Why is Africa stuck in the stone age?

[BADecker]

I am sick of how black people in Africa use excuses for their laziness and corruption. The evil white man didn't rob your societies blind - your leaders did. That's your fault. The evil white people didn't throw their trash in your cities - you did and still do. That's your fault. Killing each other over stupid shit is not the evil white man's fault. The white man is not obligated to take care of you.
In the thousands of years of African history only one black civilization had great acomplishments - Nubia. No other have been found. That's 5000 years of history.
Why didn't the black man colonized Europe? Because he was busy eating the black man from another tribe, sew his wife's vagina, etc barbaric rituals.
Everyone blames christianity, but it's a form of political control. Fact is - you are unable to govern yourself, and without the help of the UN, Unicef, Doctors without borders etc all African countries, incl. RSA which is hands down the strongest economy, would extinct. You have to stop using slavery as an excuse for everything. A large part of Europe was under slavery for 500 years and got free way after blacks in the US and Africa. And yet those countries are ages before you.

PS: Saying the truth isn't racism.

The nice thing about it is, you can grab your guns, and head off to Africa. There is so much freedom there, and so much poverty, that if you have a rifle and pistols (and a practical head on your shoulders), Black Africans will bow to your superiority. This isn't true everywhere, of course. And you need to watch out for dictators, and would-be dictators, but they are usually few and far between. The central countries of Africa are open to settle in, in many areas. Government there is nil in most places - Cameroon, Central African Republic, Mozambique, and others. And, the black population is friendly if you don't harm them except in self defense. In fact, they are quite open to fast justice in local, small ways.

[1715292337]

1715292337

[AllTheBitz]

Hispanic-Black =)

Maybe you (white) guys can find some vacant plots in the neighborhood of the native-american reservations to make your own reservations .

im not white

OK. Then replace "you (white) guys" with "your (white) guys" and "make your own" with "make their own". Is this OK now ?

No it's not ok. All people are alike. Better stop dividing them. This will not lead you anywhere. We all living on the same planet.

Their is a thing called subspecies you know that right?

What are you trying to say? Are you a racist?

Yes I am racist because science shows that their are different groups in our species. You are a idiot to just throw something off as racist because it doesn't agree with your agenda.

[AllTheBitz]

Are you a racist?

Only idiots (and there are lot of them in this world) conflate "scientifically verified group differences" with "unjustified discrimination". Here is some reading material for your edumacation.

http://esr.ibiblio.org/?p=142

http://esr.ibiblio.org/?p=6160

http://esr.ibiblio.org/?p=4278

Well, Jesus was black.....

Well probably more of a olive middle eastern skin color.

[BADecker]

Any racists here? Yes. Those who want to deny me and my race the right to focus on our race more than on other races.

[Spendulus]

Are you a racist?

Only idiots (and there are lot of them in this world) conflate "scientifically verified group differences" with "unjustified discrimination". Here is some reading material for your edumacation.

http://esr.ibiblio.org/?p=142

http://esr.ibiblio.org/?p=6160

http://esr.ibiblio.org/?p=4278

Well, Jesus was black.....

Well probably more of a olive middle eastern skin color.

We could agree on that.  You mean in the archaic language of the phrenological past, someone who might have been called "one of the coloreds?"  Perhaps some of those in this discussion more knowledgable and more certain of their knowledge of the history of racism might answer that?

Surely a phrenological examination of the Savior, Jesus Christ, would show what race he belonged to.  Or conversely, such examination of the races existent would show what races he could not possibly belong to?

[contagion]

Are you a racist?

Only idiots (and there are lot of them in this world) conflate "scientifically verified group differences" with "unjustified discrimination". Here is some reading material for your edumacation.

http://esr.ibiblio.org/?p=142

http://esr.ibiblio.org/?p=6160

http://esr.ibiblio.org/?p=4278

Well, Jesus was black.....

Well probably more of a olive middle eastern skin color.

We could agree on that.  You mean in the archaic language of the phrenological past, someone who might have been called "one of the coloreds?"  Perhaps some of those in this discussion more knowledgable and more certain of their knowledge of the history of racism might answer that?

Surely a phrenological examination of the Savior, Jesus Christ, would show what race he belonged to.  Or conversely, such examination of the races existent would show what races he could not possibly belong to?

You didn't introduce any counter example to the data I had linked to.

Some Jews are less white than some Europeans, yet some subgroups of Jews have the highest average IQs.

I think it is quite clear the distinction between such races the black skinned negros in Africa (perhaps other than Egypt, Ethiopia, Morocco) which have an average IQ (of 85 which is) one standard deviation below the Europeans and East Asians.

[contagion]

Evolution is not a theory. It has been proven wrong so many hundreds of times since its inception, that the only thing that keeps it in theory status is a bunch of people who are fighting against God by hoping that evolution might become a theory again. These people are hyping it so strongly that it seems to hold theory status.

All you need to do is read scientific papers, examining the evidence, not the conclusions of the authors. The evidences (which is often backed up by the authors' conclusions, though not always) show that there is no conclusive evidence for evolution that cannot be attributed at the same time to programmed-in changes do to climatic or environmental changes.

Peoples from climates with winters don't have narrower, more pointy noses to deal with the extremely cold air. Peoples from the hot tropic Savannas of Africa don't have more melanin in their skin to deal with the increased exposure to the sun's radiation.

Yeah evolution doesn't exist.

Define "evolution." The evolution I am talking about is a thing that supposedly took inanimate chemicals and turned them into the abundant life we see today. The fossil record shows that there were times in the past where life was way more abundant than it is today.

I would somewhat like scientists to develop a really plausible, working method whereby life could have potentially developed through evolution. The reason I would like this is that it would show how great God is... that He could develop us artificial intelligences that could actually formulate a way to evolve life into existence. Unfortunately, science hasn't done this yet.

Of course, this would only be a small starting point for proving evolution. Why? Because nobody can look into the past to see what happened. And there are still way too many unforeseeable variables that could have occurred over the millennia, to have even a clue whether life happened by evolution or not.

This is another point that defeats evolution as fact. The greater the time-span for evolution to develop into what we have today, the greater the chances that it would fail, simply because there would be more time for "failure" events to happen.

Now, if somebody invented a real, working time viewer...

Proving creation versus evolution is as unfalsifiable as proving God exists, because there is no way to rebuild the past with such precision because for example, we have no way to prove that our data is omniscient (there are normally multiple realities, i.e. your and my recollection of history will never be entirely the same). Thus anyone who argues this is INSANE because entropy is unbounded in either direction in time (forward or reverse)[1]. What can't be falsified, can't be proved. End of discussion.

The scientific method is only an approximation of collective reality while it is experienced and updated in real-time. Collective reality diverges in spacetime (and other dimensions) from any sampling point, because a collective reality is unstable and transient, otherwise nothing could exist because there would be no degrees-of-freedom in the universe, i.e. the entropy would 0. Trying to go back to the start of the Universe is utter nonsense, because the entropy is unbounded, i.e. there is/was no start just as there is no edge to the Universe[2].

[1] I may be the first person to assert that. I dunno. And I need to write down some proofs when I get some free time. It follows logically from [2]
[2] http://unheresy.com/The%20Universe.html#Matter_as_a_continuum

[mindrust]

“When the Missionaries arrived, the Africans had the land and the Missionaries had the Bible. They taught how to pray with our eyes closed. When we opened them, they had the land and we had the Bible.”

― Jomo Kenyatta

Religion.

The oldest and the greatest way to narcotize and rob people since 300.000 B.C.E. African people were just too innocent for those reptilians.

[BADecker]

Evolution is not a theory. It has been proven wrong so many hundreds of times since its inception, that the only thing that keeps it in theory status is a bunch of people who are fighting against God by hoping that evolution might become a theory again. These people are hyping it so strongly that it seems to hold theory status.

All you need to do is read scientific papers, examining the evidence, not the conclusions of the authors. The evidences (which is often backed up by the authors' conclusions, though not always) show that there is no conclusive evidence for evolution that cannot be attributed at the same time to programmed-in changes do to climatic or environmental changes.

Peoples from climates with winters don't have narrower, more pointy noses to deal with the extremely cold air. Peoples from the hot tropic Savannas of Africa don't have more melanin in their skin to deal with the increased exposure to the sun's radiation.

Yeah evolution doesn't exist.

Define "evolution." The evolution I am talking about is a thing that supposedly took inanimate chemicals and turned them into the abundant life we see today. The fossil record shows that there were times in the past where life was way more abundant than it is today.

I would somewhat like scientists to develop a really plausible, working method whereby life could have potentially developed through evolution. The reason I would like this is that it would show how great God is... that He could develop us artificial intelligences that could actually formulate a way to evolve life into existence. Unfortunately, science hasn't done this yet.

Of course, this would only be a small starting point for proving evolution. Why? Because nobody can look into the past to see what happened. And there are still way too many unforeseeable variables that could have occurred over the millennia, to have even a clue whether life happened by evolution or not.

This is another point that defeats evolution as fact. The greater the time-span for evolution to develop into what we have today, the greater the chances that it would fail, simply because there would be more time for "failure" events to happen.

Now, if somebody invented a real, working time viewer...

Proving creation versus evolution is as unfalsifiable as proving God exists, because there is no way to rebuild the past with such precision because for example, we have no way to prove that our data is omniscient (there are normally multiple realities, i.e. your and my recollection of history will never be entirely the same). Thus anyone who argues this is INSANE because entropy is unbounded in either direction in time (forward or reverse)[1]. What can't be falsified, can't be proved. End of discussion.

The scientific method is only an approximation of collective reality while it is experienced and updated in real-time. Collective reality diverges in spacetime (and other dimensions) from any sampling point, because a collective reality is unstable and transient, otherwise nothing could exist because there would be no degrees-of-freedom in the universe, i.e. the entropy would 0. Trying to go back to the start of the Universe is utter nonsense, because the entropy is unbounded, i.e. there is/was no start just as there is no edge to the Universe[2].

[1] I may be the first person to assert that. I dunno. And I need to write down some proofs when I get some free time. It follows logically from [2]
[2] http://unheresy.com/The%20Universe.html#Matter_as_a_continuum

Go back and look at the things you just said. Then compare them with what I said.

We may be on an even keel with regard to the things we said. How do we really know what truth is? One thing, though. Outside of the unprovable God, my stuff makes complete sense. Yours is so full of "maybe this, or maybe that, or maybe not" that you might as well call it something like a big dream.

Get back to reality.

[contagion]

We may be on an even keel with regard to the things we said. How do we really know what truth is?

Indeed, I wrote unfalsifiable for both. But in the near-term, we have strong evidence for evolution as a reasonable approximation as I outlined with the example I provided upthread.

One thing, though. Outside of the unprovable God, my stuff makes complete sense. Yours is so full of "maybe this, or maybe that, or maybe not" that you might as well call it something like a big dream.

Unprovable fable versus scientific evidence supporting theories of near-term evolution as a reasonable approximation in the near-term from now (forward or reverse in time). The other technobabble I stated was arguing the orthogonal point that we can't falsify evolution from the start of creation of life forms and earth (and more so not since the start of the Universe), so I wasn't trying to argue for any provable case, instead I was arguing it can't be proven. When I see rabid propagandists such as Richard Dawkins masquerading as scientists arguing that evolution can be proven to have caused creation, I note they are as irrational (a.k.a. insane) as the other side arguing that Creationism has any falsifiable basis. We ought to just admit that we can't know.

I will not argue that faith can be disproven, i.e. the definition of faith is that it can't be proven nor disproven. The closest I've come to that is to reason that Christianity is an unattractive risk versus reward offer.

I do not disrespect anyone's belief system. I only share my logic but I can't disprove your belief system.

[Pierre11]

In a modern society it's now because of their economics.

Lack of money = Lack of development.

They will eventually be where Europe is in say 50 years.

[csharp11]

In a modern society it's now because of their economics.

Lack of money = Lack of development.

They will eventually be where Europe is in say 50 years.

It's about mentality. Not money.

[Lethn]

Fact is - you are unable to govern yourself

Those are the words of a fascist, fyi, I'm white and from the UK, people like you need to have a proper read up on history instead of blindly believing what priests, school teachers and politicians try to teach you. To me there is nothing more arrogant and patronising than somebody claiming that somebody else isn't allowed to self-govern or have their own opinions and therefore should be ruled over instead.

[csharp11]

Fact is - you are unable to govern yourself

Those are the words of a fascist, fyi, I'm white and from the UK, people like you need to have a proper read up on history instead of blindly believing what priests, school teachers and politicians try to teach you. To me there is nothing more arrogant and patronising than somebody claiming that somebody else isn't allowed to self-govern or have their own opinions and therefore should be ruled over instead.

They cant because they are corrupt. And greedy. Not because they are unable to.
Example - South Africa. It was governed by P.W. Botha - a white man until the 1990s. Now it's most prosperous.
Not only - africans needed much less help back then. Now they are procreating like rabbits and someone else has to foot the bill.

[criptix]

Fact is - you are unable to govern yourself

Those are the words of a fascist, fyi, I'm white and from the UK, people like you need to have a proper read up on history instead of blindly believing what priests, school teachers and politicians try to teach you. To me there is nothing more arrogant and patronising than somebody claiming that somebody else isn't allowed to self-govern or have their own opinions and therefore should be ruled over instead.

They cant because they are corrupt. And greedy. Not because they are unable to.
Example - South Africa. It was governed by P.W. Botha - a white man until the 1990s. Now it's most prosperous.
Not only - africans needed much less help back then. Now they are procreating like rabbits and someone else has to foot the bill.

rofl  

let me help you google it

@lethn

that actually was a quote of hitler.
hitler and the nazis based their claim to power exactly on this, that the human being is unable of living in freedom and self governance.

[Lethn]

Like I said, it is the argument of fascists, what's alarming is we regularly see this logic applied when there are people out there who will actually organise and vote for self-governance, nobody thinks twice about the language that these mainstream politicians are using.

[BADecker]

Again, it is self-governance that we have right now. If the people in the formal governments make it hard enough on us, we will remove them one way or another. They know this. So, they are limiting themselves in the ways they are governing us. We don't remove them because we are led to believe that we like them enough so that we want to keep them.

What good would it do for them to destroy us outright? Then they would have nobody to work the fields for them. They want and need us. But to keep us, and keep us happy, they need to give us a semblance of freedom.

We are outsmarting all their tricks. We are seeing through their freedom ruse. We are waking up. To keep us asleep, they are giving us more freedom. But, how far can that go? Once you give the people the complete semblance of freedom, they are FREE. Government doesn't like that. They lose governance that way.

It will be interesting to see what happens when the people wake up all the way.

[Amph]

they made some step forward , but they are always slower than euro or america

they opened carrefour(big supermarket) in tunisia for example

[CyberSuzy]

This is not meant to be an offensive post, I am genuinely curious as to why Africa is so far behind the rest of the world.

The Roman Empire had running water, amenities, reliable shelter and clothing for its entire populace 2,000 years ago. 2,000 FRIGGIN YEARS AGO. They created art, sculptures, vast architecture using 2,000 YEAR OLD technology yet if you go to a random area in Africa, it is plagued by poverty, destitution and just overall squalor.

Why is Africa 2000+ years behind the rest of the world and what can be done to correct this??

2000 years ago when there was Roman Empire it was Ancient age and not Stone age.

[BADecker]

This is not meant to be an offensive post, I am genuinely curious as to why Africa is so far behind the rest of the world.

The Roman Empire had running water, amenities, reliable shelter and clothing for its entire populace 2,000 years ago. 2,000 FRIGGIN YEARS AGO. They created art, sculptures, vast architecture using 2,000 YEAR OLD technology yet if you go to a random area in Africa, it is plagued by poverty, destitution and just overall squalor.

Why is Africa 2000+ years behind the rest of the world and what can be done to correct this??

2000 years ago when there was Roman Empire it was Ancient age and not Stone age.

I think oprahwindfury did not mean the literal Stone Age. I think that he (she? it?) meant, simply, a time long ago. After all, he says "2000+" which makes the time inexact.

Everybody who is anybody knows that the Stone Age is a fictional time developed as part of a scientific religion to pull distraught people from Christianity (and other religions) into mental political control of university scholars so that they can get their funding easier. It supposedly ended about 2000 years before God created the universe, some 6,000 years ago.