RACISM IS UNFOUNDED AND HERE IS WHY

Prove it

1. I'm not your friend.
2. You're just incapable of understanding human diversity, thus make proper conclusions.

>Why didn't Africa develop on its own?
Thomas Sowell attributes this to a lack of useful rivers throughout Africa. Because of this the tribes didn't interact much, didn't trade, etc.

Just look at human genetic diversity. All regions are pretty much homogeneous, except Africa. Totally heterogeneous. It's obvious there was not much contact between tribes.

Selection bias. Black slaves were slaves because they were the weaker of the local tribe, captured and sold by the stronger. European blacks willfully immigrated and assimilated.

The effects of the black subculture are self-evident.

More selection bias. Immigrants from the 3rd world are outliers.

x2

In addition to lack of rivers they also had a lack of wood, ie construction material and fuel.

They did have a tough environment and a stronger 'survival-of-the-fittest' natural selection, so obviously the smarter Africans bred and that's another reason they are just as capable as Europeans.

And white people are smart is a meme. The average person is thick as shit, you'll go through 20 people before you find someone with some sense. Our population is made of idiots.

>racism is wrong
>white people are stupid

And you wonder why people don't take you seriously. You aren't anti-racist, you're just anti-white.

>Just look at human genetic diversity. All regions are pretty much homogeneous, except Africa. Totally heterogeneous. It's obvious there was not much contact between tribes.

Africa's genetic diversity at the continent level is misleading. Of course North Africans are genetically distinct from sub-saharan Africans! And within sub-saharan africa, most people are Bantu, who are a fairly homogenous group. They were farmers and metalworkers and sheit that expanded out of West Africa 3000 years ago and managed to genocide most of the khoisan/pygmy type people who used to range across Central and South Africa.

They weren't entirely successful though, and a big part of African genetic diversity is that those people they didn't quite genocide diverged from the rest of humanity ~100,000 years ago, have archaic ancestry that no one else has, and are very different from everyone else on the planet.

I don't think he was talking about white people bro, just people in general. In that sense, he isn't wrong.

>survival-of-the-fittest
>so obviously the smarter bred

>implying

>life on a continent with more biodiversity than the rest of the world
>fertile grasslands and ample water from rain forests and massive rivers
>barely in the iron age when europeans started using steam ships to explore africa.

Better question: both North Korea and Cuba are or at least were communist countries, but only one of them has developed nuclear weapons. Why is that?

Fuck off jared

>Obviously the smarter bred

That's not how selection works.

Intelligence is not inherently more desirable and wouldn't be selected for unless there was sufficient environmental pressure.

The further you get from the equator, the more harsh the winter, the less food available, the more planning required to survive until the spring.

>our population is idiots

There is a correlation between IQ and race. There is a correlation between G factor(general intelligence) and race. Period.

>Africa's genetic diversity at the continent level is misleading.

You're right about that. I was specifically referring to sub-Saharan Africa, sorry I though that was implicit.

>"and are very different from everyone else on the planet."

Right. They are different from everyone else AND different from each other.

With the abundance of resources there was no pressure to develop technology. Populations were reproducing just fine as it was.

"ain't broke don't fix it".

>but they have one of the most self destructing cultures

Oh my fucking god when will you leftist stop using american niggers as an example of black people, pay attention to africa AND ONLY AFRICA.

African blacks have even higher violent crime rates than American ones yet their cultures are more comparable to shit white hillbillies make than SHIET MOFOCKER.

This is the most intelligent post I've read all day

>I work with a Nigerian and a Kenyan
>I work with a Nigerian and a Kenyan
>a Nigerian
>a Kenyan

So you meet a black genetic outlier and think all of them are like that? Just live in Nigeria and notice how bizarre the average nigerian nigger behaves so you can change your mind.

This. Even if the research does suggest that blacks have a lower IQ, a deviation of 10 IQ points is not going to result in the bullshit you see today. It just boils down to their culture which is straight cancer. They don't idolize success. They don't want to be teachers, engineers, or mechanics. They want to be fucking rap stars, NBA players, football players, pimps, whatever the hell.

It's both. But I think there's a stronger tie between genetic predisposition and draw to certain values than people would like to admit. Cultures among ethnic groups tend to gravitate towards the same values again and again, even if the window dressing is different.

> racism
No such thing

>on the flourishing plains of africa with tamable animals and tons of fuckin food from fruit bearing trees at the minimum. They have no meaningful achievements besides peanut butter.
>Europeans from a treacherous terrain and comparatively little resources have built almost every piece of technology with the exception of additions from asians, and have built most the civilizations aside from asians today

>It just boils down to their culture
Explain Africa

EXPLAIN AFRICA

Because we don't make babies with our cousins.
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hajnal_line

and most of Europe went through a process of de facto eugenics
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Manorialism

When the lord has power over who marries whom, they tend to make better decisions on who breeds with who. You don't want a family of miscreants fucking up your estate.

>African blacks have even higher violent crime rates than American ones
Only true in the worst parts of Africa. Many African nations, e.g. Botswana, have very low violent crime rates.

Botswana is AIDs land.

Also it doesnt matter how wealthy a black country is it is still full of hunans who will destroy that country if left on their own completely.

>I would say blacks are as capable as whites biologically
All the evidence accumulated over the past 100 years points to the contrary, despite the most feverish attempts by academia to twist the data into showing equality.

>water infested with bacteria in the tropical zone
>tsetse fly
>malaria in the congo region (rainforests arent necessarily good)

>massive rainforests and big rivers = abundance of resources
>"hurr durr we have everything we need so we're not developing any technology"

And thats why Sub-Saharan Africans developed steel before Europeans right

>steel before Europeans

Pfhahahahahahaahaa

That doesn't make racism "unfounded." Hell, most people would be content if they limited themselves to the continent of Africa, no matter whether they were building castles and cathedrals or living in mud huts.

>they are just as capable as Europeans.

You have earned your place in the 19/20 portion of the population.

>
Intelligence is not inherently more desirable and wouldn't be selected for unless there was sufficient environmental pressure.

You're missing most of the picture. Those who are more intelligent are more likely to survive and breed.

This is where Europeans got their intellect from.

It's never been because of sexual preference until the 20th century.

Just different culture problems, intense tribalism and a vast number of small cultural subsets meant and still means, warfare, internal political division along tribal lines, and little to no national unity.

>This is where Europeans got their intellect from.

see
In a way we should be sucking the pope's cock for being part of a tradition that had a positive eugenic effect. Even if the policy of banning cousin marriage was borne of greed.

Making babies with people who aren't your cousins: The difference between England and Pakistan.

>higher intelligence = higher likelihood of reproduction

Bullshit. What about every other species that ever existed? Most of them don't seem too smart.

You couldn't be more wrong.

In this context desirable literally means more likely to reproduce.

>Bullshit. What about every other species that ever existed? Most of them don't seem too smart.

Because cognition has an energy cost. Not only that but cognition requires a volume of mass and beyond a certain point, endangers the mother/egg sac.

Ape cognition has it's limit with the width of a female's cervix and the ability for an ape to amass a surplus of dietary nutrition from a certain area.

BUT take a cold place, for example's sake. If you're a species of ape with juvenile young that take an inordinate amount of time and energy, it's better to have the intelligence to plan for, mitigate, and circumvent hard times. Up to a point, intelligence gives you increasing returns beyond the cost of complexity

CONT.

Not to mention, raids with ever-increasing complexity.yielding ever-increasing rewards are the "killer app" of intelligence.

Thank your war-like ancestors for the relative hyper-trophy of intelligence in the past ten thousand years.

You are missing the point. Evolution only cares about staying alive long enough to procreate. That's it. Period.

"Evolution" isn't a pagan force.

Cognition means "planning a surplus against the hard times of the future"

Cognition means "Evaluate and judge the motivations and intellectual and physical abilities of a potential friend and rival"

Cognition means the general intelligence to understand a pattern of behaviors and either mimic them or, in rare cases, discover higher forms of more fundamental mimetic behaviors.

And the innumerable amount of systems/ecologies that develop from the behaviors engendered by general intelligence.

Why not stay alive as long as possible and fertilize as many eggs as you can?

First known steel is from 1800bc Anatolia.

Iberians and Romans had steel.

bait thread, the perfect kind of honeypot for pretentious Veeky Forums torians

>W.Europeans(WEs)
WEs wuz kangz

I suppose whatever race you are is the master race and all others ought to be exterminated right?

You going to refute what he said?

>Africans (Afs) are as capable as W.Europeans (WEs).

AHAHAHAHAHAHA

>
>>Why didn't Africa develop on its own?
>Thomas Sowell attributes this to a lack of useful rivers throughout Africa. Because of this the tribes didn't interact much, didn't trade, etc.
>
Wrong. There were many useful rivers in Africa and the major trade towns tended to be built close to major rivers. Major rivers also acted as political boundaries. There was major trade interaction between African tribes. In southern Africa alone, there's archeological evidence (in form or Matola shells) that show there were interactions between different tribes as early as the iron age.

As a South African, I can honestly say that the Zulu are the most violent and self-destructive people on the planet. They immediately react with violence when faced with a slightly uncomfortable, unfamiliar, unsettling situation. It doesn't even have to be bad, they just react violently. There immediate reaction is to attack, rape and destroy. They attack white people for nothing. It's scary out here and we need help

Just stop with that skull shape and hair color bullshit, I don't have the same hair color as my mother but that doesn't make her a human of a different "race". No one has the same exact skull shape as mine but that doesn't mean I represent a race on my one. The fact that aboriginals can breed with Western Europeans sums it up : of course there are differences throughout the world, but that doesn't mean you can split humans into races like they were entirely isolated from each other.

>no two things are exactly the same therefore grouping things is impossible

I didn't bother to reply because your point was so moot.

Evolution works by chance. We evolved a mutation to enlarge our brains, other animals haven't had that fortune.

The reason higher intelligence = higher chance of reproduction is because, literally, can *think* and *plan* and *construct* with intelligence which helps us stay alive.

We stand separate from all other animals because our primary survival mechanism is our high intellect. We don't have fur, strength, speed.

They are stuck in the dark ages. Europeans used to do exactly that. Your Dutch ancestors raided England and massacred entire villages in the most brutal ways.

What we are talking about is the blacks potential to evolve because they are intellectually as capable.

Also don't forget that there is a lot of history in South Africa because of "muh aparteid". They are using that as a powerful propaganda and just look at the effects of propaganda in history, I don't need to tell you how effective it is.

They are not, the nigger is more ancient than the Proto-Indo-Europeans yet is by far the most savage and stupid human breed on earth.

They might indeed have 10 IQ points less but even so like stated before, thst doesn't explain what is going on

I respect your view but I think you have never attempted to test your hypothesis. I'm true about this aren't I?

We have heard of African teenages building aircraft and wind powered generators in Sub-Sahara out of scrap! No internet access, no easy how-to guide, just books lol. He read the theory and decided to power his whole village. If that's not genius I don't know what is.

So what does this last point prove? It proves that some of the African population can unlock their high intellectual potential, and it is at least in their genes and attainable, but, most do not.
Exactly the same applies to Europeans, most of us a stupid, only a few are actually intelligent.

> heavy handed ruler
Africa had plenty of heavy handed rulers.

The real reason is much of Africa was a poor environment for agriculture given the technology at the time.

6/10 for not believing in memes, but do try to look at a broad range of factors before leaping to conclusions.

>Just different culture problems
Biology is the root, culture the flower. Culture just doesn't spring up from nowhere, the PEOPLE make it

Don't pretend to be dumber than you are. If you want to group things based on their differences, then make a group for every fucking individual on this planet. You can't just arbitrarily decide what limits there are to a race because there is no clear limits to "races". The problem with racial theories is that they assimilate difference to incompatibility based on unclear and in fact inexistent separations.

If you ever want to be more specific, look at families/religious groupings.

Christian Nigerians (Igbo) perform as well as the East Asian average. Other Nigerians from other tribes perform around the African average.

Or if you look at white americans, the Episcopalians seem to be a blueblood group that has higher IQs than most other whites.

The problem is that even a moderate difference in the average affects the chances and ability range of outliers. Ashkenazi jews are (or were) a classic example where a standard deviation above the average produced a far more disproportionate effect in the number of them 2-4 std. above the population average.

Ironically enough, we (USA) act as an IQ blender for the developing world. We import the "brightest", or at least the poor schmucks that are 1 std. above their population, and leave the rest of that world with mere average men.

Explain people of African descent in literally every country they've ever established even a tiny population in still being above average in crime.

Every African minority in every place from America to Russia to Australia to Japan. Are you going to tell me all these cultures just happen to drive blacks to crime?

Fact 1: Haplotypes exist
Fact 2: Different genes carried within haplotypes have an effect on predisposition to behaviors
Fact 3: Different genes carried within haplo groups have an effect on predisposition to intelligence in the imperfect but best ways we have to measure it

If you can dispute any of these three things, please don't be shy.

>evolution is not a pagan force

I know what evolution is.

>why not stay alive as long as possible and fertilize as many eggs as you can

Please see r-selection vs k-selection.

>major trade interaction
Not relative to the rest of humanity.

You just aren't getting it.
>other species haven't had the fortune of larger brains.

Larger brains, intelligence, etc are NOT inherently more desirable. Please stop and think about it for a minute.

>The reason higher intelligence = higher chance of reproduction is because, literally, can *think* and *plan* and *construct* with intelligence which helps us stay alive.

Sure, for a homosapien, in a modern 1st world environment. That doesn't make it a universal truth, not even close.

It's called an outlier. It doesn't matter, what matters is the aggregate.

And making the wind spin a motor backwards to create electricity is middle school science fair tier. All jokes aside.

Where does red end and orange start?

I don't know. But I know red and orange are not the same color.

And that is where you fail to understand what naming is user. We separate red from orange to simplify communication but as you said it yourself their is no clear separation between the two, there is a whole spectrum for color and you can decide to put limits pretty much anywhere, they would still mean nothing (you'll also notice that people are sometimes arguing on wether something is orange, red or pink, and that there is no exact answer to the issue, it's all subjective).

hmm i wonder why too

Peanut butter is Aztec.

>Larger brains, intelligence, etc are NOT inherently more desirable.

They evidently are since Humans are on the top of the food change. Think about that for a minute. This also answers your second point as well. It was through higher cognition that we became the dominant species. We conquered our environments, developed rudimental but ever-effective medicines from our surroundings, constructed clothing, armor and weapons.

Those of us who were smart enough survived, the fools and mentally handicapped were largely killed off either by predator or lack of preparation. This applies to every race on the planet.

Einstein was an outlier too, you fool. You and I are among the average and we are not smarter than Africans still living in mud huts.

What feats of genius do you do in your daily life? You can press a button to boil your water, you can work a car, even a computer. So can a chimpanzee, so where is your higher level intelligence?

Your daily life is intellectually mundane.

And in answer to your little dig about the motor, yes it is a science fair project. It's simple if you know how. How many of those science fair kids could do the same without adult intervention driving them to build one, without the internet, in a bloody desert!

>I would say blacks are as capable as whites biologically, but they have one of the most self destructing cultures.
separating the two is retarded

>I work with a Nigerian and a Kenyan, those two blow everyone else away in terms of how serious they take their jobs. Even the Chinese and Koreans are impressed, which says a lot.
that's your opinion, this could be virtue signaling for all we know

>Einstein was an outlier too, you fool. You and I are among the average and we are not smarter than Africans still living in mud huts.
Sure, but even the outliers follow norms predicted by psychometrics. The rate of outliers and the scores they coincide perfectly with their academic performance and their pay. The average white person is smarter than the average black person

>Your daily life is intellectually mundane.
Your typical day will not reflect you capacity, that does not mean you can't do more. A large part of this is that the markets demands specific simple tasks done by someone who has the competence to respond to change in the typical day. You're not making any kind of coherent argument.

>triggering /pol/: the post

>The average white person is smarter than the average black person.

So that's you hypothesis, now, what evidence do you have to prove it?

>Your typical day will not reflect you capacity.
You are a self-proclaimed superior whiteman, except you've never had the chance to engage this intellect. Shouldn't you question whether it even exists or are you smart simply because "I can feel it". Buddy, all you can feel is your ego and the comforting notion that you belong to a superior race.

>You're not making any kind of coherent argument.

Oh yes I am. I'm asking you for evidence that suggests you are smarter than the average African, an easy line of reasoning to follow to be honest, lol. Do you have evidence or is it just a feeling?

But there are several animal species that can be considered more evolutionary successful while having significantly lower intelligence. Remember, genes only want to reproduce, they don't care how. Right now, humans being intelligent is a pretty good strategy, but we're still between ice ages and haven't had any cataclysmic events in our species lifetime. We'll see what happens in the long run, intelligence might just be an expensive fad on the verge of dying out.

>The fact that Great Danes can breed with Maltese dogs sums it up : of course there are differences throughout the world, but that doesn't mean you can split dogs into races like they were entirely isolated from each other.

>little to no national unity
Do you ever wonder why that is? Why is it that one tribe doesn't like this other tribe that they have to share a country (arbitrarily defined by /someone/) with?
Here's what I think it is. It's inherent cultural differences, differences in lifestyle that alienate people from one another. Consider Kenya, and its two different major tribes (as a side note, there are plenty of smaller tribes who cluster around these big two. They are their own ethnic peoples, but they still are so similar to one of the two larger ones that it might as well not matter). There are the Luo, who live by Lake Victoria and have many fishermen, due to their proximity to the lake. Then there are the Kikuyus, who live next to Mount Kenya (an ancient volcano that has since gone dormant), and had built themselves an agrarian society before British Colonization (they had also been telling arab and portugese traders/explorers on the coast to fuck off for a few centuries). These two ethnic groups had built for themselves different cultures, different religions, and different ways of life. Then come the British, who steal their land, denounce and replace their religions, then when they get tired of being there, say "okay, you two are part of a country and have to like each other. By the way, you have to buy back the land we took from you for free. Bye." What, do you think that they're going to be all happy and united and build a nation like South Korea in the span of, what, two generations? Of course not. They're going to, at first, be very angry and united against Britain because the British just bullshitted them out of their homes for a few years and then tried to /sell their own land back to them/, and then when that simmers down, they're going to start disliking each other because...
(1/2)

they have to share a country with those lazy asshats who do nothing but sit in a boat all day catching fish and calling it hard work, or those slimy merchants who will try to talk you into selling your eldest child for a shirt. Do you seriously think that they will unite into one peaceful and happy nation? Since when has that even happened?

tl;dr do you wonder why they don't have national unity? well, I've got the answer; it's cause and effect.

Not that poster, but www1.udel.edu/educ/gottfredson/30years/Rushton-Jensen30years.pdf

The idea that things like the Founder effect somehow exclusively don't apply intelligence or behavior but include everything else is the hypothesis I'd like you to prove.

>But there are several animal species that can be considered more evolutionary successful while having significantly lower intelligence.

Well if that's your point I have nothing more to say except: are you personally satisfied with this answer? Are you going to stay keep the idea that intelligence isn't evolutionary and that it is unnecessary?

Further more, the original debate was whether Africans were as smart as Europeans. I believe so. We had to evolve in similar enough scenarios other millions of years where life favoured those intelligent enough.

I did a quick skim-read over the PDF and I found exactly what I expected:

>Currently, the 1.1 standard deviation difference in average IQ between Blacks
and Whites in the United States is not in itself a matter of empirical dispute.

African-Americans especially don't count for African-Intelligence-Potential because they were taken our of nature as possessions of the white man. They were selectively bred and those of them that could read were killed. This is a very simple fact but is often ignored by people who push for the 'whites are smarter' argument. There are also a tonne of social and environmental factors that are responsible for black IQ in America being lower but the initial point I made there is enough to debunk it on it's own.

Secondly I noticed more wrong with that study. The study was completed on Africans in Africa as well, though less than the former kind of test mentioned previously, the point is the Education system in Africa is far inferior because the environment is much less advanced, it does not favour the academic IQ test. They also have poor diets and other such problems in Africa. If we compare the average European intelligence with our underfed ancestors they were said to have been less intelligent as well. A final point debunking the IQ test in Africa is the knowledge that people have access to. Knowledge is not intelligence but having knowledge increases intelligence.

Cont.

>The idea that things like the Founder effect somehow exclusively don't apply intelligence or behavior but include everything else is the hypothesis I'd like you to prove.

Why should I prove something I never propagated?

>African-Americans especially don't count for African-Intelligence-Potential because they were taken our of nature as possessions of the white man. They were selectively bred and those of them that could read were killed. This is a very simple fact but is often ignored by people who push for the 'whites are smarter' argument. There are also a tonne of social and environmental factors that are responsible for black IQ in America being lower but the initial point I made there is enough to debunk it on it's own.

>Secondly I noticed more wrong with that study. The study was completed on Africans in Africa as well, though less than the former kind of test mentioned previously, the point is the Education system in Africa is far inferior because the environment is much less advanced, it does not favour the academic IQ test. They also have poor diets and other such problems in Africa. If we compare the average European intelligence with our underfed ancestors they were said to have been less intelligent as well. A final point debunking the IQ test in Africa is the knowledge that people have access to. Knowledge is not intelligence but having knowledge increases intelligence.

You want too far LARPing as a liberal. You need to down it down to be believable.

>Why should I prove something I never propagated?
The premise of your argument rests on the idea that people with different physical features are not cognitively different.

>Political Stability.
You need to learn some shit about our politic. France used to make a revolution every 20 years, we created a total of 4 world wars and every century one of us would conquer half of the others.

From the 100 year war, the Italian wars, the 80 year war, the Haburg league war, the great companies deal, the Cambrai's league war, the war of Spanish succession, the 30 year war and the whole century of religious war, the part between the end of the Middle Age and WWII was a constant state of war.

You claim our aristocracy using violence to be respected gave us prosperity but tribal warchief using violence to unite some people is just the same.

They had everything we had and failed miserably. Some of us created ex nihilo two countries in Africa and it became as successfully as the European ones.

>ancient Greece
>political stability

This is the future of Europe.

>The premise of your argument rests on the idea that people with different physical features are not cognitively different.

Exactly, nowhere did I mention the Founder Effect is inclusive of all but intelligence.

I made more than a single point, if you don't have a genuine rebuttal then I guess that settles it.

If you are OP, your only point is: it's all due to chance.

Africans are simply inferior to Eurasians. Get over it.

Then you agree that race and intelligence and aggression has some correlation?

No! How the hell do you arrive at something completely unrelated to what was being said?

What connection is there between saying there are no intellectual difference between people and your recent statement saying there are differences?

You are not keeping up, my friend. I made several points and you can only attempt to talk about just 1.

Im going to cease responding to you, this is seriously undeserving of a response.