future of Africa

[berschneider]

Scoob said:

Africans are not biologically defective. Obviously they can be quite healthy and have happy, viable offspring.

However, they don't seem to be at all adapted to the type of temperate civilization or structured city living that is characteristic of modern life. They find "The System" (which they think of as "The [White] Man" in the USA) extremely stressful. Most choose to live in poverty, doing menial jobs, etc. They don't rise to the top of societies, or even the middle class, without lots of help and lowering of standards. This is related to possibly not just aptitude, but also desire - they find a modern lifestyle undesirable.

I am sure they choose to live in poverty. It's fun.

As of high standards in the U.S. of A. – the standards there are indeed set unfairly high, as George Bush presidency proves.

[symmakhos]

berschneider said:

As of high standards in the U.S. of A. – the standards there are indeed set unfairly high, as George Bush presidency proves.

Cheap point that is, Berschneider: W Bush is born to his power, as you do know. The crux is the general populations. To put it simply: Europeans, especially Northern Europeans, have had to work hard for their survival for tens of thousands of years. This has created a hardy and crafty race. We have had to think much more to survive in Palaeolithicum, and that has happened to make us better fit for the modern world, in particular more intelligent. The southern races on the other hand had it, not easy, but easier in the stone age. Darwinism didn't do quite the same magic on their races.

Then of course we Europeans found that we could actually exploit the Africans and all the southerners who hadn't had the need to invent or utilize gunpowder in the previous millennia. So we took their lands and sold'em as slaves, or kept'em as slaves.

Then modernity came and made us soft and sentimental. Then came modern chaos, when everybody is supposed to be the same and equal.

[berschneider]

symmakhos said:

Cheap point that is, Berschneider: W Bush is born to his power, as you do know. The crux is the general populations. To put it simply: Europeans, especially Northern Europeans, have had to work hard for their survival for tens of thousands of years. This has created a hardy and crafty race. We have had to think much more to survive in Palaeolithicum, and that has happened to make us better fit for the modern world, in particular more intelligent. The southern races on the other hand had it, not easy, but easier in the stone age. Darwinism didn't do quite the same magic on their races.

Then of course we Europeans found that we could actually exploit the Africans and all the southerners who hadn't had the need to invent or utilize gunpowder in the previous millennia. So we took their lands and sold'em as slaves, or kept'em as slaves.

Then modernity came and made us soft and sentimental. Then came modern chaos, when everybody is supposed to be the same and equal.

Symmakhos, I disagree with your analysis for a number of reasons.

First is the idea of George W Bush being born into power. This is fallacious. George W Bush is not a monarch, he is just a piece of garbage. Although he indeed usurped power through a constitutional coup and has never been elected, the fact that slightly less than 50 percent of participating American electorate voted for him is remarkable and another proof that they are spectacularly dumb animals.



Your point that tougher environment made people up north (esquimaux for example) far tougher and better suited to creative processes is silly. Unfortunately I can't argue over it right now because I have to get back to work. Symmakhos, you are wrong. You should take some historically reasonable time fragment – say 1000 of years – and compare northern society with a southern one.

Symmakhos, I also think your insinuations about racial (or climatic!) superiority and all this racial divisiveness stuff is not helpful. There are far more things that can unite humanity rather than divide it (mutual hatred of the United States for example).

[Sandwich]

Interesting discussion. Like all Europeans, we tend to react with horror at the latest atrocity in Africa and put it down to some failure to acquire civilized values. We tend to forget what happened to the Herrero in Namibia for instance news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/africa/3388901.stm or the sort of thing the highly civilized south-east Asian cultures get up to.

Generally, I agree that colonial rule ended prematurely. Perhaps a comparison with Roman colonies is apt. The Romans offered more to their colonies than we ever did. Portugal's rule in Africa provided very little education for the natives. Belgium did nothing to develop the minds of the Congolese. No Ugandan under British rule ever rose above the rank of Sargeant in the army.

France tried a bit harder to turn blacks into children of "Nos ancestres les Gaulois" and genuinely welcomed a francophone black elite. Senghor actually became a Minister in De Gaulle's government. It is no coincidence that France still retains great influence - practically an empire - in Africa, unlike the rest of the European powers.

If more had been done on this front, it might not have been so easy for the Americans to strip us of our colonies after WW2. (We might well have done the same to them, breaking their dominance in South America, say, had the boot been on the other foot.)

IQ is a test of the ability to process information in a particular way, especially the ability to detect abstract patterns. To suggest that it's results have no relation to what makes a modern society creative, dynamic and adadaptable is odd. It may not be perfect, or correlate simplistically with national wealth, but nobody has come up with a better method.

As for the inherent intellectual abilities of Africans, the points about perinatal conditions, and infant education are clearly valid, but overall the jury is still out.

True, it's important to remember how much average IQ for whites has shifted over the last half-century. On the other hand, the r/ k theory is intriguing. However I doubt IQ is the real problem in terms of African development.

What is lacking is an ethos that transcends the clan. Neither Marxism nor Capitalism have been able to provide that. I would suggest that has deep historical roots connected to the absence of long-distance trade and the social processes associated with it, but I don't know why Songhai and Mali had no heirs.

In a hundred years time, Africa will still be the armpit of the planet unless it can develop a civic culture. Europe will still be the most civilized part of the world, if it doesn't lose contact with the historically rich social-democratic tradition that is often denigrated here and is one factor closely associated with social cohesiveness and low crime. America and China will be contending for world dominance. If we Europeans remain disunited, we will be poodles - civilized poodles, with a longer term destiny equivalent to that of the Arabs.

[berschneider]

Sandwich said:

Interesting discussion. Like all Europeans, we tend to react with horror at the latest atrocity in Africa and put it down to some failure to acquire civilized value. We tend to forget what happened to the Herrero in Namibia for instance news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/africa/3388901.stm or the sort of thing the highly civilized south-east Asian cultures get up to.

Generally, I agree that colonial rule ended prematurely. Perhaps a comparison with Roman colonies is apt. The Romans offered more to their colonies than we ever did. Portugal's rule in Africa provided very little education for the natives. Belgium did nothing to develop the minds of the Congolese. No Ugandan under British rule ever rose above the rank of Sargeant in the army.

France tried a bit harder to turn blacks into children of "Nos ancestres les Gaulois" and genuinely welcomed a francophone black elite. Senghor actually became a Minister in De Gaulle's government. It is no coincidence that France still retains great influence - practically an empire - in Africa, unlike the rest of the European powers.

If more had been done on this front, it might not have been so easy for the Americans to strip us of our colonies after WW2. (We might well have done the same to them, breaking their dominance in South America, say, had the boot been on the other foot.)

IQ is a test of the ability to process information in a particular way, especially the ability to detect abstract patterns. To suggest that it has no relation to what makes a modern society creative, dynamic and adadaptable is odd. It may not be perfect, or correlate directly with national wealth, but nobody has come up with a better method.

As for the inherent intellectual abilities of Africans, the points about perinatal conditions, and infant education are clearly valid, but overall the jury is still out.

True, it's important to remember how much average IQ for whites has shifted over the last half-century. On the other hand, the r/ k theory is intriguing. However I doubt IQ is the real problem in terms of African development.

What is lacking is an ethos that transcends the clan. Neither Marxism nor Capitalism have been able to provide that. I would suggest that has deep historical roots connected to the absence of long-distance trade and the social processes associated with it, but I don't know why Songhai and Mali had no heirs.

In a hundred years time, Africa will still be the armpit of the planet unless it can develop a civic culture. Europe will still be the most civilized part of the world, if it doesn't lose contact with the historically rich social-democratic tradition that is often denigrated here and is one factor closely associated with social cohesiveness and low crime. America and China will be contending for world dominance. If we Europeans remain disunited, we will be poodles - civilized poodles, with a longer term destiny equivalent to that of the Arabs.

I was wrong to say that IQ does not mean anything, what I meant to say was that the IQ tests do not mean “everything.” A person who is not conditioned to reason in abstract terms, will not do well on an IQ test but dismissing IQ tests as total irrelevancy was wrong.

I tend to agree that the colonialism ended prematurely. I find the French brand of colonialism enlightened (as I find most things French).

As of the United Sates and Europe equation; although USA has European roots (as Islam origins are theologically and geographically close to Christianity while of course Islam is not Christianity), America is a different, alien and hostile civilis/z/ation. In many respects United States is the antipode of Europe, it is the opposite of what Europe is and stands for.

Africa. I can only agree with your diagnosis that Africa badly needs civic culture and civil society (and that's what I meant when I wrote about need for civic solidarity in Africa).

Europe. Europe needs unity. By unity I mean booting United States from the continent and consolidating Europe as one entity from Russia to Portugal. This in turn means that a few recent entrants into the EU which base their entire foreign policy on Russophobia would have to be neutralized. It also means that countries like UK and Denmark, which have had acted like American Trojan horses in Europe (UK being the bigger and nastier one), have to be dealt with in one way or the other. I have no idea how it can be done but I see UK as one of the biggest obstacles to the European project's success. Britain is clearly a European state but one that acts like an American stooge.

Just 90 years ago Europe was the most powerful and the wealthiest area of the world. It had the fastest growing economy, the smartest and the most beautiful people (it still does). Europe ruled the world from the tip of Africa to the North Pole, from India to Atlantic and from Atlantic to Pacific. World’s largest insurance companies, banks, railway and shipping companies were European. Most of world’s disposable wealth was held in Europe.

Europe’s disunity and self-inflicted troubles have caused transfer of enormous amounts of wealth and intellectual capital to the United States (in fact this was probably the greatest transfer of this kind in the history of humanity) and Europe was responsible for the rise of the modern United States, perhaps the most reprehensible, scummiest and disgusting of all empires in the history. Despite all this, I believe we may be on the path to regaining what we once had and attaining more affluence and influence in the future if we manage both to get and to stay united (otherwise we are pretty much doomed to continous vassalage).

[Sandwich]

Good God! I agree with every single point. Hadn't realized that about Denmark.

[berschneider]

Sandwich said:

Good God! I agree with every single point. Hadn't realized that about Denmark.

You must be joking. I think Denmark has same inferiority complex as Britain albeit Danish sense inferiority is a much older phenomenon. Since British bombardment of Copenhagen Danes felt compelled to balance between different powers and the result was that they gradually evolved into the ultimate stooge.

Britain became America's sidekick because of the WWII trauma. I think for some reason Britain stopped believing in itself, it lost its will to be a great power. In the long run Britain's iintimate alliance with the USA may become so costly and morally reprehensible that even the British public will get repulsed.

[Sandwich]

Britain's problem is that its press has been owned until recently by an American and a Canadian. I assure you there is no sense of inferiority. Real inferiority, in terms of the role it should be fulfilling, yes. The policy is the old one of divide and rule, now reduced to "punching above your weight", which Britain surely does in the world. It's just that it's punching the wrong targets. Macmillan tried to join the EU with the explicit purpose of sabotaging it. De Gaulle saw through it. Britain's campaign for Turkish accession is the same old ploy.

US poodlism is deeply entrenched in the security, military and diplomatic service, based on the idea that without it the UK would become a European nation like France and Germany (ie whoever is elected the left is in power).

Plenty of Brits disagree with this anti-European view but the country hasn't had decent leadership for a long time: the best candidates never become leader of either party and the tradition of semi-illiterate populist contempt for all other Europeans, for education itself in fact, is alive and kicking and coming to a football stadium near you soon. It's the tradition that kept Britain going during WWII, that has to be admitted. The foreign-owned press feeds it and feeds off it.

I loathe the fact that the UK does not play its proper role in Europe and serves as an agent of US interests. Churchill's pro-American illusions, based on wartime experience and personal ancestral tradition were probably the starting point for this fundamental policy misjudgement.

[berschneider]

Sandwich said:

Britain's problem is that its press has been owned until recently by an American and a Canadian. I assure you there is no sense of inferiority. Real inferiority, in terms of the role it should be fulfilling, yes. The policy is the old one of divide and rule, now reduced to "punching above your weight", which Britain surely does in the world. It's just that it's punching the wrong targets. Macmillan tried to join the EU with the explicit purpose of sabotaging it. De Gaulle saw through it. Britain's campaign for Turkish accession is the same old ploy.

US poodlism is deeply entrenched in the security, military and diplomatic service, based on the idea that without it the UK would become a European nation like France and Germany (ie whoever is elected the left is in power).

Plenty of Brits disagree with this anti-European view but the country hasn't had decent leadership for a long time: the best candidates never become leader of either party and the tradition of semi-illiterate populist contempt for all other Europeans, for education itself in fact, is alive and kicking and coming to a football stadium near you soon. It's the tradition that kept Britain going during WWII, that has to be admitted. The foreign-owned press feeds it and feeds off it.

I loathe the fact that the UK does not play its proper role in Europe and serves as an agent of US interests. Churchill's pro-American illusions, based on wartime experience and personal ancestral tradition were probably the starting point for this fundamental policy misjudgement.

I agree with most points your Lordship made and disagree with some.

I. Newspapers and mass media.

Media control. BBC is run by UK government and not by foreign interests. Although BBC is unquestionably a propaganda outfit, it still manages to present a cloak of objectivity all American or many other English speaking media outlets lack.

Although British newspapers are foreign owned (I didn’t realize that all major newspapers were foreign owned. I thought only the tabloid rag known as The Times of London is owned by a naturalized American scummie), that’s not necessarily a big deal

American newspapers (and other media) are also run by the Jews (God bless them) and largely for Israel’s benefit but United States has not yet become Israel’s sidekick (well, I know, I know what you/they are saying but I am sure that’s not yet the case). Media is not everything. Soviet Communism was overthrown with no free news sources to speak of. Because newspapers or television which public believes are lying are worse than worthless to their owners. Even if they say truth no one believes them.


II. Master-servant relationship

What I was saying before but wasn’t probably clear enough about it is that in my opinion UK establishment and even ordinary people prefer to be America’s sidekick rather than conduct independent policy because they feel that even as a form of subservient lowlife they somehow mean more than do other European states as long as their master is U.S. of A.. They fail to see themselves as Europeans or Britain as a part of the European alliance or as a European power.

UK admission to the EU was a long term disaster but so is the idiotic current enlargement. EU is swallowing so much pro American garbage like Poland or (totally worthless) Estonia) that I am afraid it’ll get food poisoning.

Before WWI British politicians seriously considered US to be a likely enemy of the British Empire and potential opponent of Franco-British alliance (1904) and of the three nation Entente (FR, GB and Russia after 1907). There were contingency plans to repel US aggression in Canada and elsewhere. Anyway, 90 years ago Britain neither felt nor acted like an American puppet. For many centuries British foreign policy and self-image oscillated between traditional, isolationist and national versus pan European and Continental (this duality of British tradition and its ambivalence vis-à-vis Europe is traceable at least to 1500s) but never before, not until very recent times was Britain a lackey of anyone. I think the current USuk relationship a disgrace and is dangerous for Britain in the long term.

What do you think, is there a way for Britain to return to Europe?

[gelaye]

''To put it simply: Europeans, especially Northern Europeans, have had to work hard for their survival for tens of thousands of years. This has created a hardy and crafty race''

ok where is harder to survive? A temperate climatic zone with little diseases etc or Africa?! Africa has thousands of tropical diseases, poor soils and the sahara desert to say none the least!


I think in about 50 years time Africa will become the new centre of the manufacturing industry as Asian wages become too high and multinationals see africa as the last untapped labour market. When Africa uses this investment to clamber out of poverty like Asia is doing now, where will the next factory workers come from?!

[Igu]

gelaye said:

''To put it simply: Europeans, especially Northern Europeans, have had to work hard for their survival for tens of thousands of years. This has created a hardy and crafty race''

ok where is harder to survive? A temperate climatic zone with little diseases etc or Africa?! Africa has thousands of tropical diseases, poor soils and the sahara desert to say none the least!


I think in about 50 years time Africa will become the new centre of the manufacturing industry as Asian wages become too high and multinationals see africa as the last untapped labour market. When Africa uses this investment to clamber out of poverty like Asia is doing now, where will the next factory workers come from?!

That's quite unlikely, East Asians have a very old story, Sub-saharan Africans (I won't speak about North Africans, they are to be forgotten) jumped from the neolithic to the civilized world just 150 years ago:

From:


To:

[gelaye]

hahahahahaahahaha


your pictures were funny, but I don't think that is the case with the entire continent.... ;D

West African Empires and Ethiopian Empires (and Great Zimbabwe) consisted of centrallized civillisations that harnessed technologies way before the europeans and traded with the middle east and asia, it was only untill colonialism that africa lost its glory as europeans mentally enslaved africans into believing they had no place in world history books apart from being known as 'savages'

Dont forget, while Northern Europeans (eg, Britain, Denmark, Germany) were running around in animal skins and living in caves, Ethiopians had invented woven cotton and had a centrallized civilisation (Axum) that traded with the great empires of the world, and Timbouktou in West Africa (Mali - Songhai Empire) had produced the worlds first university - credited at the time as being the finest in the world (and lets not forget the ancient eygptians)

So sorry i dont think saying that africans jumped from neolithic to modern in 150 years is justifiable - if so then so did the whole of asia.

[johndon86]

I think that problem with Africa is biological.From that stand point you can explain why blacks are always inferior in every society .Their verbal intelligence is almost same like in Mongols or Europeans but logic and abstract way of thinking is considerably lower and that is main reason why there are not many technical engineers and they are crucial for building infrastructures.

[mmmkay]

I think that problem with Africa is biological.From that stand point you can explain why blacks are always inferior in every society .Their verbal intelligence is almost same like in Mongols or Europeans but logic and abstract way of thinking is considerably lower and that is main reason why there are not many technical engineers and they are crucial for building infrastructures.

LOL WOW!

Dr. Sylvester Gates' study of the mathematical laws that govern hypothetical forms of energy and matter have paved the way for 21st century exploration of the universe at tiny scales never before previously accessible. He has published over one hundred research papers, co-authored one book and contributed numerous articles in others. His research is in the areas of the mathematical and theoretical physics of supersymmetric particles, fields and strings, and covers topics such as quarks, leptons. gravity superstrings and Einstein's unified field type theories. He coauthored a book, Superspace, that provided the only advanced treatment of supersymmetry for more than a decade. In the 1980s, Dr. Gates worked on structures called "superstrings" and "heterotic-strings" and showed how a 1930s physics concept called "isotopic charge space" applied in four dimensions. In 1996, he formulated a model by introducing the superpartners "pionin" for the nuclear force

www.math.buffalo.edu/mad/physics/physics-peeps.html#phys%20PEEPS


I just think it's sad the way white-supremacy and other garbage has just warped the world and human values. People like him base potential on skin color and ancestry rather than seeing and cultivating individual talent and genius.


On another note, this guy obviously never heard of nigerians ;D And they are as black as you can get lol.

[johndon86]

i did not say that blacks are not capable to accomplish in technical sciences match individually but if we looks statistics you numbers says more then any racist and that is lack of technical intelligence in all African countries and even successful ones will go out from Africa because in black culture everything is permit-able expect success