Hey there! Sign in to join this conversationNew here? Join for free
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by SnowMonster)
    So don't give me this bull**** about the british causing Africas problems. Colonialism although evil has benefited many, many countries. Colonialism brought to africa knowledge, sicence, engineering, infrastructure, engineering, agricultural methods that feed the whole sub saharan africa (which was previously hunter gatherer and nomadic).
    You clearly have no idea at all about colonialism and the hierarchy that existed within it. Claiming that it has benefitted many many countries is laughable at best, particularly given that there's no way of measuring it. F.e when people say that colonialism has benefitted Australia .. has it? It certainly hasn't benefitted the indigenous population, and of course Australia is one of the most developed countries in the world, but what's to say that without the brutal oppression of the indigenous Australians it wouldn't have been anyway, albeit slightly differently?

    The problem with africa is africans. I do not refer to their colour, ethnicity, or race. I solely refer to sub saharan Africans in Africa when I say that they are the most incompetent, incapable, courrupt, backwards, primitive, idle, useless people on the planet. The problem with sub-saharan Africa is Africans.
    Yeah because not like this is caused by the total lack of education and the total lack of an education system is caused by the horrendous job that European powers did at creating independence ... of course not :rolleyes:
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Elipsis)
    I was saying that the elite averages an IQ of 100, not the wider population.
    But the wider population in the UK does have an IQ of around 100, as for the 'elite' that extends much much higher.

    If you read what I actually said about SA you would notice that I said blacks had to seize the power they deserved... So don't put words in mt mouth you dumb tard.
    I did manage to get through that incredibly articulate and poorly constructed post (and you have the audacity to accuse Africans of being unintelligent! :rolleyes:) and you never said or even implied blacks ought to seize the power they deserve m8?
    Five minutes earlier:
    'Like the poster above states, these countries cannot handle our 'advanced' forms of democracy. '
    Offline

    13
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Elipsis)
    1000 points for pointing out I pressed the wrong key whilst posting on my Blackberry... First you don't argue against any of my points using either facts or logic, then you point out spelling mistakes caused by slips on a small keyboard. You are turning out to be a worthy poster on here aren't you.
    Considering you didn't answer any of mine, I hardly think you're in a position to make a judgement.

    Anyway, I'll list them here in greater detail so you don't have to scroll up/requote etc. So first of all, you explain that Africans have a lower average IQ than the West. Consider that the IQ test is a test devised in the West and therefore best suited to Western mentality. As with government, just because something works over in the West does not mean it works over in Africa or anywhere else for that matter. Yes you can point to Ireland, yes you can point to Australia, Canada or whatever other colony you please to show an example of how great colonialism is but the fact of the matter is, it failed Africa and it does not work in Africa. Just because something works somewhere doesn't mean it's a universal truth.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Mujeriego)
    Don't mind him. He forgets that a few generations ago most people had a bath a year in this country if at all and were still throwing their defecations out of the window. Considering England has existed for 700,000 years, it's the weakest of gloats. :teehee:

    Can't you read? I said a few generations ago our elite was in the exact same position as Africa's. They had average IQs and were trying to control a population with very low IQs. I also pointed out our elite had the added benefit that they could create our system, rather than importing a system that was created over centuries. I also pointed out that they were trying to control a population hundreds of times smaller than Africa's elites have to because the West has helped it swell with its advances in science (which came to us one by one, rather than all at the same time - so our population expanded at a sustainable rate rather than going from 1 million to 70 million in a few generations).

    Why do retarded liberal idiots like yourself focus in on the FACT that Africans currently have a far lower IQ? All I was saying is that they are us 100 years ago, but with all the problems modern society brings - huge populations, guns, internal strife etc. Sorry for offending your pathetic sensibilities cry baby.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by ANARCHY__)
    Considering you didn't answer any of mine, I hardly think you're in a position to make a judgement.

    Anyway, I'll list them here in greater detail so you don't have to scroll up/requote etc. So first of all, you explain that Africans have a lower average IQ than the West. Consider that the IQ test is a test devised in the West and therefore best suited to Western mentality. As with government, just because something works over in the West does not mean it works over in Africa or anywhere else for that matter. Yes you can point to Ireland, yes you can point to Australia, Canada or whatever other colony you please to show an example of how great colonialism is but the fact of the matter is, it failed Africa and it does not work in Africa. Just because something works somewhere doesn't mean it's a universal truth.
    I didn't contest that democracy may not suit Africa - if anything I expanded on why it doesn't. When people here had low IQs they weren't allowed and didn't expect a say in government. The idea that IQ tests aren't suited to Africans is tripe. IQ tests are a universal measure of how well people can learn and apply what they've learnt to the world - something the general African population finds far more difficult than the average Westerner. For instance a good dr will have an IQ of 120+, and where is lacking in drs? Africa. A good lawyer will also have an IQ of 120+, and where has a terrible legal system? Africa. Or maybe, according to you, they just aren't suited to being Western Drs and lawyers in the way China, India, America, Australia, and Europe, can?
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Elipsis)
    I didn't contest that democracy may not suit Africa - if anything I expanded on why it doesn't. When people here had low IQs they weren't allowed and didn't expect a say in government. The idea that IQ tests aren't suited to Africans is tripe. IQ tests are a universal measure of how well people can learn and apply what they've learnt to the world - something the general African population finds far more difficult than the average Westerner. For instance a good dr will have an IQ of 120+, and where is lacking in drs? Africa. A good lawyer will also have an IQ of 120+, and where has a terrible legal system? Africa. Or maybe, according to you, they just aren't suited to being Western Drs and lawyers in the way China, India, America, Australia, and Europe, can?
    :facepalm2:

    Thats why medical and law schools have compulsary IQ tests as part of their admissions procedure isn't it.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by tieyourmotherdown)

    Yeah because not like this is caused by the total lack of education and the total lack of an education system is caused by the horrendous job that European powers did at creating independence ... of course not :rolleyes:
    YOU HAVE ENTIRELY MISSED THE POINT

    Without colonialism, without European intervention there would BE NO EDUCATION IN AFRICA.

    ALL knowledge in Sub-Saharan Africa comes from Europeans, EVERYTHING that they know has been taught and told to them by Europeans.

    GET THE POINT
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by lovely_me)
    But the wider population in the UK does have an IQ of around 100, as for the 'elite' that extends much much higher.


    I did manage to get through that incredibly articulate and poorly constructed post (and you have the audacity to accuse Africans of being unintelligent! :rolleyes:) and you never said or even implied blacks ought to seize the power they deserve m8?
    Five minutes earlier:
    'Like the poster above states, these countries cannot handle our 'advanced' forms of democracy. '
    Our elite have IQs of 130-200. Our system could not be continued if it relied on the average person in the population... We therefore cannot expect Africa to succeed in its current condition. And I did say blacks were forced to seize the power that rightly belonged to them, history will decide if this was a clever thing - maybe not given the fact they don't have the ability to run the system we left.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Tha_Black_Shinobi)
    :facepalm2:

    Thats why medical and law schools have compulsary IQ tests as part of their admissions procedure isn't it.
    They have other mechanisms for making sure the most intelligent get in... For instance a full set of A*s at GCSE, 4 As at a level, and high scores in the LNAT. Something someone with an IQ of below 120 would be extremely hard pushed to achieve.
    Offline

    13
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Elipsis)
    I didn't contest that democracy may not suit Africa - if anything I expanded on why it doesn't. When people here had low IQs they weren't allowed and didn't expect a say in government. The idea that IQ tests aren't suited to Africans is tripe. IQ tests are a universal measure of how well people can learn and apply what they've learnt to the world - something the general African population finds far more difficult than the average Westerner. For instance a good dr will have an IQ of 120+, and where is lacking in drs? Africa. A good lawyer will also have an IQ of 120+, and where has a terrible legal system? Africa. Or maybe, according to you, they just aren't suited to being Western Drs and lawyers in the way China, India, America, Australia, and Europe, can?
    Could you expand on how it's a universal measure? Also, I disagree that people who have a low IQ here should be denied a say in the government. IQ tests are just one way of measuring intelligence and, in any case, if a decision affects a person, that person should have a say in that decision.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by SnowMonster)
    YOU HAVE ENTIRELY MISSED THE POINT

    Without colonialism, without European intervention there would BE NO EDUCATION IN AFRICA.

    ALL knowledge in Sub-Saharan Africa comes from Europeans, EVERYTHING that they know has been taught and told to them by Europeans.

    GET THE POINT
    Indeed. They didn't even have a written language when we got there. They hadn't even figured out how to farm properly.
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by SnowMonster)
    Erm it was an englishman who invented the toilet. I am sure wherever you or your family are from people still **** in a hole in the ground and use their hand to clean their arse.
    Erm no. He invented the modern lavatory with a flush. It was actually documented as being in existence as far back as ancient Egypt and Rome. Regardless let's not dwell on such a gross topic. My point is: why is the clown bragging about superiority or higher culture when most English people for most of English history were low IQ peasants?

    And for what it's worth my family is a) clean and b) clean. But then I don't expect a strong response from someone who relies on a troll account to state their bold and contravershul opinions. Elipsis.


    (Original post by ANARCHY__)
    You are correct. *FUN HISTORICAL FACT* Did you know that Queen Elizabeth spoke with a Midlands accent, similar to present day Birmingham?
    Nah. But I do now.


    (Original post by Elipsis)
    Can't you read? I said a few generations ago our elite was in the exact same position as Africa's. They had average IQs and were trying to control a population with very low IQs. I also pointed out our elite had the added benefit that they could create our system, rather than importing a system that was created over centuries. I also pointed out that they were trying to control a population hundreds of times smaller than Africa's elites have to because the West has helped it swell with its advances in science (which came to us one by one, rather than all at the same time - so our population expanded at a sustainable rate rather than going from 1 million to 70 million in a few generations).

    Why do retarded liberal idiots like yourself focus in on the FACT that Africans currently have a far lower IQ? All I was saying is that they are us 100 years ago, but with all the problems modern society brings - huge populations, guns, internal strife etc. Sorry for offending your pathetic sensibilities cry baby.
    I can read. Certainly. What I can't do however is decipher bull**** disguised as an argument but I'll give it a go if only for the craic. The "elite" that you refer to weren't chosen because of their IQs or towering intellect. They were chosen because of their family backgrounds and aristocratic connections. And what are the trappings that come with blue blood if not the lowest of IQs? Not these so called ''average'' IQs that you are deluding yourself with.

    Can you also name me 10 colonial pioneers that were "common men done good"? I'm not convinced. The elite of the elite and the very people who brought feudal democracy to Europe -- the Hapsburgs -- are dead because they were so degenerate and retarded. The same dynasty that created the royal families and kingly courts of Spain, Germany, France, Hungary, Austria and a few other proms. But whatever. This isn't my point and not your point either.

    I am more interested in your claim of ''advanced forms of democracy''. Was it the English that invented democracy? If not, why did it take so many thousands of years for the English to take up full democracy from the Greeks if they were so "advanced"?




    I think it's funny that you call me "liberal" when I am most likely more conservative than you.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Elipsis)
    Indeed. They didn't even have a written language when we got there. They hadn't even figured out how to farm properly.
    EXatcly many European cultures had written languages that were developed completely seperately from latin. For instance th anglo saxons had runic scripture and the although the celts were an oral culture, they had developed various forms of complex written language.

    Without Europeans Africa would still be living in the stone age. Colonialism has given everything to Africa.

    Africas biggest problem today is self inflicted and it comes in the form of constantly exploding populations that are multiplying at a terrifying, unsustainable rate. But I am asure colonialism will get the blame for that also.
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Aj12)
    A few months ago there was a thread about something to do with Africa, can't remember the details but one theme kept coming up and that was that most of Africa's problems were caused by colonisation and various atrocities committed by European nation's.

    Now is this really still a relevant way to explain many of Africa's problems?

    Take the Congo for example. Belgium left the country in 1960 that's more than half a decade ago. Would it still be relevant to blame problems like the civil war an the violence on colonisation?


    Also can much of the poverty we see today still be linked to European empires exploiting their colonies?
    The problems were there before the Europeans arrived. I thought James Watson identified the problem with development a few years ago?

    http://www.gnxp.com/blog/2007/10/jam...-truth_296.php
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    wide spread corruption, poverty and a whole host of other things is whats causes things like this
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by ANARCHY__)
    Could you expand on how it's a universal measure? Also, I disagree that people who have a low IQ here should be denied a say in the government. IQ tests are just one way of measuring intelligence and, in any case, if a decision affects a person, that person should have a say in that decision.
    Well intelligence is intelligence, and how it transfers into the professions is universal. How exactly would African intelligence be different to ours in your view? IQ measures raw intelligence as a predictor of the profession one might pursue. If you set an African with an IQ of 80 a task, they will do just as well as a Chinese person with an IQ of 80, because it is standardised. I'd be very interested in how else we should measure intelligence?

    And as for not giving people with low IQ the vote, I was pointing out that when our country was making itself great and prosperous our elite did not have to contend with a population who continuously elected on popularity rather than ability and policies. Anyone with the funds can win an election in Africa (if they are black of course), which has left many of the countries with awful corrupt leaders who don't institute policies that help the poor get clever enough to use their right to vote appropriately.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Mujeriego)
    Erm no. He invented the modern lavatory with a flush. It was actually documented as being in existence as far back as ancient Egypt and Rome. Regardless let's not dwell on such a gross topic. My point is: why is the clown bragging about superiority or higher culture when most English people for most of English history were low IQ peasants?

    And for what it's worth my family is a) clean and b) clean. But then I don't expect a strong response from someone who relies on a troll account to state their bold and contravershul opinions. Elipsis.




    Nah. But I do now.




    I can read. Certainly. What I can't do however is decipher bull**** disguised as an argument but I'll give it a go if only for the craic. The "elite" that you refer to weren't chosen because of their IQs or towering intellect. They were chosen because of their family backgrounds and aristocratic connections. And what are the trappings that come with blue blood if not the lowest of IQs? Not these so called ''average'' IQs that you are deluding yourself with.

    Can you also name me 10 colonial pioneers that were "common men done good"? I'm not convinced. The elite of the elite and the very people who brought feudal democracy to Europe -- the Hapsburgs -- are dead because they were so degenerate and retarded. The same dynasty that created the royal families and kingly courts of Spain, Germany, France, Hungary, Austria and a few other proms. But whatever. This isn't my point and not your point either.

    I am more interested in your claim of ''advanced forms of democracy''. Was it the English that invented democracy? If not, why did it take so many thousands of years for the English to take up full democracy from the Greeks if they were so "advanced"?




    I think it's funny that you call me "liberal" when I am most likely more conservative than you.
    The elite I refer to are the upper-middle classes, rather than the purely upper classes. Look at the cabinet now - almost all Etonion descendants of Lords and the like - almost all of whom have IQs of over 120.


    I didn't claim that colonialists did good on a single level, but rather they provided all the things needed for an advanced economy to flourish - roads, railways, educational establishments, farming techniques, and rule of law, to name but a few. Indeed India today is still using our railways, educating their children in the imperialist schools we left behind, and ruling using the parliament we set up.

    The English weren't advanced at least until the late 1800s/early 1900s, that system devloped over hundreds of years, and from having no idea of anything but tribal governance Africa is supposed to just get it? They didn't even have a written language, or for that matter a very expansive spoken language either. I do not know why you are getting so offended by me stating that the majority of the world is currently superior to Africans, I'm not even saying they are superior on a fundamental biological level. Imagine, if you can, we built a time machine and went back to the Habsburg empire and tried to get them, with their lower IQs, to implement the systems we use today. It would be a catastrophe.

    And with all your crying I very much doubt you are more conservative than I am, indeed debating with you whilst trying not to offend your sensibilities is proving impossible. It's like having an argument with the Guardian in human form.

    I think posting on a troll account on a mobile would be rather difficult... It takes like 2 mins per page as it is. If it was my opinion why would I seek to protect this account?
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    Well, I don't know how badly these 'countries' were suffering before people came along, changed their languages, changed their religions, changed their borders, removed the point of tribes, changed how they lived, dressed and worked, changed how they were led/governed etc.
    Maybe the people didn't look the way Westerners wanted them to look, didn't act the way Westerners wanted them to act, didn't live the same way as Westerners, weren't using their resources as efficiently as they could, didn't have the same values as Westerners had and obviously weren't even as 'healthy' as Westerners, but they were satisfied and survived.
    It's possible that the actual main problem is that the 'White man' came and adjusted the Africans way and standard of living, shifted the power to where it suited them and then 'left' leaving the people aware of their 'inferiority' and differences and in the middle of a new way of living (i.e. with governments) that nobody left there was really used to or wanted. The problem isn't the poverty, low education and illness, because that has mostly improved, the problem is the awareness the people have of themselves now, which means they cannot go back, but to match up with the standards they have been shown, they would need to advance ridiculously quickly, in a much shorter space of time than the Westerners themselves did. I think that's why the spread of wealth and corruption is so extreme.

    Just me thinking out load/rambling...
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Elipsis)
    I didn't contest that democracy may not suit Africa - if anything I expanded on why it doesn't. When people here had low IQs they weren't allowed and didn't expect a say in government. The idea that IQ tests aren't suited to Africans is tripe. IQ tests are a universal measure of how well people can learn and apply what they've learnt to the world - something the general African population finds far more difficult than the average Westerner. For instance a good dr will have an IQ of 120+, and where is lacking in drs? Africa. A good lawyer will also have an IQ of 120+, and where has a terrible legal system? Africa. Or maybe, according to you, they just aren't suited to being Western Drs and lawyers in the way China, India, America, Australia, and Europe, can?
    I think your confidence in IQ tests is pretty absurd. Any decent sociologist will tell you that IQ, although partly related to innate intelligence, has a much stronger correlation with factors such as education, social class and cultural inheritance. To say that africans are 'borderline retarded' is totally racist as well, considering that IQ tests are designed by Westerners as a means of testing intelligence, which is a rather difficult to explain idea in itself. Also can you please explain how it was the British people managed to get higher IQs if, as you seem to suggest, IQ is purely innate and not related to education. All in all, IQ tests are pretty bloody awful.

    On the topic of Africa, although I have not studied the issue in detail, I am presuming that what has happened there is similar to what has happened around the rest of the world: the IMF, an organisation made up of right-wing ideologues have imposed, using 'shock' tactics, highly detrimental and totally undemocratic policies developing nations, namely deregulation of industry, privatisation of industry and rolling back of welfare benefits, as conditions on loans which countries require after disasters. This has happened throughout South and Central America and I wouldnt be surprised if it had also happened in Africa.Given that this almost totally destroys the infrastructure of a country it is no surprise that education throughout much of Africa, icluding South Africa, which has been proposed as some kind of model state.

    Furthermore, you add to the damaging economic policies the high incidence of disease, the prevalence of AIDS has not been helped by the Pope's anti-condom stance, considering many parts of Africa are devoutly religious, and the high prices that pharmaceutical companies can charge for basic medicines making it near impossible to combat health problems without racking up huge debts, which further damges their economic status.

    In addition there is the the higly unfair trade sytem prevalent throughout Africa whereby US and other countries can sell their produce within African markets with very little in the way of tariffs and huge subsidies from their governments, but, as part of the IMF's policies poor African countries must remove all state subsidies, leaving them totally uncompetitive in their domestics markets, and because of the high trade tariffs of western countries who are often the only buyers of the goods, allowing them to squeeze the producers, they are rendered almost completely uncompetitive and have to sell their goods at prices which generate almost no profit.

    Due to involvement by the CIA and large multinationals, such as Shell in the case of Nigeria, many governments are corrupt, extremely limiting the effectiveness of aid, and civil war and strife, usually backed by the CIA and/or large weapons companies, have hampered the ability of ordinary Africans and governments to create a peaceful and prosperous society.

    In terms of colonialism, many African countries were better better off under European, most likely because of the strong governance they ensured however pulling out so swiftly left many countries unprepared for independence and the arbitrary map lines which divide Africa, drawn up by colonial powers, certainly do not help Africa's tribal system which also has a part to play in its problems.
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Elipsis)
    The elite I refer to are the upper-middle classes, rather than the purely upper classes. Look at the cabinet now - almost all Etonion descendants of Lords and the like - almost all of whom have IQs of over 120.


    I didn't claim that colonialists did good on a single level, but rather they provided all the things needed for an advanced economy to flourish - roads, railways, educational establishments, farming techniques, and rule of law, to name but a few. Indeed India today is still using our railways, educating their children in the imperialist schools we left behind, and ruling using the parliament we set up.

    The English weren't advanced at least until the late 1800s/early 1900s, that system devloped over hundreds of years, and from having no idea of anything but tribal governance Africa is supposed to just get it? They didn't even have a written language, or for that matter a very expansive spoken language either. I do not know why you are getting so offended by me stating that the majority of the world is currently superior to Africans is beyond me, I'm not even saying they are superior on a fundamental biological level.

    And with all your crying I very much doubt you are more conservative than I am, indeed debating with you whilst trying not to offend your sensibilities is proving impossible. It's like having an argument with the Guardian in human form.
    IQs consistently of over 120. Oh lawd. How do you know that? Source? I don't take kindly to wild claims when forming opinions. I'm also anti-stupidity and not anti-conservatism so calling me the Guardian is fairly tame as far as insults go.

    Answer me these three questions:

    A - If it took the English two millenia to take advantage of democracy when Greece was on your doorstep, why are you putting down the Africans for not realising its benefits yet?

    B - Which "Africans" didn't have a written language? There are 47 countries in Africa, 2000+ languages and just before colonisation there were more than 1000 states. The Ancient Egyptians were non-Arabised Africans. In fact they gave us the Rosetta Stone and were one of the first groups ever to have a written language. Did they not have a language? What about the Oromos?

    (As an aside did you really think that if a 1000 nation states were forcibly put together there would be no civil unrest?! Would you like to live in Chechnya under the orders of high IQ generals from Mexico? I mean they do have very large IQs of 200. :rolleyes: )


    C - Are you respecting my sensibilities or are you just incapable of answering my questions? Fine line to walk but in exchange for a decent answer I'll allow you to openly mock my sensibilities and any other standard I have.
 
 
 
  • See more of what you like on The Student Room

    You can personalise what you see on TSR. Tell us a little about yourself to get started.

  • Poll
    Did TEF Bronze Award affect your UCAS choices?
    Useful resources
  • See more of what you like on The Student Room

    You can personalise what you see on TSR. Tell us a little about yourself to get started.

  • The Student Room, Get Revising and Marked by Teachers are trading names of The Student Room Group Ltd.

    Register Number: 04666380 (England and Wales), VAT No. 806 8067 22 Registered Office: International House, Queens Road, Brighton, BN1 3XE

    Quick reply
    Reputation gems: You get these gems as you gain rep from other members for making good contributions and giving helpful advice.