How come some countrys are more developed......

Why even bother trying to discuss this? Be it true or not, the very notion that one "type" of human could have a strength that another "type" of human doesn't have is the kind of stuff that has ended careers. Even 10 foot poles wouldn't touch it....and I haven't met many folks from Poland who are that tall.

Originally posted by bigfatfurrytexan
Why even bother trying to discuss this? Be it true or not, the very notion that one "type" of human could have a strength that another "type" of human doesn't have is the kind of stuff that has ended careers.

Actually thats only half true.
It is still perfectly acceptable to say a NON-white race could have a strength that a white race doesn't have.
Racism only works one way.

reply to post by DISRAELI

Hiya Disraili... thanks so much for the explanation! You sound like a reliable source, seeing as how you lived thru those times!

reply to post by alfa1


Its not even race, but gender too.

And while there is nothing to dispute the general belief in positive about females (more nurturing, etc), and negative about males (aggressive and warlike, etc), don't dare mention that men might be physically stronger or more physically capable. This is foisted to such a degree that we are expected to believe Zhang Ziyi is capable of winning those sword fights in Crouching Tiger, Hidden Dragon. Or that Uma Thurman could lay waste to a room full of people immensely stronger than her physically.

We just have to accept that, regardless of all common sense, we are obviously completely equal. Everyone. In every way. And that, apparently, is that.

I
Q
.

Of course Americans will tell you that it has something to do with a thing that they call "I.Q."

Americans are brainwashed since an early age to believe in this bullsh*t called "I.Q.", something that they believe is "inmutable", and "genetic".

Dozens of scientific studies from many countries already showed proof that I.Q. is NOT "inmutable", and can vary a lot during the life of an individual, specially during the "teenage" years. Some examples:

www.bbc.co.uk...

online.wsj.com...

psychcentral.com...

Any person with common sense understands that "I.Q." is directly proportional to the stimulli that a child's brain receives since an early age, and to the education process of that child while growing up, including in the teen years...

Even after the person becomes an adult, it is possible to the I.Q. to be raised some points, with adequate brain training.

Many fradulent studies conducted by racist white-suprematist "scientists" in the USA are presented by many people in that country as "scientifc facts". A ridiculous spectacle...

They fail to explain why there are many brilliant mathematicians and physicists in African countries like Nigeria, Kenya and others. They fail to explain how Africa gave birth to people like Augustin Banyaga and Francis Allotey.

Originally posted by GLontra
Of course Americans will tell you that it has something to do with a thing that they call "I.Q."

Americans are brainwashed since an early age to believe in this bullsh*t called "I.Q.", something that they believe is "inmutable", and "genetic".

Dozens of scientific studies from many countries already showed proof that I.Q. is NOT "inmutable", and can vary a lot during the life of an individual, specially during the "teenage" years. Some examples:

www.bbc.co.uk...

online.wsj.com...

psychcentral.com...

Any person with common sense understands that "I.Q." is directly proportional to the stimulli that a child's brain receives since an early age, and to the education process of that child while growing up, including in the teen years...

Even after the person becomes an adult, it is possible to the I.Q. to be raised some points, with adequate brain training.

Many fradulent studies conducted by racist white-suprematist "scientists" in the USA are presented by many people in that country as "scientifc facts". A ridiculous spectacle...

They fail to explain why there are many brilliant mathematicians and physicists in African countries like Nigeria, Kenya and others. They fail to explain how Africa gave birth to people like Augustin Banyaga and Francis Allotey.

edit on 14-12-2011 by GLontra because: (no reason given)

Cultural
Marxist
Political
Correctness
Nonsense.

Originally posted by RRokkyy:

Cultural
Marxist
Political
Correctness
Nonsense.

Your answer sounds a lot like Norwegian mass murderer Anders Behring Breivik's philosophy. Of course, it took him over 1500 pages to lay out what you did in 5 words.

Facts are facts. If the little racist don't accept the facts, go argue with Augustin Banyaga and Francis Allotey. They will love to discuss the subject with you.

Hint: make a Google search for "Augustin Banyaga" and for "Francis Allotey".

Just one more example of how the Western corporations are still stealing from the African people, including African people's intelectual creations and technology:


COMANDCLEM gets world recognition

COMANDCLEM, the inventor of the Anti-Corrosive Special Paint for QIT (Transteel Blue, White Enamel Q. A. D.) got a prestigious recognition award recently following the listing of its invention in the world by International Agency for Intellectual property , invented by a Nigerian, King (Dr.) C.J.A. Uwemedimo, making him the first Nigerian and first African to be recognised by the world body.

(...)

The Anti-Corrosive Special Paint for QIT (Transteel Blue, White Enamel Q. A. D.) the first and only enabling chemical that makes oil exploration possible and easier globally, especially here in nigeria where corrosion menace pervades is the brainchild of King Clement Uwemedimo who invented it for Mobil Producing Nigeria Unlimited in 1980 to protect their offshore oil pipelines and agreement was reached to pay the inventor $2 dollars per barrel of all oil production but breached the agreement.

Read here: thenationonlineng.net...




Nigerian Bloggers, Let's Support King Clemment and Ade Oyegbola: Enough Stealing our Patents

King Clement Uwemedimo, the CEO of Commandclem Nigeria limited is an inventor who for close to 30 years has been fighting to get what rightly belongs to him. King Clement, now blind is said to have invented an anti-corrosive paint which found great usefulness in the oil industry all over the world and one would expect him to be in Millions today especially after screaming 'Eureka!'

That was not to be a Mobil oil is said to have reneged in the agreement to [pay royalties the engineer whose ingenuity brought about the said anti-corrosive agent.

Despite recognition by the world body as the original owner of the patent, King Clement is yet to receive a dollar as royalties. Instead, the constituents were revealed to foreign competitors who now produce and sell same at will still without paying any form of indemnity to the patent owner.
A few years ago, Commandclem Nigeria limited won a court case that directed the various oil companies all over the world to pay up what is being own the King which is said to now run into Trillions of dollars, an amount that could make him indisputably the richest man in the whole wide world.

Read the rest here: www.oleole.com...



The delay in applying for registration of Patent of Anti-Corrosive Special Paint for Q.I.T, Tranteel Blue, White Enamel (Q.A.D) invention with the World Intellectual Property Organization was as a result of the court battle over the ownership of the invention from year 2000 to December 8, 2009 when the final judgment was given and Comandclem and Prof. King Clement Uwemedimo pronounced the rightful owner and inventor of the invention.

Read here: www.wipo.int...

reply to post by Idonthaveabeard


I would say that those that left Africa were always more advanced than those that stayed. Bear with me on this as it has nothing to do with race.

If you are starting out to explore new lands (and in those days every step further away from Africa was new), you would constantly need to come up with new solutions for whatever situations you may encounter. As a result, new technologies are formed, refined and then perfected before being absorbed into other new technologies for different situations. Over the millenia, these new technologies add up to create a massive advantage over those that stayed.

As an example, despite what ancient Egypt achieved, look at what Rome accomplished in North Africa.

I realise there are flaws in this but to me it makes as much sense as any other reason.

You could take the view that as various racial strains emerged from 'out of Africa' migrations, that along with various body and metabolic adaptations, natural selection also favoured intelligence and co-operative ability to cope with the more challenging conditions, whilst Africans stayed more or less the same.

It would seem to be favoured by the observable facts after all and was certainly the view taken by the early progressives, Margret sanger etc (one of Hillary's idols) - who basically planned to eugenecise away the black problem.

Unfortunately the Nazis picked up on this idea and carried it to extremes - so the progressives had to ditch it (publicly) and re-brand themselves as 'liberals' - you know those good hearted people who allways mean so well, but strangely whose policies have the opposite effect of their 'intentions'

How about this:

People who lived in Africa are known to have historically not had as much scarcity of food in times gone by. In the more arid regions located in Africa, you have people who could much, much more easily find food than the people in Europe.

This is a stark contrast in how societies were developed. In Europe, you had to band together into groups and were much, much more reliant than in Africa, where a single person could still likely gather enough food for themselves.

Wars are usually fought over resources. In Europe, where there were long and cold winters (and a short growing season), resources could become quite rare.

I think you see major differences because of this. Because, in Europe (and other parts of the world where there isn't a year long growing season) you had people fighting for scarce resources. And this is where modern globalized society has come from: a history of killing for resources. It is why, even if resources are not scarce, they will be made to seem scarce. Without scarcity, the entire premise that our culture is derived from begins to unravel.

It is the scarcity paradigm that drives away notions such as "individual rights". I have been reading the history of my county, and a gentleman who was there for the last Comanche raids explained that the Indians were merely fighting for "individual rights" (i.e, their right to continue to find subsistance regardless of the white mans land ownership). The Comanche's, while willing to fight for the scarce water, was not willing to give up or fight for land and hunting rights as there was no food scarcity when buffalo roamed our county.

So, to wrap up, in Africa you don't have people looking to steal what everyone else has (or, the culture and mindset isn't based on that). Because of this, you don't see the exploitative society. And we all know that most inventions are made to make better war.

reply to post by bigfatfurrytexan


Howdy Furry

So, to wrap up, in Africa you don't have people looking to steal what everyone else has (or, the culture and mindset isn't based on that). Because of this, you don't see the exploitative society. And we all know that most inventions are made to make better war.

The tribal cultures of Africa were as violent and beset with raiding as all other human societies to include the Polynesians who also lived in a place where food wasn't usually a problem.They've had their empires and endless wars just like the rest of 'us'.

I would recommend the book, 'War before Civilization' by Lawrence Keeley, ISBN: 0-19-511912-6

reply to post by Hanslune


Yea, i know there are always wars. Sex is another resource, as well as just wanting what you have.

I was just thinking out loud.

But another idea that maybe you can answer: why did the Irish suffer so much in the potato famine? They are on a tiny island. Why didn't they just fish?

Originally posted by bigfatfurrytexan
reply to post by Hanslune

 

Yea, i know there are always wars. Sex is another resource, as well as just wanting what you have.

I was just thinking out loud.

But another idea that maybe you can answer: why did the Irish suffer so much in the potato famine? They are on a tiny island. Why didn't they just fish?

No boats, not nets, no skills, and a rather mean coastline and a bunch of people who were already fishermen who probably wouldn't have liked the competion....but I think we are going off topic!

reply to post by Hanslune


Well...not so much. At the root of the question here is what makes Europeans different (as well as Asians) that there is a civilization by popular standards (African and Amerinds develop different civilization)

And at the heart of this, I would think, is adaptability learned from the environment.

Originally posted by bigfatfurrytexan
reply to post by Hanslune

 

Well...not so much. At the root of the question here is what makes Europeans different (as well as Asians) that there is a civilization by popular standards (African and Amerinds develop different civilization)

And at the heart of this, I would think, is adaptability learned from the environment.

Adaptability is also driven by the culture you're born into. Some cultures are more 'laid' back, some or more striving, some more dynamic, some less so

One will note the difference between say; a typical Japanese attitude towards science versus the typical Albanian. Consider the cultural difference between a Mandan Indians, Jats, Spartans and the Zulus.

The final test is to place people of different origins into different cultures and have them grow up there. Then you can tell whether there reaction to the environment is genetic or cultural.

Originally posted by Hanslune
The final test is to place people of different origins into different cultures and have them grow up there. Then you can tell whether there reaction to the environment is genetic or cultural.

Such an experiment is going on in the USA right now.
Take a group of people from the darkest jungles of Africa, place them in a modern technological advanced society (said by some to be the best in the world) and see how they fare.

Originally posted by alfa1

Originally posted by Hanslune
The final test is to place people of different origins into different cultures and have them grow up there. Then you can tell whether there reaction to the environment is genetic or cultural.

Such an experiment is going on in the USA right now.
Take a group of people from the darkest jungles of Africa, place them in a modern technological advanced society (said by some to be the best in the world) and see how they fare.

Perhaps but in the this case the playing field wasn't levelled until recently. To be done successfully this requires a rare situation; Taking a person one 'group', separating them from that group and raising them in isolation in another group. This rarely happens (rare in the sense of the total numbers versus the norm)

This could be seen in situation like Japanese, Korean or Vietnamese orphans being adopted by European and American MC couples.