Is geography a better explanation for development than race?
Take a look at these two maps. Left one shows Human Development Index. Right one shows Soil Quality, with white and red being worse and cyan and green being better.
Note how in the colonial era, White people and East Asians seized all the nice green and cyan areas and used them for production of food crops and permanent settlement, while leaving all the third world red areas to set up plantation cash crops with slaves. The green areas became settler societies where investment and educated immigrants poured in, while the red areas became plantation economies where slaves poured in and money poured out.
Overtime, these differences increased, leading to the huge schism in the modern era, when some of the poor nations finally started to catch up.
Isn't this a better explanation than >muh racial purity?
Why is it a binary option, brainlet? Must it really be one or the other? Why can't you have multiple complimentary development theories that feed into each other? There is no possible way race can be explained away, just like there is no way you cannot explain away the species and sub-species classifications of Galapagos finches, however soil quality would probably have something to do with economic development and success, but even in areas with poor soil quality you have successful societies.
Kevin Nelson
Except race is not science, user.
Oliver Young
Great troll thread.
Josiah Kelly
Maybe on /pol/ Seems a reasonable statement here.
Oliver Lee
Sorry, not sorry, user. Race is still not science.
Henry Jenkins
Race obviously exists or else racial classification would be impossible. All it takes to establish a sub-species scientifically is to randomly mix individuals from different proposed sub-species up in a test group and reseparate them into their sub-species with around 90% accuracy. Are you telling me I cannot discern between sub-Saharan Africans and Australian Aborigines with 90% accuracy?
Jaxson Edwards
>difference between individuals demonstrate race. Yeah, the big nose race, the lactose intolerant race, the squatting race...etc. lol
Landon Adams
obviously, if some IQ 150 superhumans were dropped in antarctica they might be able to fashion seal leather clothing stuffed with penguin feathers and shit but they wouldn't be able to leave the stone age
Jayden Evans
Do we think of animal species as individuals? Be scientifically consistent.
Brayden Green
>are sets of individuals individuals themselves? Is your poor attempt of brainletism on purpose? Gyaahhahahahahahahahahahahahahahahaaa
Race is not science. Therefore race is pseudoscience.
Michael Mitchell
Is taxonomy science?
Christian Smith
>is categorization whose certain classifications are inherited from XIX century science? Second brainlet attempt. Jeez, I wonder if you can actually demonstrate race is actually science...
However, race is still not science, user.
Kayden Sanders
basically wypipo stole all the best land, built giant walls and started calling anybody outside inferior
Isaiah Martin
>because a fact or method is old, it's incorrect
Parker Clark
>Is geography a better explanation for development than race Geography is a valid concept
>old >literal classifications based on appearance instead of genetic basis You must be a brainlet.
Race is still not science. Therefore race is pseudoscience.
Sebastian Cox
No. Put whites in Africa and Africans in Europe 10 000 years ago and Africa would have colonized the backwards Europe.
Zachary Bailey
Look at Sweden. It is more red than Africa. Yet, they were still major players during periods of European history and are a rich, high-tech country today.
The magic dirt theory is still bad.
Jackson Martinez
india, the nordic countries and east asian countries are well developed yet having "poor soil" as that graph suggests Your own op dissproves what you're trying to say
Luis Garcia
the races literally evolved differently blacks are more athletic due to living in Africa Whites are more innovative due to living in a colder climate >mfw reading your posts
Charles Hughes
India and East Asia had good soil, take a look at the map closely.
Nordic Europe was close to Western Europe, they had a way for ideas and trade to spread there in a way isolated Subsaharan Africa didn't.
Zachary Turner
>difference between individuals demonstrate race. Yeah, the big nose race, the lactose intolerant race, the squatting race...etc. lol
Carter Clark
Function follows form, you disingenuous nigger.
Carter Ramirez
Ignoring the faggot OP, why do people never bring up dogs when talking about race? Same species, different appearances, levels of intelligence, behaviorism, etc. I believe that yes we're all homo sapiens but it's absolutely a fact that different races have different appearances, intelligence, etc. Why does no one mention that "race" is just another word for "breed"? People scoff at the idea that humans may have evolved differently in different environments for tens of thousands of years, or say that it's too short a time period for humans to evolve differently, but they will accept that different dog breeds were developed in comparatively much shorter amounts of time.
I mean I know disproving race is their agenda, but still. Why does nobody on either side make the comparison?
Luis Rodriguez
>Race is still not science. Therefore race is pseudoscience. Horrible logical deduction. You could just as easily assert that race is a lemon menage pie.
Henry Richardson
>why do people never bring up dogs when talking about race? what world do you live in where people don't bring up dog breeds all the fucking time when talking about race are you genuinely ignorant or just pretending to be retarded
Joshua Williams
Why are you typing like a fucktarded redditor?
Jacob Reyes
He's right though. Dogs are a typical /pol/tard talking point here.
Ian Wood
He's probably a shut in, which is why he never "hear about it."
Jayden Cooper
I thought it was more to do with climate. Cold countries produced smarter humans due to the harsher climates, with warmer countries producing weak cunts.
Jack Cooper
but colder climates produce idiots t. ancient greek
Camden Jenkins
because dogs breed via human selection you're retarded
Tyler Mitchell
there might be exceptions, but generally speaking a colder climate will produce a physically more robust and strong race with a more developed brain to help them understand the intricacies of farming, hunting and surviving in harsh lands.
John Bennett
Why did civilization develop in the Middle East and Mediterranean while Northern and Western Europe was irrelevant until relatively recently?
Julian Perry
do you actually believe this
Elijah Hughes
No just that the nations to first industrialize perform better according their own conceived metrics.
Jace Cooper
Yeah, the Africans are really advanced if the use the Wallow-in-filth-starvation-and-aids-metrics.
Asher Gray
Of course it is a better explanation, but not only that, different peoples get good at different things as well.
There's literally no correlation between your two maps. Not to mention that just talking about the inherent land quality ignores many other important geographic features, like rivers, location, climate, mountains, etc.
Egypt, for example, is a fucking desert so no shit the soil is bad, but the Nile and its sediments allowed a degree of irrigation that not only made farming possible, but suitable to the location. It also encouraged urbanization to the point that Pi-Ramesses may have had over 160k people 3300 year ago. Not to mention the predictable climate of heat + no precipitations as well as seasonal flooding made it much more suitable for farming than Mesopotamia, which had unpredictable floods that lead to the Great Flood creation theory you see in Abrahamic religions.
Connor Jackson
race is a social construct which essentially means that race exists, but only in the sense that society groups people with certain perceived common traits together regardless of how connected they really are. It's not resally useful as a genetic concept because of that but it is useful in a sociological context
Ryder King
>Look at Sweden. It is more red than Africa. Yet, they were still major players during periods of European history When? Do you consider Somalia major player?
Jacob Lewis
>Conquer the southern hemisphere and grow rich form exploiting the population and it's resources. >Decide to cut it out after a couple of centuries only to cynically devise and host a competition in which the former colonies are poised to lose. just
Benjamin Murphy
It makes perfect sense
North and western europe literally best europe, I wish I was north european
John Jones
Europe never developed agriculture, it was imported from Egypt
This, the Amazon got over this by making their own soil (terra preta) and managed to sustain urban societies of tens of thousands of people. This all collapsed like dominoes though when European diseases wiped out the people and they reverted to mostly hunter gatherer people and semi nomads living in small tribes you see today. The Andes did well too, as did the Maya region.
Thomas Perry
Time to learn some vocabulary, brainlet. Race claims to be science, however it's not science.
