House apologizes for slavery and Jim Crow

[JD50]

Originally posted by: beyoku

Fuck you, dont even say dumb shit like this if you have no idea what you are speaking of regarding and the history and practices of an entire continent. You cannot take away slavery and KEEP colonialism. They are hand in hand. Who are you to tell Black People that and apology wouldn't mean anything to THEM? In the case of South Africa - simple apologies go VERY FAR. Truth and Reconciliation was not about giving money to black people nor arresting white people. It was about TRUTH and APOLOGIES. In some cases South Africa has better race relations than the U.S.! Who are you to say these things aren't needed when you are not even on the receiving end. Trust me, intellectually conscious black people don't count their lucky stars, they realize that Africans just have it worse than U.S Blacks - all rooted of course on actions by uncivilized white folks.

Oh JHC, every ethnic group has had some horrible things done to them at some point in time. Stop your fvcking whining and move on. You don't see the Jews whining like a bunch of old women, they seem to be doing alright.

 

[JD50]

Originally posted by: Throckmorton
Uhh considering slavery still existed until WWII, when the government finally decided to end its no-investigate policy, for fear of Japanese propaganda, I'd say there are plenty of survivors from the time of slavery who deserve an apology.

http://www.newsweek.com/id/145762

So all white people have to apologize for the actions of a few? Great, my Grandpa was beat up and robbed by a couple of black kids, I want an apology from the black community.

How many blacks have you apologized to Throckmorton?

 

[Red Dawn]

Originally posted by: JD50

Originally posted by: Throckmorton
Uhh considering slavery still existed until WWII, when the government finally decided to end its no-investigate policy, for fear of Japanese propaganda, I'd say there are plenty of survivors from the time of slavery who deserve an apology.

http://www.newsweek.com/id/145762

So all white people have to apologize for the actions of a few? Great, my Grandpa was beat up and robbed by a couple of black kids, I want an apology from the black community.

How many blacks have you apologized to Throckmorton?

White People aren't apologizing for anything, our country is and it's not for the acts of a few, it's for an institution that this country embraced for 75 years and for hundreds of years as Colonies. Frankly it's done and I don't feel any worse for wear over it.

 

[spittledip]

Originally posted by: herm0016
so the white people are the cause of every problem the colored community has? and i do not say African, because lots of the people that are black are not from Africa, some are even offended to be lumped into the same group and I can see why. The only way this country will ever get anywhere is if the African American community stops blaming white people for all there problems.

this is like saying all the jews should get an apology from every christian. Race relations in South Africa are so great that the different groups of black people are now killing each other. sounds like they are in good shape to me!!

Nothing like exaggerating to make a point. No one said that white people are the cause of all black problems. There is a very large place for blacks in America to take personal responsibility. The idea that whites are partially responsible for adverse conditions for blacks in America does not contradict that blacks also need to take responsibility for their own lives individually.

The good thing is that obviously alot of blacks do take responsibility for their lives and on an individual level, and some whites have made reparations merely through relationships and dialogue. However, this does not mean that reparations are not needed on a national level. Also, politically, blacks need to have more leaders, like Obama, who preach responsibility. They do not need any more leaders like JJ and Ass Sharpton trying to manipulate the system for their own personal ends. And there is a need to do away with Affirmative Action as it teaches black disability. Not that there wasn't a time when it was doing useful things, but that time has passed, and it has become more of a crutch than a helper.

 

[Throckmorton]

Originally posted by: JD50

Originally posted by: Throckmorton
Uhh considering slavery still existed until WWII, when the government finally decided to end its no-investigate policy, for fear of Japanese propaganda, I'd say there are plenty of survivors from the time of slavery who deserve an apology.

http://www.newsweek.com/id/145762

So all white people have to apologize for the actions of a few? Great, my Grandpa was beat up and robbed by a couple of black kids, I want an apology from the black community.

How many blacks have you apologized to Throckmorton?

I'm not white, but being a citizen of a country that was partially built on slavery and allowed it to continue in violation of its constitution and principles of human rights, I fully support a national apology.

 

[WhipperSnapper]

Originally posted by: spittledip

Originally posted by: WhipperSnapper


For that matter, is there really anything to apologize for? Slavery was the norm for thousands of years, including in Africa (where it still may very well be practiced today), but it was the United States and Western Civilization that put an end to it.

This is called bandwagoning: rationalizing something based upon the fact that other people are doing it. It is considered a logical fallacy.

I'm not saying that it was right, just that, relative to other countries at the time, the United States wasn't a horrific, evil monstrous country.

It is a commonly held idea that African nations that are in a bad state currently(i.e. Africa is not just one big country and not every nation is in a bad state) have European interference to thank. In other words, had we not taken slaves from Africa and had we not colonized Africa, there wouldn't be nearly as much problems there as there are now.

[/quote]

Do you really believe that? That if Africa had been left completely untouched that the condition of Africa would be much different than it is today? Aside from not having guns, I suspect that life in Africa would be almost no different than it was a thousand years ago, with many of them being slaves to other Africans.

What do you make of this op-ed? I'm not saying that it's true, just that the possibility that it may be true is worth contemplating and considering objectively even if we all find the alleged facts to be repugnant (which I do). Of course anyone who suggests anything like this is immediately branded as a racist without any consideration of the actual issue at hand (as though the only real genetic differences between racial groups must, logically, only be skin color).

I fully expect to get barraged with all sorts of attacks and accusations for even daring to have read the articles I'm linking to let alone mention their existence (hence my disclaimer saying that I'm not saying it's true, just that it might be worth contemplating, objectively, even if we find the notion repugnant, before denouncing the notion as false while keeping in mind that "facts are facts" regardless of how we feel about them).

I.Q.: Why Africa is Africa -- and Haiti Haiti

Worldwide I.Q. distribution map

A Few Thoughts on I.Q. and the Wealth of Nations

IQ: The Truth Can Set Us (and Africa) Free

Critics of the finding that the average African IQ is 70 say that it simply must be wrong. They insist that biased testing procedures must have been used, even though dozens of separate studies have corroborated the results from East, West, Central, and Southern Africa. For Example, one 1992 study carried out for the World Bank reported that a random sample of 1,639 adolescents in the West African country of Ghana had an average IQ of 60.

 

[WhipperSnapper]

Originally posted by: spittledip

But, when the truth is told, what it comes down to is that people do not want to have money taken out of their pockets to help address an issue that could help to make the US a better place (excluding the bigots). This is why people who are against reparations tend to focus on paying out sums of money b/c the idea is absurd.

Uh...my people were almost completely exterminated in Europe about sixty years ago and they continue to face discrimination here in the U.S. even today. Heck, as I understand it, the U.S. President at the time refused to accept refugees who were trying to escape the slaughter into the United States. Can my group of people, who some people still believe have horns on their head and try to cheat other people out of money, get some reparations too?

 

[Vic]

Originally posted by: WhipperSnapper

Originally posted by: spittledip

Originally posted by: WhipperSnapper


For that matter, is there really anything to apologize for? Slavery was the norm for thousands of years, including in Africa (where it still may very well be practiced today), but it was the United States and Western Civilization that put an end to it.

This is called bandwagoning: rationalizing something based upon the fact that other people are doing it. It is considered a logical fallacy.

I'm not saying that it was right, just that, relative to other countries at the time, the United States wasn't a horrific, evil monstrous country.

It is a commonly held idea that African nations that are in a bad state currently(i.e. Africa is not just one big country and not every nation is in a bad state) have European interference to thank. In other words, had we not taken slaves from Africa and had we not colonized Africa, there wouldn't be nearly as much problems there as there are now.

Do you really believe that? That if Africa had been left completely untouched that the condition of Africa would be much different than it is today? Aside from not having guns, I suspect that life in Africa would be almost no different than it was a thousand years ago, with many of them being slaves to other Africans.

What do you make of this op-ed? I'm not saying that it's true, just that the possibility that it may be true is worth contemplating and considering objectively even if we all find the alleged facts to be repugnant (which I do). Of course anyone who suggests anything like this is immediately branded as a racist without any consideration of the actual issue at hand (as though the only real genetic differences between racial groups must, logically, only be skin color).

I fully expect to get barraged with all sorts of attacks and accusations for even daring to have read the articles I'm linking to let alone mention their existence (hence my disclaimer saying that I'm not saying it's true, just that it might be worth contemplating, objectively, even if we find the notion repugnant, before denouncing the notion as false while keeping in mind that "facts are facts" regardless of how we feel about them).

I.Q.: Why Africa is Africa -- and Haiti Haiti

Worldwide I.Q. distribution map

A Few Thoughts on I.Q. and the Wealth of Nations

IQ: The Truth Can Set Us (and Africa) Free[/quote][/quote]

I don't think those articles say what you think they say. They pin the blame not on race but on poor nutrition (one article specifically mentions iron and iodine deficiencies) and poor living conditions. I would also add that a major challenge for Africa is that virtually every sub-Saharan African is infected with malaria in childhood, which can cause permanent brain damage.
If you wish to understand better why some cultures are more advanced than others, I suggest reading Jared Diamond's book "Guns, Germs, and Steel."
Hey, you can play mystic and imagine our bodies are separate from our minds, or you can pull random shit off the internet, but the reality is that humans are all very genetically similar, and the primary differences between us are environment.
Think of it this way. Take 2 puppies from the same litter. Treat one like a perfect pet, feed it right, train it, love it, etc. Treat the other like a despised mongrel, don't feed it right, abuse it, kick it, leave it out in the cold, etc. Now would you be surprised if the 2nd one displayed a 'lower IQ' than the 1st one?

 

[WhipperSnapper]

Originally posted by: Vic
I don't think those articles say what you think they say. They pin the blame not on race but on poor nutrition (one article specifically mentions iron and iodine deficiencies) and poor living conditions. I would also add that a major challenge for Africa is that virtually every sub-Saharan African is infected with malaria in childhood, which can cause permanent brain damage.
If you wish to understand better why some cultures are more advanced than others, I suggest reading Jared Diamond's book "Guns, Germs, and Steel."
Hey, you can play mystic and imagine our bodies are separate from our minds, or you can pull random shit off the internet, but the reality is that humans are all very genetically similar, and the primary differences between us are environment.
Think of it this way. Take 2 puppies from the same litter. Treat one like a perfect pet, feed it right, train it, love it, etc. Treat the other like a despised mongrel, don't feed it right, abuse it, kick it, leave it out in the cold, etc. Now would you be surprised if the 2nd one displayed a 'lower IQ' than the 1st one?

According to the articles, the cited studies pinned the blame on malnutrition and environmental factors to some extent, but not completely. I brought all of this up to try to support my point that even if the rest of the world had never had any contact with Africa that Africa would still be in a bad state or at least its pristine primitive state, today.

 

[Vic]

Originally posted by: WhipperSnapper
According to the articles, the cited studies pinned the blame on malnutrition and environmental factors to some extent, but not completely. I brought all of this up to try to support my point that even if the rest of the world had never had any contact with Africa that Africa would still be in a bad state or at least its pristine primitive state, today.

That last part I don't doubt. Which is why I suggested you read Diamond's book. The geographical environment of sub-Saharan Africa does not contribute to the development of advanced human civilizations. It doesn't have adequate native crops, the proper climate, etc.
I think you're crossing points with other posters. I don't believe anyone is saying that, left on its own, Africa would have become a modern technological society. It seems that what is being said is that modern societies have not been as kind to Africa as they have been to some other backwards parts of the world. This is debatable.

However, IQ is not an entirely accurate measurement of human intelligence and performance either. There are many high IQ people who never succeed in society, and there's more than a few Forest Gumps too.
I mentioned to you a while ago that Rand was wrong because of her classical Greek influences, and you strongly disagreed. What I was getting at then is that Rand was in fact an authoritarian like Aristotle and Plato, she just refused to see it. Rand still had Plato's 'Ivory Tower,' she just replaced its occupants with a different elite class.

 

[spittledip]

Originally posted by: WhipperSnapper

Originally posted by: spittledip

But, when the truth is told, what it comes down to is that people do not want to have money taken out of their pockets to help address an issue that could help to make the US a better place (excluding the bigots). This is why people who are against reparations tend to focus on paying out sums of money b/c the idea is absurd.

Uh...my people were almost completely exterminated in Europe about sixty years ago and they continue to face discrimination here in the U.S. even today. Heck, as I understand it, the U.S. President at the time refused to accept refugees who were trying to escape the slaughter into the United States. Can my group of people, who some people still believe have horns on their head and try to cheat other people out of money, get some reparations too?

I am not sure what group of people you are talking about.

If you think you need reparations, go to the country that slaughtered your people and ask there. We are talking about things that happened here. If your people were slaughtered and enslaved here, then you would deserve reparations.

And if you are talking about discrimination here, yeah well lots of people in the states have been discriminated against, including people from my background. We weren't slaves though. BIG difference. OUR people came from Europe by choice with a sense of identity. OUR identity was never "slaves" or "children of slaves." I have a sense of knowing where my people came from and a sense of teh culture, and it is a part of who i am. YOU seem to know who you are and where you came from as well. That means a lot, but you might take it for granted. YOU weren't a slave who was considered less than an animal, and that sense of identity wasn't passed down from your people, was it?

 

[spittledip]

Originally posted by: WhipperSnapper


Do you really believe that? That if Africa had been left completely untouched that the condition of Africa would be much different than it is today? Aside from not having guns, I suspect that life in Africa would be almost no different than it was a thousand years ago, with many of them being slaves to other Africans.

What do you make of this op-ed? I'm not saying that it's true, just that the possibility that it may be true is worth contemplating and considering objectively even if we all find the alleged facts to be repugnant (which I do). Of course anyone who suggests anything like this is immediately branded as a racist without any consideration of the actual issue at hand (as though the only real genetic differences between racial groups must, logically, only be skin color).

I fully expect to get barraged with all sorts of attacks and accusations for even daring to have read the articles I'm linking to let alone mention their existence (hence my disclaimer saying that I'm not saying it's true, just that it might be worth contemplating, objectively, even if we find the notion repugnant, before denouncing the notion as false while keeping in mind that "facts are facts" regardless of how we feel about them).

I.Q.: Why Africa is Africa -- and Haiti Haiti

Worldwide I.Q. distribution map

A Few Thoughts on I.Q. and the Wealth of Nations

IQ: The Truth Can Set Us (and Africa) Free

Critics of the finding that the average African IQ is 70 say that it simply must be wrong. They insist that biased testing procedures must have been used, even though dozens of separate studies have corroborated the results from East, West, Central, and Southern Africa. For Example, one 1992 study carried out for the World Bank reported that a random sample of 1,639 adolescents in the West African country of Ghana had an average IQ of 60.

First, if you are going to talk about IQ and tests to determine intelligence, you had better have a better grasp of the subject. These test have been developed in US and Europe. They are made for our cultures, not the cultures from Africa and Asia, etc. Those tests will be testing concepts unknown to many people throughout the world. Does that mean they have less intellegence, or less exposure to Western ideas? If you chose the 2nd answer, you got it right!

On top of that, what exactly intelligence is is still a heavily debated subject. Again, the problem is that you come from a "developed" nation in the West with your ideas about progress and technology and what intelligence is, and you apply it to a remote culture in the Amazon, you are going to find that only the mentally retarded live out there. Obviously that isn't true.

Try again.

edit: again, no one is suggesting that the "white man" is fully responsible for the condition of the African nations that are in a bad state. They sure as hell didn't help anything and do have a large responsibility for the things there. And what exactly does intelligence have to do with people acting like horrible animals? Ever hear of a smart guy named Hitler?

 

[Vic]

Reparations won't fix the problems that black people face. More likely, it would only make them worse, by increasing racist sentiment. And most of the money would likely go right back into the dishonest hands of white 'carpetbagger' types (see Chappelle show skit on reparations already linked twice in this thread).
What would be even worse about reparations is that they would lead to a kind of 'washed hands' effect that would likely be disastrous. Any further attempts at increasing racial harmony would be rebuked with the "hey, we already gave you your money" attitude.
In short, reparations is about the worst thing that could happen for America, black or white.

 

[Throckmorton]

Originally posted by: spittledip

Originally posted by: WhipperSnapper


Do you really believe that? That if Africa had been left completely untouched that the condition of Africa would be much different than it is today? Aside from not having guns, I suspect that life in Africa would be almost no different than it was a thousand years ago, with many of them being slaves to other Africans.

What do you make of this op-ed? I'm not saying that it's true, just that the possibility that it may be true is worth contemplating and considering objectively even if we all find the alleged facts to be repugnant (which I do). Of course anyone who suggests anything like this is immediately branded as a racist without any consideration of the actual issue at hand (as though the only real genetic differences between racial groups must, logically, only be skin color).

I fully expect to get barraged with all sorts of attacks and accusations for even daring to have read the articles I'm linking to let alone mention their existence (hence my disclaimer saying that I'm not saying it's true, just that it might be worth contemplating, objectively, even if we find the notion repugnant, before denouncing the notion as false while keeping in mind that "facts are facts" regardless of how we feel about them).

I.Q.: Why Africa is Africa -- and Haiti Haiti

Worldwide I.Q. distribution map

A Few Thoughts on I.Q. and the Wealth of Nations

IQ: The Truth Can Set Us (and Africa) Free

Critics of the finding that the average African IQ is 70 say that it simply must be wrong. They insist that biased testing procedures must have been used, even though dozens of separate studies have corroborated the results from East, West, Central, and Southern Africa. For Example, one 1992 study carried out for the World Bank reported that a random sample of 1,639 adolescents in the West African country of Ghana had an average IQ of 60.

First, if you are going to talk about IQ and tests to determine intelligence, you had better have a better grasp of the subject. These test have been developed in US and Europe. They are made for our cultures, not the cultures from Africa and Asia, etc. Those tests will be testing concepts unknown to many people throughout the world. Does that mean they have less intellegence, or less exposure to Western ideas? If you chose the 2nd answer, you got it right!

On top of that, what exactly intelligence is is still a heavily debated subject. Again, the problem is that you come from a "developed" nation in the West with your ideas about progress and technology and what intelligence is, and you apply it to a remote culture in the Amazon, you are going to find that only the mentally retarded live out there. Obviously that isn't true.

Try again.

edit: again, no one is suggesting that the "white man" is fully responsible for the condition of the African nations that are in a bad state. They sure as hell didn't help anything and do have a large responsibility for the things there. And what exactly does intelligence have to do with people acting like horrible animals? Ever hear of a smart guy named Hitler?

Well, considering blacks have poorer nutrition in America, not to mention Africa, it's obvious why their average IQ is probably lower than the average white IQ, without having to explain the results away with "cultural" factors. In fact, unless people of African descent, or for that matter Indian (in India), have some extreme genetic intelligence factors, it's a given that their average IQ is lower just because of nutrition.

Prenatal and childhood nutrition are probably the most important factors in human intelligence, but that isn't general knowledge. Otherwise we'd be doing a lot more to educate pregnant women, provide good school lunches, and infant nutrition programs, etc.

http://www.npr.org/templates/s...ry.php?storyId=4526479
http://www.npr.org/templates/s...ry.php?storyId=4526476
http://news.bio-medicine.org/b...ne-development-4891-1/


http://www.rwjf.org/programare....jsp?id=18117&pid=1138

Key Findings

* In 2004, 11.9 percent of households in the United States were food insecure.
* Rates of food insecurity in 2004 were higher for households below the poverty line (36.8 percent), households with children headed by a single woman (33 percent), African-American households (23.7 percent) and Hispanic households (21.7 percent).
* A number of studies have demonstrated a strong association between food insecurity and obesity among low-income women.
* Food insecurity results in poor quality diets, compromised child and adult health, mental health problems and educational deficits among children.
* Federal child nutrition programs can play a crucial role in preventing both food insecurity and obesity, as well as in increasing economic security and improving nutritional intake.

 

[BoomerD]

Originally posted by: Throckmorton

Boomer D on segregation:
"What about it? They were free to leave at anytime..."

HEY, I made someone's sig line! 😀


While I don't doubt or discount that nutrition plays a HUGE part in learning, should the taxpayers be footing the bill for free meals in schools? The local schools here offer free breakfasts and lunches for low-income kids.

 

[Throckmorton]

Should the taxpayers be footing the bill for education? Should we be footing the bill for police, firefighting service, military defense, national security, etc etc? I can't think of a single reason why we shouldn't foot the bill to make our nation's children as smart as possible. The only thing that makes nutrition or healthcare different from other government services is prejudices ingrained in our society.
Look at it this way, the more intelligent and mentally healthy children are, the less we have to spend on getting teachers to risk their lives in poor school districts, and the less we'll have to spend on police, the prison system, etc. Healthy food is dirt cheap compared to the costs to society.

School lunches and breakfast is good, but what about fetuses and babies? Nutrition is even more important for them. It's not just learning, but brain development. There has to be something we can do besides just food stamps

 

[BoberFett]

Originally posted by: Throckmorton
Should the taxpayers be footing the bill for education? Should we be footing the bill for police, firefighting service, military defense, national security, etc etc? I can't think of a single reason why we shouldn't foot the bill to make our nation's children as smart as possible. The only thing that makes nutrition or healthcare different from other government services is prejudices ingrained in our society.
Look at it this way, the more intelligent and mentally healthy children are, the less we have to spend on getting teachers to risk their lives in poor school districts, and the less we'll have to spend on police, the prison system, etc. Healthy food is dirt cheap compared to the costs to society.

School lunches and breakfast is good, but what about fetuses and babies? Nutrition is even more important for them. It's not just learning, but brain development. There has to be something we can do besides just food stamps

Maybe the government should just start raising kids completely. Take them from their parents at birth.

 

[Dari]

Originally posted by: Red Dawn

Originally posted by: spittledip

Originally posted by: BoomerD

Originally posted by: Robor

Originally posted by: BoomerD
I'm all in favor of reparations for slavery. I think we should pay everyone who was brought to this country as a slave, or born into slavery $10000. BUT, only to that person, not to any ancestors. After all, if they themselves weren't slaves, we don't owe them anything.

What about segregation?

What about it? They were free to leave at anytime...

Leave and go where? Back to Africa? Some tried it and it failed miserably b/c for one thing, Africa is not a country, it is a continent, so they ahd no specific country to go back to b/c they didn't know who they were. Also, the Africans rejected them. Among other things.

Well there is/was Liberia. Look how well that turned out. A lot of these ancestors to slaves are also ancestors to other immigrants. It's seems those randy slave owners kind of liked breeding their own.

Actually, Liberia was a very stable country until the CIA-backed coup that happened in 1980. Reagan even invited Samuel Doe to the Whitehouse. But that stability came at a very high price. The freed African-Americans that returned to establish the new nation of Liberia enslaved the blacks there and banned them from being a part of the government. In fact, Samuel Doe was the first native (not descended from those who came from America) to rule the country. Sadly, the country went to shit after Doe came to power.

 

[ultra laser]

I wonder if the Africans who sold them will ever apologize.

 

[beyoku]

Originally posted by: JD50

Originally posted by: beyoku

Fuck you, dont even say dumb shit like this if you have no idea what you are speaking of regarding and the history and practices of an entire continent. You cannot take away slavery and KEEP colonialism. They are hand in hand. Who are you to tell Black People that and apology wouldn't mean anything to THEM? In the case of South Africa - simple apologies go VERY FAR. Truth and Reconciliation was not about giving money to black people nor arresting white people. It was about TRUTH and APOLOGIES. In some cases South Africa has better race relations than the U.S.! Who are you to say these things aren't needed when you are not even on the receiving end. Trust me, intellectually conscious black people don't count their lucky stars, they realize that Africans just have it worse than U.S Blacks - all rooted of course on actions by uncivilized white folks.

Oh JHC, every ethnic group has had some horrible things done to them at some point in time. Stop your fvcking whining and move on. You don't see the Jews whining like a bunch of old women, they seem to be doing alright.

There you are again. An apology by the US Government is in order simply because its the right thing to do. I am not BLAMING white folks for the problems that we have today. I said their actions are the ROOT of such problems. Slavery and Jim Crow are the ROOT of a shitty condition of African Americans in this country. Of course their are many twigs and branches of personal responsibility that grow from such root but that ROOT is not one that we created and white people do not think it is wrong to be at that root therefore their is no apology (yet). What do YOU personally loose from an apology? Why do white people think US=White people. I understand the economics regarding Slavery.............Jim Crow/Segregation/Racism on the other hand was simply uncivilized bullshit and shouldn't have been excused without an apology, but even then it was......Anyway I am through with you.

IQ test - You are measuring something but I am unsure exactly what that is. I have had the opportunity to SEE one such IQ test that was given to a farmer in east Africa. He supposedly, with little/no education would understand to DRAW a missing NET in between 2 tennis players?! This is purely driven toward a western cultured mind. End of story.

Guns germs and steel - Garbage from an African standpoint. Just about everything he says about Africa is from a Eurocentric viewpoint. Many things even know by a novice interested in African History are left out. The book (parts I read) were just far too simplistic.

Guns Germs and Steel is one of the flimsiest historical theories I have ever encountered and I can not understand how Jared Diamond has garnered the attention that he has. Leave it to a Physiologist/linguist to take on the job of an Anthropologist/Archeologist and get it all wrong. I believe what Jared Diamond attempts is benign justification for Western stereotypes and misconceptions about the rest of the world. He seems to believe that nobody outside of Eurasia has benefited from cultural diffusion, nor have they contributed anything of value to world history or civilization.

Ironically, Northern and Western Europeans have contributed among the least to what we could consider human civilization. For example, there is no sign of relevant civilizations ever existing in Scandinavia.

African nations have been trading with other parts of the world for millennia. Ancient Nubia had strong trade relationships with nations inside as well as outside of Africa for thousands of years and at one point even ruled over Egypt. Ethiopians were also among the first people to adopt Christianity in 4th century AD. How could this have come about if there was little contact with countries outside of Africa? Yemen is only a stone?s throw from Ethiopia; the countries are divided by the ?Bab el Mandeb? (Red Sea/Gulf of Aden).

To convince one?s self that civilization and technological advancement have only come about within the parameters of that arbitrary border confining what Jared Diamond refers to as Eurasia is ridicules, especially in the face of Archeological and Anthropological evidence to the contrary. Any first year Cultural Anthropology student would know this.

In East Africa Swahili were building ships for centuries that were superior in quality to early European ships called ?mtepe;? and were trading with China, Arabia and India by sea, becoming very wealthy as a result. Most of China?s ivory for some time came from direct trade with the Swahili. According to many authors including Schmidt and Avery (1978, 1979, 1986) and a review in American Anthropologist (Kusimba, 1997), Africans between 1500-2000 years ago were smelting iron at temperatures not reached in Europe until the industrial age. These Africans (in Tanzania) are believed to be among the first to produce carbon steel, using a special preheating method.

In West Africa the civilizations of Ghana, Mali, Songhai and Timbuktu attracted people from all over the world. In the early part of the fourteenth century to the time of the Moroccan invasion in the late sixteenth century, the city of Timbuktu became an important intellectual and spiritual center of the Islamic world, attracting people from as far away as Saudi Arabia to study there. Great mosques, universities, schools, and libraries were built under the Mali and Songhay Empires, some of which still stand today.

A large number of innovations that many Europeans today recognize as being uniquely their own, such as fire arms and the old trade ships once used for commerce (The kind used by Columbus for example) trace their history back to technologies and influences acquired through Islamic contacts in the Iberian Peninsula. In the year 711 AD, Islamic invaders conquered that part of Europe known today as Spain and Portugal and ruled over the region for close to 800 years (711 to 1492). Europe as a result saw a number of improvements in various areas of life and interest, ranging from the medical sciences to military; to paved roads, and street lamps. The Moor also introduced Europe to its first Universities and the numerical system currently in popular use today.

Scholars describe the Moor as originating in the Senegal River valley in Southern Mauritania as Almoravides, and then gathering followers from many ethic groups before overwhelming the Iberian Peninsula. The Almoravides were a group of devout Muslims also partially responsible for the destabilization and eventual demise of the Kingdom of Ghana ? located in what is today Northern Senegal and Southern Mauritania ? in and around the same time as the Iberian siege.

The spread of Islam into Africa is not mentioned in Jared Diamond?s theory, nor is the fact that the Saharan Desert is only between 5000-2000 years old, making his claims of isolation seem all the more ridiculous in from a broad perspective. Further, it has also been shown that the current inhabitants of Europe do not resemble Neolithic and Bronze Age Europeans in craniofacial form, but share close affinities with sub-Saharan Africans (Brace et al, 2006). I am curious why Jared Diamond does not incorporate these bits of historical, geographic and Anthropologic information into his makeshift post hoc hypothesis.

At the time of Columbus?s arrival in the America?s the Aztec were using math, astronomy and agriculture that was superior to Europeans. If it were not for contact with South American Amerindians (initially by accident) much of Europe would have likely died of starvation; as the continent was experiencing sever famine at the time. It was South American agriculture and crops that saved Europe from near death. Ironically, in exchange for this vitally needed learning the Europeans inadvertently killed off between 80-95% of Amerindian populations; completely wiping out many Aboriginal Caribbean native groups with new-world diseases, and then slavery.

THE REASON EUROPEANS CONQURED THE NEW WORLD IS BECAUSE THE TURKS WERE BLOCKING EUROPEAN PASSAGE TO THE SILK ROAD, AND SO THEY HAD TO FIND ANOTHER ROUT TO INDIA/CHINA. ATTEMPTING THIS BY SEA EUROPEANS EVENTUALLY DISOVERED THE AMERICAS; INADVERTLYING, THROUGH SHERE INCOMPETENCE (COLUMBUS WOULD ACTUCALLY NAME THE NATIVES AMERICANS ?INDIANS?). THIS ENCOUNTER WOULD END UP WIPING OUT 80-95% OF THE NATIVE POPULATION WITH EUROPEAN BORN DISEASES. MAKING LATER CONQUEST ESPECIALLY EASY!

Africans had access to guns, too ? but like the Arabs, who introduced the weapon to Europeans, initially found them inconvenient for traditional warfare. In effect, Africans also had guns germs and steal, which refutes a large part of Jared Diamond?s ridiculous theory.

- Not my words.

bye bye good night.