Races=Breeds?

I feel like this type of shit is comparing apples to bananas. Such disinformation talks about "evolution" despite the fact that dog breeding is about at unnatural as they come. Any thoughts?

Other urls found in this thread:

boneclones.com/category/adult-skulls-general/human-anatomy#view=grid&category=391&page=1&pageSize=30
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Forensic_anthropology#Determination_of_ancestry
science.sciencemag.org/content/319/5864/813
onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1046/j.1523-1739.2003.02026.x/abstract
archive.is/oYZm9
jstor.org/stable/1537084?seq=1#page_scan_tab_contents
youtube.com/watch?v=0jFGNQScRNY
witpress.com/elibrary/dne/5/3/454
youtube.com/user/killerjunior23
quora.com/Why-do-African-Americans-favor-and-dominate-in-basketball-vs-other-sports
statisticbrain.com/countries-with-the-highest-lowest-average-iq/
twitter.com/NSFWRedditGif

The fuck are you even asking autist

If human selection is unnatural then humans are unnatural

Is there a real comparison between human races and dog breeds, despite being vastly different?

If you wanted to breed humans like dogs, you could take two albinos and after several generations get a "breed" of heavily inbred albino humans. It's not really the best idea ever.

it's pretty much true, we just avoid the subject because of how emotionally charged it is. I personally don't care that much, what is there even to gain by studying it?

Dog BREEDS were selectively bred unlike humans who bred on different continents for thousands of years. Dog breeds are vastly different compared to "races" aka ethnicities. It would be like comparing a Neanderthal to a Mongol man. But we don't consider dog breeds different species because there's not enough variations in the DNA. Just certain changes in the characteristics of behavior and physical form. But realize that I've studied little of this because I'm a mathfag.

People want justification to treat everyone else like shit.

What about intelligence?

There's no solid separation of human races either that corresponds to "perceived" race. It's a continuum of different features. Australian aboriginals are the only group that stayed isolated for long enough to be considered "pure" in any sense.

I would never admit it in real life but I completely agree with the premise of the OP and have a hard time believing that people would disagree about it.

>People want justification to treat everyone else like shit.
Bullshit, if non whites were all given their own separate universe where they could flourish on their own and we would get our we would be happy with that.
Do you think niggers would be happy with that? Free from pigs? Free from whitey? No, and you know why.

Yeah, because they'd lose all their white friends
What other reason would there be?

>Do you think niggers would be happy with that? Free from pigs? Free from whitey? No, and you know why.
they were pretty happy in africa before whitey came

They all look like the same breed in different colours to me.
Get back to be when you finds some variation that comes close to OP's shitty strawman image.

>Any thoughts?
before that, can anybody tell me what the races are?
or name the races in this pic i'm confuzzled by it

This is about as close as I could find. Most have a similar body type, save for high-altitude ethnic groups.

Most likely variations of the four major races: Caucasoid (European and Mediterranean), Negroid (African), Mongoloid (Asian and NA), and Australoid (Abos and Melanesians).

>Caucasoid (European and Mediterranean)
half the med is european - meaningless distinction

you are just a race denier that dare not admit what race meds are
the reason for that being is a few meds with the bad guy religion you don't like exist in places you don't want them to exist

Never said I didn't admit it, we all have reprobates in our family.

...

>puts old people next to young ones to exaggerate the differences

Ironically, the site I got that from was trying to show the similarities.

For a rough comparison.

Different breeds of dogs have higher genetic distances between them that the entire human population, and even dogs have much higher overall genetic diversity than humans.

Look up the Toba event.

Sure, they were pretty happy being a disparate continent of constantly warring and innumerable nations, with the odd empire scooping up slaves from their tiny neighbors like handfuls of candy.

What you retards need to understand is the concept of variation. All white people aren't the same, all black people aren't the same. Traits are found in every population in the world. Less than 2% of alleles are restricted to any one continent. It's extremely rare for one trait, like a particular looking nose or brow to only be found in one area.
picture is fake. Last skull is a Neanderthal, not a human skull. Others look like plastic models not meant to represent real skulls

Phrenology is not a real science.

That was every continent until about 300 years ago

>What you retards need to understand is the concept of variation. All white people aren't the same, all black people aren't the same. Traits are found in every population in the world. Less than 2% of alleles are restricted to any one continent. It's extremely rare for one trait, like a particular looking nose or brow to only be found in one area.
You realize the features termed "caucasoid" apply not onky to white people, but to Indians, Middle Easterners, and those living in the Horn of Africa, yes?

>picture is fake. Last skull is a Neanderthal, not a human skull. Others look like plastic models not meant to represent real skulls
boneclones.com/category/adult-skulls-general/human-anatomy#view=grid&category=391&page=1&pageSize=30

>Phrenology is not a real science.
Was discussing racial characteristic, not some behavioral mumbo-jumbo.

Skulls cannot be accurately used to identify someone's race. That is pseudoscience. You can, to a certain degree, get an estimate of someone's race based on certain bones, but not just a picture of a skull. Variations in skull features are found in every race. Your idea that somehow one skull can represent an average from an entire race is retarded, and it is in fact just a continuation of phrenology.

I never claimed such, however there are certain characteristics which, to a certain degree, only appear in a certain pattern among certain ethnic groups.

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Forensic_anthropology#Determination_of_ancestry

Perhaps you should read your source. As I already said, you can't just look at someone's skull. Only the maxilla and zygomatic arch are listed there are methods for determination. That is a small section of the nose, and a small area where the jaw meets the skull visually.

Size or shapes of overall features, like eyes, brows, or overall dimensions cannot be used to determine race

People may overinflate the differences and confuse environmental differences with biological differences but there are differences and science has narrowed it down.

Also yes, there is no moral obligation for you to not judge people by these differences, whether they are biological or environmental. An ubermensch would do nothing less.

Any black people will be relieved to hear that the differences are overshadowed by environmental differences and individual genetic variation. Also if someone made it out the ghetto and is now a physicist that's something I guess, though in 2017 is largely as irrelevant as all the other factors. Also succumbing to emotions like hate is irrational and so our ubermensch should be unaffected by it. You will be judged by merit. If that is still a problem, you are the cause. You can whine to the ends of the earth but intelligent reasonable people will never be on your side on that one and will undermine you as much as they can.

I'm just using them as they were listed. I didn't determine what race they were, nor do I claim to, but I certainly see the differences. Also, you haven't addressed how the "Neanderthal" skull is from a Bindaboo tribesman, not a caveman.

so you don't think this applies to more "naturally bred" animals?

>Pit bulls are aggressive
Fuck you

Med (Italian, Greek, Hispanic) DNA is a transition
between Nordic (British, German, Dutch, Scandinavian etc)
& Mideast (Arab, Persian, Turk, Afghan, Paki, Egyptian etc).

>t. pitbull

Did you know that the entire human species has less genetic diversity than a a single troop of chimpanzees? Humans had a massive genetic drift event in our past, possibly the Mt toba super volcano 65kya. We are talking 10-15,000 humans total on the whole planet.

Any differences humans have are genetic super small, and certainly don't justify any real special designation as sub-species. People will point to the thirty different crows that all look alike, but are separate species. they fail to acknowledge the technical definition of species being the ability to create viable offspring, and we all know race mixing is totally a thing.

Really though, the differences between humans is really not that much. Alot is just the whole needing more melonin on the equator for folic acid production thing, and that northern peoples need less for vitamin D. Burgmans and Allen rules about how lanky skinny critters do better in the heat than fatter stubbier critters in the cold takes up another big chunk.

Human faces are a big harder to categorize, but I know for sure humans have evolved very special attention to the differences between faces. Looking like your father would be a big advantage, basically helping your dad decide to stick around and help raise the kid. Blue eyes and red heads are thought to be a part of that.

> I got an A in Anthro 101, I think I know what I'm talking about. Also dogs are special, think about how much humans have messed with them over the years. Wolves look pretty similar to each other.

Black people already realise we are subhuman what do you stand to gain from constantly putting us down like this

dale

science.sciencemag.org/content/319/5864/813
onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1046/j.1523-1739.2003.02026.x/abstract
archive.is/oYZm9
jstor.org/stable/1537084?seq=1#page_scan_tab_contents

wow dude you're good, keep writing.

Yes, dog breeds, human races, human ethnic groups, human families, and individuals are all different from each other.

human races are much closer to each other than different dog breeds.

mongoloids > caucasoids > negroids

light > dark

All we need to do now is exterminate european """"people"""" so the Finns can take over, and CRISPR all the chinks to have blue eyes.

I'm an HBDer, and about 98% of everything ever uttered by people who follow this type of stuff is complete bullshit.

If you want a fun experiment, look at what some of the popular HBD bloggers said back in 2009, vs. what they say today.

Almost every one of them is a dogmatic insecure retard with an axe to grind. Some actually have a legitimate interest in it.

Finland = 75% Nordic White + 25% East Asian.

Finns are the true Master race.

We need to kill whitey and let the mongol horde rape his women, so that there may be more Finns on this earth.

For fuck's sake, why is it relevant whether or not certain races are prone to higher or lower intelligence or tendency towards violence or any other thing in this /pol/ tier thread? Outliers exist, regardless of what the norm is. Just make the standard the same for everyone, and even if the mean for a certain race is below the standard, the useful outliers will present themselves. All that's accomplished by trying to "prove" that niggers are inferior (or whatever your aim is) is sowing division in society and making a bunch of people angry. There is literally no practical use for the information.

Identity politics needs to die.

Also btw OP, I found you in pic related.

Dog breeds take maybe 5 years to get a new generation and require much less time to speciate, so you can imagine that making a dog subspecies through selection doesn't even require an entire century of selection.

The last human race was the neanderthal.

Yes, races/ethnicities and breeds are analogous. Dogs and humans both have genomes, the same principles apply to both. Dog breeds can be created over only a few generations: youtube.com/watch?v=0jFGNQScRNY
Humans have 'unnaturally' selected each other for breeding over tens of thousands of generations. Now we have different races.

>Skulls cannot be accurately used to identify someone's race
yes they can
>idea that somehow one skull can represent an average from an entire race is retarded
'average' literally is one thing representing the entirety

>human species has less genetic diversity than a a single troop of chimpanzees
Not a single troop, different troops from different parts of africa. Different groups of chimps are recognised as being distinct, all this means is that those chimp groups are more distinct than human groups. Does not mean human groups aren't distinct.
>don't justify any real special designation as sub-species

>A species is commonly defined as the largest group within which interbreeding produces viable offspring. A sub-species is a subgroup below the level of a species. One definition is a group which can interbreed successfully with other subspecies, but does not do so in practice (e.g. due to geographical isolation)
Subspecies are exactly what human races are.

Because people make decisions and policy based on 'everyone is equal' type beliefs.

The race-denier's explanation is for racial gaps is racism, which is a wrong that needs to be righted. As long as gaps in crime, education, income, life expectancy etc. remain 'racism' still exist it means the poor colored people are suffering the injustice of the evil white man's oppression. That is where social division and anger come from. And if the deniers are right the injustice is real and the anger is appropriate.

But if the race-realists are right and niggers are just stupid and violent then the various racial gaps are just the way things are. Some useful outliers will make the grade, there will still be an overall gap but the gaps aren't injustices that we need to get into us vs them fights about.

So actually I think people not knowing about the differences that exist contributes a lot to social problems.

>Yes, races/ethnicities and breeds are analogous. Dogs and humans both have genomes, the same principles apply to both
Cats would probably be a better analogue, as dogs are a bit more "pliable" when it comes to phenotypical characteristics. (See )

>Subspecies are exactly what human races are.
Not enough genetic drift has occured to distinguish them as such. Now if they were isolated like the many subspecies of Erectus during the early to mid pleistocene, you'd have a point. But as it stands, the only group that has been relatively "isolated" are the abos, and that's only for a geologically short time.

>races are different
No shit, but that doesn't justify treating them like shit.

>denier-realist dichotomy
Never stoop to your oponent's level by trying to claim the ethical high-ground.

>Not enough genetic drift has occured to distinguish them as such
How much drift is needed? There's not a hard number for it.
As it is geographic isolation has been enough for measurable genetic distances between phenotypically distinct groups. Where you draw the subspecies line is a bit arbitrary but only difference is whether it divides humans into the three major races (negroid, caucasoid, mongoloid) or dozens of smaller ethnic groups.

>doesn't justify treating them like shit
I don't advocate shit treatment.
However... I do wonder why race denial is a thing when race is so obviously a reality. I don't think anyone is surprised or upset about olympic sprinters and basketballers all being black.
Talking about things like intelligence and crime differences is what upsets people. My theory on what motivates deniers is intelligence and moral character are distinctly human things and a hierarchy there implies groups have more or less humanity. And that opens the door to shit treatment on a group level.

>race denial is a thing
It isn't
>athletes being black
Only the /pol/-tier "realists" think that black people are genetically more physically fit. Normal people know their prominence in certain sports is cultural. Where are the black hockey players?

>How much drift is needed? There's not a hard number for it.

Not hard, but quite proximate taking into account and H.Sapiens neanderthalensis and 20 years per human generation.

35.000 generations, and every human generation takes 20 years(700.000 years), random mutations might happen and shorten this time but we don't have any additional H.Sapiens subspecies in the fossil registry.

Humanity never really had something stopping the geneflow for so long, not even the indians much less Africa, and Africa is where you can see more genetic variation since they never suffered a founders effect.

The first time humanity expanded was with H.erectus, 2 million years ago, and we saw that H.erectus had many variations in Asia, Africa, Europe, middle east... but always probably was H.erectus.

Then we find H.Heidelberguensis, for around 300.000 years(appeared 600.000 years ago and disappeared 300.000 years ago)(which makes it quite hard to call it species but we don't have genetic data anyway), and neanderthalensis, which clearly interbred with humans so we its far easier to say that it was a race and while it only happened with "Neanderthal man over sapiens woman" we can say that we are talking about subspecies.

And Neanderthals appeared 300ky ago and disappeared 34 ky ago, without never getting into species.

So to say that, we should start calling people in the east H.Sapiens Asian or similar, taking into account that:
>Not enought time has passed since H.Sapiens sapiens came around 171.000 years ago in Africa, and expanded around 100.000 years ago(I don't have the exact numbers at hand right now but around that)
>The geneflow was never really cut and assimilation is what is what is more probable that happened.
>Since erectus that humanity always had many geographical variations with no clear speciation(and even Paranthropus boisei I have heard that only was a HUGE variation)

I would say that we are not seeing races around the world, but rather clines.

>cultural
No, see witpress.com/elibrary/dne/5/3/454
Just because they're good at one sport doesn't mean they're good at them all, and race is real at the same time.
>It isn't
It's enough of a thing that you just did it.
>/pol/-tier
/pol/ are the only ones willing to touch race science, that automatically makes them the world's leading authority on it. We could get some higher quality work done on it if it wasn't taboo.

Have I entirely missed the point?
Maybe I should be saying clines instead of races if I want to use the official vernacular but ultimately I'm still talking about the same thing - there are various human groups that are genetically and phenotypically distinct.
It's not as extreme in humans as in dogs but it's not different in principle.
Proof: absolutely no problem guessing the breeds and races in pic.

When you say races, you are saying subspecies, and then we can start to see things like Haldane's rule or that they are about to speciate because the geneflow is not enough or selective pressures are gigantic.

When you say cline, you basically say that there are phenotypic variations in populations, but they are all the same subspecies and species, just that they can express a great variety of traits.

I would say its quite different.

The breed on the right is a cat.

>It's enough of a thing that you just did it.
You're not getting it. There is no such thing as denying race, simply acknowledging it's abritrarity. Black people have different skin and tendencies for other features. That's simply how we decided to define race though. Those same type of physical differences differentiate everybody. My white family is taller than most other white people's families. We also all have big noses, as it runs in the family. Are we a different race? Why not? Because we define race mostly on skin color?

In the paper you sited, the fact that the subpopulations who developed those physical differences belonged to one skin color or another doesn't make a difference. Because there are many subpopulations within the same race that do not exhibit those characteristics. The best runners also happen to be Ethiopian or Kenyan specifically, so of course they're black. But to say people with dark skin are better runners is false and arbitrary.

Races are as close to breeds as they come though. A Maori separated by 20,000 years from a European still contains all the same genes from which you could selectively breed somebody resembling a European using artificial selection, and vice-versa. Same with dogs, you can breed a golden retriever from a pug and a pug from golden retrievers. Evolution is not occurring in either case, since all of these genes remain across all humans and dog breeds alike.

Whites can be athletic
youtube.com/user/killerjunior23

Okay well if I ask wikipedia,

In biological taxonomy, race is an informal rank in the taxonomic hierarchy, below the level of subspecies. It has been used as a higher rank than strain, with several strains making up one race.[1][2] Various definitions exist. Races may be genetically distinct phenotypic populations of interbreeding individuals within the same species,[3] or they may be defined in other ways, e.g. geographically, or physiologically.[4] Genetic isolation between races is not complete, but genetic differences may have accumulated that are not (yet) sufficient to separate species.[5]

'Various definitions' so confusion about what it means is inevitable.

Doesn't look like it needs restricted geneflow or for races to be on the verge of speciation. I'd say your cline is closer in meaning to wikipedia's race.
You can call them human clines if you want, I'll call them races.

And apparently domestic dog breeds are all the same SUBspecies, so dog breeds are taxonomic race rank.

Yeah I know.
So I'm curious about this type of response.
(I did say olympic sprinters and basketballers are _all_ black but that's overgeneralized, I have seen white people sprint or play basketball. Forget I said it)

When I say "whites are smarter than blacks" then a very common response is someone saying "wrong, see neil degrasse tyson" as if that disproves everything.
But when I say whites are smarter than blacks I mean it as in population distributions, like men being taller than women. Some men are midgets, some women are giants, but overall on average men are taller than women and most men are taller than most women.
Do people understand it in the sense of distributions or is that lost on most people?

But it's not arbitrary. Your family are more closely related to you than others, ethnic groups/races or whatever you call them are related to each other like in the genetic distance chart. The word might be arbitrary but the genetic distance isn't.
>Are we a different race? Why not?
No because race is more like at 0.012 genetic distance than 0.000000001.
>Because there are many subpopulations within the same race that do not exhibit those characteristics.
So then races can be subdivided into ethnicities and so on. That's not a problem.
>to say people with dark skin are better runners is false and arbitrary.
Except it's true according to that paper and olympic medals.
>(pls see 1st half of this comment)
Do you understand "people with dark skin are better runners" refers to population frequency distributions? Do you think it means the slowest black man is still faster than the fastest white man?

95% of women are shorter than 95% of men
the overlap between male height and female height is very small

same can't be said about intelligence
your comparison is stupid and is prime example why using analogies is deception

>When I say "whites are smarter than blacks" then a very common response is someone saying "wrong, see neil degrasse tyson"
That never happened

It's not an exact quote but that's how it goes, see for example.

>stupid
Why? Because of smaller overlap?
>analogies is deception
Analogies demonstrate the principle in a clear, familiar way. They're not supposed to be taken as identical. The overlap may be smaller but the distributions are still different.

But actually the intelligence overlap might be smaller than you think. If average african IQ is 70 and white 100 (which believe them or not are the figures race scientists have arrived at) and SD is 15 then 85% of whites are smarter than 85% of africans.

>stupid, deception
this is also race denial
Why do people argue so hard against the truth?

If whites are better than blacks then why isn't neil degrasse tyson replaced?

>races=breeds?
No, only retarded /pol/niggers who can't into modern genetics think that.

>race scientists

Did you read ?
He's like an unusually tall girl. No need to replace him because he reaches the requisite intellectual height.

>/pol/ are the only ones willing to touch race science, that automatically makes them the world's leading authority on it

just like jenny mccarthy is the foremost global expert on the connection between vaccines and autism? or how jill stein is one of the foremost experts in the field of crystal energy? please, user.

>higher standard-of-living correlates with higher IQ
that's crazy, user. blow my mind harder. tell me more about how the only reason there are so many black men in pro basketball is because of biological differences, and not the fact that they self-select for it culturally AND that NBA scouts look out specifically for black up-and-coming players because of centuries of tautological self-justifying stereotypes.

yeah I wonder why black men are in basketball despite how whites are taller than them on average

Those guys have been proven wrong though.

Meanwhile there's no evidence that blacks are as smart as whites, or that whites sprint as fast as blacks, and plenty to the contrary. Problem is you're not allowed to say it because it's politically incorrect (enter /pol/).

Larry Summers lost his job over saying women might not be as capable in hard sciences as men. It's taboo, not crank science. Let's not pretend otherwise.

Honestly I'm surprised anons on sci aren't more scientifically minded about it all.

China is not >105 though.

>or that whites sprint as fast as blacks, and plenty to the contrary.
Dude, I already explained this to you. The top sprinters will be a certain subpopulation of Ethiopian/Kenyan. It has nothing to do with race. Take away those subpopulations, and it gets way more diverse.

>higher IQ enables a higher standard of living
>believing this makes you a nazi
cmon user
What's crazy is the lengths deniers will go to.
Where's the science? If anyone should have it this board should.

>only reason
Again a very common response. Don't know whether people legitimately don't understand reality or are strawmanning deniers.
Genetics isn't everything, it matters more for some things than others. Environment/culture plays a part.
But how many african pygnies would make it onto an NBA team? Even if basketball was their culture they're still too fucking short to be competitive for biological reasons.
Think about it guys.

yeah no way can china be >105.
IT SHOULD BE WHITES THAT >105.
DELETE THISIT'S ANTI-WHITE PROPAGANDA

no, it IS crank science. recall that it's been less than a century since blacks were an OFFICIAL underclass in the USA, and then ruminate on the kinds of effects that being kept as slaves for hundreds of years, kept purposefully under-educated, discriminated against LEGALLY for another century, and shafted repeatedly by institutions might cause in a population. then consider the relationship between causation and correlation.

it's just not possible at this time to tease out what biological differences may exist between populations like different races or genders. it's too early. when global standard-of-living has been stable for a healthy number of generations, and cultural predjudices and stereotypes have been extinct for the same duration, then, if there are still noticeably self-segregated ethnicities, can you hope to draw conclusions. anything before that point is wild extrapolation.

>this guy thinks the bottom is equivalent to the top

ok update us once you find some better data

>top sprinters will be a certain subpopulation of Ethiopian/Kenyan. It has nothing to do with race
>Ethiopian/Kenyan
>nothing to do with race
I don't know what to tell you user.

Seems like just accepting the truth would be a lot easier for you than trying to argue against it.

in the US, but compare them to UK blacks who were never slaves or african blacks and you see all the same patterns holding
>not possible at this time to tease out what biological differences
it's more possible than ever before, we have whole genome sequencing and computers powerful enough to crunch the data, better sociological data gathering, better statistical methods and all the results are coming out the same way

Exactly. That's why saying blacks (which includes pygmies) are biologically better at basketball, is meaningless. And you're really underestimating the cultural factors that lead to black people dominating basketball or white people dominating hockey. Even if there was some obtuse biological factor that makes someone good at basketball vs hockey somehow, it's way overshadowed by culture.

>That's why saying blacks (which includes pygmies) are biologically better at basketball, is meaningless

It's as meaningless as saying men (which includes midgets) are biologically taller than women.

It just means the word 'blacks' when used in the US about NBA is referring to US blacks and ignoring a lot of different african blacks. It's not a big deal, most people don't bother including pygmy exceptions in everyday speech because they don't need to. It only causes 'confusion' when deniers need to twist things into deniable shapes.

But blacks are better than whites at basketball. If you want to be more specific about what type of blacks these guys are you can try looking it up, maybe they're jamaicans or somalis, idk. They're definitely not pygmies though.

>niggers
Are you applying this to Afro-Americans, or the racial group as a whole? Please do be specific.

autism.exe

>But blacks are better than whites at basketball.
You say this as if there are people denying it. I maintain that it is hugely cultural though. You must prove it to be biological before making that claim. Sprinting abilities wouldn't translate to basketball of all things.

Applying to whatever group it applied to in the comment that was being responded to.
Both blacks and whites in the US play basketball with enough cultural seriousness to make it into the NBA if they're competitive. By population NBA teams would be mostly white but they're majority black. This is statistical evidence that blacks outcompete whites in basketball.
No pygmies have ever made it, despite black cultural advantage. This is for biological rather than cultural reasons.
Where's the evidence that it's cultural?

>evidence that it's cultural
dogma

Here is a decent explanation:
quora.com/Why-do-African-Americans-favor-and-dominate-in-basketball-vs-other-sports
I can add more to that, like how socioeconomics, public policy, and education can all contribute to the cultural connection of black people to basketball.

statisticbrain.com/countries-with-the-highest-lowest-average-iq/

Many people see the 108 for Hong Kong and think that is the average for China. Furthermore, Lynn et al. often uses PISA scores as proxies for IQ tests. It's no secret that China, for example, has been only selecting its top students in Shanghai to write it.

People need to realize that most countries don't have good IQ samples (and the testing they do do usually are biased towards the extremes of the spectrum) and standardized tests are used instead.

I tend to avoid using the n-word, but it's like you never read roots.

The biggest slavers in African countries were other Africans of competing tribes.

Even the perception of racial differences results in a fucking race war and ensuing genocide there.

Ever heard of Rwanda?

Im not claiming to be an expert, but if you isolated Africa and South America like the person you're responding to - particularly before lifetime slavery became hugely popular - you likely would have a lot of tribal infighting until someone tripped over themselves hard enough to develop sophisticated war machines.

>own separate universe
That's great. Go back to Europe. AMERICA FOR THE AMERINDIANS.

>you likely would have a lot of tribal infighting until someone tripped over themselves hard enough to develop sophisticated war machines.
Indeed. That's a basic developmental step of any civilization.

Incas were superior to europeans.

>south america
They were in the bronze age. They arrived 15000 years after savage europeans settled on Europe.

We are replacing you. You can't do anything. Your race is dying.

United Hispanic States.

But to be clear, though,

Without the developments in math and science brought about by the incredibly fortunate rapid-but-not-crushing arms race between the states of Europe, much of them would still be tribal - such as how many countries still are.

But tribal states can still modernize if they take unilateral action - take Japan's adaptation of dutch military in the transition from the Edo to the Meiji period.

What keeps many countries in 'Third World' status is shit like basic birth control, lack of public education, and the corruption of whatever political leaders they have.

Then why were they conquered by Europeans? Moron.

>conquered
Incorrect. We were genocided. The pestilence of the dirty european who didn't know how to take a bath, brought dangerous bacteria to our lands. The civil war we were experiencing left our empire celebrating it. The natives were the protagonist of the fall of the empire.

Subhuman europeans didn't conquer shit. They only keep doing what they did on europe. They backstabbed everyone even their own men.

AMERICA belongs to the AMERINDIANS.

I do have sympathy for the plight of native American (both north and south, of course), and I admire their mathematical, astrological, and cultural achievements. Yes disease played a role in their demise, but you are a fool if you deny that European technology and warfare didn't equally aid their victory.