Are not Africans genetically different and having fewer "sophisticated" civilizations simply due to the land that...

>environmental determinism

Spotted the (((Jared Diamond))) reader. Kill yourself you kike lover, is correct in saying that niggers are responsible for their own retarded fucking issues and should just fuck off

Yeah, IIRC he refined it to between 85 and 75. If only it was really 100 we'd have dozens of neat African countries with rich, awesome written histories like we have in Europe and Asia.

But most African tribes and countries never even developed their own written languages because they just were too low IQ.

>using a debunked chart

I'm a full on neo-nazi and even I have more integrity

Australia is basically Morrowind, unihabitable as fuck, the natives worse off than Africans and somehow even more intellectually barren. A bunch of prisoners from Britain took that shithole and transformed it into a first world nation in a couple of years.

There is absolutely no fucking excuse.

You don't need a perfect, infallible test to determine that a group of people are not up to parr. Just go outside and interact with different people.

i think the basic supposition would be that Europeans and the others who formed settled societies in favorable conditions (Indus River Valley and so on) were able to mentally advance

If your whole life is spent wondering how you're going to get food for today, you're probably not going to achieve much except in rare cases.

But I think the argument being made is that the reasoning you have is backward. Europeans and Asians were able to advance intellectually because of the more positive environs whereas Africans could not develop because they lacked the environs

I don't get what the one guy above is on about with the Aztecs, the Valley of Mexico was a fairly good agriculture location all things considered

Most european tribes never developed writing

You're not arguing the same thing OP is saying

Of course an already civilized group was able to replicate and figure things out elsewhere. Absent that initial ability to civilize, you won't be able to get it.

Nah it gets the gist across. Anyone who takes a Veeky Forums image at face value, and doesn't do further research, is so gullible they'll fall for anything. It's roughly right.
It is strange how siberians don't have 105 IQ considering their harsh living conditions and yet the Siberian-derived Cantonese do.
True. However, Greece and Rome did develop systems of writing, and sub-saharan Africa has nothing to compare with either country.

*The most powerful 19th century nation on planet earth transformed it into a first world nation in a couple of years.

/pol/ believes everything is genetic and also /pol/ doesn't seem to believe in evolution (they think all humans were the same at origin evidently) so you won't get far with them

False

Greece and Rome both adopted Canaanite script, later refining it for themselves

Like west africans modifying arabic to write mandinka, hausa, and songhai for themselves

Nah

/pol/ thinks humans spontaneously appeared on different continents at the same time and magically gained the ability to crossbreed over time

Why didn't the same happen with all the other colonies?

>/pol/ thinks x
/pol/ isn't one person, m8

>The United States of America
>New Zealand
>Hong Kong
>Singapore

Australia was a settler colony whereas others were resource extraction based

>They adopted Arabic as their writing system
That's not developing a system of writing, it's appropriating one, just like the Ainu do with kana.

Greece and Rome actually developed distinct scripts which they used to create highly sophisticated civilisations.

Neither is /mlp/ but we can confidently say they're autistic faggots

>Yeah, IIRC he refined it to between 85 and 75
Gee that's just a 16-26 point increase, like China having 125+ average IQ.

>If only it was really 100 we'd have dozens of neat African countries with rich, awesome written histories like we have in Europe and Asia
You don't need 100 IQ for that. Do you know how many countries have 100+ IQ, after having been boosted by modern technology and education? It's significantly less than the number of countries that did something worth recording.
For that matter, do you know the number of Caucasian or Asian countries that have below 90 IQ?

>most African tribes and countries never even developed their own written languages
Neither did most (any?) Europeans.

There weren't enough convicts in Britain for all the colonies.

Which they adopted from Phoenician

those were appropriated from Phoenician by and large

I'm sorry but I can't tell the difference between all you low-IQ plebs. 95% of the population is just dumb trash to me.

>Africa is shit because africans have low IQs
it's literally the other way around you dipshit

And that's why you're here on Veeky Forumsspreading your autism
So Australia was successful because white people?
>no black countries
Hmmmmmm...

No, it's not.

>>no black countries
see

>it's the other way around
So Africa is shit because Africans have low in or Africa is good because Africans have low iq?

The reason I don't like proponents of Environmental Determinism is that they tend to point to it as the only factor. Other people do this with other theories too, but I have found the issue to be particularly large when dealing with this group.

I don't think Environmental Determinism is wrong in any sense, other than the fact that it has 'Determinism' in it. It seems to predispose itself to this kind of thought. I feel that in reality, there are multiple factors at play, your environment being one of them. Culture, I would argue, is just as big or even bigger in importance compared to your surroundings when dealing with how "advanced" a civilization is. And unlike environment, its much harder to predict what a a "proto-culture"(for lack of a better word) will develop in to and how the culture that spawns from it will effect its members. t b h I'm not entirely sure what that last sentence meant, but I think that you get my point so it doesn't really matter.

So because white people, Australia was successful? Australia's wealth was mostly farming and mining.

>colonialism in Australia had the same intentions as colonialism in Africa

time for me to leave Veeky Forums

What was the intent then?

>just like the Ainu do with kana.
You mean like the Japanese do with kanji. Kana is literally just simplified kanji, some of them don't even look any different from the kanji version. The Chinese use a system like kana for writing foreign words and sounds, they just didn't bother simplifying the characters until the 20th century when every moron needed to be able to write.

>Greece and Rome actually developed distinct scripts
lol

Honestly the intentions really were the same, WW1 and WW2 just bankrupted Britain before they could turn South Africa into a majority white state.

Rhodes wanted Rhodesia (modern day Zimbabwe) to be a white country like Australia. But it only got to about 10% white before Britain turned on its settlers.

Are you seriously claiming Latin isn't a distinct script from Phoenician?

>talking about subjects you don't know to prove a point
The first colony relied on British support for a couple of years before they could even grow shit in the land. They also didn't have any real neighboring threats to stunt their growth.

As stated above: Australia was more intended for longer term settlement whereas the African colonies were more focused on temporary resource extraction or just political purposes. Put otherwise, colonialism here in Australia was more focused on development of the land for living while colonialism in Africa was more focused on development of the land to get resources out. Obviously there are counter examples to this (South Africa namely) but for the most part this holds. Africans didn't develop such similar intentions because they just didn't evolve intellectually due to malnutrition, disease and so on (lack of agriculture playing a big part)

Development of agriculture is probably the largest driver of human evolution in the last few millennium and we see a clear example of this with Africa and seeing how they adapted differently

>South Africa and Rhodesia were the only colonies in Africa

Along with the Egyptian protectorate, they were the most important ones.

In the same way that Simplified Chinese is distinct from Seal Script, maybe.

How is that at all relevant to the point I am making?

>Africans didn't evolve intellectually
This is my point

How is it not relevant? Most of the big colonies in Africa had the same ambition as Australia.

I thought your point was that Africans have always been stupid and Eurasians have always been smart.

More that they never had the capacity to evolve intellectually

That's where I fully disagree with you. I think they were unable to evolve intellectually because they lacked the ability due to environmental reasons to establish societies

>you think
>I think
This isn't going to go anywhere

>We know that by changing from hunter gatherer to agricultural settled societies we saw changes both in the mental abilities and physical characteristics of humans.

Do we? What changes were there? Ive always heard it said that there was no psychological difference between us and our cave men (hunter gatherer) ancestors and us. I like you point about mosquitos though. Ive never considered how bad they would be in an urban tropical environment. I know that as late as colonial America people had to deal with Malaria outbreaks in Philidelphia every summer.

I think you would be interested in the Homo Sapiens and sub species of man like Neanderthals and Denisovans. We know hardly anything about Denisovans and only a bit about Neanderthals, but modern Eurasians share up to 4% of their DNA with the latter and many southeast asians have Denisovan DNA. There may also have been (i would be that there were) other groups of sub species that migrated west and south of East Africa. If there is something that makes people different based on race (which there isnt) it would probably be having a few percentage points of your DNA belong to another species.

P.S. as far as current science says, sub saharans are uniquely 100% homo sapien. I guess were the sub humans now?

I don't know that much about Africa user, but I can see those as being reasons for hindrance in terms of progression.

No. Africans have shown to have a mix of a non home Sapien early early man that is unique to Africans. So your dream of a pure African human master race is a bit silly

>between 85 and 75
The Irish used to have 87 IQ, or about the same as American blacks, back when they poor and killing each others in endless civil/religious wars:
unz.com/runz/raceiq-irish-iq-chinese-iq/

They still are killing eachother in religious wars, it's just at a low level currently. There are irregular terror attacks in Northern Ireland every month.

It's common knowledge that there was a back migration into of humans with Neanderthals admixture

Everyone from the Khoisan to the Ethiopians to the Mandinka have some

But have you asked yourself why do they evolved shitty IQ?

Maybe because the environment is so warm and abundant with animals and fruit that you can live by subsistence hunting, unlike in Eurasia where people had to form more complex communities to survive.

>the last two are tiny city states with homogeneous population and important trade ports
oh gee, I wonder how they could have developed.

Writing was only invented twice and neither time in europe

If you cant see thise as a hinderence then open your damn eyes.

Nope thats europeans thatbhave the Neanderthal dna.
You better hit the books

>Why do black people have low IQs?
>THEY'RE DUMB LOL
>Yes, but why?
>THEY'RE JUST DUMB LOL I'M SMARTER THAN NIGGERS WHITE PRIDE

Mesolithic Europeans were almost totally hunter-gatherers. Races in Asia with relatively high IQ, such as the Mongolians, remained nomadic well into the second millennium and it still lingers in the culture today. Not to mention I would harldly say intelligence isn't conductive to hunting: carnivores tend to be the most intelligent species in nature for this reason.
European chiefdoms were also considered to be more complex than most Asian ones in 10,000bc, yet east Asians came to have higher IQs

Terrible strawman.
Not an argument.

Literally said I can lol...

Oh shit i misread.
Sorry broseph

>Are not Africans genetically different and having fewer "sophisticated" civilizations simply due to the land that sub-Saharan Africa is?
They developed agriculture around 3000 BC, later than Europe and Asia

They actually did so at an accelerated given the Sahara's formation being the basis of said grain intensification.

Also Europeans never domesticated the major crops, they added poppy seeds and rabbits but that's basically their tier level

Bahamas is the second or third richest country in the Americas, and they're over 80% black.

>intelligence allele frequencies in 1000 genome populations

Just popping by to make the point that the image is OC made by myself, Reality Check on this tripcode.

That crime rate though.

LOL, I've got some bad news 4u

nope

name some
the germanics had rune-writing

the latins had latin

that covers up everything but eastern europe, which was colonized by the germanics

>I'm a neo nazi

Lol! If you say so.

I do t think you do.

His point was that all forms of euro writing were borrowed from other places and are not home grown.

It's not so much Asia as the fact that traveling from China to the Mediterranean was easier than traveling from Ethiopia to Nigeria. Almost every isolated human group in the past didn't advance as far as those who were plugged into the Eurasian trade and migration network. In this huge expanse you just needed one small group to figure out farming, domestication, writing, or city-building, and the knowledge would spread quickly east and west. That's how humanity works. It's got nothing to do with one group being theoretically superior genetically or culturally, because that group didn't rise to civilization without absorbing peoples and ideas from elsewhere.

IQ is complete bullshit. even though it's supposed to assess intelligence independently of education (or lack thereof), that's fucking impossible. of course sub-Saharan Africans will have lower IQ because they live in a godforsaken hellhole full of disease, warlords and killer animals where education takes a backseat to simply staying alive

Blacks in America also have lower IQs though.

I don't see why different human groups having different average intelligence is so controversial. I mean, to claim otherwise is to deny the theory of evolution, or make the unjustified claim that evolutionary pressure magically spared the brain.

You are ignoring the fact that mesolithic europeans were replaced by anatolian farmers and indo europeans.

>Blacks in America also have lower IQs though.

And have had worse education compared to other Americans for decades.

>And have had worse education compared to other Americans for decades.
So what? Illiterate jews who migrated to NYC during the late 19th century were so successful after a single generation that there were quotas to limit their number in universities. The burden of proof is on you to prove that the reason for low IQ is that great grandpa had a bad education. What an absurd proposition.

And if current education is to blame for low black IQ, how do you explain that uneducated mongolian sheep herders score higher than american blacks who have gone through 12 years of education?

And everyone who isn't the Chinese, Egyptians, Sumerians, Epke, or Meso-Americans borrowed writing from elsewhere. That doesn't change the fact that the Greeks made a significant jump from the Phoenician Abjad to the Greek Alphabet, or that Hangul is quite a jump from Hanzi.

Jewish immigrants, like a lot of immigrants, hired among their own to scratch together enough money to send their children to decent schools. For them the only barrier was money, which could be obtained.

For blacks, even if they got the money, they could only send their children to segregated schools if any at all and receive subpar education all the way into their college years, if they ever got that far.

You'd have to find me uneducated Mongolian sheep herders that consistently score higher than American blacks with 12 years of education to begin with.

Why were segregated black schools inferior? Jews also sent their children to segregated hebrew schools. What made one better than the other?

You seem to believe that education and intelligence are the same thing. They're not. Intelligence is basically brainpower, education is knowledge. You can be an illiterate genius.

Because segregated black schools were government (under)funded, whereas hebrew schools were just supplementary religious classes on top of fully-funded secular education that, as the Jewish minority became prosperous, could be better funded and later become full fledged schools themselves.

Education and intelligence are not the same thing. But they are very closely correlated for most people.

>Because segregated black schools were government (under)funded, whereas hebrew schools were just supplementary religious classes on top of fully-funded secular education that, as the Jewish minority became prosperous, could be better funded and later become full fledged schools themselves.
Hebrew schools are private schools which provide for the whole education, not just religious matters.

>Education and intelligence are not the same thing. But they are very closely correlated for most people.
Well sure, because intelligent people tend to succeed academically.

What I'm trying to get through to you is that you fallaciously believe that education increases intelligence. This is absolutely false. Intelligene is something you're born with and which doesn't change much over the course of your life.

To make an analogy, there is a correlation between basketball skills and height. But playing basketball doesn't make you taller.

wow the sea is dumb as fuck