Why is African so poverty stricken?

[Ten oz]

The OP is accurate, the reasons are many, and a lot of them have been brought up by various members.

All of the reasons are due to circumstances, current and past.

None of them are biological.

 

So why do we always descend into accusations of racism or racially motivated arguments ?

 

And I also find it amusing to blame 'bad' decisions on the ratio of testosterone to estrogen.

It has served well for millions of years to ensure our survival.

Would you say that the bad decisions made by Neville Chamberlain to appease A Hitler were due to a higher ratio of estrogen to testosterone ?

Because that would be equally wrong !

Genocide of native populations, worldwide history of slavery, holocaust, and most recently ethnic cleansing killing millions; racism has shaped history. Directly behind competition for resources racism is the next largest reason for war and opression throughout history.

[CharonY]

The OP is accurate, the reasons are many, and a lot of them have been brought up by various members.

All of the reasons are due to circumstances, current and past.

None of them are biological.

 

So why do we always descend into accusations of racism or racially motivated arguments ?

 

 

 

Not sure whether that was alluding to my post, but I'd like to clarify that I am not saying OP is racist (or the follow-up for that matter), but that the argument of testosterone has been popularized in racist contexts which is why it has become so prevalent. I.e. it is one of the stories where in common discourse its assumed validity far outstrips the actual evidence. After all, the only conclusion one would have to draw is that we should be all exclusively governed by women (which is an argument that is very rarely made).

[Ten oz]

 

Not sure whether that was alluding to my post, but I'd like to clarify that I am not saying OP is racist (or the follow-up for that matter), but that the argument of testosterone has been popularized in racist contexts which is why it has become so prevalent. I.e. it is one of the stories where in common discourse its assumed validity far outstrips the actual evidence. After all, the only conclusion one would have to draw is that we should be all exclusively governed by women (which is an argument that is very rarely made).

I think the OP is racist. It is literally asking if specific groups of people are inferior and less intelligent than others. They are even tapping into the usual suspects of stereotypes. As with most racist theories it fails to look at people as individuals. There are countless examples of people from every corner of the global exhibiting supperior intelligence. Instead the OP attempts to just lump groups together which ignores that any individual human can be very intelligent or not.

 

As for the testosterone thing the question, it isn't nearly specific enough. Levels change throughout everyones life. Levels even change throughout the day.

[CharonY]

I would say that that OP has assumptions that are drawn from (largely) the same pool that racists are drawing from. However, without further evidence it is quite possible that is entirely based on ignorance, leading to baseless speculations rather than ideology-driven.

Of course, the issue of stereotype vs individual assessment is a huge issue for any group (not necessarily restricted to racial stereotypes, of course) which is the consequence of even further extrapolation of potentially small effects.

 

I think the high level answer in these situations should be that the assumptions are too simplified and as such do not make a lot of sense. To some degree aspects, especially blatantly false ones, can be discussed fairly easily. However, it is often difficult to convey the limited conclusions that can be drawn from population studies and in many case experts that have devoted decades of their life into this matter still struggle to provide explanations. As such it does not surprise me if people balance silly theories on top of weak assumptions. After all, the board is full of those. What is correct to point out, however, is the path that those speculations could lead into, which may include the (intentionally or not) validation of racist talking points.

[MigL]

You're gonna have to make a better argument than that Ten oz...

The OP does not ask THAT question ( although ultimate intent may be that ).

It asks why a certain group of people is disadvantaged.

And we can either discuss it and search for answers, or jump to conclusions, accuse the OP of being racist, and proceed to ignore the situation thereby ensuring that a group of people continues to be disadvantaged.

 

Enjoyed the Clint Eastwood references, Andy.

[Handy andy]

To state a particular person or group of diverse individuals are smarter and faster than another group is not racist. What is racist is when a particular race claims supremacy over another group based on racial grounds. Politically this is dangerous to do this as was demonstrated by Nazi Germany.

Edited May 13, 2017 by Handy andy

[CharonY]

To state a particular person or group of diverse individuals are smarter and faster than another group is not racist. What is racist is when a particular race claims supremacy over another group based on racial grounds. Politically this is dangerous to do this as was demonstrated by Nazi Germany.

 

I disagree. This is racial supremacy and a high mark of racism, but I believe that the beginnings are found elsewhere. At the core of racism is stripping way individualism and replacing it with racial stereotypes that are assumed to be inherent (i.e. non-changeable) for that particular group. As a consequence, the individual will get judged by what is assumed to be a property of his/her race.

For example, assuming that there are differences in testosterone levels (disregarding whether true or not), is in itself not racist. However, if we start extrapolating it will get iffy. What is often assumed based on the hormonal levels is that black folks are therefore inherently more physical. And while potentially formulated somewhat neutral, it already leads to a further set of assumptions, including, they could be more dangerous, or less intellectual etc. Another example is for example differences in incarceration. The statistic itself is of course not racist. But the assumption that the data proves that certain groups are inherently more criminal because of there ethnicity is.

 

 

I believe that these types of stereotyping and assumptions pertain more to everyday experience of disparity than the out and out racial superiority claims. Unfortunately we do not have a good nomenclature to my knowledge) to distinguish these subtle differences (like racism in the second degree?) which make people judge racist actions on the somewhat rare overt form and thereby often overlooking or dismissing the more common subtle forms.

Edited May 13, 2017 by CharonY

[Handy andy]

 

I disagree. This is racial supremacy and a high mark of racism, but I believe that the beginnings are found elsewhere. At the core of racism is stripping way individualism and replacing it with racial stereotypes that are assumed to be inherent (i.e. non-changeable) for that particular group. As a consequence, the individual will get judged by what is assumed to be a property of his/her race.

For example, assuming that there are differences in testosterone levels (disregarding whether true or not), is in itself not racist. However, if we start extrapolating it will get iffy. What is often assumed based on the hormonal levels is that black folks are therefore inherently more physical. And while potentially formulated somewhat neutral, it already leads to a further set of assumptions, including, they could be more dangerous, or less intellectual etc. Another example is for example differences in incarceration. The statistic itself is of course not racist. But the assumption that the data proves that certain groups are inherently more criminal because of there ethnicity is.

 

 

I believe that these types of stereotyping and assumptions pertain more to everyday experience of disparity than the out and out racial superiority claims. Unfortunately we do not have a good nomenclature to my knowledge) to distinguish these subtle differences (like racism in the second degree?) which make people judge racist actions on the somewhat rare overt form and thereby often overlooking or dismissing the more common subtle forms.

 

Peoples prejudices are often based on a very narrow sample of humanity or are taught by the social group people find them selves in.

 

It is easy for people in positions of privilege to look down on those not as well placed in society, and come up with nonsense ref how much more smarter they must be, or how if those living in poverty could be in the same position as them if only they weren't so lazy etc.

 

With regard to prejudice, why on earth would any one want everyone to behave the same way. If all cultures conformed to a norm, who is to set that norm. Which culture would anyone say is superior. Is any society massively superior to another? Would any one regard extreme religiosity to be good? Would anyone regard moderate religiosity to be bad? which political norm would people say is the best etc. To impose a system on people assumed to be inferior or corrupt, could be regarded as racist also.

 

Is the problem people have with Africa stereotypes promoted by the media ref the level of violence and poverty. How many have been to Africa, it is not all bad. There are a lot of happy Africans.

[Ten oz]

To state a particular person or group of diverse individuals are smarter and faster than another group is not racist. What is racist is when a particular race claims supremacy over another group based on racial grounds. Politically this is dangerous to do this as was demonstrated by Nazi Germany.

The OP isn't referencing "a particular person". The OP is referencing continents. Asking if people in Africa are inferior to people in East-Asia.

[Lord Antares]

The OP isn't referencing "a particular person". The OP is referencing continents. Asking if people in Africa are inferior to people in East-Asia.

 

And how is that racist?

 

You would have to define ''superior''. He asked if one group was more intelligent than another. According to various researches and statistics, the average IQ differs from country to country, therefore in some countries the ''average Joe'' is more intelligent than in other countries.

 

It's not racist to ask that question, especially if it seems to be supported by statistics. Now you could argue that if the life standards of the two countries compared were switched, the IQ difference would be switched in the other's favour. Perhaps, but the general point is that there is a difference in average intelligence between countries and even continents differ. As far as I've seen, he hasn't escalated the issue into a more ''racist'' one.

[Ten oz]

 

And how is that racist?

 

You would have to define ''superior''. He asked if one group was more intelligent than another. According to various researches and statistics, the average IQ differs from country to country, therefore in some countries the ''average Joe'' is more intelligent than in other countries.

 

It's not racist to ask that question, especially if it seems to be supported by statistics. Now you could argue that if the life standards of the two countries compared were switched, the IQ difference would be switched in the other's favour. Perhaps, but the general point is that there is a difference in average intelligence between countries and even continents differ. As far as I've seen, he hasn't escalated the issue into a more ''racist'' one.

Racist

noun

noun: racist; plural noun: racists

1.

a person who shows or feels discrimination or prejudice against people of other races, or who believes that a particular race is superior to another.

In the OP enthnic groups are referenced and the question is asked what the difference between race and ethnicity which means implies the OP is using them interchangeable. Saying one race is superior to another, by the very definition of the word, is racist. The OP does ask questions but also makes it clear East-Asia is their perceived superior group and Africans are their perceived most inferior.

There is nothing racist about asking why is Africa so poverty stricken. Asking if the reason Africa is so poverty stricken is because Africans are inferior is.

[Strange]

It is also slightly problematic asking about Africa as a single entity. It is a hugely diverse continent in terms of language, culture, ethnicity, wealth, health and ... well, pretty much everything, really.

Edited May 13, 2017 by Strange

[Handy andy]

It is also slightly problematic asking about Africa as a single entity. It is a hugely diverse continent in terms of language, culture, ethnicity, wealth, health and ... well, pretty much everything, really.

 

Yep its a huge topic to discuss, it is incredibly diverse continent incorporating many cultures.

 

Perhaps simplifying the discussion to a small number of the countries in Africa might simplify the discussion, If people familiarise themselves with a map and locate where Africa is, then note how many countries and climates it has etc.

 

Would exploring or defining acceptable ways forward for the peoples living in regions of Africa might be interesting. How do we break the chain of history religion culture etc holding some areas back. Shrugging shoulders and stating TIA is not helpful. (This Is Africa)

 

Dessert areas could be irrigated, solar power could be harvested, electricity could be exported, education standards could be raised, people would need training to maintain the new technology etc To do this over the entire continent would be expensive, could a small area in the corner of a country be developed to show the rest of Africa how it is done.

Edited May 14, 2017 by Handy andy

[Strange]

The most important thing (shown repeatedly in many countries) is to encourage education, especially of women. You also need good governments that are willing to invest in infrastructure and essential services (health, education, clean water, etc).

[Ten oz]

The most important thing (shown repeatedly in many countries) is to encourage education, especially of women. You also need good governments that are willing to invest in infrastructure and essential services (health, education, clean water, etc).

External forces matter a great deal too. Being well educated in Syria at the moment with U.S., Russian, Turkey, ISIS, Kurds, and etc blistering the landscape with atillery has it limits. Some population have been more greatly exploited than others. History matters. Rome wasn't built in a day. Asking why parts of Africa are so poverty stricten is a bit like asking why people in Africa haven't cleaned up the mess left by so many other nations around the world yet. Yes, the mess does need to be cleaned and ultimately no people have a greater stake in cleaning it that the African people, but things take time.

[CharonY]

 

Perhaps simplifying the discussion to a small number of the countries in Africa might simplify the discussion, If people familiarise themselves with a map and locate where Africa is, then note how many countries and climates it has etc.

 

 

 

 

It would require far more than that. To have a real discussion we would need to devote significant amount of time to delve into the history of the various countries and identify what happened. Considering that typically Africa is mostly only discussed in school as a product of colonialism, we all have a very limited and most likely skewed view on it. Take Botswana, for example. It is a country with some of the largest sustained economic growth (in the world) since its independence. Its GDP per capita is roughly that of Montenegro, and higher than Serbia (or China).

One could speculate that it is because of the diamond mines (with all the issue that it may carry). However, other countries also have resources and had more troubles. Another thing of note is that it has very low corruption rates. Its Corruption Perception Index is just slightly lower than Portugal and Poland, but higher than Spain, Czech Republic or South Korea, for example.

 

So clearly it is in a different place than what OP had probably in mind. But to answer the question of "why" one would really need to take a scholarly approach and dig deep into its history, the development of current policies (which apparently are very effective in stamping out corruption) and the reasons why it sustained good governance. It could be quite simply having the right people t the right place in the right position, or something else entirely. It could be that it was mostly a protectorate instead of a colony and had more self-governance than other nations. And so on and so forth.

 

What I am saying is that generally we know to little about Africa to be able to make meaningful assertions, which can easily drift into simplified explanations sometimes ending in rather unfortunate (and racist) conclusions. Bottom line is I need to find a good book about African history and buy me some time to read it.

[Handy andy]

 

It would require far more than that. To have a real discussion we would need to devote significant amount of time to delve into the history of the various countries and identify what happened. Considering that typically Africa is mostly only discussed in school as a product of colonialism, we all have a very limited and most likely skewed view on it. Take Botswana, for example. It is a country with some of the largest sustained economic growth (in the world) since its independence. Its GDP per capita is roughly that of Montenegro, and higher than Serbia (or China).

One could speculate that it is because of the diamond mines (with all the issue that it may carry). However, other countries also have resources and had more troubles. Another thing of note is that it has very low corruption rates. Its Corruption Perception Index is just slightly lower than Portugal and Poland, but higher than Spain, Czech Republic or South Korea, for example.

 

So clearly it is in a different place than what OP had probably in mind. But to answer the question of "why" one would really need to take a scholarly approach and dig deep into its history, the development of current policies (which apparently are very effective in stamping out corruption) and the reasons why it sustained good governance. It could be quite simply having the right people t the right place in the right position, or something else entirely. It could be that it was mostly a protectorate instead of a colony and had more self-governance than other nations. And so on and so forth.

 

What I am saying is that generally we know to little about Africa to be able to make meaningful assertions, which can easily drift into simplified explanations sometimes ending in rather unfortunate (and racist) conclusions. Bottom line is I need to find a good book about African history and buy me some time to read it.

 

Simplify it down to one village or a family group , and discuss how to raise their standard of living. If it is a none religious extremist village devoid of missionaries, it might simplify things further, and help avoid trampling over outdated belief systems or cultures that may be holding them in poverty.

 

simplify, and then build up the understanding to a larger group.

[Strange]

I don't think you can isolate a group from the larger context. Take starvation, for example. The ultimate cause is, ultimately, a failing of government.

 

Yes, you can say that the immediate cause is the lack of rainfall for 6 months, and the fact that there were no reserves of food, and the roads aren't good enough and ...

 

But why isn't there resilience in the system? Why are the population dependent on subsistence agriculture? Why isn't there a good educational system with the resulting variety of economic activity and hence jobs? Why aren't there (internal) mechanisms for providing short-term support to get over (what should be) a minor crisis before it turns into a disaster?

[CharonY]

I don't think you can isolate a group from the larger context. Take starvation, for example. The ultimate cause is, ultimately, a failing of government.

 

Yes, you can say that the immediate cause is the lack of rainfall for 6 months, and the fact that there were no reserves of food, and the roads aren't good enough and ...

 

But why isn't there resilience in the system? Why are the population dependent on subsistence agriculture? Why isn't there a good educational system with the resulting variety of economic activity and hence jobs? Why aren't there (internal) mechanisms for providing short-term support to get over (what should be) a minor crisis before it turns into a disaster?

 

Precisely. If we remove all context, decisions on the individual level are likely not to be vastly different. But, for example, the decision to put resources in subsistence farming is very likely dependent whether there is a affordable source of food. Also, you cannot extrapolate governance based on village-level decision. And also why the focus on villages and not on cities? The later are more likely to be drivers of the economy. It is like trying to figure out Chinese economics but watching farmers in remote areas (or take any Western country as example for that matter).

Then, there is a need to understand the local history. After all, a country that is facing civil war for whatever reasons has faces very different challenges. And again, the question of why it faces war will depend on a host of other variables. Specifically when talking regarding poverty, we are talking about economics. And then, just talking about the local economics is a big issue. After all, since ancient times trade has been the lifeblood of many nations and empires.

 

So if we are to understand the why, we would need to look into economics to assess current state as well as development (and OP probably underestimates the performance of some African countries. Then we have history, which outlines the rise and fall of empires, creation (and decline) of trade, border disputes, influence of imperialistic powers and later in cold war. We can look at social aspects, how the various populations interpret governance and it was eventually structured. We can look at local disasters disrupting any of these processes and so on and so forth. However, one thing to remember is that most African nations are fairly young and often drawn with rather unnatural borders. But precisely how this may have shaped those countries is likely to differ to a significant extent.

 

Overall, I'll reiterate, it is a complex subject and as with other sciences we cannot simply intuit our way through it and expect to gain insights from it.

Edited May 15, 2017 by CharonY

[Handy andy]

You can not focus on the whole of Africa as one entity, it must be broken down into chunks. Different regions and countries have different problems. Starvation in drought areas, could be managed with food distribution, or irrigation from other areas. Giving people the tools to grow their own food, enables them to feed them selves. Giving people food is only a short term solution.

 

By focusing on a small group in Africa, you will learn how you can help them. You will also learn why you will encounter resistance from some cultures, due to ancient beliefs.

 

I mentioned religious belief as a problem, I should have included superstitions also. Witch doctors are often the doctors people refer too, even in the big cities. People may also defend what they perceive their position is in their society, and will want to maintain it(Africa has royal families who own countries, see Swaziland ). You need to understand peoples to change their practices, this goes from the family group in a village to the tops of society in big cities, including corrupt politicians.

 

To argue economics is the way forward, would automatically put those at the bottom of society with no money at a disadvantage. Those that are in power holding all the resources may quite happily do as they have always done.

 

On a small scale a different kind of economy may be a way forward, if people without money could trade with labour or skills for goods in some kind of barter economy. Or Perhaps a local currency or points system could be established. Families often help each other for free, or prestige in the community in some cultures. If the resources in the community were owned collectively, all could benefit from them, the Kibutz system in Israel may be useful to look at on a small scale. Yada Yada

 

I completely agree the problem is massively complex, but would state in any complex project it should be broken down into manageable chunks, like a piece of software with subroutines including a historical knowledge database, education, support, progress, etc etc

I don't think you can isolate a group from the larger context. Take starvation, for example. The ultimate cause is, ultimately, a failing of government.

 

Yes, you can say that the immediate cause is the lack of rainfall for 6 months, and the fact that there were no reserves of food, and the roads aren't good enough and ...

 

But why isn't there resilience in the system? Why are the population dependent on subsistence agriculture? Why isn't there a good educational system with the resulting variety of economic activity and hence jobs? Why aren't there (internal) mechanisms for providing short-term support to get over (what should be) a minor crisis before it turns into a disaster?

 

The reason many good ideas fail in Africa is because of corruption at all levels of society being the accepted norm. The people in charge are corrupt and lining their own pockets and those of family members. In ZA Money for education recently was allocated to corrupt education officials to employ teachers who only existed on paper, the money disappeared.

 

The question is how to beat the corruption, or to get around it. Or just say TIA and walk away.

Edited May 15, 2017 by Handy andy

[CharonY]

I am arguing that we are unable to break it down in manageable chunks here as I do not believe that we have any members that are an expert in any African country (at least as far as I am aware of). As such we are speculating based on unknown data.

For example, you are saying that corruption is an issue. But obviously the level of corruption is vastly different in various African countries. At the same time, corruption levels are also changing with some countries who tend to be rather stable, such as Ghana have experienced an increase in corruption, whereas others saw marked improvements. So faced with all this diversity, what is the conclusion you would like to draw?

 

 

You seem to be keen on extrapolating based on.. well things that I see no obvious connections, whilst ignoring a host of other factors. Maybe try the following experiment. Describe a Western family in a context-free manner and try to contrast it with an African family (the way you see it) and explain how either leads to a given form of governance. I am curious how you will come to a conclusion that is not already determined a priori.

 

If we really just make general statements such as Africa is in bad place one would first need to figure out which countries and how badly it is, potentially in relation to others. For example, according to some measures, India is in a worse place when it comes to extreme poverty. A number of African countries are ranked as having a lower or comparable corruption level compared to some European or wealthy Asian countries. At the same time there are countries which are extremely high in corruption. While corruption does correlate with economic issues we would need to pick out specific countries to discuss this matter. But if we want to do that, we also have to look into local history. And again, a discussion (that I am fully aware that I am engaging in and probably really should stop) that is devoid of actual knowledge of data will lead precisely nowhere.

 

Also I am not sure why the focus on religion and superstition, as they are also widely present in, say, South Korea, though their standard of living is very high. So again, it s not going to lead to a satisfactory explanation. And I am not sure if you quite understand the concept of economy. It does not mean monetary possession, but rather (more generally) the presence and distribution of resources. As such, the question about poverty is essentially a question of economics, not religion or family traditions.

Edited May 15, 2017 by CharonY

[Lord Antares]

I am arguing that we are unable to break it down in manageable chunks here as I do not believe that we have any members that are an expert in any African country (at least as far as I am aware of). As such we are speculating based on unknown data.

 

...But obviously the level of corruption is vastly different in various African countries.

 

While corruption does correlate with economic issues we would need to pick out specific countries to discuss this matter.

 

 

He is making general statements. Obviously, countries in Africa differ in all of these categories, but the statement that Africa is, in general, lesser advanced, less educated and in greater economic peril than other continents is true. Which bring me to your point:

 

 

 

If we really just make general statements such as Africa is in bad place one would first need to figure out which countries and how badly it is, potentially in relation to others. For example, according to some measures, India is in a worse place when it comes to extreme poverty. A number of African countries are ranked as having a lower or comparable corruption level compared to some European or wealthy Asian countries. At the same time there are countries which are extremely high in corruption. While corruption does correlate with economic issues we would need to pick out specific countries to discuss this matter. But if we want to do that, we also have to look into local history. And again, a discussion (that I am fully aware that I am engaging in and probably really should stop) that is devoid of actual knowledge of data will lead precisely nowhere.

 

It doesn't matter if it's not the worst in ALL of those categories. It may not be the worst in a single one, but it is a bad in a greater number of categories. I know you are aware that there are issues in Africa, more notable ones than in other continents in general, so I don't see what point you are trying to make?

 

If you are saying that the OP is strictly a question of economics, and not one of genetics, race etc., then yes and no.

[CharonY]

 

 

He is making general statements. Obviously, countries in Africa differ in all of these categories, but the statement that Africa is, in general, lesser advanced, less educated and in greater economic peril than other continents is true. Which bring me to your point:

 

 

 

It doesn't matter if it's not the worst in ALL of those categories. It may not be the worst in a single one, but it is a bad in a greater number of categories. I know you are aware that there are issues in Africa, more notable ones than in other continents in general, so I don't see what point you are trying to make?

 

If you are saying that the OP is strictly a question of economics, and not one of genetics, race etc., then yes and no.

 

And this is the difficult annoying bit. It is so vague. Yes if we take the average of Africa (even if it does not make a lot of sense) it fares worse than most parts of Europe. But taking the same average it fairs better than e.g. India in some aspects. So what have we learned from it? My take is: nothing. What does it mean worse? Which metrics by how much? Is your perception actually anywhere close to reality? And while OP has asked the question, realistically why would genetics play a role (and has relatively quickly been discarded here)? How much does anyone here actually know about even a single country in Africa? Africa has faced many challenges, how did it shape each country? If at the end of the day your assertion is that they are somehow worse and require our wisdom to better themselves, then we are right at the same point where colonial superiority messed them up, in some cases really badly. Rather than asking why they are not like Europe, which had a completely different trajectory, why don't we ask why certain countries managed to become relatively successful (such as e.g. in terms of corruption and development) compared to others? What is the current trajectory? What I am saying is that the question is complex and trying to come up with explanations beyond "because colonialism" is akin to trying to discuss higher biology equipped solely with a half-hearted reading of animal farm.

 

If one is really interested, one has to go away from these generalities and start asking precise questions. One starting point could be taking a look at information portals that give a glimpse in the actual reality, rather than raw assertions. Here, for example.

[Lord Antares]

 

/cut

 

OK, there are no metrics so I cannot answer ''how much'' and ''of what'', but you cannot deny that the standards of life in Africa are good. If you want to be picky, take central Africa for example. Look at their technology, economy, infrastructure etc. and compare it with other ''several-country'' regions in the world. Maybe you can find one which is worse, but that does not refute the fact that Africa is poverty stricken.

Even better, compare the ratio of impoverished countries in Africa to any other continent. Of course, the issue is that you seek precise definitions of what it means to be impoverished. I understand that I cannot provide them to you, so we must agree on some things. For example, Europe in general is doing better than Africa in general, whatever that means. We do not have the metrics, but you agree with this statement, right?

 

 

 

If one is really interested, one has to go away from these generalities and start asking precise questions.

 

The OP did so and I don't rmember seeing it properly addressed. He asked about intelligence, the one thing we actually have metrics for.

It would seem that statistical data agrees that Africa is a place with the lowest average IQ: Some parts being substantially different from others, of course. It would also seem that the data, on average, agrees that China is the most or one of the most advanced countries in that regard.

 

He asked some more precise questions, such as

 

 

 

does being East-Asian give one a pre-disposition to being intelligent?

 

to which the answer is technically yes, right? He asked some questions about why that was so and what connection there is with disease and intelligence etc. I don't remember seeing it properly addressed.

It does follow, from statistical data, that Africans (in general) have lower IQs which is a considerable factor in demographics. What do you think about that?

 

To be clear, I'm only discussing this from an academic point of view with no agenda. It is interesting because it tends to get avoided in fear of being called a racist, but it is possible to make some technical points on the topic.

[CharonY]

Re: IQ, the measure is problematic for a lot of reasons and as the biology associated with the measure is unknown we are not really clear what the measure is really telling us something about. Considering that the debate is far from resolved answering with a clear yes or no. It is important to know that in these kind of studies it is almost impossible to control for all variables such e.g. nutritional status or education system (to name two). So no, that question can at best be answered with an unknown. Yet again, even if true, it does not explain the vast disparity and the success in at least some countries. So I advise you to be careful with such conclusions as they are based on data with incredibly little explanatory power. And of course there is the issue with drawing racial line as a biological concept to begin with (and never mind that Native Americans are typically ignored as they do not fit the narrative).

 

And let's say yes, Europe as a whole is doing better. But what is the point? Western Europe is doing better than Eastern Europe. Northern better than Southern. But obviously that was not the question, so it has to become quantitative. So for example GDP per capita (PPP) puts countries like South Africa and Bostwana roughly at the level of Baltic states. So are they more European than the rest of Africa? But even if we agree that if we take the whole continent (for what it good it may do) and just say "yep it is worse". What precisely do you think have we learned from that?

 

If you believe the lesson is that Africa is worse off because of some inherent inability to increase their economics (if we really want to drag out that silly IQ argument), then you would have to explain why some of those countries managed to pull off some of the highest growth rates in the world. Also note that China on a per capita basis based on GDP is worse off than Botswana (and are you implying that the Chinese made an IQ jump in the last decades?).

Edited May 16, 2017 by CharonY