Aside from running to the muh low IQ/subhuman argument

Not to mention the Jews and the Holocaust yet they are very successful today.
I didn't say it was the sole reason but it is partially why they are behind.

Is there any value to the argument that shit nations also tend to keep the cost of resource extraction or the production of needed commodities in those countries to lower price points? So as long as the people in power keep those costs down, they remain in power.

also, apes can't do math.

Exploitation of resources and people by European colonialism.

>Russians
>surrounded by enemies left and right
>conquered and enslaved by the Mongols
>constant barrage of Tatar/Mongol/Turkish raids
>numerous famines
>communism murdering/exiling most of their aristocracy and intelligentsia
>WW1 and WW2 killing off 40% of their men
And yet they're still a nuclear superpower now while Africa keeps wallowing in shit.

Explain the success of the Balkans, Finland, Ireland etc etc then?

>Central Asians periodically fucking shit up
This. The Manchus/Mughals were poison for China/India and they declined massively.
Turk's really do turn everything to shit.

You knew exactly what you were going to get the second you started this thread. Saying "x argument aside" doesn't work, they do it anyway.

This is simply not the board for it, in terms of attitude. It turns into /pol/ vs /leftypol/ ideological dickwaving every time, and any historical explanation is dismissed.

Anyway, if you pay any attention to postcolonial geopolitics you'll notice the world powers repeatedly destabilized the third world on purpose, because they didn't want rivals to have too much influence. And the west didn't just pack up and leave after colonialism, there was regular political meddling. The CIA and Belgians, for example, had Patrice Lumumba shot and handed the Congo over to a warlord because at least he wasn't a commie risk. Most of Africa is so stuck in debt with a payment method that insists on cutting any infrastructure that doesn't actually help debt repayment.

Closer to the modern day, it doesn't take a genius to realize the west is at least partially responsible for ISIS' rapid success, seeing as they keep toppling people with the actual authority to maintain stability and then leaving their fucking army out of a job. The Syrian civil war has only lasted so long because outside powers keep propping up both the government and the rebels in a geopolitical squabble.

People have the stupid habit of viewing struggling countries in a vacuum and going "other countries succeeded! they're just shit", but they discount the fact that most third world countries became independent in a far more globalized world where outside meddling was virtually impossible to escape.

Listen, I agree it's not the sole reason but getting exploited did fracture them and fuck them up. Then the low IQ didn't really help and just kept them wallowing in shit. Also those nations have higher IQs but were still disadvantaged when compared to nations like England and France who weren't conquered on a massive scale.

*by "those nations" I mean Balkans, Russia, etc.

Civilization is not a given. It's an ideology. It has practical implications. Civilization means centralized government, standing armies, hierarchies, economic systems, class systems, etc. It imposes a mindset on how to measure the worth of cultures: how well it handles resources, how well a state can defend itself (and project power), production of culture (self-masturbatory propaganda), etc.

Civilization spread like a virus from Mesoptamia, India and Egypt. Others took it and made it more better and more efficient (better resource management, stronger armies, powerful culture, etc.), then imposed their way on others or led by example.

This is something that has to be imposed, learned and taught among your people. The people that are behind simply haven't learned to be civilized.

Their standards of living are still pretty deteriorated though...judging a country just only by it's military capabilities is like saying north korea is a first world country, or iceland is a shithole.

Russia and their living standards are pretty much Switzerland compared to the likes of Liberia or Zimbabwe.

>France
>weren't conquered on a massive scale

For a handful of years in the early 40s. They were pretty industrialized with an empire at that time too.

>Also those nations have higher IQs
Another leftypol myth, the average IQ for Serbia is 89. Yet they live like kings compared to other nations with similar IQ' s

>weren't conquered on a massive scale
What about Germany then? Cities bombed to dust, massive loss of civilian and military population alike, industrial patents abolished and re-patented in America, partitioned to two separate states both ruled by puppet governments of the US and the USSR respectively, but now they're pretty much the strongest country in the EU and wealthy as fuck.

Literally none of that is true. You can easily observe the number of retarded decisions these African countries make that equate to repeatedly shouting themselves in their own foot. How are you going to ignore the black nationalist approach? How are you going to ignore the corrupt disbursement of international aid? How are you going to ignore the governments disgusting intervention of the diamond discovery? They did it to themselves. The African citizens don't deserve to pay the price - but they will.

So what are you getting at then? It's not IQ that makes them successful?

89 is pretty shitty for a white country but still much better than some shit like Ethiopia where the average IQ is 67.

Those things set them back but their high IQ allowed them to succeed.

There's 3 things. Western intervention, corruption, and low IQ.

You can also throw in the fact that a lot of tribes literally have no reason to stop being hunter-gatherers.

Read up on Neocolonialism and dependence theory.

As a person that lives in a thrid world country i believe corruption is the biggest obstacles
Not to mention most of us (like my country) were under communism/socialism which made us fall behind and still many of our leders think they can creat some kind of socialist Utopia
Also the west constantly drain the people we need to build up the country with their migration programs that appeal to those greatly needed people. (If you want less refugees then you should stop taking our engineers/doctors so that we dont send you refugees)
Also colonialism to an extent

Yeah, compared to them, but in solid numbers look at their currency, the ruble is fucking worthless, same with the infrastructure, it's fucked, it ranks less than north Africa and some south American countries, and their average pay too, it's on par with north Africa.

>the ruble is fucking worthless
Thanks to 3 years of western sanctions. And they're still around and kicking.

>Around and kicking
>One dollar is 50 rubles

Friendly reminder that there's a 15 point IQ difference between blacks and whites, but only 30% of that effect is attributable to race, the rest is caused by environmental factors. 5 IQ points is not the kind of thing that will make or break a nation.

Please give sources
this'll infuriate /pol/tards

did you keep a straight face writing this

Not completely but other matters like self control among other things.

There aren't any sources because it's made-up feel-good nonsense. IQ is 80% inherited.

Because everyone can't produce airplanes, luxury motorcars and unicorn startups, some people ought to be smelting steel and growing rice for life so that their masters can get the cash to buy airplanes and luxury motorcars. In other words, inequality is inherent to capitalist economy. How it came to be that these specific societies build airplanes and not others makes no difference, it could as well happen by chance.

Everything else (including IQ) is only a consequence.

No it won't. Most of us agree that the differences are more to do with culture than genetics. What bothers us is the liberal refusal to acknowledge the difference at all

Why would it? You're literally still saying that blacks are dumber than whites, just less so than claimed.

>IQ is 80% inherited.
No, 50%.

>Literally none of that is true.

The Africans having to put up with corrupt governments doesn't magically make none of what I said true, I have no idea how people manage to live in this black or white world where either it's 100% African mismanagement or 100% western devil. It's a bit of both, but many of those corrupt governments are legacies of the cold war where having an ideological ally was more important than letting the Africans have a principled leader.

People might think a few decades is a long time, but there is a LOT of shit to unfuck in the third world. And to pretend the west doesn't still regularly stick its dick in it, sometimes well-meaning and sometimes not, is naive. Many of these places didn't inherit an infrastructure that was meant to actually run a modern country, they inherited an infrastructure that was meant to export goods.

>one dollar is 110 yen
>one dollar is approx. 2 belarusian rubles
Does it mean Belarus is 220 times richer than Japan?

If whatever user's saying is true, then 10-5 points are negligible, especially if you put into perspective that Asians have 5-10 points IQ higher than whites

No, it's 90%.

If so, explain Flynn effect.

Phaggot
ghr.nlm.nih.gov/primer/traits/intelligence

Western Germany received major investment from the US in the post-war period.

You can blame corrupt governments all you like, it's of no help so long as no one knows how to create a non-corrupt government where there was none.

>inb4 democracy, accountability, free media
Plenty of examples of corrupt democracies like India, Brazil or 19th century USA (some will say, contemporary USA as well).

>1/2 is x220 of 1/110

Most of them never documented anything.

Plus, a lot of them traded with similar cultures. Adapting wasn't necessary.

Honestly, the reason Africa isn't as "advanced" as other continents is because they simply didnt need to, and haven't.

I feel the need to post though you might be gone because I had similar concerns back when I was an idiot.

When studying shitty continents (mainly Africa)- one of the most important things to keep in mind is population density and disease. Attached is a picture of Africa's true size. Having tons of available land leads to low population density, as you can move away and be tribalistic when your local leader pissed you off. It's also harder to get decent amounts of people together.

So population density leads to all sorts of good stuff if you look at any civilization. Having a lot of people living together makes for chaos, so it leads to people wanting a set of norms that dictate behavior. This leads to well-developed property rights, legal codes, and a written language (many African societies lacked a written language before missionaries). Population density also leads to trade- a traders demand one thing above all, the safety of their wares from stealing or raiding. But of course, you can't just invent all these concepts and have them free floating, you need an enforcing body. Hence, the state. In places of high population density the reach of the state and the culture of the state grows, as people put up with and empower the state since it enforces the norms necessary to avoid anarchy. So the states grow and become nations. In Africa, you don't really see this occur. The best developed states when the Euros got there began to concern themselves with aiding the slave trade- further depopulating their lands.

Low population density can also stall growth in another way. In Europe you see high population density and many states warring with each other. In Africa, you see very little state v. state war. War is good for advancement generally. Warring means your state has to be pervasive enough to set up a working tax system, enforce it, and then go enforce and expand borders. Since there is so much empty land in Africa and enough people to live, states ----

Which is a poor making up for the fact Americans abolished shitload of patents held by BASF, Messerschmitt or IG Farben and repatented them in America, deriving German companies of profit.

Wait so people actually believe western influence had absolutely nothing to do with it?

cont....
States don't have a reason to continually enforce the borders, can't find strong states to war with, and therefore don't become stronger and advanced themselves. Adversity can aid ingenuity and few African states faced domestic adversity.
The recent difference between the development of the two most similar areas going into the 20th century (Africa vs. Southeast asia) really boils down to education, export based economic models (the only thing they've ever done since colonialism), and a culture for weak and corrupt states (the only thing they knew since colonialism.) When these countries achieved independence (some as late as the 1970s) they were lucky if 10% of the population could read. Can you imagine controlling size the land of half the United States without a developed culture for government, where tribalism reigns, when the only government anyone has ever known has been awful, with less than 10% of a literate population.

Don't assume that the current way you see things in history is the right way and the way things will always be. The Chinese are seen as the smartest "race" today- and less than 200 years ago they were thoroughly blown out of the water by European technologies. Things like these happen, civilizations go through hard times. Africa has never had it easy (if you ignore the northern part of course).

Why population density is so low in Africa?
IIRC it wasn't so high in most of Europe a thousand years ago.

There is a kind of similar argument about Russia. North-Eastern Rus (core territory of what was to become Russia) has been sparsely populated, so to keep people from moving around service nobility lobbied the tsar into instituting serfdom, which is traditionally seen as the ultimate harmful/debilitating/anti-progressive/anti-capitalist institution in Russian history that is often blamed for everything.
Now, why was population density so low in North-Eastern Rus? Crop yield from seeds that Russian peasants were using was 3 or even 2 to one, at the same time it was 5 or 6 to one in Europe. Why? Because Russians were eating the biggest seeds and used the smallest ones for planting, so naturally enough, their seeds were not so good. How or why this came to be I don't know.

>Having tons of available land leads to low population density, as you can move away and be tribalistic when your local leader pissed you off. It's also harder to get decent amounts of people together.

But you could argue the same thing for Eurasia. Eurasia is bigger than Africa, yet people still formed clusters until entire states and empires arose which then subdued tribal attitudes.

You have to look at why other people formed clusters and why Africans didn't or couldn't do it to the same extent. If they had the opportunity and reasons to do it but couldn't find a way socially and technologically then they're simply retarded.

A similar thing has been argued for Eurasia actually. I mention in my original post that the country with development levels most similar to Africa going into the 20th century was Southeast Asia- so a similar theory does apply.
But after the 20th century in our current world system, other explanations kick in that I mentioned in the 2nd post to explain current development trends. Low education for years of colonialism, culture of extracting-states, raw material export based economies, low production of commodities. etc... I addressed your point already.

They couldn't domesticate Zebras

Exactly this.
You look at the markers of economic development of areas in Russia with similar population density to Africa- and it's really really bad. Africa-tier bad. Similar circumstances there yielded similar results.

Maybe it's just because it's fucking cold in Russia and therefore their crop yields are lower due to a shorter growing season and less sunlight, instead of ' peasants ate the biggest seeds'

The intelligence of some of the people posting here I swear.

Also no explanation is ever as simple as "they're simply retarded." That's ignoring millions of years of nuance.
As for modern intelligence, easily explained by neglecting education for hundreds of years. Things like public schooling didn't really start happening en mass until relatively recently, and by that time Africa was in colonial hands. Colonials had no interest in an educated populace.

Lol those IQ numbers are trash. I'm ethnically Ethiopian and I have a 129 IQ. I'm an e-commerce with a buddy of mine and we are on track to pull 250k in revenue this year.

>muh exception
No, my dad is a phd engineer and probably high IQ as well. I also have plenty of extended family and friends come here regularly and attain success. I've been there multiple times as well and there is no noticeable gap like that.

I can accept that there are probably group differences but anyone who takes fanciful numbers like that seriously must be low IQ themselves. I can tell you for sure that there is no way in hell that we have an average IQ of 67 kekity. In fact, I doubt that very many if any modern populations have an average IQ that low. Richard Lynn is full of shit.

Doesn't work like that anymore. The least populous places are often the richest due to oil, gas, aluminium, nickel, what have you.
There is no place in Russia as poor as sub-Saharan Africa.

>average income in America is 50 thousand
>"no I am actually a millionaire and my dad is also a millionaire so those averages are wrong!!!"
Leave it to an African to not understand how averages work.

Western influence helped Africa if anything. It wasn't exactly the bustling hub of civilization before whites arrived there.

>racialreality.blogspot.com/2011/08/devastating-criticism-of-richard-lynn.html

>We found that Lynn and Meisenberg's assessment of the samples' representativeness is not associated with any of the objective sampling characteristics, but rather with the average IQ in the sample. This suggests that Lynn and Meisenberg excluded samples of Africans who average IQs above 75 because they deemed these samples unrepresentative on the basis of the samples' relatively high IQs. We conclude that Lynn and Meisenberg's unsystematic methods are questionable and their results untrustworthy

>In three of the samples in Table 1, the average IQ is below 70. These are Owen's large sample of Black South African school children tested in the 1980s, the 17 Black South Africans carefully selected for their illiteracy by Sonke (2001), and a group of uneducated Ethiopian Jewish children, who lived isolated from the western world in Ethiopia and immigrated to Israel in the 1980s (Kaniel & Fisherman, 1991). The last two samples cannot be considered to be representative.

>The majority of studies on IQ test performance of Africans not taken into account by Lynn (and Vanhanen) and Malloy showed considerably higher average IQs than the studies that they did review. We judge the reviews of Lynn (and Vanhanen) and Malloy to be unsystematic. These authors missed a large part of the literature on IQ testing in Africa, failed to explicate their inclusion and exclusion criteria, and made downward errors in the conversion of raw scores to IQs (Wicherts, 2007). Lynn (and Vanhanen)'s estimate of average IQ of Africans of around 67 is untenable. Our review indicates that it is about 78 (UK norms) or 80 (US norms).

Yeah Lynn's IQ numbers are trash. I'm tired of people running with them.

I understand averages but even then, 67 is unrealistically low. The chances of every other Ethiopian I've met magically being I'm the top quartile is way too low.

Lynn's numbers have been debunked, I'm tired of seeing them referenced as fact.

See

>rich guy hangs mostly around rich guys
Shocking innit?

Why do you people seem to think IQ matters to civilization ? Korea has the 2nd highest IQ on earth, they didn't do much with it until a few decades ago.

Imo the africans just can't get along for the most part, and the shitty dictatorships don't help either.

Africa is a logistic nightmare even to white man and chinks.

Yeah, this is not the explanation that you can reach with common sense alone, which makes it all the more cool.

Found the quote
"These factors dictated that rye was by far the predominant cereal crop, whose yields were extraordinarily low: the Russians were lucky to harvest three seeds for each one sown. The yields for oats were even lower. In the West those were pre-Carolingian yields, which had risen to 6 :1 by the end of the fifteenth century. The low Russian yields were to a major extent the result of downward selection: instead of saving and sowing the biggest seeds, the Russians used those to pay rent and taxes, and planted either the smallest seeds or the middle-sized ones, and ate the others."

Yet white populated areas in Africa were pretty much first world. Whites can go even to a scorching shithole of a desert like Arizona and turn it into a livable, developed dwelling, meanwhile blacks will struggle to develop civilization in any kind of environment.

Explain why you take Richard Lynn's IQ figures seriously when they have been debunked

Every Ethiopian I ever met was pretty much a literal retard.

t. Ghanaian in London

Kek, this entire thread is ridiculous

Why do you post on Veeky Forums if you have so little conception of history? This isn't /pol/- read, make sense of things, explore why you feel the need to cling onto a theory of perpetual racial superiority, and then come back.

I don't know, what did western influence do for thousands of years to africa while europeans were developing tech?

Everything I said is factual and you provide no counter argument. How come MUH DESERT is considered a legit defense for Africans, but white Americans were able to develop Arizona which is one of the hottest regions on the planet? Fuck off.

Why do you post on Veeky Forums if you have little conception of history? This isn't reddit- read,make sense of things, explore why you feel the need to cling onto a theory of perpetual intellectual superiority and then come back.

Because Tse tse flies common in Africa transmit diseases to humans and decimated livestock, making them skinnier or produce less milk and eventually die. Africa is incredibly hot and dry in most parts and separated from the rest of the world geographically by a giant fucking desert, all the wildlife there is fuck huge and wants to kill them. Colonialism. Shit land that's terrible for growing crops, treacherous coasts, malaria, mosquitos, terrible sandy soil, lack of readily available drinking and irrigation water

It must be nice being this unintelligent and simple-minded.

It must be nice not having a single argument, brainlet.

Look up Rhodesia which became Zimbabwe.

It used to be called the bread basket of Africa when white people were in control.

After blacks took over, well you know the trillion dollar notes and the famine.

Now they're calling all the white farmers back.

Where is this quote from?

White people arrived to that desert with a different level of development and a different purpose in mind, your comparasion doesn't make sense, the other user is right you shouldn't be on Veeky Forums if you're not gonna take history into account

amazon.com/Cambridge-History-Russia-v/dp/0521812275

The people who first settled in the valley were literal dirt farmers from the south, pic related is the first house built in Phoenix. 100 years later and it was a completely developed, modern city. Fuck off brainlet.

>nickel
Tungsten.

Well in terms of Africa:
>traditionally a loose collection of tribes perpetually at war with one another through history
>exploit and execute each other for mundane goods
>do the same thing with valuable goods
>other countries see how loosely and terribly organized the continent is and exploit both sides of civil wars
>when theyre done, local warlords go right back to assfucking any kind of government back into poverty
>eventually recieve aid from outside governments
>corrupt politicians and warlords hold goods hostage, most never see impoverished villages

It was kinda other countries' faults at first but short of some very touchy military action theres not much anyone but themselves can do about absolutely horrific local governments.

>live next to desert since ancestors could form tribes
>cant colonize it

>american soil
>cannibals and pale skinned people who have never seen a desert before bring an entire desert into advanced civilization

I don't know if you're serious but you didn't say anthing to refute my post

Man this Arizona defence for your idiocy really shivers me timbers. The Americans who settled in Arizona were part of a large and well established state with a written constitution, a democratic culture, a sophisticated system of taxation, local and central legislative bodies, and fellow states they can trade with. Arizona also was settled with no colonial power trying to fuck you over, empowering a chief with a bunch of guns and money and sending him off to do your bidding. It receives federal money gathered from our tax system like every state in order to build public provisions, it has benefited from federally funded road projects, and it continues to benefit from our well established system of laws. Don't pretend that the will of whitey alone suddenly raised Arizona from dessert nothingness into bustling metropolis. It took thousands of years of conquest, war, infighting, religious fighting, and enlightenments back in Europe to produce the culture that allows the United States to thrive. Your BUT ARIZONA argument is trash and you should feel bad for making it. Read a book.

>Arizona also was settled with no colonial power trying to fuck you over
There was very little white colonization in Africa prior to 18th century, you're telling me Africans were prevented from developing by the colonists for literal millennia before the colonial empires even existed? How come Semites or native Americans even were able to create civilizations in the desert, but Africans could not?

Reminder.

This is why I know you are posting in a threat you have no knowledge about.
1st. Africans had civilizations- you just choose to ignore North Africa and not consider it part of the continent.
2nd. Even if you ignore North Africa, the African West Coast was home to a series of empires. Benin, Songhai, Hausa, Fulani, Wolof, Mali. When the Portuguese got to Africa, they found empires there. Those empires were then willing participants in the slave trade, the worst form of economic transaction which produces nothing for those selling their own folks into slavery. They fucked themselves over quite a bit in that way, but don't pretend like Africans never developed anything, and don't pretend like if white folks were born on shit land with terrible temperature, and diseases that kill a fuckton of them they'd be thriving in the same way.