The root cause of Africa's problems?

[Skepticemea]

There is more to being a human being than evaluating them by specific technologies. They had many and varied cultures, languages, arts, agriculture, mythology, skills.

Was Native American agriculture better than stone age agriculture or pretty much on a par with it?

 

[McHrozni]

There is more to being a human being than evaluating them by specific technologies. They had many and varied cultures, languages, arts, agriculture, mythology, skills.

I'm sure they did, just like all other stone age cultures. They were probably more diverse though, which is a direct result of being spread out over a vast and rich land.

It's quite evident that geography alone does not explain why some groups of people fared so vastly better than others. It might explain why some groups fared somewhat better, but it can't explain large differences.

McHrozni

 

[a_unique_person]

I'm sure they did, just like all other stone age cultures. They were probably more diverse though, which is a direct result of being spread out over a vast and rich land.

It's quite evident that geography alone does not explain why some groups of people fared so vastly better than others. It might explain why some groups fared somewhat better, but it can't explain large differences.

McHrozni

You are missing the trade of technologies, the American continent just like the Australian island was isolated from technological advances. The progression to bronze/iron/steel was not because a group of people were advanced geniuses, but because incremental advances were able to be shared.

Also consider that the mine worker of Industrial England would not have had a better life experience than an American Indian.

 

[Skepticemea]

You are missing the trade of technologies, the American continent just like the Australian island was isolated from technological advances. The progression to bronze/iron/steel was not because a group of people were advanced geniuses, but because incremental advances were able to be shared.

Also consider that the mine worker of Industrial England would not have had a better life experience than an American Indian.

What's your argument here? China didn't develop glass working so were not as advanced as Europeans in many ways, but were more advanced in others. What would you say Native Americans were equivalently advanced in?

I still don't see the problem with describing their civilisation as analogous to "stone age". It's not a perjorative.

 

[McHrozni]

You are missing the trade of technologies, the American continent just like the Australian island was isolated from technological advances. The progression to bronze/iron/steel was not because a group of people were advanced geniuses, but because incremental advances were able to be shared.

And yet South American Indians had quite advanced metalworking. The lack of contact is thus hardly a good excuse even before you consider that it was often developed independently in various places. The progression of technology then, as now, is a direct result of a society that supports advances and makes them possible, which is linked only to culture.

I still don't see the problem with describing their civilisation as analogous to "stone age". It's not a perjorative.

I fully concur.

Also consider that the mine worker of Industrial England would not have had a better life experience than an American Indian.

Neither would a modern Swiss 6 year old with ALL, which is equally irrelevant.

McHrozni

 

[3point14]

"Do you have a flag?"

<Applause>

 

[bigjelmapro]

Look at Israel. Sand and rocks with no oil but an economy more vibrant and energetic than anything the Arabs came up with.

Israel's found plenty of natural gas and more recently oil. Pretty good timing IMO.

Culture matters. Ideas matter.

Those taking advantage of the resources are pretty Western by Western standards. Problem being is that there aren't enough controls to enforce government expenditure and so forth.

 

[bigjelmapro]

What would you say Native Americans were equivalently advanced in?
..

Casinos! And other attractions.

 

[a_unique_person]

What's your argument here? China didn't develop glass working so were not as advanced as Europeans in many ways, but were more advanced in others. What would you say Native Americans were equivalently advanced in?

I still don't see the problem with describing their civilisation as analogous to "stone age". It's not a perjorative.

I'm just pointing out it's not the only way to define a culture.

What is interesting is looking at a timeline of the history Homo Sapiens. We have been around about 50,000 years. The change from Stone Age to the next implement working stage happened about 3,000 to 4,000 years ago. For most of our history, we have been pretty much the same even in these terms.

 

[Skepticemea]

Casinos! And other attractions.

Hangovers and poverty, too.

ETA: @Unique

Fair enough, you appeared to be disagreeing with the designation is all. Mea culpa.

 

[Virus]

Israel's found plenty of natural gas and more recently oil. Pretty good timing IMO.

True but it doesn't have sheep and grazing land so according to Geni's theory Israel copped a dud hand and should therefore be a failure while Egypt with a large population and regularly flooding Nile should be prosperous, successful country.

 

[McHrozni]

I'm just pointing out it's not the only way to define a culture.

Of course there is. But this does absolutely nothing in explaining why North American Indians fared so poorly or against Europeans. That they were technologically in the stone age, on the other hand, is quite relevant. Differences in culture go a long way towards explaining the discrepancy.

What is interesting is looking at a timeline of the history Homo Sapiens. We have been around about 50,000 years. The change from Stone Age to the next implement working stage happened about 3,000 to 4,000 years ago. For most of our history, we have been pretty much the same even in these terms.

Which is why I can claim with a high degree of confidence that environment and genetics had a comparatively limited effect.

McHrozni

 

[Beerina]

Japan had rice which while not a ideal core of a food parcel is pretty good. They also had access a range of large tame mammals. Hong Kong draws from china and Britain who in turn filled the most advanced civilisation on the planet slot.

By comparison sub Saharan Africa suffers from a limited pool of large mammals a a pretty poor food parcel.

It's politics and corruption. Lock down a secure, free environment where private endeavors can flourish without kickbacks to the local mafia, often indistinguishable from the local government, and things will get better. Just like they do everywhere else.


If you're looking to resource issues, you're barking up the wrong tree. Compare North and South Korea, or the two halves of Hispaniola, to see that government itself makes more difference than everything else put together.

Which is to say, government getting in the way makes more difference than everything else put together.

 

[Tsukasa Buddha]

True but it doesn't have sheep and grazing land so according to Geni's theory Israel copped a dud hand and should therefore be a failure while Egypt with a large population and regularly flooding Nile should be prosperous, successful country.

Israel was a Western transplant. It has no bearing on the discussion at hand.

 

[Tsukasa Buddha]

Given that the US pours a lot of money into Egypt as well, and pays the entire defense bill more or less for Saudi Arabia, why are these countries much less successful than Israel?

Further, Israel has to spend grotesquely much on defense due to that their nice neighbours want to wipe them off the map. Thgat the US pays for some of this can't explain the success of Israeli economic performance. Or do you think Norway would be third world without oil?

Culture matters. I know it's not in accordance with your political ideology to say so, but facts must take precedence over ideology. If you think the two graphs below are completely unrelated, then you are deluding yourself.

[qimg]http://2.bp.blogspot.com/_-EMpadQx4hM/TR0vXpkUahI/AAAAAAAAAZI/xPzTJT8u70w/s1600/hours.png[/qimg]

[qimg]http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/thumb/7/79/Personal_income_race.png/365px-Personal_income_race.png[/qimg]
(Median income.)

Here, some statistics from Sweden. Are you bold enough to guess which Middle Eastern group that is the most successful in our society?

[qimg]http://3.bp.blogspot.com/_-EMpadQx4hM/TQvpfhs3uaI/AAAAAAAAAX8/ftumCIhZ6G8/s1600/iran2.jpg[/qimg]

Balance for socioeconomic factors?

 

[Virus]

Israel was a Western transplant. It has no bearing on the discussion at hand.

You only want it dismissed as evidence because it destroys the argument that culture can't trump geographical limitations.

 

[Skepticemea]

You only want it dismissed as evidence because it destroys the argument that US subsidies can't trump geographical limitations.

ftfy

 

[Virus]

ftfy

False. Israel's economic success is not due to subsidies. Going by your logic, Africa should be an economic success story since it gets trillions in aid and has abundant resources to boot.

No doubt Israel's success rubs leftists the wrong way since they've always had a nasty hatred for the Jewish State.

 

[Skepticemea]

False. Israel's economic success is not due to subsidies. Going by your logic, Africa should be an economic success story since it gets trillions in aid and has abundant resources to boot.

If you say so.

 

[Virus]

If you say so.

Explain why all the aid pumped in to other countries didn't create economic miracles.