Guns Germs and Steel discussion plz. Can anyone here expand on the ideas presented in this book or present a summary of an alternate theory. The best presentation will earn 5 cubby fuck points.
Guns Germs and Steel discussion plz...
Dylan Walker
Other urls found in this thread:
ncbi.nlm.nih.gov
genetics.org
sciencedirect.com
mbe.oxfordjournals.org
ncbi.nlm.nih.gov
frissekijk.info
paulcooijmans.com
ncbi.nlm.nih.gov
sciencedirect.com
ingentaconnect.com
berggorilla.org
pnas.org
abc.net.au
alpinerice.com.au
onlinelibrary.wiley.com
books.google.com
udel.edu
charlesdarwinresearch.org
charlesdarwinresearch.org
allaboutwheat.info
quadrant.org.au
australianmuseum.net.au
data.worldbank.org
en.wikipedia.org
twitter.com
Nicholas Hernandez
Horses > Zebras
Michael Lee
Yes. And maybe it would be possible for some non-existent hypothetical African half tribal half griculture society to tame combat lions.
Connor Morales
Do your own homework faggot.
Matthew Bailey
reposting standard response
Jose Thompson
His point number 3 is so full of holes, he just uses the word superior without describing what that means and then throws in a line about them being sustainable which says nothing about their caloric productivity. Wheat is a more productive crop in terms of calories than any of those foods. Corn could have eventually caught up with wheat but it was domesticated thousands of years after and needed time to catch up. Why was it domesticated so late? Because it's natural state was less productive than wheat's natural state.
This whole copypasta is sophistry
Jackson Cooper
The whole argument is based on how wheat and rice were domesticated long before the American and African crops were, and that their natural forms were superior to the natural forms of the above.
Jacob Perez
Then he says the Abbos almost hunted their large mammals to extinction. This is pure trolling
Justin Lewis
Explain 25 Spaniards conquering all of Central America. That book is crap
Gavin King
Wheat and rice were domesticated thousands of years before corn and were superior crops to corns beans and squash.
Charles Ramirez
What does that have to with a handful of malaria-ridden Spaniards conquering an entire continent?
Lucas Allen
>abbos hunted to extinction
This is true and you're a faggot.
Asher Anderson
This guy teaches at UCLA, should I ask him for you all?
Evan Robinson
Chimps look nothing like black people you faggot. They had large marsupials which are less intelligent than large mammals and unfit for domestication.
Tell him to right an expanded version please.
Michael Baker
Large placental mammals I will say, in my day we learned that mammals did not include marsupials. OH WOE IS ME
Adrian Mitchell
>chimps look nothing like blacks
It's their genes you utter faggot.
...have you ever looked into fixation indexes?
Fixation index, or FST, is a way to measure genetic distance between populations.
The FST between Whites (British) and Blacks (Bantu) is 0.23.
The FST between the common chimpanzee (Pan troglodytes) and the bonobo (Pan paniscus) is 0.103
>...which is half the White-Black difference despite the two being classified as separate species.
The FST between two gorilla species, Gorilla gorilla and Gorilla beringei is 0.04
>...or 1/6 the difference between Blacks and Whites.
The FST between humans and Neanderthals is less than 0.08
>...or about 1/3 the Black-White difference.
The FST between humans and homo erectus is 0.17
>...which is 3/4 the Black-White distance.
Thus Whites and Blacks are more genetically distant than two different chimpanzee species, two different gorilla species, humans vs Neanderthals, and humans vs homo erectus. If one is consistent and objective with taxonomic classification systems even in regards to human populations, Blacks and Whites could (and arguably should) be classified into separate species and at the very least into different subspecies.
Pretty crazy, huh? Makes a LOT of sense, huh?
ncbi.nlm.nih.gov
genetics.org
sciencedirect.com
mbe.oxfordjournals.org
ncbi.nlm.nih.gov
frissekijk.info
Wikipedia states the same things.
Andrew Watson
Will do
Maybe I'll stop by his office tomorrow and lay out the counter arguments as well, though I'm sure he's heard them all before
Xavier Barnes
Is this another bait image? Explain what X/A ratio is and how its relevant to this?
Jack Green
He's seen it all before, so make sure you come prepared, and Record it pls.
Nicholas Rogers
More on niggers and their shit tier genes which render them incapable of civility.
The chimpanzee IQ of 80 or 90 points is in comparison to human children. The development of the human brain does not cease in childhood - it continues to the age of 25. The development of the chimpanzee brain, on the other hand, ends quickly. Since then, the human-chimp gap widens and widens.
A similar things happens to blacks. Their early childhood scores are more similar to those of whites (see the Minnesota Transracial Adoption Study), later they widen, and in adults the gap reaches 20 points. Also, the average black African IQ is not really 60 or 70 points. If you reject the samples which included e.g. children with a history of malaria or malnourished ones, samples tested with instruments which have known cultural biases etc. and focus only on the representative adult samples that use decent methodology, you'll find out that the real average IQ of an adult sub-Saharan black African is roughly 80 points… Which is still not something to be happy about:
paulcooijmans.com
Moreover, an average IQ of 80 points suggests an entirely genetic origin of the gap: African Americans score 85 points on average, while whites of European origin - 100 points. African Americans are roughly 1/4th white - and score 5 points higher than their pure African counterparts (5 points = 1/4th of the 20-point white European - black African gap):
ncbi.nlm.nih.gov
What I've just written is the greatest taboo of modern science: whites and blacks do differ in their average cognitive abilities, and the reason for the difference lies in their genes rather than in the environment.
Henry Sanders
Good idea
I still can't believe he'd omit all the American and African crops - my father was reading a book about American food last year or so and it kept bringing up how much more nutritious American crops were - I mean hell, the Irish wouldn't have potato babies and the Italians wouldn't have tomato sauce without the New World, it'd just be the same old gruel and pasta
Levi Morris
The thesis is solid and probably correct to some degree but Guns Germs and Steel makes up evidence to support it
Levi Phillips
>guns germs and steel
its progressive faggotry that tries to explain in a non-racist way, why white people rule the fucking world and why non-white countries are fucking shitholes. the truth of the matter is that race plays into a country's or a society's success quite a bit, much to the chagrin of the author and butthurt anti-racist progressives (like you, OP!)
>This whole copypasta is sophistry
>HURRR I don't agree with the points made in it, therefore its just malicious attacks and untrue, that's all I need to refute it with, no actual logical counter-arguments
Fuck off
Carson Adams
He didnt omit them, he pointed out that they were inferior to the Asian and Middle Eastern crops and domesticated thousands of years later, thus giving those societies much less to work with
I pointed out how he used sophistry against the main argument of the book, and you just ignored that and said that I didnt refute anything.
David Hughes
>it's progressive
No it fucking isn't, not at all. You not liking something doesn't automatically make something progressive. There is absolutely nothing in his book that relies upon inherently progressive dogma whatsoever.
You've probably never even read it, or anything else for that matter
Wyatt Brown
>It's not racist so it must be progressive
wew
Andrew Morales
None of those IQ studies were conclusive. And if they were, this theory wouldn't be taboo
Cameron Hill
We havent sequenced homo erectus genes enough to know the difference you sophist.
Gavin Price
>being this delusional
>is a burger
laffen hard you top faggot, where are your sources proving that there is no IQ gap?
The genetic distance between Whites (British) and Blacks (Bantu) is 0.23:
genetics.org
The FST between the common chimpanzee (Pan troglodytes) and the bonobo (Pan paniscus) is 0.103 which is half the White-Black difference despite the two being classified as separate species:
sciencedirect.com
The FST between two gorilla species, Gorilla gorilla and Gorilla beringei is 0.04 or 1/6 the difference between Blacks and Whites:
ingentaconnect.com
berggorilla.org
The FST between humans and Neanderthals is less than 0.08 or about 1/3 the Black-White difference:
sciencedirect.com
pnas.org
mbe.oxfordjournals.org
The FST between humans and homo erectus is 0.17 which is 3/4 the Black-White distance:
sciencedirect.com
Thus, whites and blacks are more genetically distant than two different chimpanzee species, two different gorilla species, humans vs. Neanderthals, and humans vs. homo erectus.
Niggers are not human, faggot, we should treat them like the meatbag animals they really are.
Eli Anderson
Back in 1895, botanist Frederick Turner identified more than a dozen native grass species which could be successfully grown in Australia as cereal crops. (There are over 1000 native grasses.) abc.net.au
It just took a white guy to be the one to do it. Pic related, it's a native Australian grain that has been cultivated. alpinerice.com.au
Jackson Myers
>fixation index
What the fuck? Is this true? Can some biologist confirm?
Every time I post my anti-black copypasta on leddit I get assholes pointing out that there's more genetic diversity between two different tribes of Sub Saharan Africans than there is between Europeans and blacks.
Chase White
Just in case you were going to argue the validity of IQ testing.
>Modern science has found ways to remove cultural bias from intelligence testing. One example is by using Raven Matrices to measure intelligence.
onlinelibrary.wiley.com
>In a Raven Standard Progressive Matrices test, the subject is tested with patterns and geometric figures which are culture-independent and a computer calculates the score.
books.google.com
>These tests correlate significantly (over .50) with IQ
udel.edu
>And as expected, despite having no cultural bias, they continue to show the large, measurable, and significant intelligence gap between Whites and Blacks.
>To date, despite claims that IQ tests are biased, not one single intelligence test has ever displayed equal scores for Blacks and Whites; one must either make the test so difficult that nobody can manage to get the questions correct or so easy that everyone obtains a perfect score to show testing equality, yet that would make the test meaningless and invalid.
Daniel Jenkins
Those little grasses are no where near as viable as the ancestors of wheat, rice, or corn. In a warm climate with plentiful game they offered little survival advantage
Jordan Long
Why are all you faggots helping some guy trying to do homework for a Latin American history course?
This book is always covered
Easton Morris
right, you tried to debate a single point of the copypasta, but wew buddy, there's 9 others. you can't just say "the whole thing is wrong because I feel as if I correctly debunked a single point it makes"
In any case you do realize that the Europeans imported a whole bunch of new crops from the new world when they discovered it? Why would the Europeans do that if the "European Biome contained a greater variety of dmoesticable crops than Africa and America." The introduction of crops from the Americas literally transformed the farming landscape of Europe
ok yeah calling it "progressive" was kind of retarded on my part. Plus yeah, you can't actually write any sort of racism into a book in modern times without getting your shit pushed in, assuming you even wanted to write racism into a book.
In any case, race still plays into a society's success an incredible deal. Like said, the thesis is correct to some degree and it's interesting to see how environmental factors can play with the development of a society, but race still plays an extremely significant part. Which is why I dislike the book, because its basically the foundation of the anti-racist narrative, it tries to explain why white societies are so succesful compared to non-white societies and goes to any length to provide evidence for this explanation, even though the fact of the matter is that the simple axiom that "the races are unequal" provides the best explanation for the reason the world is the way it is today.
God I just kinda splurged that out, hope it doesn't turn out to be word spaghetti
>this theory wouldn't be taboo
Just because something is taboo doesn't mean its incorrect.
Andrew Gonzalez
European explorers and colonists didn't know about germ transmission of disease. The "weaponization" of small pox was not intentional, and only theorized by one SJW historian hundreds of years after the fact.
Evan Gonzalez
are niggers the missing link?
Ryder Thomas
The whole argument rests on that point, do you not understand that?
Just because importing helped them doesnt mean that they had better crops to begin with.
This is science, are you going to say that the scientific community is all secretly suppressing it because its taboo? The fact is the research is inconclusive
Jack Walker
*but wew buddy, there's 7 others
fixed, in case you're an autist who want to get hung up on unimportant details
Brody Williams
*doesnt mean that they didn't better crops to begin with.
John Rivera
No. Humans killed the missing link. We genocided most of the other Homo species early in our history
Jackson Roberts
How would Jared Diamond explain this?
Aiden Williams
The North American people hunted their domesticable livestock to extinction because they wouldn't have gotten to this continent if they hadn't developed a culture of killing and eating large mammals. That's how you survive during the ice age.
Tyler Myers
Point 2, the point isnt how many crops, its when they were domesticated and how viable their wild ancestors were/ease of selective breeding
Point 5, the Mongols didnt create much, they just conquered the weak state Europeans because they had a huge army of nomadic horse riders, the Romans actually conquered places because they didnt just rape and pillage the village, they gave the village sewers and road
Liam Thompson
>The whole argument rests on that point, do you not understand that?
I do understand that, obviously, and I'm saying that's wrong. Do you not understnad that?
>Just because importing helped them doesnt mean that they had better crops to begin with.
How do you explain why Europeans began growing new world crops en masse, they wouldn't do that if their native crops were "better" than the new world crops. It would be extremely illogical to do if native European crops were "better" than new world crops.
1/2
Christopher Butler
2/2
>This is science, are you going to say that the scientific community is all secretly suppressing it because its taboo?
I wouldn't call it "secretly suppressing", that implies some malicious intent to hide the truth.
A better way to describe it is "conveniently ignoring."
So basically, even if you believe that the races are inherently unequal, that blacks are demonstrably less intelligent than whites, black people are still people. Obviously. Why is that important? Well, even if there was undeniable evidence that black people are on the whole, less intelligent than white people (and there is), people would simply ignore it because they don't want to be hateful and they want to be friends with all over people. Kind of a basic way to explain it, but I think it communicates my point. Plus, there's the fact that racists tend to be kind of genocidal maniacs, so that kind of puts racism in an extremely negative light, even if there is scientific evidence backing up racism (and there is.) So yes, scientists will ignore evidence for racism because its the nice thing to do, which I suppose is a perfectly valid, if dishonest thing to do
Also! Do remember that there have been quite a number of prominent, racist scientists. The epitome of this being the discoverer of DNA, James Watson. Once he spoke of his racism, he was completely ostracized from the scientific community because of the taboo nature of racism. So there's another factor in the mix: scientists are extremely dissuaded from creating "racist" research because it would result in the ostracization from the community.
Jack Cook
>Those little grasses are no where near as viable as the ancestors of wheat, rice, or corn.
Wheat, for instance, was cultivated from grasses just like these over thousands of years. In fact wheat is a cross between three different grasses. What's more, AlpineGrass is higher in protein than even wheat.
allaboutwheat.info
>In a warm climate with plentiful game they offered little survival advantage.
Cultivating grains and developing agriculture is essential to the development of civilization. However, understand the benefits of long term planning requires a higher intellectual capacity.
Dominic Flores
*with all other people
Lincoln Baker
Can someone give a summary of GGS? I have never actually read it. Is it just "muh spawn point privilege"?
Gavin Brown
The large mammals of America (and also Australasia) also supposedly had less fear instinct of humans than in Europe, Asia, and Africa, because humanoids had been in those areas far longer. The end of the ice age helped wipe out large mammals in general, and humans happen to come right around that time
Isaac Roberts
Europe was poor continent on resources and food, it's as far from Turkey-India as Ethiopia-Zulu, yet for some unknown reason that Jared never explained in book why Europeans became so advanced compare to other Eurasian countries. Erik S Reinert was more right, it's intelligence, fragmentation and lack of resources that brought us were we are
also
>talks about small pox in America
>no words about black plague in Europe
Jason Cox
You didnt explain why its wrong.
The imported crops helped round out the diet and were better for growing in certain conditions than the natives. Wheat was still a better crop in general and remained the principal crop.
Native Eurasian crops alone=more efficient than mesoamerican crops alone. Thats what matter here, not the fact that a combination of both is more useful than the native alone
Aaron Perry
Jared (((Diamond))) is a fucking Joke!
Lucas Morris
he wouldn't. He selects only evidence that fits his narrative and in some cases fabricates evidence
Jackson Fisher
Pic is what Alpine rice looks like when harvested.
Brody Rogers
Not him, but I'll add that GGS doesn't account at all for selection. Some, like Schopenhauer, believe that colder climates select for stronger intellect.
I'm not sold on the IQ gap and I actually support the fact that the scientific community is ignoring it. They should do so until it is beyond conclusive. However, it's hard to reasonably deny the fact that the evidence points that way. I've seen studies which yielded data telling us that poor white kids outscore rich black kids, for example.
Alexander Davis
The ancestors of wheat had higher natural productivity than those grasses. They might have had less protein but provided far more calories per acre
Long term planning only helped in the context of a year to a lifetime, not generation in advance. Abbos didnt know that farming would lead to civilization, and even if they knew why would they care? It didnt benefit them to farm little shit grasses when they could hunt kanagroos and eat shellfish all year long
Ryan Garcia
>Abbos didnt know that farming would lead to civilization, and even if they knew why would they care? It didnt benefit them to farm little shit grasses
Even Jared said that early farmers in Eurasia had less calories intake than hunters-gatherers and had no idea that farming will build a civilization
Caleb Thompson
R u pierre
Isaac Allen
>Point 5, the Mongols didnt create much, they just conquered...the Romans actually conquered places because they didnt just rape and pillage the village, they gave the village sewers and road
You're right, but still, the premise of point 5 is still valid: that nomadic tribal civilizations have developed the technological skill and social organization required for military conquest. Military conquest on a whole 'nother level that even the romans couldn't touch. God though, the mongols were an epic empire. It amazes me how powerful they were, more amazing is how they became a backwater no-where country that nobody cares about. The Mongols, besides China and Japan, were the best non-white civilization to grace the earth. Best in a "most powerful" sense, I mean they did kill off a horribly gross amount of people
and I think you're correct on point 2.
ok, that's valid I guess. However, why are the rops important? The only thing they play into is the size of the society there able to support. Its basic: more food means more people. even if the south american indians were inherently unable to grow as much food as the europeans, they the south americans still should have developed further technologically if they were as intelligent and inventive as the Europeans. Not being able to support a society as large as the europeans doesn't effect their overall intelligence.
Also plus, realize that China had fucking HUGE populations of people, and they also weren't able to technologically match the pace of the Europeans. (On I side note, I personally believe the Chinese are actually a tiny bit smarter than Europeans, pic related)
>They should do so until it is beyond conclusive.
It will ALWAYS remain inconclusive because like I said, no research will be done on the topic of racism because of its taboo-ness. The only resource usable to racists are statistics taken from wherever, and indeed they do point towards racism being "true."
Parker Parker
>poor white kids outscore rich black kids, for example.
How do you know this isnt due to culture? The blacks culture was worse than the Europens
What's the issue? Yes, nomadic warlord barbarians can invade and occupy territory for short periods of time. They also happened to be spreading a new religion which increases their influence
Elijah Brooks
wait fuck I attached a fucking anime pic.
here's the image I meant to attach
Robert Taylor
>US of A, US of Ayy and US of Eh below 90 pts
even if you consider >american education this can't be right
Mason Stewart
You're wrong. Potatoes (native to the Andes of South America) are one of, if not the most caloric crops grown in the world, coming in at 9.2 million calories per acre. Maize (corn) is also indigenous to the Americas, and is a close second to the potato, coming in at 7.5 million calories per acre. Rice supplies 7.4 million calories per acre, and wheat is only 3 million calories. The Potato is a full THREE TIMES more caloric than wheat and corn is double. The fact of the matter is the America's got the best crop package of all the regions of the world.
Austin Price
>indigenous people
Forest niggers traded beads for land.
Colton Wood
They attacked Europe at one of it's weakest states in history, it was fragmented and plagued to shit.
The mongols also benefited from all the creations of sedentary society, they were just able to adopt them because they neighbored said societies
More food per acre=less need for farmers to create the same amount of food, therefore allowing more specialization, and higher population=more potential smart people, no matter what the average IQ, more people means more smart people will be birthed. Higher population also has other benefits as well. China was pretty geographically isolated, Europe and the Near East were interconnected since the dawn of the Neolithic via land and the Mediterranean.
Owen Fisher
>native pop IQ
mongol rapebaby education strikes again
Ryder Gutierrez
Modern potatoes made with modern breeding methods developed by Europeans do not equal the potatoes the Indians were using
Nathaniel Green
>How do you know this isnt due to culture? The blacks culture was worse than the Europens
The non-racist explanation for why minorities score bad on IQ tests and perform inadequately in academic settings is that "the environment they grow up in is bad," or that racism holds them back from excelling in school, or variants on that theme. That they have a history of being oppressed, therefore they weren't able to develop academically.
Funnily enough, the jews explain why that theory is complete shit. The jews, as we all know, had their shit fucking pushed the fuck in all throughout history. From the medieval ages, and before that, to world war 2, the Jews have been oppressed in every shape way and form.
Then WHY are the Jews scoring so high on IQ tests, and perform so well in school? And perform so well in life? When blacks stay in their ghettos and rot? The non-racist explanation should dictate that because of the oppression they faced and still face, they should all be performing very poorly in school. Well, racism provides an answer: (askenhazi) jews are actually really intelligent, actually a bit more intelligent than the average european. Blacks underperform in school because they are less intelligent than the average european and their American descendents.
Its a map of the IQ's of the INDIGENOUS population
You can't read and you bash American education huh, you dang ruskie : ^)
Jose Jenkins
(((Diamond)))
John Howard
Sick. But that hardly proves that natural wheat is superior to natural potatoes or corn. If potatoes are more than three times more caloric now than wheat is now and corn more than twice as caloric as wheat, (this with a SUBSTANTIALLY lower amount of time domesticated by man than wheat with all the advantages that bestows), why would you think natural wheat would be more caloric than natural potatoes or corn?
Justin Flores
I suppose I agree with everything you've said.
Actually, now that I think about it, Jared Diamond's theory actually explains why China didn't develop on the level of the Europeans, since like I said I believe the Chinese (and Japanese and Koreans) to be as intelligent as whites. And yeah like you said, China was not only geographically isolated but culturally isolated. Isolationism was a huge part of Chinese foriegn policy in history.
However, I still believe that Jared Diamond's theories are still mostly incorrect when analyzing why non-white, non-eastern-asian societies have failed to be as succesful in the world.
Alexander Rivera
It's not only because they were oppressed, it because they were oppressed AND they never had a culture equal to Euros. When they got enslaved they were still tribesman, then they were stolen and brought over here and oppressed, that doesnt lead to a very good culture.
Jews are descended from a culture that had been exposed to civilization form its birth, and yes the were oppressed, but as I said, their exposure to civilizaiton migrated alot of this, and they got their foot into banking institutions and other merchantry which made their modern descendants (and the entirety of Israel) richer,
Elijah Foster
>sophistry
>t. /lit/
go back to your containment board
Matthew Young
>US of Eh
I'll let your mistake go tbqh
Brayden Cox
>Diamond was born in Boston, Massachusetts. Both of his parents were from East European Jewish families who had emigrated to the United States.[4]
And he's writing something that denigrates the achievements of Western civilisation and apologises for African backwardness?
What a surprise! What we would we do without these (((intellectuals))) to educate and inform us?
Angel Foster
>they never had a culture equal to Euros.
Well, why do blacks and mexican mestizos continue to underperform in academia and in life? You'd say that a hundred sixty years of being free of slavery would give them more than enough exposure to white civilization?
Also, why do arabs continue to underperform in the world as well? They're only succesful because of their oil, by every other measure they are still backwards, uneducated shitholes. This is DESPITE being very, very exposed to western civilization, and despite not having a "tribesman" culture (in large part. Yes, there are still tribes in the ME, but there's actually still tribes in northern countries too. Tribes of white people).
John Adams
((((((((((((((Jared Diamond))))))))))))))
Jason Torres
The aborigines didn't even get as far as planting an acre of cultivated grass, to then decide it wasn't worth the trouble. Are you saying now that they weren't smart enough to build any permanent structures, but could calculate that it wouldn't be worth it to cultivate these grasses?
It seems to me you have a romanticised view of what life was like for the Australian aboriginals. They were in a state of perpetual warfare between rival clans for access to women and hunting territory. When you live off the land by hunting, your territory is your access to food. Hunter gatherer's die young, early observers noted the men didn't live beyond 50 and the women beyond 30. Developing a more stable, settled agrarian lifestyle with small scale agriculture and domestication of animals would have allowed them to invest time and energy in improving the security of women and children. I urge you to read this article :
quadrant.org.au
Or this paragraph:
> In 1825 French explorer Louis-Antoine de Bougainville wrote “that young girls are brutally kidnapped from their families, violently dragged to isolated spots and are ravished after being subjected to a good deal of cruelty.”[22] George Robinson in Tasmania said in the 1830s that men courted their women by stabbing them with sharp sticks and cutting them with knives prior to rape. The men bartered their women to brutal sealers for dogs and food; in one case such a woman voluntarily went back to the sealers rather than face further tribal violence.[23]
They were locked in a vicious cycle of tribal warfare and paybacks, where no where offered any fortification or protection.
Jason Bennett
>SUBSTANTIALLY lower amount of time domesticated by man than wheat
Yeah but the major advances were made by Euros who had more knowledge of plant breeding because they had (interconnected) and in general) civilization longer. The wild ancestor of the potatoe isnt clear but we can infer it wasnt as useful of the wheat ancestor because it was domesticated far later
Camden Scott
>Also, why do arabs continue to underperform in the world as well?
Inbreeding. Muhammed said to Arabs to marry their cousins so they do.
Elijah Jones
The book is wrong. Next.
Mason King
Also, I'd like to clearly define what I"m trying to say to a very specific degree. Maybe you already understood what I'm arguing but anyways:
So your argument is that both oppression and having a culture unequal to the Euros contribute to why black people in America and why Black countries in general continue to underperform. And mexican mestizos etc.
Its undeniable that "culture" is a inexcusable excuse to explain this disparity in modern times. Therefore its only oppression that continues to "hold black people back!" And mexican mestizos and other non-white/asian races.
However, "oppression" alone is a poor explanation, because obviously, asians in america were extremely biased against, and like I said, the jews as well. According to your argument, the asians and the jews had "a culture on the level of the Europeans," and because of that they were able to overcome the oppression they faced. So, now that mexican mestizos and blacks have a culture "on the level of the Europeans," why aren't they able to overcome the oppression they face? Well, its because they're not as smart as white people.
Cooper Smith
You're literally just repeating yourself. You can try to infer whatever you want, but that doesn't necessarily make it the case. You're assuming that wheat was more naturally caloric than potatoes or corn because it was domesticated later, but there's really no evidence to support that. There's substantial evidence AGAINST your assumption as ive already posted, based on the present calorie counts of potatoes and corn which greatly exceeds wheat despite being domesticated for a much shorter amount of time. Potatoes and corn could have been domesticated later than wheat for any number of reasons.
Easton Wood
They didnt need to be smart to know it wasnt worth it. Domestication didnt happen intentionally, it started with realizing that plants can be moved and grown in areas if you move them, but further development of that idea didnt happen unless the plant was useful enough to put the effort into growing.
No, I said that the problem started before they were even enslaved, then slavery didnt do them any good, and yeah sure theyve been truly free for 160 years. COUGH Jim Crow COUGH Mexican Mestiizos faced the same issue to a lesser degree, but the country was never as stable or as well resourced as the US or Europe
It gets more complicated with Arabs, you would have to go through all of history to explain the ebbs and flows of progress, but they live in a huge desert, they are inherently tribal, their cultures and border have been completely overthrown all throughout history, especially modern times, the religion they inherited never went through a reformation, and the oil ended up destroying any chance of economic balance in the region
Alexander Garcia
I need to go to bed. I don't know if you're a shill, really entrenched in your opinion, or what. All I can advise you to do is look at the facts and statistics we have and critically consider whether what you're saying makes sense.
Camden Rivera
>they are inherently tribal,
untrue. some of them being in tribes doesn't mean they all are.
>their cultures and border have been completely overthrown all throughout history,
This has happened to white people too. Literally the ENTIRE history of white people is them attacking each other and having their cultures and borders overthrown. And I'll point to the jews here as well, their entire history is moving from one country to the next, facing instability and uncertainty with their entire culture and society. On a level unseen by even black people and white people. Yet jews continue to succeed.
> COUGH Jim Crow COUGH Mexican Mestiizos faced the same issue to a lesser degree
Asians also experienced SEVERE bias and oppression from white people in America. Yet they are the most succesful minority in America nowadays, they even earned the title "the model minority." And the jews as well. The asians and jews also faced oppression and overcame it, so why cant the blacks and mexicans? Also, reminder that there is a significant population of mexican mestizos in America itself, and its always been that way since the mexican-american war. Why are mexicans in America under-performing in stable, well-resourced America?
Jackson White
The idea that people are unequal is a hard pill to swallow. Especially because its so taboo, and just a cruel way to think.
However, even though I don't really like being a racist since it kind of turns everybody against you in modern times, I find it dishonest to not say that racism isn't correct, so therefore I am racist.
Jayden Williams
Can you name any alternate/opposing idea besides they had lower IQ?
Their main religion divides them into opposing sects that kill each other. The religion is all about tribal figures and their tribal descendants.
The Jews still lived in advanced civilizations, and they also had thousands of years of this oppression mold their culture into passing down how navigate not only advanced civilization but oppression within that civilization. And like I said, their culture is intermingled with banking and merchantry so their descendants are richer, therefore increasing their IQ, and Isreal itself is a high developed country, most Jews live there, therefore they automatically benefit
Asians were never enslaved, and they came from a more cultured society. They also have a culture that is very competitive and skews towards introversion which increases IQ
The differences in IQ between races is disputed, but even if it is true, it doesnt counter the book necessarily, because you can argue that the development of civilization selects for higher IQ than societies that arent civilized. But some people say that Africans and such never got civilization because they are dumb, not that they are dumb because they never got civilization
Aiden Taylor
Australian aborigines ate grains - they ground flour to make bush bread, resembling damper in method and pita or Egyptian bread in its form.
> In Central Australia, for example, native millet (Panicum) and spinifex (Triodia) were commonly used, supplemented by wattle-seed. Elsewhere pigwig (Portulaca oleracea), prickly wattle (Acacia victoriae), mulga (Acacia aneura), dead finish seed (Acacia tetragonophylla) and bush bean (Rhyncharrhena linearis) were mixed into flour.
australianmuseum.net.au
The plants were useful enough to be worth cultivating, yet they never did. The question you have to ask yourself is are you interested in knowing the truth about these subjects, or are you desperate to hang on to a view of the world that protects that magical idea that all humans are of equal intelligence?
Sebastian Martin
And the history of whites, well they had the Romans, which I cant explain I admit, and they also had other advantages, like being isolated enough from Asia to benefit from it but not be completely overrun by Mongols, better farmland, perhaps a better Religion in Christianity, and other factos
Worth cultivating to whom?
Nathan Jackson
>Asia to benefit from it but not be completely overrun by Mongols
Mongols didn't burn cities and destroyed books, being overrun by them was much better than being under constant siege of muslims
>better farmland
Is this a joke?
>better Religion in Christianity
Which is human factor
Jaxson Wilson
well, I can't deny that the ME's religion is causing a complete fucking shitshow. Not all Islamic countries are as unstable as Iraq and Syria though.
> they also had thousands of years of this oppression mold their culture into passing down how navigate not only advanced civilization but oppression within that civilization.
then why have Asians been able to perform so well in Western society, when they didn't have the benefit of "thousands of years of this oppression to learn how to navigate that oppression within that civilization"??
>Asians were never enslaved, and they came from a more cultured society
Again with the culture. First off, asians were actually enslaved (building the contintenal railroad. it was economic slavery rather than being officially a slave but slavery is slavery). In any case, black people and mestizos in the current day now have a "more cultured society." In the current day. There is now literally no reason for them to not "throw off the chains of oppression and perform as well as Asians and Jews" (and american universities basically suck their dick to perform well in school. Literally an unprecedented amount of scholarships and programs are available to them, not to mention diversity hiring and fast-tracking them for promotions in career fields).
1/2
Alexander Cruz
>Mongols didn't burn cities and destroyed books, being overrun by them was much better than being under constant siege of muslims
I said that Europe was somewhat protected from Mongols due to is distance from Central Asia.
>>better farmland
>Is this a joke?
data.worldbank.org
Click "Map"
>>better Religion in Christianity
>Which is human factor
Im not smart enough to say what caused the development of each religion, but inheriting that warlike religion didnt help them.
John Green
2/2
actually, Russia/Ukraine (it was called Rus, at the time, maybe you know that) was completely overtaken by the mongols. but besides that I would agree that Europe had the benefit of being too far away from the mongols to be completely overrun, thank god.
> it doesnt counter the book necessarily,
Yeah, I agree fully. Like I've said previously, I find that the thesis of the book explains why Eastern Asian societies didn't develop as fast as European societies. And I won't even say that Africans are uncivilized. They are civilized now, for the most part. Its just that they're dumb. So in such, they can't match the success and power of white countries.
>because you can argue that the development of civilization selects for higher IQ than societies that arent civilized.
Well, yeah. Literally the way I think about things, white civilizations developed more and have higher IQ overall. Both racism and environmental factors explain the development societies.
IDK dude, I feel as if I'm just repeating my arguments over and over again and hoping they'll stick, I think you're doing the same. Just, think about what I'm saying, I'll think about what you're saying. And we'll see if we change our beliefs. I don't think I'll change my mind, since I used to think just like you, but you know.
>literally really makes you think
Isaac Lewis
He left out the most important factor. Race.
How can you leave out the most important thing? Like describing the day without mentioning the sun.
Andrew Murphy
>mongols didn't destroyed books
Isaiah Watson
More arable land than Africa, less than Indochina, it also doesn't factor what you've said "better farmland" which is state of earth, for example Ukraine and Kazahstan have mostly far richer land which yields better food compare to Europe. Also, the fact that progress was driven by lack of resource question your idea
Elijah Roberts
>Im not smart enough to say what caused the development of each religion, but inheriting that warlike religion didnt help them.
There is an entire debate in history as to how much pagan European traditions influenced Christianity and Europe. i.e. hand in glove, Europe being the hand and Christianity being the glove. Or whether it was Christianity on its own that influenced Europe.
think that is what the other guy means.
Oliver Rivera
>well, I can't deny that the ME's religion is causing a complete fucking shitshow. Not all Islamic countries are as unstable as Iraq and Syria though.
The religion and the past 100 years of colonialism
>then why have Asians been able to perform so well in Western society, when they didn't have the benefit of "thousands of years of this oppression to learn how to navigate that oppression within that civilization"??
I would say, because most of them entered out society after that bad oppression occurred, because their own culture integrated well with the West's. It seems clear that their culture had more history of advancement and less history of disruption than the American blacks or Mestizos
>Again with the culture. First off, asians were actually enslaved (building the contintenal railroad. it was economic slavery rather than being officially a slave but slavery is slavery).
As I said in my last paragraph in this post
>In any case, black people and mestizos in the current day now have a "more cultured society." In the current day. There is now literally no reason for them to not "throw off the chains of oppression and perform as well as Asians and Jews" (and american universities basically suck their dick to perform well in school. Literally an unprecedented amount of scholarships and programs are available to them, not to mention diversity hiring and fast-tracking them for promotions in career fields).
No, they dont, thats the point, blacks may exist within a culture that was more advanced then they ever knew but they cant just instantly adopt it without struggles, and the Mestizos, they have been developing their own countries, they are a hybrid of many societies forming states in a colonized land, combined with the economics of their natural resources