Some parts of Africa had kingdoms and such before parts of Europe. Also Africa didn't have the resources that Asia and Europe did. Also Europe was just lucky, they got things like engineering, good ships, guns, and stuff from the east. In Africa you do not need as many resources to survive as you do in other places, which is why Africans did not need to create a bunch of inventions. That chart is utter bullshit because some of the first civilizations were in South America, and they had astronomy, engineering, writing, and mathematics before a lot of Europe did. East Asians would probably score higher on the IQ test because learning is more valued in their culture, whereas in African American culture it isn't. Put a black guy in the typical honor-based East Asian family and he will be getting all A's and stuff. Put an Asian guy in the projects with a typical ghetto family and he acts ghetto and gets shit grades to live as a thug.
So are the Mesoamericans more intelligent than Germanic peoples because they had organized civilizations while they were still having tribes? Are Iraqi's smarter than the rest of the world because they achieved civilization and law system first? There is no intelligence factor, its all environmental.
Also the development of huge civilizations has more to do with dominance of one large group over smaller groups and/or groups coming together than intelligence. If it wasn't for that one dynasty that took over China then China would be a bunch of smaller countries with considerably less achievements because the bigger a group, the better pretty much (as long as it functions well). If you have one great inventor for every thousand, and one country has thousands more people than another, then you have thousands more great inventors, which leads to more inventions.
The only reason some of these places had these inventions was the amount of people they had and the amount of people they had contact with. I'll bet that if any of the Native American empires of South America had contact with the Chinese the Europeans wouldn't have any colonies there. Eurasia had so many achievements because of the contact they had with each other.
Also you do not compare entire continents by choosing the strongest link of one and the weakest of the other. I could say that Blacks are more intelligent than whites by comparing Mali to the Germanic tribes. I could say Hispanics are better than Asians by comparing the Maya to the Koreans. The reason Eurasia developed so well is not intelligence, it is environmental factors and luck.
Let me put it this way. Suppose Eurasia is a pot of top notch soil and Africa and the Americas are just dirt. Take two of the same flowers and plant them in the same pot, one will grow bigger and healthier. Which does not mean that bigger and healthier flower is better, but it was placed in a better environment. Eurasia had a bunch of resources, less geographical barriers, and oceans and animals which could deliver messages much better. To spread information in South America, you have to run across mountains, forests, and rivers and harsh environments just to deliver a message. Yes the Arabs had deserts. But they had camels to ride. I've been to Peru and seen pieces of the Inca empire, it would take me weeks and weeks to walk the distance I went in one train ride.
there are dangers lurking from many in this world, those considering themselves civilized not excluded
Good issue, so it comes that black person by default is stupid then white one.
