1 year ago11 points(+0/-0/+11Score on mirror)2 children
Nog doesnt know that White people are *from* Mesopotamia.
Also, one black in that comment section is at least self aware, he pointed out that colder weather encourages harder work ethic to survive, while warmer weather encourages sedentary behavior as theres less pressure to survive.
1 year ago4 points(+0/-0/+4Score on mirror)2 children
That was a theory the "conservative economist" Thomas Sowell was trying to push. It was all a big cope on his part for the lack of development in Africa. "Muh bad river that's super long", "muh lack of ports", "muh terrain".
If that's the case, why did Rhodesia and SA thrive under White leadership within the last 50 years and now they're both 3rd world countries like the rest of Africa? Why didn't the American Indians do much more than the Africans (despite the fact that most of NA experiences winter).
If merely living where it's cold is the explanation for the success of Whites, then the Eskimos and nomadic people in Siberia should have been the dominate race.
It's all so stupid how Thomas Sowell get's a pass because conservatives can't help but gushing praise to any black person who says something that 100's of other people have already said but somehow it's special to them because he's black.
Don't even get me started on how he argues against IQ being genetic by saying that the blacks who moved to the northern US have a higher IQ than the blacks who stayed in the south.
1 year ago1 point(+0/-0/+1Score on mirror)2 children
I mean europeans were basically molded by the cold for generations, while blacks were molded by the heat. Also, a lot of america is actually pretty warm in the winter, and the natives were migratory, they probably just went south during the winter.
I would argue the inuit might have had *too much* cold, and so werent able to develop beyond simple hunter-gathering. Whites had the most optimal conditions where we still had to worry about the winter coming and think ahead, but also had enough of a growing seasons to actually farm and settle down.
>Don't even get me started on how he argues against IQ being genetic by saying that the blacks who moved to the northern US have a higher IQ than the blacks who stayed in the south.
He is also probably missing the fact that blacks in the north (at least before mass immigration) are more mixed with whites, to the point im not actually sure they can be considered proper blacks, (or whites, but thats obvious enough just by looking at them).
I feel it's a number of factors, not unlike how many things need to be just right about our solar system for life to be possible.
Why didn't super civilizations arise in the Carribean and SE Asia, but they did in the Mediteranean? Vietnam is much more like Rome, geographically than central China, but that's not where Asian civilization was based.
Why weren't there European-level societies in NA or Russia, if it's a matter of being cold?
If it's a matter of trade, why was Japan so (locally) powerful when it was so insular?
Heck, why did not great power arise anywhere in the Southern hemisphere?
The Mayans, Aztecs and even more so their predecessors were pretty big. Their downfall was that the Aztecs somehow got into control and terrorized every other local tribe, which made it easy for us to shatter them. Had we come in contact with SA a few hundred years prior we would have met an empire spanning half the continent.
That’s wrong though, Mali and Ghana are just below the green line and they were pretty big "empires", with own writing systems, gold mining and processing and huts at least bigger than termite nests.
1 year ago4 points(+0/-0/+4Score on mirror)1 child
So that's a big academic argument about whether or not "Africans invented the wheel" and whether or not they did is kind of a moot point because THEY DIDN'T DO ANYTHING WITH IT.
The whole reason the wheel is considered a technological breakthrough is because of WHAT YOU COULD DO WITH IT. It would be like saying "ackchyually, James Watt didn't invent the steam engine, Hero of Alexandria did in 1 B.C." while completely ignoring the fact that all it did was spin. The reason we consider James Watt's steam engine the beginning of the steam age is BECAUSE HE DID SOMETHING WITH IT.
The one guy sort of pointed this out; for a wheel to be useful, you need roads (debatable: barrows and waterwheels are useful either way), and they never built roads.
As you say, anyone can make a disc that rolls but road construction and maintenance requires sophisticated organization and skilled workers.
I'd add: is it more impressive to create something from nothing, or to take an existing, functional thing and *improve* it beyond what it's inventor could conceive of?
Also, one black in that comment section is at least self aware, he pointed out that colder weather encourages harder work ethic to survive, while warmer weather encourages sedentary behavior as theres less pressure to survive.
If that's the case, why did Rhodesia and SA thrive under White leadership within the last 50 years and now they're both 3rd world countries like the rest of Africa? Why didn't the American Indians do much more than the Africans (despite the fact that most of NA experiences winter).
If merely living where it's cold is the explanation for the success of Whites, then the Eskimos and nomadic people in Siberia should have been the dominate race.
It's all so stupid how Thomas Sowell get's a pass because conservatives can't help but gushing praise to any black person who says something that 100's of other people have already said but somehow it's special to them because he's black.
Don't even get me started on how he argues against IQ being genetic by saying that the blacks who moved to the northern US have a higher IQ than the blacks who stayed in the south.
Toronto, which still gets snow 4-5 months of the year, is over 5000 miles south of the arctic.
They never invented any great works, but the Inuit knew how to survive the cold.
>Don't even get me started on how he argues against IQ being genetic by saying that the blacks who moved to the northern US have a higher IQ than the blacks who stayed in the south.
He is also probably missing the fact that blacks in the north (at least before mass immigration) are more mixed with whites, to the point im not actually sure they can be considered proper blacks, (or whites, but thats obvious enough just by looking at them).
Why didn't super civilizations arise in the Carribean and SE Asia, but they did in the Mediteranean? Vietnam is much more like Rome, geographically than central China, but that's not where Asian civilization was based.
Why weren't there European-level societies in NA or Russia, if it's a matter of being cold?
If it's a matter of trade, why was Japan so (locally) powerful when it was so insular?
Heck, why did not great power arise anywhere in the Southern hemisphere?