Races

[Caladan]

Ethnic Americans? You mean like Cheyenne and Apache's and the likes? Sure I agree.

By the way, there appears to be a word missing there somewhere. I didn't say you were racist. I did however imply than an ideology that states that one culture is superior to another is racist. And you supported a post that claimed that

Why is it that virtually every inventor of note was either White or Asian? Could it be...oh my...because the average IQ of these groups was higher?

. So like you, I make my statement based on what I saw you support.

Sure people referred to crime. At that time, I used a different argument.

Don't get me wrong, I don't and will never condone any form of crime or violence. It is sickening, but in my opinion, it's more of a sign of a collapsed/collapsing culture than it is a measure of IQ. Here's the thing - the average culture in Africa (I must confess I haven't studied each and every subculture on the continent) had STRONG moral values. They had effective controls and measures for reducing crime and powerful community values that must have taken some time to establish. Those controls have now been vastly eroded, a by product of skewed westernisation. I say skewed because I for one don't believe that westernisation in itself is evil, but I do believe that if it isn't followed properly, it can easily be distructive.


I'd really appreciate you pointing out the parts of my posts that show a racial bias as well - this is something I fancied myself immune against, bu if I do possess it, I'd be glad to know, and to work against it.

 

[Haukrinn]

No. Not africanised versions of Celtic music. AFRICAN versions of celtic songs. The only thing celtic that remained in most of those songs were the words. The fact that music has always been one of the least moderated/ most liberal industries explains why a lot of people of african descent have been successful in this genre.

And I listen mainly to metalcore/nu-metal. There is still a lot of mixed influences in that genre, from east european/asian to african. While I do agree that a vast majority of the fans are still white (like R&B in the 70s and 80s), that dynamic is changing both on and off the stage.

I can't explain why "white americans" (If such a description still exists) removed biracial influences from their music if this really is true (I very much doubt that ALL african influence has been removed, probably a perception issue). That's the interesting thing about music - it moves and it changes, everyone just hooks into what they like and they roll with it. And who says that what is now regarded as "folk" doesn't have any influences from the mainland of africa?

No, I wouldn't say so. Like I said, both country and blues stemmed from a common base of British folk — with some other northern and central European folk influences thrown into the mix — and African folk. But, you see, originally there was no actual musicological difference between them. They were separated into 'hillbilly music' and 'race music' based on nothing more than the race of the performers. As time went on, they were renamed 'country' and 'blues', and musical differences became readily apparent, with a much heavier traditional African influence acting on the evolution of blues music. And here's my point: whilst there was an identifiable blues element to the earlier metal band's output, it can be said to be to almost wholly lacking in the music of today's more extreme metal bands. Though, there undoubtedly still exists a black influence on metalcore/nu-metal, as I'm sure you'll agree. Here's a couple of quotes I've lifted from sociologist Keith Kahn-Harris' 'Extreme Metal: Music and Culture on the Edge':

'The extent to which extreme metal has excluded African American influences is striking. Not only is there virtually no detectable blues element in the music, there is a near-total absence of syncopation and other rhythms common in forms of funk, soul and other African American influenced dance music.'

'Extreme metal is the apotheosis of a process through which the pivotal influence of black musics (particularly the blues) on the development of metal has progressively been erased.'

Firstly - if the whites didn't prevent black people from holding good jobs, didn't create glass ceilings in corporations, and use other forms of strong arm tactics to disenfranchise and dehumanise people of african origin, I would insist that urban black culture wouldn't have taken to crime in the large droves that they currently have. Crime (as well as music) is an extremely liberal "industry", which pays it's rewards regardless of race. When you create a situation of high pressure and tension, there is a tendency for things to collapse. When they do collapse, it's a much more difficult task repairing. The situation in the USA today is indeed largely due opression by white supremacists. However the NAACP also are of the opinion that they could have done better, they could have held their family units together better, that sort of thing. There is joint blame on both parties in my opinion, and this has nothing to do with DNA.

The fact that Asians didn't react in the same way can be due to so many different reasons - possibly they didn't have the kind of numbers as the blacks did, etc, etc. Again, matter of culture and experience, not genetics. Afterall the asians didn't have the SAME experiences as black people did, neither do they have the numbers.

But what makes you so certain that genetics isn't the primary cause of the plight of blacks (or say, the success of the Jews) in the west? How do you explain the longevity and world-wide consistency of differences in average IQ scores, for example? Do you not think it's odd that IQ differences between racial groups correspond perfectly with racial differences in head size/brain mass? Or that these differences in head size are present at birth? Or that it's the intelligence tests which rely least of all on culturally acquired knowledge are the ones on which racial differences are the most pronounced.

Also, blacks have more testosterone than whites who in turn have more than East Asians. Does this not partially explain why blacks are overrepresented in both the prison population and in sport (especially sports which require explosive strength - such as boxing or sprinting)? Funnily enough, East Asians are underrepresented in both - whether in Western nations or just in world terms. I think this is definitely important because higher testosterone is linked to aggressive and violent behaviour in individuals with lower IQ's. The higher testosterone levels of blacks also explains the higher incidence of prostate cancer among black men, by the way.

Now, if you couple this with the fact that many modern scientists (e.g. Steven Pinker) believe environment to have little influence on how we turn out as adults, then I don't see how people can continue to deny the reality of innate differences between racial groups, to be honest.

 

[Caladan]

No, I wouldn't say so. Like I said, both country and blues stemmed from a common base of British folk — with some other northern and central European folk influences thrown into the mix — and African folk. But, you see, originally there was no actual musicological difference between them. They were separated into 'hillbilly music' and 'race music' based on nothing more than the race of the performers. As time went on, they were renamed 'country' and 'blues', and musical differences became readily apparent, with a much heavier traditional African influence acting on the evolution of blues music. And here's my point: whilst there was an identifiable blues element to the earlier metal band's output, it can be said to be to almost wholly lacking in the music of today's more extreme metal bands. Though, there undoubtedly still exists a black influence on metalcore/nu-metal, as I'm sure you'll agree. Here's a couple of quotes I've lifted from sociologist Keith Kahn-Harris' 'Extreme Metal: Music and Culture on the Edge':

'The extent to which extreme metal has excluded African American influences is striking. Not only is there virtually no detectable blues element in the music, there is a near-total absence of syncopation and other rhythms common in forms of funk, soul and other African American influenced dance music.'

'Extreme metal is the apotheosis of a process through which the pivotal influence of black musics (particularly the blues) on the development of metal has progressively been erased.'



But what makes you so certain that genetics isn't the primary cause of the plight of blacks (or say, the success of the Jews) in the west? How do you explain the longevity and world-wide consistency of differences in average IQ scores, for example? Do you not think it's odd that IQ differences between racial groups correspond perfectly with racial differences in head size/brain mass? Or that these differences in head size are present at birth? Or that it's the intelligence tests which rely least of all on culturally acquired knowledge are the ones on which racial differences are the most pronounced.

Also, blacks have more testosterone than whites who in turn have more than East Asians. Does this not partially explain why blacks are overrepresented in both the prison population and in sport (especially sports which require explosive strength - such as boxing or sprinting)? Funnily enough, East Asians are underrepresented in both - whether in Western nations or just in world terms. I think this is definitely important because higher testosterone is linked to aggressive and violent behaviour in individuals with lower IQ's. The higher testosterone levels of blacks also explains the higher incidence of prostate cancer among black men, by the way.

Now, if you couple this with the fact that many modern scientists (e.g. Steven Pinker) believe environment to have little influence on how we turn out as adults, then I don't see how people can continue to deny the reality of innate differences between racial groups, to be honest.

Hauk. First head sizes. How was this calculated? Africa is a continent with multiple tribes, all with different lifestylyes. Were samples taken of these tribes? Was their diet also taken into consideration? Same goes for testosterone and cancer - are any of these groups (I assume we're talking mainly about black americans here, and not africans in general) more likely to eat cancer inducing foods (fast food, high fat content meats)? And how about the unusually high percentage of asian tribes and cultures that are vegetarian, could this have any effect on these findings? Was this research really done in a controlled environment??

We all agree that the africans from Africa are less mixed with european blood than black americans, so how come the American and Caribbean countries consistently bag all the sprint medals? Surely the purer the african, the faster he should be??

As regards to black metal, I really can't speak authoritatively on the topic, so I won't argue too strongly. However, let's assume that what you say is true - black/ death metal is purely european. What exactly does this prove if I may ask? Do the fans of that sort of music consistently outperform their companions who listen to less purely european music?? Are all the pure geniuses of the world attracted to this pure form of music that has been purged of all mankind's baser influences?? No. It's still just music. And in Africa, there still exists music untouched largely by western influences. That is a taste thing, not a matter of intelect.


I keep denying these ideologies because I was priviledged to have grown up in africa. When I think of the vast majority of people who grew up around me, I don't see people with IQ disadvantages, regardless of their ethnicity. I see people with sometimes exremely high IQs, making proper progress in their fields/professions of choice, wherever they live in the world. Yes, these people are black/african.

So Mr Scientist can claim he has varying amounts of data, I have first hand experience.

 

[Volve]

If there was any great african inventions it was most certainly robbed by the colonists. It is also likely that it would fit the african community, like all western inventions did.

Who do you think invented the wheel? - the chinese.

Rhodesia - give me a brake. Zimbabwe actually, from the 1980's. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rhodesia

Caladan you're great. I can't even imagine how you bother to discuss with these ignorant people.

Education is a major part of peoples IQ. Because if people have never been educated what can you then measure?

 

[PhantoMPhones]

"I throw out all scientific/medical and statistical indicators in favour of a 'Whiteys fault' theorem." Give me a break pal... Ignorant, yeah way to reach for the ad hominem and pure conjecture there.

I have yet to see ANYTHING in the way of evidence for your side of the argument. If you have it, please feel free to provide it, because I can't find anything other than racist conjecture.

 

[Volve]

That comes from someone with Hitler in his Avatar. Lol. You're asking for it.

 

[PhantoMPhones]

Way to totally defer the fact that you are judging people as racist when you clearly have your own issues with race.

So what if I have hitler in my AV. What the fuck does that mean? That has nothing to do with what we are discussing here. Let me tell you, whatever you are thinking about my av, you are wrong. Way to judge a book, there fella. Pretty weak argument don't you think?

And you still haven't provided anything of value here, nor have you properly acknowledged any of the material here.

Read the forum description, intelligent and mature discussion only. You have provided neither. I am debating intelligently and providing my own material,listening to what people are saying and allowing them to express their ideas without resorting to calling them names and trying to defame them. But you seem intent on disregarding everything of value, and taking little shots at individual statements, and attacking the poster instead of debating the issue at hand.

Are you going to provide anything of substance or just continue on your sylogistically fallacial (root fallacy) line of nonsense.

At any rate, it seems you are pretty transparent through all of this, but I'd truly welcome some intelligent discussion from you.

Feel free to continue to call me names and continue with your mundane insults.

My apologies to everyone else who had to read this.

 

[Volve]

I guess the fact that Hitler killed 6 million jews isn't goog enought for you. In addition to several norwegian resistance fighters or whatever you call them. Are you american? Well, then I guess you don't know anything of what Hitler means do me.

...and I actually have posted in this thread.

 

[PhantoMPhones]

I guess the fact that Hitler killed 6 million jews isn't goog enought for you. In addition to several norwegian resistance fighters or whatever you call them. Are you american? Well, then I guess you don't know anything of what Hitler means do me.

...and I actually have posted in this thread.

So because hitler killed jews im never supposed to use a picture of hitler ever? Its automatically racist? And what the fuck does that have to do with the discussion at hand? And once again you show your own racial bias.

So post if youre going to post, but if youre just going to bitch and moan like you have sand in your vag, leave me out of it. Even if I was openly and proud of being racist, you still should be sticking to the subject matter at hand instead of insulting people.

FYI I am not American. Take your slander somewhere else.

Damnit Caladan where are you, I need someone reasonable to argue with.

 

[Volve]

Ibn Battuta was also a great muslim. He was a traveller and wrote about what he saw on his travelles.

They are a product of their time as well as any other person would be. They have to be judge according to the world they live in.

 

[Caladan]

Evidence? Am I not evidence enough for you?

 

[Fenrisúlfr]

The average IQ of the black population in the United States is 85. Using a bell-curve with an average of 85 and standard-deviation of 15 representing said population, just over 15% would have an IQ of over 100.

Thus, your diction and argumentation, albeit satisfactory, proves nothing.

Ashkenazim have the highest average IQ of any group, גוי.

 

[Caladan]

First of all, I refuse to be singled out for praise. I am not the exception to the rule, the unusual, clever, articulate black man. I am like the rest of the black people. Similar DNA, similar DNA, possibly similar bone structure. The difference is my upbringing. I had the advantage of being brought up in an area that encouraged academic excellence and intuitive thought.
(Phantom - some evidence for you perhaps?)


Going forward - can you provide more data regarding this IQ breakdown? How about statistics that show comparisions between black and white kids from middle-class, white collar families who live in good neighbourhoods? How about showing statistics for children of black, middle-class immigrant children (who are relatively unaffected by a history of jim crow)? How about showing statistics for these Ashkenazim who don't live under the typical Ashkenaz?

I have a science background dear friend, and your statistics, as convincing as they are, prove nothing. They do not disprove the effect of culture on IQ/accomplishment, neither do they prove the effect of DNA on IQ/accomplishment.

 

[Vimana]

Whites and Asians have the advantage of growing up in mentally stimulating environments. Other societies that did exist before modern times that had independent achievements for themselves had education systems. Such as the Inca and the Mesoamericans. They achieved things the Europeans had achieved (or had been given from the East) in an environment that typically isn't suit for civilization.

As I said before also. If one in a thousand people are geniuses. Then there won't be one in every tribe. In a small civilization, there will be more. And in an empire there will be many. That is why China had achieved so much. Aside from their resources they had many people.

 

[Fenrisúlfr]

There are one billion upon the Dark Continent, with that logic their civilization should be advancing as fast as that of India. Their economic growth demonstrates otherwise, and that is being generous in light of the recent boom in commodities prices, and of course Africa has plenty of that.

As for nature versus nurture, this report indicates a significantly higher correlation to the percentage of blacks and hispanics in an area than poverty or unemployment:

http://www.colorofcrime.com/colorofcrime2005.pdf

Also quite interesting:

Blacks are an estimated 39 times more likely to commit a violent crime against
a white than vice versa, and 136 times more likely to commit robbery.

I also referenced the 2000 census statistics for my county: 2% black, 96% white, 2% other. It is also very poor, one of the poorest in the state of Virginia (one of the reasons everything is so cheap)...despite this there is no crime to speak of, nor is the police presence overwhelming as the one time I have ever spoken with a police officer in the line of duty was at a sobriety checkpoint in the next county over.

Thus, if income can be correlated to the quality of 'nurture' i.e. the resources at one's disposal for child upbringing, the nature vs. nurture argument certainly requires re-examination.

However, these statistics reflect crime, not accomplishment, though in a given population, a large portion perpetrating criminal acts indicates and overall lack of accomplishment.

 

[Caladan]

^^^^
How then does this your esteemed report explain the sheer number of lynchings and murders of blacks by whites during the jim crow era?

The total area of India is 3287590 sq km (1269345 sq mi)
Size of Africa 30065000 sq km 11608000 sq miles


And in case you haven't noticed, Africa is a CONTINENT containing several countries, not a country like india is. There is no "national culture" at play.

 

[PhantoMPhones]

Phantom - some evidence for you perhaps?

Granted, but you can't universally apply it and say that if every African was given the opportunities you have been granted, that they would all turn out like you. That is really really unrealistic. Even within their own country(ies) there would have been advancements in law and civility, co-operation, which would in turn start to slowly bring the civilization out from under the rubble.(and granted there are parts of Africa more civilized than others, but even take a look at crim in those cities) But is this the case? Not for the majority of what I've seen of Africa (yes I have been there). Someone who has a high IQ (which is traditionally used as a PREDICTOR) has a high Intelligence Quotient, whether they live in squalid conditions or they live in the middle class. The differences are the resources at hand to assist in the modern development of the potential. Tutors, etc etc etc. The ability to learn, is the ability to learn, period. So I guess then something else must be responsible for the continued atrocities in Africa. Do I hear a blame whitey post coming?

I'm sorry mate, it doesn't take much intelligence to know that it is better, more correct, and ethically sound to help others and bring prosperity to a nation, rather than shooting anyone that crosses you. And most nations have come to that realization and have BROUGHT THEMSELVES into the civilized world. Whiteys fault or not, unfair or not thats the way it is. And after decades of aid and blah blah blah, if a country/continent still can't bring themselves up past tribal war, and genocide, why the fuck are we continuing to dedicate resources?

People are pissed because we aren't doing enough for africa or some bullshit, and they demand something be done.

Aid is given and is greedily snatched away by corrupt governments or war lords.

People bitch and complain because 'throwing money and rice at the problem isn't going to fix anything'

So the only viable option left is to put a stop to the unevolved savagery by force, because it is QUITE OBVIOUS that they are INCAPABLE of doing it on their own. Occupation ensues and there is civil war because people are pissed that the nation is being occupied, 'westernized', 'opressed'.

What the fuck do you want? (not you personally, just a generalized question. once again no attack intended, my friend) You think mr war lord is going to hand over his power (or the 8 year old is going to be able to reverse the brainwashing) in favour of going to sylvan learning centres to learn a technical trade? Seriously man, I think that would be a gross overestimation of a lot of those people at this time, which is very unfortunate. Whether people want to hear it or not.

 

[Caladan]

Hey - firstly I was hoping for a response to my question about native or ethnic Americans. That is still unanswered.

Here's is the way the world works - What now passes as western civilisation is a culmination of centuries of interaction often violent, of intermingling of different cultures over different parts of the world, starting mainly from the meditarranean area, which includes Northern Africa. From there it spread around the world, both eastward and westward. The west is where it is because centuries of access to and communication with the mobile centres of civilisation. Sub-saharan africa on the other hand is totally different. Their inherent cultures, being relatively separated from the mainstream of mankind has developed quite differently. So have their modes of government. Britain, and most of europe didn't bring themselves into the "civilised world", they were dragged in, and while they were stabilising most of these nations were beset with infighting, and a lot of violence.

Now there are many reasons why governments in Africa are failing. I will still insist that a lot of them are rooted in a totally shambolic handover process by the colonials. I also blame the locals for the way that process has now snowballed into violence, corruption and anarchy. The rest is due to other conditions. The fact is that what was done in africa after colonisation was the equivalant of handing over a sub-machine gun to a 5 year old.

Is Africa improving? You're damn right it is. But here's the thing - does the west really want Africa to develop? Is the west even ready to put up with the continent of Africa beginning to compete with the west for resources and commodities? Seeing the reaction to the recent fuel price increase, I think not.

Now I don't blame all africa's woes on "whitey", far from it. While I do trace a majority of the problems to the whole process of colonization and the failure thereof, I hold africans responsible for not being able to make the right decisions, and steer their countries out of the morass where they currently find themselves. Be aware of one thing - the criminals in africa aren't fools, they are intelligent and crafty people, with reasonable IQs. If they were so dumb, how come so many westerners have fallen victim to the Nigerian 419? Who's the fool - the dupe or the duped??

I am not an apologist for criminals of any form, neither petty nor "corporate" (e.g. corrupt governments). However, these government officials who rip off their countries mostly store their wealth in.... the western banks. Make of that what you may.

Savagery is simply a breakdown of order. It existed in the west before, and hasn't totally left. If Dubya was a third world president, he would be tried for crimes against humanity. America is still quite savage to the average iraqi. So much for "bringing themselves into the civilised world".


I can say this - perhaps not every african, given the opportunities I've had will become like me, but I assure you a large number will get better grades than the current US president.



Let me tell you what I really believe - if the colonial governments had handed over power to the educated elite, who in most cases won the elections, instead of to the uneducated, easily controlled people, there would have developed a greater respect for education, and as such would have had a greater number of educated people. As it is, there is increasingly a huge percentage of african graduates end up in the western world, through various schemes and work visas created by western governments to lure professionals and intellectuals from all over the world.

Perhaps if all these people went back and swelled the ranks of the forward looking and more educationally advantaged, there would be a difference. Perhaps not. But this talk of us being incable is simply not true.


Edit: Honestly, just thinking about the sheer volumes of resourcefulness displayed by the general public in most african countries rubbishes this whole idea. Do you honestly believe that it is easier to survive in say urban Nigeria than it is to survive in suburban Virginia? If this IQ tests keep churning out these figures, then I'm afraid they must be flawed. Until you show me a situation where you have say children of different races brought together in a controlled environment from birth, with the same kind of cultural experiences (No bombardment with ethnicity based "facts"), and then tested at the expected age, then we still don't have a true scientific measurement.

 

[Vimana]

There are one billion upon the Dark Continent, with that logic their civilization should be advancing as fast as that of India.

I meant a large group of people together, not a large bunch of people in a bunch of separated groups. A large country will have more geniuses to share ideas within the whole place and thus bring greater advancement to the whole overall group of people. Tribes are small groups that are divided. So one in a big number of tribes will have a great inventor in them. And their advancements and inventions won't get far because there wouldn't have been previous ones for them to build upon.

 

[PhantoMPhones]

Hey - firstly I was hoping for a response to my question about native or ethnic Americans. That is still unanswered.

Apologies mate, could you repeat the question for me? I can't seem to find it.

Is Africa improving? You're damn right it is. But here's the thing - does the west really want Africa to develop? Is the west even ready to put up with the continent of Africa beginning to compete with the west for resources and commodities? Seeing the reaction to the recent fuel price increase, I think not.

I suppose improving is a subjective term, depending on what you classify as 'improvement'.

As far as the US and Africa are concerned, not that I'm trying to play devils advocate or anything, but why SHOULD the US care,(not that I mean they dont care as in they dont like Africans, I mean care economically etc) or rather want them to develop? I hope you aren't inferring that the US is actively trying to supress Africas' 'improvement'. But nonetheless there are resource issues starting to make themselves known, there are poverty issues, population issues blah blah blah, why should the US or any other country for that matter, give a damn about Africa(or similar country), or try to help them when it will just be another billion mouths to feed, and will complicate all the other global problems. Especially when they have their own people to worry about? Most other nations care about themselves for the most part, but for some reason the US is held to this invisible standard that they need to rescue everyone else on the planet. Personally if I was in power of a country, I'd close my borders except on work visas, student visas, and for trade, and of course tourism. And I would work on MY countrys' issues, and until that was resolved, honestly its not my responsibility or obligation to help other nations (except in the interest of foreign relations I suppose). I find this to be very realistic in that my people are more important to me than anyone else. Does that make me racist? No, that makes me like pretty much everyone else on the planet.

Britain, and most of europe didn't bring themselves into the "civilised world", they were dragged in, and while they were stabilising most of these nations were beset with infighting, and a lot of violence.

IS Africa stabilizing? To what standard? Stabilizing could infer a lot of things that aren't so desireable. Even if the governments stabilize, will that stop the killing, the disease, and the other atrocities? I'm inclined to say no. What I'm saying is that 20,000+ deaths per day (don't quote me on that, I heard 23,000 per day somewhere) is a LOT to stabilize.

Now I don't blame all africa's woes on "whitey", far from it. While I do trace a majority of the problems to the whole process of colonization and the failure thereof, I hold africans responsible for not being able to make the right decisions, and steer their countries out of the morass where they currently find themselves. Be aware of one thing - the criminals in africa aren't fools, they are intelligent and crafty people, with reasonable IQs. If they were so dumb, how come so many westerners have fallen victim to the Nigerian 419? Who's the fool - the dupe or the duped??

Agreed. My only problem with the colonization argument, is that its in the past, and anyone that can reasonably be held responsible for it (not that I think there is 'responsibility' or 'fault' to be handed out to begin with.)is dead or almost there. To me, issues with colonization take a back seat when your country(ies) are killing their own people en mass.

Agreed. There are many Africans with reasonable IQ's and its unfortunate that some of them have decided to take the path of manipulation/domination
etc etc. Which is why it seems hard to accept that if the governments stabilize that a more peaceful Africa will emerge. Its going to take a LOT of time, and a LOT of blood. One way or another, the atrocities will have to be STAMPED out. And unfortunately, I can't see education being the answer to the problem. Not on a reasonable scale of time considering the severity of the problems.

Savagery is simply a breakdown of order. It existed in the west before, and hasn't totally left. If Dubya was a third world president, he would be tried for crimes against humanity. America is still quite savage to the average iraqi. So much for "bringing themselves into the civilised world".

Agreed, to a point. The only problem I see is that the Iraq deal is a (rather poor) example of what I was saying about Africa. People see problems blah blah blah, they try to help and all their aid is squandered or horded, peacekeepers are sent to try and alleviate military tensions OR to make sure aid is delivered to those it was intended for, and are attacked. The solution seems that an occupation force to completely revamp the country is in order(no matter of the underlying agenda. There is always an agenda... ALWAYS). Occupation takes place and then protests and civil wars start. I wish I knew an answer in the middle so that we could avoid all of this.
Of course with Iraq, the agenda overtook the need. Which is why that invasion was bs. (however now that they are there, they cant just pull out)

I can say this - perhaps not every african, given the opportunities I've had will become like me, but I assure you a large number will get better grades than the current US president.

Yeah well, bringing dubya into this is a nobrainer lol. And agreed, there is no reason that Africans couldn't do well if given the opportunities. The problem is that the opportunities don't exist. Or they do on a super small scale (aid organizations, with their own objective) And even if they did exist, there needs to be an environment to facilitate those opportunities, and economy to support a 'class system' (for lack of a better term)industry and jobs, and relative 'peace'. And to do that large scale in problematic areas of Africa is next to impossible. And obviously bringing every African to the 1st world nations, would cause the countries to collapse, or be on the verge of depression, crime rates would soar etc etc etc. Its just not feasible (from my personal opinion/knowledge/grasp of the situation)

Let me tell you what I really believe - if the colonial governments had handed over power to the educated elite, who in most cases won the elections, instead of to the uneducated, easily controlled people, there would have developed a greater respect for education, and as such would have had a greater number of educated people. As it is, there is increasingly a huge percentage of african graduates end up in the western world, through various schemes and work visas created by western governments to lure professionals and intellectuals from all over the world.

As for colonization, its a done deal, nothing can undo it, we need to move past and deal with where we are (which I'm sure you would agree). As for the graduates etc, you are right, and there are some very intellectual Africans out there. The problem I have, is the 'very huge percentage' that are ending up in the western world. To me it seems counterproductive then, to leave Africa for America and then bitching (which of course may not be true for the most part) about the conditions in Africa. Why wouldn't they stay and help their people? Why don't educated African Americans leave America for Africa to help their countries? To me it sounds selfish/counterproductive, and to be a huge double standard. Hate the white man/western world while taking the benefits of that western world.

(And of course there are African Americans that do try to help Africa.) Is there a greater number leaving America etc for Africa as is leaving Africa for America?

Perhaps if all these people went back and swelled the ranks of the forward looking and more educationally advantaged, there would be a difference. Perhaps not. But this talk of us being incable is simply not true.

(agreed, with the first pat of that, hence what I said above this)
If there wouldn't be a difference then how could Africa POSSIBLY be improving without these people? If I said 'incapable' I didn't mean literally as in they are physically or intellectually UNABLE to change things, but rather that if you take a look at what is going on, it is quite clear that not enough, or not enough of the right people, care enough/influential enough to do anything about the problems. And THAT is where IQ and/or mindset/'mental evolution' (not literally evolution) would possibly come into play with the rest of the population.