Dieoff starting in Africa

[kenneal - lagger]

I've just read the thread for the first time and I have no intention of censoring anything in it.

My belief is that there is a huge genetic and cultural diversity on earth. Black and brown people are designed by nature to live in sunny climes; they have much more melanin in their skin to protect them from the sun which us white folks don't have. I have sunburn to prove it from a day on the beach last weekend. White people are more suited to live in cloudier climes where the lack of melanin in the skin enables them to metabolise vitamin D better in lower light levels. There is a rickets problem in Asian people in the north of England from lack of metabolised vitamin D.

Some black races have hips that are at a slightly different angle to white races. This gives a better mechanical advantage to their leg muscles so that they can run faster than white people. Black people taken as slaves to the Caribbean and America were deliberately bred by the slave masters to produce required physical attributes. Whether or not there were sufficient generations of people bred this way to have affected their development, I don't know, but there has been selective breeding of different races. The Nazis also tried it, I think.

There are cultural differences as well. If you live in a place where, for time immemorial, you have had to work during the summer to provide food for that period and the winter as well, you are going to work a lot harder than someone who can walk outside at any time of the year and pick breakfast/lunch/dinner/supper off a tree. The fact that we have taken our work ethic to extremes accounts for the fact that protestant countries are the richest, by and large, in the world. It doesn't mean that we are better than catholic countries or black or brown countries. It probably just means we have a greater prevalence of Obsessive Compulsive Disorder. If I lived in a tropical country I don't think I would slog my guts out to earn vast sums of money to impress a long dead parent, which is what, in effect, many of our millionaires are doing. A rum in the sun each evening would be much preferable.

While on the subject, people of Northern climes show a greater disposition to alcoholism, possibly due to a lack of winter sun. Doesn't mean we should look down on them as inferior. Mind you, Mediterranean people probably look down on us Brits for our lack for ability to drink in moderation when on holiday there.

Snailedoff has already commented on the difference between Haiti and The Dominican Republic which Jarred Diamond puts down to the longer colonial history of Haiti under French rule. There are also cultural differences caused by religion such as the so called Protestant work ethic as opposed to the Catholic, erm, ethic which shows up in the difference in prosperity between north and south Europe and America.

Then there are the middle eastern and eastern cultures and their subjugation of women which is resulting in enlarging populations even with increasing prosperity, whereas in Christian countries, even Catholic ones, the population generally declines with prosperity. Once those peoples come to the west their culture usually eventually modifies to the western norm though, when the benefits of smaller families are realised.

We should celebrate our differences and talk about them rather than shoving them onto the PC fringes where they can be taken over by the Nazi tendency of this world. The fact that we are different doesn't make us any better or worse than anyone else. And our PC friends aught to realise that all cultures have their words for filthy foreigners be it wogs, kafirs, infidels or gwailos so we are not the only potential racists around.

The old test of whether or not you would like your brother/sister/son/daughter to marry one is a good one. It is more likely, in my experience, for a white person to marry a brown/yellow person and have their partner accepted by their family than the other way around. So who is more racist on that basis?

Regarding the OP, it is significant to note that most Asian ex colonial countries have done significantly better in the wealth stakes, post colonialism, than African countries have. Whether that is a cultural or racial difference I will leave to the relevant scientists to work out.

[nexus]

Ken, comparing the colonial histories of Africa and India comprehensively explains the differences in the subsequent fortunes of the two regions.

The African continent was divided up in 1884 by the European heads of state at the Berlin conference, none of the native populations had any say in the matter and Africa ended up as a patchwork of European colonies ruled by Britain, France, Italy, Germany, Portugal and Spain. Can you imagine if instead of the Europeans doing it to Africa, it had been the Americans carving up Europe?

India was ruled very differently (once the British had defeated the French), two thirds of the subcontinent was ruled by the East India Company and the British state, with the other third being run by local maharajas. Then came the independence movement led by Gandhi and India finally became a democratic republic in 1950.

I'm not saying for a second that the road to Indian independence was not rocky and that there aren't huge problems today, just that the fact they have been a democratic republic for over 60 years goes a very long way to explaining why India came out of colonialism on a better footing than most of Africa.

Also there is currently a land grab going on in Africa which is like a second colonisation, then there are the individual western companies which, in this globalised world have been ripping Africa apart for resources (eg coltan being mined in the DRC).

Geopolitics or genetics- it's clear which one is responsible.

[UndercoverElephant]

Ken, comparing the colonial histories of Africa and India comprehensively explains the differences in the subsequent fortunes of the two regions.

The African continent was divided up in 1884 by the European heads of state at the Berlin conference, none of the native populations had any say in the matter and Africa ended up as a patchwork of European colonies ruled by Britain, France, Italy, Germany, Portugal and Spain. Can you imagine if instead of the Europeans doing it to Africa, it had been the Americans carving up Europe?

What point are you trying to make? No, I can't imagine this, because it doesn't fit into history. And I'm really not sure why the location of the borders in sub-Saharan Africa are all that relevant. Are you suggesting that if, say, Zimbabwe was a bit bigger or a bit smaller then it wouldn't be a basket-case?

Borders cause problems all over the place - just look at the Balkans. But for all the wars fought over those borders, the Balkans aren't an African-style basket-case.

Geopolitics or genetics- it's clear which one is responsible.

Is it? How are you arriving at that conclusion? It looks anything but clear to me.

[DominicJ]

I've had arguments with feminists about whether there are fundamental general temperamental differences between men and women. On this issue, unlike the issue of race, I believe there is overwhelming evidence that there are. Despite my pains to point out that I didn't think this made men better than women or vice versa, my comments were found offensive.

Indeed, and yet the Mad Hatties think banks should have 40% women on the board of directors, because then the credit crisis wouldnt have happened.

[nexus]

UE- Modern day India has been a democracy for the PAST 60 YEARS. Can you not see how that is very different to what happened in Africa?

The borders that were drawn up in Africa suited the colonial powers but don't suit modern Africa, India was never fought over in the by the Cold War superpowers as Africa was. Plus there wasn't apartheid as in South Africa or white-rule after independence as in Rhodesia/Zimbabwe. India is completely different, thanks to geopolitics and has had democracy since 1950.

Yes Africa is a in a difficult situation, but again I would say it isn't to do with genetics rather the messy aftermath of terrible colonial rule and continuing problems.

I don't think I could be any clearer and I have work to do today.

[Catweazle]

It's sad that people have been brainwashed into thinking that any reference to differences between races is racist.

There are physical differences and cultural differences. Statistically, world class sprinters and heavyweight boxers are likely to be black, as are South London residents involved in street shootings.

It's not racism, it's diversity.

When I posted some time ago that US Army studies had found a correlation between intelligence and race there were a few comments about racism, I think I escaped because the statistics didn't put me, white European, at the top of the tree. East Asians are apparently, on average, 10% smarter than me. If the stats had put me at the top I'm sure I probably would have been branded a racist or a white supremacist.

If the figures are correct, and Africans are in fact less intelligent and thus less able to adapt to change than me, why shouldn't I talk about it ? And why shouldn't I (we ?) bear it in mind when deciding what type of humanitarian aid to give them ?

Are we doing anyone a favour by refusing to see the difference and perhaps aiming our aid efforts wrongly ? I remember the famous vasectomy campaign in India, where every man having the snip was given a small transistor radio. It was successful there, probably wouldn't have worked here. Are we to dismiss it as condescending ? An insult ? Or was it an appropriate campaign that judged the needs of the Indian people.

If we developed a simple contraceptive implant for Africa, easily used, and with a transistor radio included would that be racist or a solution to a problem ?

[DominicJ]

Ken
The "protestant work ethic" has been soundly debunked, Germany has multiple Catholic and Protestnat dominated cities, and there has never been any significant across the board difference between them in economic terms.

However your point on climate is an interesting one.
There is a species of mouse, that lives up a mountain, and has a three week long growing season.
Amazingly, its behaviour is quite unlike most other mice.

The Mitachondrial adam and eves were 70,000 and 130,000 years ago, even if we assume 25 years a generation (its probably more like 15), the last common dad was 2800 generations ago, could be as high as 4600, or higher....

Rest
How do you account for the fact that civillisation never really took off in Africa, and North America?

China, India, Middle East, Europe, South America, all had massive organised cities and empires.
Africa and North America never really got past a fairly low level, there was nothing in North America, and a bit aroubnd ghana/nigeria in africa, and the nile delta if you want to get pissy.

Can you really blame the lack of development in Africa and North America, from today minus 70,000 years, to today minus 500 years, on white colonialism?

Can you imagine if instead of the Europeans doing it to Africa, it had been the Americans carving up Europe?

Erm, Europe was carved up by the Americans and Russians.....
Belgium is an artificial state where the two sides, possibly three if you include brussels, hate each other.

[UndercoverElephant]

UE- Modern day India has been a democracy for the PAST 60 YEARS. Can you not see how that is very different to what happened in Africa?

Of course I can. Why did India manage to govern itself competently when Africa failed?

The borders that were drawn up in Africa suited the colonial powers but don't suit modern Africa, India was never fought over in the by the Cold War superpowers as Africa was. Plus there wasn't apartheid as in South Africa or white-rule after independence as in Rhodesia/Zimbabwe. India is completely different, thanks to geopolitics and has had democracy since 1950.

I'm still not sure how this explains why Africa is a basketcase.

[DominicJ]

India wasnt a state until the west showed up, it was a collection of dozens to hundreds of microstates, the number varying with conquest and rebellion.

It was western occupation that created a pan indian identity...

[Ludwig]

I've had arguments with feminists about whether there are fundamental general temperamental differences between men and women. On this issue, unlike the issue of race, I believe there is overwhelming evidence that there are. Despite my pains to point out that I didn't think this made men better than women or vice versa, my comments were found offensive.

Indeed, and yet the Mad Hatties think banks should have 40% women on the board of directors, because then the credit crisis wouldnt have happened.

Actually I think there may be something in this, precisely because of the differences between men and women. Statistically, women are better investors than men because they take less extreme risks.

[Ludwig]

UE- Modern day India has been a democracy for the PAST 60 YEARS. Can you not see how that is very different to what happened in Africa?

Of course I can. Why did India manage to govern itself competently when Africa failed?

India had a long-standing, sophisticated culture, or rather, several cultures. It had something to build on when Britain left. Africa had nothing - the roots of European civilisation had not, for the most part, been able to penetrate very deep in the relatively short time we were there (even assuming we really wanted them to).

The borders that were drawn up in Africa suited the colonial powers but don't suit modern Africa, India was never fought over in the by the Cold War superpowers as Africa was. Plus there wasn't apartheid as in South Africa or white-rule after independence as in Rhodesia/Zimbabwe. India is completely different, thanks to geopolitics and has had democracy since 1950.

I'm still not sure how this explains why Africa is a basketcase.

Is the whole of Africa a basketcase? I'm not an expert, but you never hear anything in the news about Zambia, Botswana or Tanzania.

[JavaScriptDonkey]

China, India, Middle East, Europe, South America, all had massive organised cities and empires.
Africa and North America never really got past a fairly low level, there was nothing in North America, and a bit aroubnd ghana/nigeria in africa, and the nile delta if you want to get pissy.

Ignoring Egypt and Carthage is hardly getting pissy. Also relevant to this discussion is the only African Empire to resist colonial interference, Ethiopia. That runs back to 13th century. If the 'bit around Nigeria' means the Igbo Empire on the West coast then that ran for 1000 years.

The infamous Pirates of the Barbary Coast (from Morocco to Libya) had managed to mount sail powered raids on the mighty European civilisations carrying off over a million people to slavery in the centuries either side of Samuel Pepys. Indeed, the Romans noted the ancient slave markets in the towns when they first got to North Africa.

There was nothing in North America because there was little need to do it with so few people and so much resource laden land. South America though had the Inca and Aztecs.

The difference between Haiti and Japan is that everyone in Japan can rely on their rich state to look after them whereas nearly everyone in Haiti lives just above poverty and has good reason to distrust the state. The reasons for that are generations of foreign funded political infighting due to it's location.

To believe that our modern, transitory, Western dominance is based on racial characteristics is utter tripe and racist to the core.

[UndercoverElephant]

Is the whole of Africa a basketcase? I'm not an expert, but you never hear anything in the news about Zambia, Botswana or Tanzania.

I am not an expert either. Botswana is probably the least corrupt and best governed country in sub-saharan Africa. If you type "Zambia corruption" or "Tanzania corruption" into google then it doesn't look so good.

[Ludwig]

What point are you trying to make? No, I can't imagine this, because it doesn't fit into history. And I'm really not sure why the location of the borders in sub-Saharan Africa are all that relevant. Are you suggesting that if, say, Zimbabwe was a bit bigger or a bit smaller then it wouldn't be a basket-case?

Borders cause problems all over the place - just look at the balkans. But for all the wars fought over those borders, the balkans aren't an African-style basket-case.

That, if you don't mind me saying, is a disingenuous comment. The Balkans in the 1990s were a hellhole, quite comparable with the most strife-ridden parts of Africa (Rwanda and Burundi excepted). I don't remember the details of how the Balkan conflict was resolved, but I think it was more due to a simple stalemate than a triumph of civilised values. Of course, once peace returned, the Balkans could tap back into the overarching European culture that they'd been part of historically, an option not open to African countries.

There are other parts of the world where tribal warfare is endemic, but it doesn't get reported on because it happens below the level of politics. New Guinea and parts of South America are cases in point. So it's not, as you seem to be making out, a particularly "black" problem.

I agree with you that the issue of racial differences is a valid one to consider, but I am further than you from forming conclusions about it, and I feel your assessment is far too one-sided.

[Ludwig]

Rest
How do you account for the fact that civillisation never really took off in Africa, and North America?

China, India, Middle East, Europe, South America, all had massive organised cities and empires.
Africa and North America never really got past a fairly low level, there was nothing in North America, and a bit aroubnd ghana/nigeria in africa, and the nile delta if you want to get pissy.

Can you really blame the lack of development in Africa and North America, from today minus 70,000 years, to today minus 500 years, on white colonialism?

This is an interesting question but I don't know if there's a simple answer. Once civilisation gets rolling, its development is exponential. So we shouldn't take the sophistication of Chinese, east Asian and European civilisation as a sign of a huge evolutionary advantage.

And tribalism has been rife in parts of Europe until recent times. Ireland was notorious for it.