each day of the year, wth a shadow that read like a giant clock, and irrigating hills.

Now. It could well be argued that africa has been predisposed towards low levels of economic development. But I would suggest that if this is the case, the reasoning is environmental, rather than racial. Proximity of land to the equator MAY be a negative force upon economic development. Due to tropical disease and/or draught. And that there is also a corelation between proximity to the equator and color of skin tone (due to being evolved to be better resistant to the suns rays of these locales). But this is a situation where 2 independant factors (skin tone and development) are corelated, but with no causal relationship between the 2. The only relationship that they both have in this scenario, is that they are both functions of the same GEOGRAPHICAL (not racial) hardship.

The point is that there are differences between races, that was my point.. Asians tend to have higher average intelligence than every other race in the world, including whites.. Which is why China will probably become a supreme civilization (long)before 2050..

 

[bub]

The point is that there are differences between races, that was my point.. Asians tend to have higher average intelligence than every other race in the world, including whites.. Which is why China will probably become a supreme civilization (long)before 2050..

If you make differences between races, then it is racism.

You should really read "Guns, Germs & Steel": I understand that this theory is probably not perfect and that you could discuss about it, but Jared Diamond made great points, and if you read it I'm quite confident that you'd be convinced too.

Guns, Germs, and Steel - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

 

[Maximus Zeebra]

If you make differences between races, then it is racism.

You should really read "Guns, Germs & Steel": I understand that this theory is probably not perfect and that you could discuss about it, but Jared Diamond made great points, and if you read it I'm quite confident that you'd be convinced too.

Guns, Germs, and Steel - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Yah ya, but not in a bad way anyways.. Just quoting research I have heard of that stated these things. And we all know the white world have been more successfull than the black world, or dont we? Even in the US this is true, whereas if there was no racial difference they would be equally successfull, especially now that there is "NO racism" in the US to quote a few of the US posters on this forum..

 

[bub]

Yah ya, but not in a bad way anyways.. Just quoting research I have heard of that stated these things. And we all know the white world have been more successfull than the black world, or dont we? Even in the US this is true, whereas if there was no racial difference they would be equally successfull, especially now that there is "NO racism" in the US to quote a few of the US posters on this forum..

Read Diamond and you'll see that if white people had lived in Africa they'd probably not be more successful than the black ones

 

[Maximus Zeebra]

Read Diamond and you'll see that if white people had lived in Africa they'd probably not be more successful than the black ones

haven't they now? In general white people in Africa are better of, most of them came from Europe with wealth in their pockets, often wealth that was stolen from Africans. South Africa is a country with a sizable white minority and the richest country in Africa, Namibia is relatively well of and have a sizable white population. West Africa is better of than east Africa and also have a higher percentage of white people than the east.. What happened to Zimbabwe when the whites were chased out?

What about blacks in the US? What about other immigrant groups in the US? Are not Asians in general more successful in the US than blacks and Hispanics for example?

Race is part of the equation in why some nations are better of than other, thats all I am saying, and you cant deny that... On the other hand black people have superior physique to for example white people, which are in most cases quite weak when it comes to health.. Now why is that? There are differences, and it doesnt make me a racist for pointing it out.

 

[RightOfCenter]

haven't they now? In general white people in Africa are better of, most of them came from Europe with wealth in their pockets, often wealth that was stolen from Africans. South Africa is a country with a sizable white minority and the richest country in Africa, Namibia is relatively well of and have a sizable white population. West Africa is better of than east Africa and also have a higher percentage of white people than the east.. What happened to Zimbabwe when the whites were chased out?

What about blacks in the US? What about other immigrant groups in the US? Are not Asians in general more successful in the US than blacks and Hispanics for example?

Race is part of the equation in why some nations are better of than other, thats all I am saying, and you cant deny that... On the other hand black people have superior physique to for example white people, which are in most cases quite weak when it comes to health.. Now why is that? There are differences, and it doesnt make me a racist for pointing it out.

The book is about development and why European cultures came to dominate. Not why they are now. Guns, Germs, and Steel refutes racial arguments.

 

[Maximus Zeebra]

The book is about development and why European cultures came to dominate. Not why they are now. Guns, Germs, and Steel refutes racial arguments.

Do YOU? It would be polite to answer the post with something else than a link to wikipedia with a summary of a book with someone elses opinion..

 

[RightOfCenter]

Do YOU? It would be polite to answer the post with something else than a link to wikipedia with a summary of a book with someone elses opinion..

Do I refute racial links to historical economic success? Yes.

 

[Maximus Zeebra]

Do I refute racial links to historical economic success? Yes.

Explain then why Europe and the US is most successfull and have mostly always been.. Why is Africa worst off? Why are the countries in Africa with higher proportion of whites more successfull economically than others? and so on, like I wrote in the previous post where you answered with a link.. id like to see your reply to that post;;

http://www.debatepolitics.com/1057844654-post30.html

 

[Frank Talk]

because a poster says he disagrees with him?

I've read his book (and another one, "collapse") and found them very convincing.

I think my main problem with Diamond’s book is that he tries to discover the single reason history evolved this way, when there doesn’t need to be one. History evolved for numerous, complex reasons and Diamond’s theory is a gross oversimplification. Diamond seemed determined to develop his theory and in turn ignored a large amount of conflicting evidence. I read the book a few years back so if anything I say is wrong, please correct me.

In the book Diamond attempts to answer Yali’s question, “why do you white men have so much cargo but we New Guineans’ have none?” (let’s ignore if it’s even the right question or not) and Diamond develops the answer of “Gun, Germs and Steel” (i.e. technology and diseases) which the development in Europe was cause mainly by geography. One of the points diamond makes is that Europe had easily domesticated crops such as wheat that places like Africa didn’t have. While I don’t know of anything that disputes that fact what Diamond has ignored that farming techniques only developed in Europe because Africans brought these techniques to Anatolia from which they diffused into Europe.[1]. Wheat in Europe would be worthless if the farming techniques weren’t known, rather it seems here the movement of people was just as important as the natural resources people had to work with. To further this point, major steps in European society such as the development of University, medical sciences, number system etc. were brought to Europe by the Moors who conquered the Iberian Peninsula, not to mention early developments brought to northern and Western Europe by roman conquerors.

Diamond also talks about the importance of steel in European conquests and how it offered European’s superior military technology but steel wasn’t solely a European development. On the PBS site Diamond mentions the fact that Africans also had steel but were far behind Europeans in development, which is simply untrue. Africans produced carbon steel around 1400 BC, something Europeans wouldn’t have until millennia later.[2] Maybe Diamonds point was that they didn’t utilize it in the same way, not that it matters as the conquerors of Africa didn’t use swords but guns which came to Europe through the silk road. If I recall Diamond suggests that Africans didn’t have these weapons because of geographic isolation, which is untrue, rather African Kingdoms were trading with China and other asian nations before Europeans got there. [3] Africans had acquired guns but deemed them worthless in warfare (the Ashanti had guns and would defeat Europeans with superior military strategy and later economically collapse when they criminalized the slave trade). If we turn to the Americas it arguable that steel was a major factor but Cortez may have been defeated by the Aztecs if it wasn’t for the fact that they peacefully received him and allowed him to enter Tenochtitlan. The Aztecs were also rather successful early on when fighting the Spanish. [4] It’s likely as Diamond suggests, smallpox helped the conquest, which is true for Tenochtitlan, but later conquests saw the outbreak of native hemorrhagic fever. It seems that the natives own germs, politics and culture had just as much an effect as steel and smallpox. Not to mention the only reason Europeans ended up in America was because the turks blocked the silk road and they needed a new trade route. That political move was extremely influential in how history would unfold.

As a final point Diamond notes how the Chinese were ahead of Europe in shipbuilding but the emperor would ban exploration and trade. Diamond attributes this to lack of competing civilizations like what was seen in Europe, but the political move could been influenced by highly ethnocentric Chinese culture that detested foreign influence, too much ethnocentrism is poison.

 

[bub]

I think my main problem with Diamond’s book is that he tries to discover the single reason history evolved this way, when there doesn’t need to be one. History evolved for numerous, complex reasons and Diamond’s theory is a gross oversimplification. Diamond seemed determined to develop his theory and in turn ignored a large amount of conflicting evidence. I read the book a few years back so if anything I say is wrong, please correct me.

thanks a lot, that will be interesting

In the book Diamond attempts to answer Yali’s question, “why do you white men have so much cargo but we New Guineans’ have none?” (let’s ignore if it’s even the right question or not) and Diamond develops the answer of “Gun, Germs and Steel” (i.e. technology and diseases) which the development in Europe was cause mainly by geography. One of the points diamond makes is that Europe had easily domesticated crops such as wheat that places like Africa didn’t have. While I don’t know of anything that disputes that fact what Diamond has ignored that farming techniques only developed in Europe because Africans brought these techniques to Anatolia from which they diffused into Europe.[1]. Wheat in Europe would be worthless if the farming techniques weren’t known, rather it seems here the movement of people was just as important as the natural resources people had to work with. To further this point, major steps in European society such as the development of University, medical sciences, number system etc. were brought to Europe by the Moors who conquered the Iberian Peninsula, not to mention early developments brought to northern and Western Europe by roman conquerors.

Europe's strenght was that we benefited from technologies and ideas developped abroad (contrary to the Chinese, who were more self-centered at that time, and who, like the Arabs, refused to use foreign technologies, for religious reasons or because they saw them as primitive. Example: the Arabs had all the Greek texts, which they have transmitted to Europe via Spain, but have not been influenced by them)

As for the African techniques, they were applied to wheat, which probably did not grow in Africa

Diamond also talks about the importance of steel in European conquests and how it offered European’s superior military technology but steel wasn’t solely a European development. On the PBS site Diamond mentions the fact that Africans also had steel but were far behind Europeans in development, which is simply untrue. Africans produced carbon steel around 1400 BC, something Europeans wouldn’t have until millennia later.[2]

Yes, but they never made armors like the conquistadores

Maybe Diamonds point was that they didn’t utilize it in the same way, not that it matters as the conquerors of Africa didn’t use swords but guns which came to Europe through the silk road. If I recall Diamond suggests that Africans didn’t have these weapons because of geographic isolation, which is untrue, rather African Kingdoms were trading with China and other asian nations before Europeans got there. [3] Africans had acquired guns but deemed them worthless in warfare (the Ashanti had guns and would defeat Europeans with superior military strategy and later economically collapse when they criminalized the slave trade). If we turn to the Americas it arguable that steel was a major factor but Cortez may have been defeated by the Aztecs if it wasn’t for the fact that they peacefully received him and allowed him to enter Tenochtitlan. The Aztecs were also rather successful early on when fighting the Spanish. [4]

I'm not sure it's Diamond who developped that, but there were "powder empires", like China and the European countries. These empires could easily defeat any enemy thanks to guns and canons. It is true that the Arabs and some African nations also had guns, but i guess they were less efficient and less numerous.

It’s likely as Diamond suggests, smallpox helped the conquest, which is true for Tenochtitlan, but later conquests saw the outbreak of native hemorrhagic fever. It seems that the natives own germs, politics and culture had just as much an effect as steel and smallpox. Not to mention the only reason Europeans ended up in America was because the turks blocked the silk road and they needed a new trade route. That political move was extremely influential in how history would unfold.

There are thousands of factors involved, I guess Diamond has chosen the most evident ones.

As for politics and culture, he develops that in "Collapse" (for example he explains that the Vikings in Groenland starved because they stuck with their traditions of breeding beefs instead of hunting seals like the Eskimos)

As a final point Diamond notes how the Chinese were ahead of Europe in shipbuilding but the emperor would ban exploration and trade. Diamond attributes this to lack of competing civilizations like what was seen in Europe, but the political move could been influenced by highly ethnocentric Chinese culture that detested foreign influence, too much ethnocentrism is poison.

I think he does not talk about culture in Guns Germs & Steel because he develops this point in Collapse. An author who says exactly what you just said is Paul Kennedy

 

[RightOfCenter]

Explain then why Europe and the US is most successfull and have mostly always been.. Why is Africa worst off? Why are the countries in Africa with higher proportion of whites more successfull economically than others? and so on, like I wrote in the previous post where you answered with a link.. id like to see your reply to that post;;

http://www.debatepolitics.com/1057844654-post30.html

The main reason is economics. European and Asian countries were able to transport animals and agricultural goods across the continent without harming the goods. This allowed them to plan productive plants and raise domestic animals that could not be raised in Africa or South America. This led to large populations of people that led to an increased immunity to disease. These advantages allowed European peoples to conquer less developed cultures.

 

[Frank Talk]

thanks a lot, that will be interesting

Europe's strenght was that we benefited from technologies and ideas developped abroad (contrary to the Chinese, who were more self-centered at that time, and who, like the Arabs, refused to use foreign technologies, for religious reasons or because they saw them as primitive. Example: the Arabs had all the Greek texts, which they have transmitted to Europe via Spain, but have not been influenced by them)

As you say arabs and chinese refused technology for cultural reasons, not because of geography.

As for the African techniques, they were applied to wheat, which probably did not grow in Africa

My point is though that the techniques only got there because of the migration of certain groups. That migration can, but doesn't have to, tie into geography, it could of been cultural or political, we don't really know why the migration occurred.

Yes, but they never made armors like the conquistadores

Right but the problem was not necessarily the ability to develop steel but the way it was utilized, it would most likely tie to culture.

I'm not sure it's Diamond who developped that, but there were "powder empires", like China and the European countries. These empires could easily defeat any enemy thanks to guns and canons. It is true that the Arabs and some African nations also had guns, but i guess they were less efficient and less numerous.

And once again I feel we're going back to politics and culture. Africans kingdoms had access to guns and could have armed their armys with them but they didn't find them useful in warfare. I don't know why but it probably had something to do with the style of warfare.

There are thousands of factors involved, I guess Diamond has chosen the most evident ones.

Which is why I don't understand why Diamond feels he needs to tie everything into geography. History, in my view, is a series of random, interconnected events and there are no "laws of history".

As for politics and culture, he develops that in "Collapse" (for example he explains that the Vikings in Groenland starved because they stuck with their traditions of breeding beefs instead of hunting seals like the Eskimos)

I think he does not talk about culture in Guns Germs & Steel because he develops this point in Collapse. An author who says exactly what you just said is Paul Kennedy

I haven't read Collapse but that would make sense. I did get the feeling though that Diamond was publishing Guns, Germs & Steel as his complete theory of history. I'll pick up Collapse and see how that affects my view of Guns, Germs & Steel.

 

[Khayembii Communique]

View Post
haven't they now? In general white people in Africa are better of, most of them came from Europe with wealth in their pockets, often wealth that was stolen from Africans. South Africa is a country with a sizable white minority and the richest country in Africa, Namibia is relatively well of and have a sizable white population. West Africa is better of than east Africa and also have a higher percentage of white people than the east.. What happened to Zimbabwe when the whites were chased out?

What about blacks in the US? What about other immigrant groups in the US? Are not Asians in general more successful in the US than blacks and Hispanics for example?

Race is part of the equation in why some nations are better of than other, thats all I am saying, and you cant deny that... On the other hand black people have superior physique to for example white people, which are in most cases quite weak when it comes to health.. Now why is that? There are differences, and it doesnt make me a racist for pointing it out.

This has to be the most racist post I've seen on here in a while. Before we can really talk about this, you're going to have to answer a few questions.

First, what is race? Could you define "race" for us?
Second, how many different races are there? What are they? How are they distinguished from one another?
Third, where is your justification for saying that "On the other hand black people have superior physique to for example white people, which are in most cases quite weak when it comes to health"

and it doesnt make me a racist for pointing it out

Of course it does. First off, you're presuming that the concept of race exists biologically in humans. That alone is a racist position. Second, you're stating that countries with more "nonblack" people are better off, which implies that black people are inferior. That's blatantly racist. Third, you're making ridiculous assumptions about different "races" which in itself is racist.

Explain then why Europe and the US is most successfull and have mostly always been..

Generally it is because capitalism was born in Europe (England first, to be specific), and through this development came the development of productive forces and the need to expand. This led to the colonialism of less developed parts of the world whereby the capitalist armies dominated due to technological advances spurred on by capitalism (i.e. the gun). In a colony the only ones that are benefiting from the colonization are the colonists themselves and whoever they belong to; wealth was being exported from these colonies with the natives seeing none of it. Which caused the system that we see today.

The US started off as a colony and, due to the American Revolution, became an independent capitalist state, which expanded the "development" of capitalism through colonialism in the Americas, slavery and the annihilation of the native population.

It's about power, not race. I don't see how that's not blatantly obvious. Have you ever read a book?

Why is Africa worst off?

Because historically it has been the most ravaged by colonialist-imperialist conquest.

Why are the countries in Africa with higher proportion of whites more successfull economically than others?

There's numerous reasons for this, although it would help for you to be more specific and provide countries themselves. Generally, though, the reason goes right back to imperialism/colonialism. In Congo, for example, the country started out as a private colony of the King of Belgium that essentially used the natives as slave labor. This was at the beginning of the 20th century. This kind of violent suppression breeds violent consciousness (i.e. when you live in a ****ed up environment you get ****ed up yourself), which perpetuates the violence even after the colonizers are driven out. Fanon discussed and analyzed this in detail in his book. The only way it has to do with race is that it was caused by the colonizers who looked upon the natives as inferior.

The main reason is economics. European and Asian countries were able to transport animals and agricultural goods across the continent without harming the goods. This allowed them to plan productive plants and raise domestic animals that could not be raised in Africa or South America. This led to large populations of people that led to an increased immunity to disease. These advantages allowed European peoples to conquer less developed cultures.

THis is one specific instance, yes, but the answer is obviously much broader than the transportation of animals and agricultural goods. What you are discussing is an innovation in production and transportation, which is part of a much larger context, i.e. the development of capitalism in general.

Later you raise another good point, though, and that is the environment of Africa itself, where in many parts of the continent it is difficult or impossible to produce agriculturally. This basically means that they must rely on imports, which costs a lot of money and subordinates them politically.

 

[Maximus Zeebra]

different races have different strengths and weaknesses, thats just the way it is.. By nature black people are superior physically to whites and whites to Asians, but whites are most vulnerable to ill health. Asians are said to be the most intelligent in scientific studies. Hardly coincidence that economies and societies have developed differently with different races dominating different countries and continents.

 

[UtahBill]

Pointing out factual differences between races and cultures is not racism.
We are NOT all the same...

 

[Khayembii Communique]

different races have different strengths and weaknesses, thats just the way it is.. By nature black people are superior physically to whites and whites to Asians, but whites are most vulnerable to ill health. Asians are said to be the most intelligent in scientific studies. Hardly coincidence that economies and societies have developed differently with different races dominating different countries and continents.

You didn't answer any of my questions, you just repeated the crap that you said before. I understand this is your position; what I want you to do is back it up. Responding to my post would be a start.

Pointing out factual differences between races and cultures is not racism.

Well then perhaps you could support your presumption that races are biologically real (define race, tell me how many different races there are and define the different races and how are they distinct from one another).

 

[bub]

I haven't read Collapse but that would make sense. I did get the feeling though that Diamond was publishing Guns, Germs & Steel as his complete theory of history. I'll pick up Collapse and see how that affects my view of Guns, Germs & Steel.

I think that "Guns Germs & Steel" and "Collapse" are part of a kind of trilogy

Guns, Germs, and Steel - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Collapse (book - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia)
The Third Chimpanzee - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

 

[Red_Dave]

haven't they now? In general white people in Africa are better of, most of them came from Europe with wealth in their pockets, often wealth that was stolen from Africans. South Africa is a country with a sizable white minority and the richest country in Africa, Namibia is relatively well of and have a sizable white population. West Africa is better of than east Africa and also have a higher percentage of white people than the east.. What happened to Zimbabwe when the whites were chased out?

The French population in Algeria doubled after the end of colonialism but Algeria isnt any better off. Also surely Russia is the biggest hole in your argument?

 

[Maximus Zeebra]

Pointing out factual differences between races and cultures is not racism.
We are NOT all the same...

Thats simply what I say and its true, we are not the same.. What matters is to accept the differences and accept others.
Probably if you cannot admit there is differences you are or will be some kind of racist..

 

[Maximus Zeebra]

The French population in Algeria doubled after the end of colonialism but Algeria isnt any better off. Also surely Russia is the biggest hole in your argument?

Russia is more developed than the UK if you count out the "paper economy" which the Russians never really understood and find silly.

 

[Real Talk]

Your reading far to much into about 700 (sorry about the typo) years of high levels of European development. Its a flash in the pan. Your just ignoring thousands of years where white Europeans were relatively less developed

 

[Maximus Zeebra]

This has to be the most racist post I've seen on here in a while. Before we can really talk about this, you're going to have to answer a few questions. .

I am not racist at least, my intellect strictly forbids me prejudice, and I play with blacks as well as I do with whites. I have absolutely no racism in me.

Just so you know, before you read the rest(which will probably sound racist in vulnerable ears).. Maybe you are black or something and over-react in this case, because I certainly am not a racist. But I do understand if you are black in America that you would react in this way, taken into consideration how fragile non-racism is in the US.

First, what is race? Could you define "race" for us?

I have black hair and relatively tan skin compared with northern Europeans whom are definitely another race than for example Italians and Spaniards.

Lets simplify and define continents with different races, shall we? Asians in Asia, predominantly whites in Europe, blacks in Africa, predominantly white in North America and hispanics and indians in south America...

Second, how many different races are there? What are they? How are they distinguished from one another?

Incredible amounts of them, but only really 1 race, humans, but to explain our differences we do use the term race rather fairly about major differences rather than small differences.

Third, where is your justification for saying that "On the other hand black people have superior physique to for example white people, which are in most cases quite weak when it comes to health"

Ever been to England? Been in the locker rooms there? Ever seen black people who have never focused on their health and exercised in a gym? They have a more natural bodily strenght than white people who do not have this, but weaknesses and fragility rather. Put 100 average blacks on a line and white opposites to them and you will see what I mean...

Uh-oh, I said "put blacks in line", dont jump to conclusion and judge me as racist for that please, there was a context...

Of course it does. First off, you're presuming that the concept of race exists biologically in humans. That alone is a racist position. Second, you're stating that countries with more "nonblack" people are better off, which implies that black people are inferior. That's blatantly racist. Third, you're making ridiculous assumptions about different "races" which in itself is racist.

Its not racist if its true is it? I am not poiting these things out to be a bastard, I just did it because it was relavant. Dont be so fuc***g emotional.

I never said blacks were inferior, if anything, I as a white have actually been closer to saying they are superior, especially their physique.

Again, I AM NOT a RACIST.
I think white people are assholes anyways... Is that racist? Is it not because I am talking about my own race? I find whites to have problems with health, I generalized about a race, my own, is that not racist in your view? Or is it only when I talk about blacks? I actually like blacks better than whites, they tend to be more honest and straight forward. Am I racist now for generalizing about blacks?

Dont be an asshole, just admit you are wrong. I am not racist and you know that.

Generally it is because capitalism was born in Europe (England first, to be specific), and through this development came the development of productive forces and the need to expand. This led to the colonialism of less developed parts of the world whereby the capitalist armies dominated due to technological advances spurred on by capitalism (i.e. the gun). In a colony the only ones that are benefiting from the colonization are the colonists themselves and whoever they belong to; wealth was being exported from these colonies with the natives seeing none of it. Which caused the system that we see today.

Yeah, and I like this type of capitalism that have existed in Europe for thousand of years, but new capitalism is simply to puke of, very unbiblical.

The US started off as a colony and, due to the American Revolution, became an independent capitalist state, which expanded the "development" of capitalism through colonialism in the Americas, slavery and the annihilation of the native population.
.

All this is true...

It's about power, not race. I don't see how that's not blatantly obvious. Have you ever read a book?

Ive read many books. Aside from that I would believe the amount of word I have read in my life is just about the most of anyone on this forum.

Are you making silly presumtion here? hate speech against people who do not read books? Thats prejudice.

There's numerous reasons for this, although it would help for you to be more specific and provide countries themselves. Generally, though, the reason goes right back to imperialism/colonialism. In Congo, for example, the country started out as a private colony of the King of Belgium that essentially used the natives as slave labor. This was at the beginning of the 20th century. This kind of violent suppression breeds violent consciousness (i.e. when you live in a ****ed up environment you get ****ed up yourself), which perpetuates the violence even after the colonizers are driven out. Fanon discussed and analyzed this in detail in his book. The only way it has to do with race is that it was caused by the colonizers who looked upon the natives as inferior.

I already know too much about this subject, it makes me sick to think of.. I probably hate racism more than you anyways.
And I hate prejudice..

Aside from that you dont counter that south Africa with the largers white population is most successfull as a nation, nor that namibia is more successful than other countries in Africa as well, or that the white population in the US is more successful than the black population in the same country, or how white Europe came to dominate Africa, or the fact that white countries have been more successful nations than black countries.

You can, can you? Because what I say is true.

 

[Maximus Zeebra]

Your reading far to much into about 700 (sorry about the typo) years of high levels of European development. Its a flash in the pan. Your just ignoring thousands of years where white Europeans were relatively less developed

Are you talking about me? Because you are not talking about me, because I was actually saying exactly that.. You are talking about someone else, because they say things that make it seem so, not everyone else on this forum, but many, them you talk about..

 

[Real Talk]

Are you talking about me? Because you are not talking about me, because I was actually saying exactly that.. You are talking about someone else, because they say things that make it seem so, not everyone else on this forum, but many, them you talk about..

I mean you, with your racial profiling based upon socio economics.
It is nonsense.
If u were to attemptp the same kinds of pseudo science at many points in history, you would reach differant conclusions.