The Dangers of White Supremacy Ideology in America

[chroot]

*sigh* 3.0.3 upgrade all done, I think. I'm amazed you guys stayed up through it!

- Warren

 

[United States]

I don't think that the assertion that different human races have different cognitive abilities and personalities is really that outrageous. I read two popular books about intelligence. The first one was "The Bell Curve: Intelligence and Class Structure in American Life" by Charles Murray and the late Richard Herrnstein. The second was "The Intelligence of Dogs: Canine Consciousness and Capabilities" by Stanley Coren. Both books were best sellers in 1994 and both books were heavily reviewed in magazines and newspapers. I retrieved about 200 pages of commentary from newspapers and magazines via an online database to see how the media would review "The Bell Curve." The primary means used to rebut its research results was to dismiss heredity as the cause for the differences in the IQ scores of people. Over and over again it was pointed out, "if only the disadvantaged had the same upbringing as the privileged they would also score high on IQ tests." It was obvious to me that dogma could not allow honest research about the differences in IQ. The social agenda for promoting the equality of condition over the past 30 years would be in jeopardy. At any cost to open scholarly debate, the results of "The Bell Curve" must be refuted by any means available. To me, the acceptance that IQ was inherited was so commonly accepted by the public and academicians alike, how could this serious work be so robustly and virulently attacked and still become a best seller?

With some similarities, "The Intelligence of Dogs" was reviewed with trepidation, not wanting to learn that "my dog" was not rated as intelligent. Like humans, dogs all belong to the same species. Different breeds were developed by selecting the desired attributes of a dog and breeding like dogs together, always keeping a perfect archetypical prototype in mind of the desired goal. Humans do not practice overt eugenics (breeding), but we know that the brains of canines and humans have the same structure and the rules of genetics are the same. Humans practice assortative mating, and studies going back to the 1940's show that IQs of spouses correlate powerfully. That is, like people marry. In general, the smart marry the smart, especially since the advent of the birth control pill, universal higher education, and increased mobility.

In stark contrast, "The Intelligence of Dogs" reviewers totally and completely bought into the concept that the difference between the intelligence of different breeds was heredity, not the environment that the dog was raised in. The book listed the Border collie as the most intelligent (a working dog) and the Afghan hound the least intelligent (the pampered pet of choice for the elite rich). Without a single dissention or even a glimmer of doubt the wide gaps in intelligence between breeds of dogs was readily accepted. Not one critic wrote that if only the Afghan had the right social economic opportunity as the typical Border collie, it too could be smart. Maybe those rich folks and all that pampering makes them stupid. Not once did I read that "a dog's home, neighborhood, training, duties-- the sum of the dog's life experiences -- are equally if not more important than heredity." Not once did I read "if environment plays a role of anywhere from 20 percent to 50 percent in determining a dog's brainpower, such factors as adequate nutrition, stable family life, a moral life and a safe community to grow up in might make the crucial difference that ensures a dog will have a productive adulthood." Not once did I read "No such group genetic comparisons can be fair until Afghans and Border collies grow up in comparable environments for several generations." Not once did I read "Coren makes no effort to measure or quantify or assess the powerful role of environment or to consider how it can mitigate their grim predictions of underclass disaster for the poor Afghans."

 

[BlackVision]

since BV is unable to disprove the study I have presented, there is nothing else to say.

You know simply saying something doesn't make it so. I have repeatedly disproved it, if you choose to ignore it, that is your own problem and not mine.

BV, if you are ever able to accept my challenge, pm me

Evo, if you ever decide to answer my question, let me know. And we'll go from there.

Until then, the new study disproves your assertions on genetic influences.

Until then, your lack of an answer disproves your assertion.

 

[BlackVision]

#2 That is VERY easy. It is a matter of record, is all over the internet and was previously posted here by another member.

Since the publication, the evidence has only gotten stronger with newer publications. The fact that opponents can only argue points that the Bell Curve debunks in advance in anticipation of what opponents will argue, shows how weak the case against the Bell Curve is.

#3 Since I only stated that coloreds could not drink from white fountains, the burden of proof that asians were also not considered white and not allowed to drink, is on you.

"Whites Only" Perhaps I should buy you a dictionary so you can learn what "whites" is referring to and what "only" means.

 

[BlackVision]

I don't think that the assertion that different human races have different cognitive abilities and personalities is really that outrageous. I read two popular books about intelligence. The first one was "The Bell Curve: Intelligence and Class Structure in American Life" by Charles Murray and the late Richard Herrnstein. The second was "The Intelligence of Dogs: Canine Consciousness and Capabilities" by Stanley Coren. Both books were best sellers in 1994 and both books were heavily reviewed in magazines and newspapers. I retrieved about 200 pages of commentary from newspapers and magazines via an online database to see how the media would review "The Bell Curve." The primary means used to rebut its research results was to dismiss heredity as the cause for the differences in the IQ scores of people. Over and over again it was pointed out, "if only the disadvantaged had the same upbringing as the privileged they would also score high on IQ tests." It was obvious to me that dogma could not allow honest research about the differences in IQ. The social agenda for promoting the equality of condition over the past 30 years would be in jeopardy. At any cost to open scholarly debate, the results of "The Bell Curve" must be refuted by any means available. To me, the acceptance that IQ was inherited was so commonly accepted by the public and academicians alike, how could this serious work be so robustly and virulently attacked and still become a best seller?

With some similarities, "The Intelligence of Dogs" was reviewed with trepidation, not wanting to learn that "my dog" was not rated as intelligent. Like humans, dogs all belong to the same species. Different breeds were developed by selecting the desired attributes of a dog and breeding like dogs together, always keeping a perfect archetypical prototype in mind of the desired goal. Humans do not practice overt eugenics (breeding), but we know that the brains of canines and humans have the same structure and the rules of genetics are the same. Humans practice assortative mating, and studies going back to the 1940's show that IQs of spouses correlate powerfully. That is, like people marry. In general, the smart marry the smart, especially since the advent of the birth control pill, universal higher education, and increased mobility.

In stark contrast, "The Intelligence of Dogs" reviewers totally and completely bought into the concept that the difference between the intelligence of different breeds was heredity, not the environment that the dog was raised in. The book listed the Border collie as the most intelligent (a working dog) and the Afghan hound the least intelligent (the pampered pet of choice for the elite rich). Without a single dissention or even a glimmer of doubt the wide gaps in intelligence between breeds of dogs was readily accepted. Not one critic wrote that if only the Afghan had the right social economic opportunity as the typical Border collie, it too could be smart. Maybe those rich folks and all that pampering makes them stupid. Not once did I read that "a dog's home, neighborhood, training, duties-- the sum of the dog's life experiences -- are equally if not more important than heredity." Not once did I read "if environment plays a role of anywhere from 20 percent to 50 percent in determining a dog's brainpower, such factors as adequate nutrition, stable family life, a moral life and a safe community to grow up in might make the crucial difference that ensures a dog will have a productive adulthood." Not once did I read "No such group genetic comparisons can be fair until Afghans and Border collies grow up in comparable environments for several generations." Not once did I read "Coren makes no effort to measure or quantify or assess the powerful role of environment or to consider how it can mitigate their grim predictions of underclass disaster for the poor Afghans."

Excellent points. It shows that the arguments that the differences are PURELY environmental is driven by political motives rather than science.

 

[Monique]

ten new pages in the few hours? why?

I guess the next topic of discussion will be that people with red hair and freckles are nerds?

 

[iansmith]

To BV:

Canada has a history of slavery.
http://www.bccns.com/history_slavery.html


To Bobf:

Needs drive progresses. People migrating to europe and asia had different needs than those of africa. These needs had to be fufullied.
Also I know a few african, and from talking to them I get the impression that intellectual persute is not encourage as it is in westernized countries. Culture also drives advances. Europe did not have many advance for centuries due to christian religion.
Anything that Chroot said has been also put foward by anthropologist and historian.

 

[NoahAfrican]

I do not think that one can take a point in time in the temporal continuum…see what race or region is more technologically advanced, then therefore conclude that that race is superior. This is what some people are alluding or stating when they juxtapose the technological advancement with Africa, with that of Europe.

If such reasoning were valid, one would then ask the question of why and how the Egyptians were so advanced, while the Aryan whites of Europe were living very primitive conditions. The Egyptians were not white like Europeans. Egypt is on the African Continent, although the people were not what we would consider Negroes either. But that is beside the point. If these people were much superior at a point in time, why are not they leading the world today? Thus, I believe this shows to any objective person that who is in front at a point in time in history does not prove an racial superiority.

Also, advancement is like stair steps. One step allows access to the others. The industrial revolution was a step up taken by Europeans, from the steps created in the past by others. Civilization started in Mesopotamia. The Egyptians then advanced humanity. When Egypt fell, the conquerors inherited what Egypt had learned. Then Greece became the power and advanced the knowledge of the Egyptians. Then the Romans Advanced the knowledge built from the Greeks. Then the Barbarians (I wonder what their SES levels were) invasion destroyed Rome, which opened up the era for the domination of Western Europe, who inherited all this knowledge from previous empires.

Trade, militarism and exploitation levels has most often been the conduit to advancement. Trade routes did not develop into the African interior until relatively recently in human history. Africa was not on or in the path of warring and competing empires, or the major trade routs. The Arab slave traders made some roots into East and Northern Black Africa, looking only for slaves.

Also, we must remain cognizant that necessity is the mother of invention. The fact that Africa did not advance to the same degree is likely because they had no pressing need to. One must remember that Africans have been around, according to anthropologist, longer than any other humans, because it is believed that Africa is where humans began. Obviously the black African was doing something right…because we are still here and still growing.

I had to burst some bubbles, however, in NATURE, the only measure of success is in a species or lifes ability to perpetuate its existence via its bloodline. THATS IT. That is the second most prime diretive of all life, behind only survival. That is the ultimate goal of all life and the ultimate measure of success in nature...by those standards...Africans have always been successful, despite disease, famine, droughts, wars, slavery, colonizaition...and we are still growing in numbers.

 

[Nereid]

agriculture, technology, industrial revolution

The transition to 'agriculture' (includes animal husbandry) appears to have happened at least four times in the 'life' of Homo sap. - the 'middle east' (modern day Turkey? Israel?), the 'east' (China), New Guinea, and 'meso-America' (modern day Belize/Mexico/?). Each may have been independent, but there seems to be no way to test that, in principle, today.

The factors that lead to agriculture have been a topic of much research; Jared Diamond's book (Guns, Germs, and Steel) is a good introduction. How technology developed is also a very rich topic of research, particularly why it followed such different paths in China and Europe.

The idea that the 'wealth of nations' is due to the average IQ of the locals is perhaps best argued in Lynn and Vanhanen (sp?)'s book of the same name. That book was the subject of a long thread here on PF some time ago; L+H's thesis doesn't stand up to much scrutiny.

jammieg said it well:

[...] I do have a deepening suspicion that genes play a very small part in differences, maybe it was even the age of reason that sparked the industrial revolution, maybe it was having this strong belief that reason would get us there which is just some very elementary ways of thinking which anyone can do and pulled others out of the dark ages and it is more a communication of good or bad philosophies that lead to progress or disparities than anything else.

Genes and the environment played a huge part in much of Homo sap.'s life on Earth, but as far as the research so far indicates, it was genes for darkening skin in regions with more UV, and lightning it in those with less; genes that conferred evolutionary advantage in places where malaria was (and still is) rife; genes that encouraged overeating (to use a quite inaccurate shorthand) where food was feast or famine; and so on.

 

[Nereid]

The Bell Curve is confirmed by countless psychologists.

Mainstream Science on Intelligence

published in The Wall Street Journal, December 13, 1994

Since the publication of "The Bell Curve," many commentators have offered opinions about human intelligence that misstate current scientific evidence. Some conclusions [25 listed below] dismissed in the media as discredited are actually firmly supported.

This statement outlines conclusions regarded as mainstream among researchers on intelligence, in particular, on the nature, origins, and practical consequences of individual and group differences in intelligence. Its aim is to promote more reasoned discussion of the vexing phenomenon that the research has revealed in recent decades. The following conclusions are fully described in the major textbooks, professional journals and encyclopedias in intelligence.

The Meaning and Measurement of Intelligence

1) Intelligence is a very general mental capability that, among other things, involves the ability to reason, plan, solve problems, think abstractly, comprehend complex ideas, learn quickly and learn from experience. It is not merely book learning, a narrow academic skill, or test-taking smarts. Rather, it reflects a broader and deeper capability for comprehending our surroundings-"catching on," "making sense" of things, or "figuring out" what to do.

[...]

We've discussed this at great length earlier in PF BV. My conclusion was that as Jensen - perhaps the best scientist pursuing the hereditability of the g-factor idea - was quite clear that his conclusions had applicability only in the US, generalisation to the other ~95% of Homo sap. is a pretty tall order.

Besides, there appear to be some very basic flaws in the thesis. To take one example: Thesis: 'in the US, whites have an average IQ that is ~15 points higher than blacks. this difference is due to the different genotypes of the Negroid/African race and the Caucasian/European race'. For starters, there is only the flimsiest genetic basis to the categories Negroid, Caucasian, American Indian, etc - if the category distinctions are genetic distance between population groups, then there are either two (African and non-African), or three (African, Australian, X), etc - i.e. based on genetic distance, there are many groups within African that are further apart than (say) Asian and American Indian, or European and Indian. So, the US blacks have not just two 'racial backgrounds' (African and European) but many (African1, African2, African3, European) ... and that's not even considering this group's 'American Indian' background.

Next, there are regional differences within the US - those who call themselves black in the northeast (?) are ~40% white (on average), those in the south ~10% (according to Jensen; others give different %ages, but everyone seems to agree that these regional differences exist). However, AFAIK, the 15 point IQ difference applies nationally in the US; further, the distributions are reported to be gaussian. It would be good fun to see if a genotype-based model could be created that matched these data.

 

[Nereid]

added "than a man of lower intelligence"

Hmm Evo is still playing dodgeball. Many if I repeat it several times in a row, she'll finally notice it.

Do you believe a person with higher intelligence will have higher probability to have a job that will give him higher SES?

Do you believe a person with higher intelligence will have higher probability to have a job that will give him higher SES?

Do you believe a person with higher intelligence will have higher probability to have a job that will give him higher SES?

Do you believe a person with higher intelligence will have higher probability to have a job that will give him higher SES?

Do you believe a person with higher intelligence will have higher probability to have a job that will give him higher SES?

Do you believe a person with higher intelligence will have higher probability to have a job that will give him higher SES?

Do you believe a person with higher intelligence will have higher probability to have a job that will give him higher SES?

Do you believe a person with higher intelligence will have higher probability to have a job that will give him higher SES?

Do you believe a person with higher intelligence will have higher probability to have a job that will give him higher SES?

There may be some evidence to support your thesis BV, for some groups of people living in the US in the second half of the 20th century. However, it is clearly not the case for the majority of Homo sap - a woman with high intelligence has a far lower probability of having a job that will give her a higher SES than a man of lower intelligence, in many countries where Islam is the predominent religion for example. In most human societies for the past few thousand years at least, the social status of the family into which you were born was far more important than your intelligence.

 

[BlackVision]

To BV:

Canada has a history of slavery.
http://www.bccns.com/history_slavery.html

I realize that but Canada abolished slavery much before it was abolished in America. Canada became a place American slaves would attempt to run to for freedom during the 1800s.

 

[BlackVision]

There may be some evidence to support your thesis BV, for some groups of people living in the US in the second half of the 20th century.

Thank you which Evo's article did not take into consideration meaning the method they used was flawed.

In most human societies for the past few thousand years at least, the social status of the family into which you were born was far more important than your intelligence.

Possibly. But the only thing I was trying to point out was that with everything else being equal, higher intelligence will give an individual more opportunities to be in higher SES than a person with lower intelligence.

 

[BlackVision]

ten new pages in the few hours? why??

Yeah. This thread will surpass "Homicide Statistics by Race & Gender" in number of posts in the imminent future.

 

[Nereid]

In most human societies for the past few thousand years at least, the social status of the family into which you were born was far more important than your intelligence.

Possibly. But the only thing I was trying to point out was that with everything else being equal, higher intelligence will give an individual more opportunities to be in higher SES than a person with lower intelligence.

For this to have relevance, you also need to show that intelligence is a significant factor, not just any old factor. As I said, for the overwhelming majority of humans, intelligence is clearly NOT the most important factor (my guess is the most important would be sex/gender), and even in the US today, I wouldn't be at all surprised to learn that class (as appropriately defined sociologically) and English language fluency are more important.

 

[BlackVision]

For this to have relevance, you also need to show that intelligence is a significant factor, not just any old factor. As I said, for the overwhelming majority of humans, intelligence is clearly NOT the most important factor (my guess is the most important would be sex/gender), and even in the US today, I wouldn't be at all surprised to learn that class (as appropriately defined sociologically) and English language fluency are more important.

I'm not going to get into an argument of just how big of a factor intelligence is because it is irrelevant to the debate. The point is that it is a factor. A factor that Evo's article did not take into consideration when crunching their data.

 

[russ_watters]

ten new pages in the few hours? why?

I guess the next topic of discussion will be that people with red hair and freckles are nerds?

Warren, Evo: I admire your stamina - and patience.

 

[Nereid]

I'm not going to get into an argument of just how big of a factor intelligence is because it is irrelevant to the debate. The point is that it is a factor. A factor that Evo's article did not take into consideration when crunching their data.

And

Thank you which Evo's article did not take into consideration meaning the method they used was flawed.

Can you please confirm that "Evo's article" is this?

If so, I confess to being confused by your comment BV, how is 'a person with higher intelligence will have higher probability to have a job that will give him higher SES' (in modern US society; assume it's consistent with research results for the moment) relevant to the study which Evo referenced? In particular, how is the study's method flawed by not taking this into consideration?

Seems to me that, without knowing the details of the models Turkheimer et al used, there's no way to make your 'flawed study' claim.

 

[plus]

If such reasoning were valid, one would then ask the question of why and how the Egyptians were so advanced, while the Aryan whites of Europe were living very primitive conditions. The Egyptians were not white like Europeans. Egypt is on the African Continent, although the people were not what we would consider Negroes either. But that is beside the point. If these people were much superior at a point in time, why are not they leading the world today?

The race of the Egyptians at that time is the subject of much disagreement. There are Egyptian mummies with red hair, and the paintings show some people white and some black, and some brown. The racial make up of Egypt has changed very much since the ancient civilisation due to immigration firstly of people attracted to living in the civilisation and the second wave was due to islam in the 6th century. The original Egyptians may likely have been white mediterranean, but they were certainly not pure black.

Also, we must remain cognizant that necessity is the mother of invention. The fact that Africa did not advance to the same degree is likely because they had no pressing need to. One must remember that Africans have been around, according to anthropologist, longer than any other humans, because it is believed that Africa is where humans began. Obviously the black African was doing something right…because we are still here and still growing.

Yes. There was usually much food in africa, so evolution selected in other ways than for europeans and asians. Humanity probably began in africa, but the black african evolved alongside the other peoples and not before them.

Africans have always been successful, despite disease, famine, droughts, wars, slavery, colonizaition...and we are still growing in numbers.

The fact is that all traditional races will become extinct through interbreeding. Black africans included. I do not know why you are so proud about the growing numbers. Although I agree that due to the high birth rate of the black africans the future DNA components of the average future human will contain huge amounts of black DNA.
Evolution is not happening anymore. Most humans survive, and the one who has the most offspring is the one who chooses to.

 

[Evo]

Evolution is not happening anymore.

That's news to me. When did evolution stop?

Warren, Evo: I admire your stamina - and patience.

I need to get a life. Just me and my cat at night.

 

[Monique]

That's news to me. When did evolution stop?

In civilized areas it stopped, since everyone gets a chance to reproduce.. it would be a degenerate evolution. But ofcourse, now with the mobilization of populations you get a lot of interbreeding.. which is also a kind of evolution?

 

[Evo]

In civilized areas it stopped, since everyone gets a chance to reproduce.. it would be a degenerate evolution. But ofcourse, now with the mobilization of populations you get a lot of interbreeding.. which is also a kind of evolution?

I guess there would be more interbreeding in civilized areas, so, hmmm, you're right, I will have to think about that some more.

 

[loseyourname]

How does intelligence play into the advancement of technology? Are you suggesting that it doesn't? Why do you think white europeans stumbled into the Industrial Revolution?

Consider the landscape of most of Africa. There a few places along the Mediterranean coast and Nile Delta where we might expect advanced civilizations to develop, but that isn't the case with most of the continent. The deserts can't sustain anything but small groups of nomads, the savannahs suffer from heavy predation, and the rainforests are filled with large trees and undergrowth. None of these biomes are conducive to the development of agriculture and the building of cities. Europe, in contrast, is loaded with great port cities and fertile farmland.

 

[NoahAfrican]

I do not think that you have established that the race of people who existed in Egypt does not exist today. There early dynasties of Egypt has much Nubian influence. Thus, accepting racial intermixing with the black nubians in Egypt, should therefore produce an inferior state of Egypt relative to the pure white Ayrans of the Caucuses during that same period. However, that was NOT the case.

Even to make my poing more, What about the greeks? Why are not the greeks leading the world today in advancement and science like they once did? Even more puzzling is why the Asian populations, who median IQ's are above whites. WHy did not they create the industrial revolution? Why do not they create most of the patents and inventions today? I am sure you will say that it is their political construct, but what does the political construct have to do with intelligence? Maybe it is the cultural and political constructs of Africa that kept them from advancing too...NO, it has to be their lack of intellect relative to whites and others.

 

[loseyourname]

I think it's also important to remember that the landscape of Europe is more conducive to large scale warfare. The initial civilizations that developed there were subject to a great deal of pressure from warring outsiders, and a good deal of the innovation and invention that came out of Europe was originally of a military nature. Another factor is resources. There isn't a whole lot of steel and gunpowder and such found in Africa, whereas there is in Europe. There is some, but it is not abundant as it is in Europe. Don't forget wood, too. The forests in Europe are a lot easier to clear for lumber than the rainforests in Africa are.

 

[russ_watters]

My world history course in high school had a discussion on why it didn't happen in China first. They had high population density, advanced technology, and a fertile environment. I think freedom (via culture) has something to do with it. Chinese culture was highly developed technologically, but they didn't have the cultural or technical revolutions that the west saw due to a highly structured society.

 

[bobf]

I think it's also important to remember that the landscape of Europe is more conducive to large scale warfare. The initial civilizations that developed there were subject to a great deal of pressure from warring outsiders, and a good deal of the innovation and invention that came out of Europe was originally of a military nature. Another factor is resources. There isn't a whole lot of steel and gunpowder and such found in Africa, whereas there is in Europe. There is some, but it is not abundant as it is in Europe. Don't forget wood, too. The forests in Europe are a lot easier to clear for lumber than the rainforests in Africa are.

Are you suggesting that african tribes did not engage in warfare? Didn't Europeans conquer some parts of Africa? Why didn't the Africans feel the need to develop ways of protecting themselves from Europeans? Can you supply some links or evidence that Africa lacks steel, gunpowder, etc? Also, what resources are rich in Africa? I hear Africa is rich with Diamonds, why didn't they engage in trade like other countries? Look at Japan, they have no resources, yet they have been every productive and are technologically advanced. How was Japan able to become technologically advanced since they lacked many, many resources.

 

[bobf]

According to this site, it looks like Africa does have a lot of natural resources:

http://www.courses.psu.edu/aaa_s/aaa_s110_tah/AFIM/Jpegs/NR_C.jpg

http://www.courses.psu.edu/aaa_s/aaa_s110_tah/AFIM/Main_HTML/NR_N.html

There are plenty more maps on that site of natural resources in Africa. With that information, I am not sure we can say that their lack of technological advances was due to a lack of natural resources.

And according to this map, they have many different types of vegetation and climates:

http://www.courses.psu.edu/aaa_s/aaa_s110_tah/AFIM/Main_HTML/M_NV.html

 

[Dagenais]

I realize that but Canada abolished slavery much before it was abolished in America. Canada became a place American slaves would attempt to run to for freedom during the 1800s.

Even before it was abolished, died out by itself. It wasn't very popular and had no economic gains. A lot of the slaves were Indians too. And slavery was highly popular in Native American culture.

Plus, they weren't exactly slaves, but more domestic servants (if there is a difference), according to the article.

Even more puzzling is why the Asian populations, who median IQ's are above whites. WHy did not they create the industrial revolution? Why do not they create most of the patents and inventions today?

The Chinese have created http://www.inventions.org/culture/asian/chinese.html. Chinese philosophy, like Greek, is well-known world wide. China has it's fair share of great people, great inventors, and philosophers. All of this under a monarchies and wars.

China is 1 of the 3 Countries that have successfully landed on the moon AFAIK. They have a strong space program, though nowhere near America's, still something other Countries would be proud to have. The next 100 years, China will get even stronger.

 

[loseyourname]

Are you suggesting that african tribes did not engage in warfare? Didn't Europeans conquer some parts of Africa?

My point was that warfare in Africa was between small tribes, because that was all that capable of existing in many parts of the continent. In Europe, large nations existed with greater population density and large, organized militaries. Tribal warfare does not require technology, military warfare does.

Why didn't the Africans feel the need to develop ways of protecting themselves from Europeans?

By the time Europeans did attack, they already had better technology. You can't fault them for losing a battle that was already stacked against them.

Can you supply some links or evidence that Africa lacks steel, gunpowder, etc? Also, what resources are rich in Africa? I hear Africa is rich with Diamonds, why didn't they engage in trade like other countries?

Diamonds aren't a usable industrial resource. The industrial revolution was built largely on two things - the development of steel and the development of the steam engine. The steam engine was developed by necessity because of the many navigable rivers in Europe. Africa does not have as many easily navigable rivers. Even Europeans, when they did go into Africa, had a great deal of difficulty making their way down the Congo. In regards to steel, I know that Africa today only accounts for 2% of worldwide steel production. Another thing that facilitated the industrial revolution was the quickening of lines of communication. Africa is more difficult to traverse than Europe and North America.

Look at Japan, they have no resources, yet they have been every productive and are technologically advanced. How was Japan able to become technologically advanced since they lacked many, many resources.

Japan does not face the geographic difficulties that Africa does in terms of unfavorable terrain and low population density. Furthermore, Japan became advanced long after the industrial revolution, largely due to help from the US after WWII. Either way, we are talking about the development of civilization and technology, both of which began thousands of years ago.

According to this site, it looks like Africa does have a lot of natural resources:

Those are resources that must be mined. Don't forget that Central Africa is a rainforest that must be cleared before mining can be undertaken. The ability to unearth these resources requires technology that could not have been developed in a rainforest.

And according to this map, they have many different types of vegetation and climates:

The only two regions marked here that would be conducive to agriculture without first clearing a great deal of forest are the Mediterranean region in the North and Temperate Grassland region far to the south. Most of the continent is not.

 

[NoahAfrican]

Slavery was unprofitable. Geeez….you think it took them 300 years to figure that out? In actually, the industrial revolution eroded the agrarian era to the degree that investments in industry had greater returns than investment in agriculture. Thus, slavery, an agrarian based phenomenon in the west, eroded in profitability in comparison.

 

[BlackVision]

If so, I confess to being confused by your comment BV, how is 'a person with higher intelligence will have higher probability to have a job that will give him higher SES' (in modern US society; assume it's consistent with research results for the moment) relevant to the study which Evo referenced?

Because many if not most people in high SES got there due to their high intelligence.

In particular, how is the study's method flawed by not taking this into consideration?

Because you can't directly cross SES without taking into consideration that a person's probability to be in high SES is increased with higher intelligence. It would be like crossing college graduates with non college graduates and going, "see college graduates have a higher IQ by 10 points." Which will probably end up to be true, but attempting to argue that it's because that person went to college that he has an IQ surplus rather than the fact that it's his intelligence that got him to college. It working backwards.

 

[BlackVision]

The race of the Egyptians at that time is the subject of much disagreement. There are Egyptian mummies with red hair, and the paintings show some people white and some black, and some brown. The racial make up of Egypt has changed very much since the ancient civilisation due to immigration firstly of people attracted to living in the civilisation and the second wave was due to islam in the 6th century. The original Egyptians may likely have been white mediterranean, but they were certainly not pure black.

Egyptians are considered part of the Caucasian race. As is the rest of Northern Africa. They're likely to have some African ancestry but genetic tests show they lean more toward Caucasian.

 

[BlackVision]

That's news to me. When did evolution stop?

Evolution never stops. It does slow down considerably like it has for humans though due to excessively low mortality rates that humans have due to modern civilization.

 

[BlackVision]

Japan does not face the geographic difficulties that Africa does in terms of unfavorable terrain

You're kidding me right? Japan is all mountains. Something like 90% of the land is unliveable. It was an extraordinarily rough terrain to travel through back in the days.