Harvest. . File: -( 32 KB, 553x484, 130524416810, jpg) El] Adverage o. Holy mother staged, that can' t possibly be right, otherwise according to " s post, % oft Harvest File: -( 32 KB 553x484 130524416810 jpg) El] Adverage o Holy mother staged that can' t possibly be right otherwise according to " s post % oft
Upload
Login or register

Harvest

File: -( 32 KB, 553x484, 130524416810, jpg) El]
Adverage o.
Holy mother staged, that can' t possibly be right, otherwise according to " s post, % ofthem would betas dumbed harvest
vegetables, and they would all be starving to dea-
AT SEE
...
+646
Views: 37329 Submitted: 09/15/2013
Leave a comment Refresh Comments (165)
[ 165 comments ]
Anonymous comments allowed.
75 comments displayed.
#1 - windson
Reply +48
(09/15/2013) [-]
B-BUT MY TRIBAL LIFE   
W-WE DON'T NEED EDUCATION TO LIVE
B-BUT MY TRIBAL LIFE
W-WE DON'T NEED EDUCATION TO LIVE
#27 - dedaluminus
Reply +19
(09/16/2013) [-]
Warning: Huge Wall of Text Inbound

People in Africa started off at the same level as everyone else. But almost every other culture developed close-knit societies, agriculture, metalworking for weapons or at least extremely efficient nonmetal weapons, medicine of some sort-basically, all the landmarks of civilization. Civilization is a desire to improve things around you for yourself and for others, in barest terms. And the problem is not any inherent lack of intelligence in native african people, because there isn't one. But if you go to Africa, and go to a place that was not forcibly developed by european or arabic muslim conquerors, it is still, literally, in the stone age.

The problem is a lack of ambition.

#50 to #27 - mutzaki
Reply -1
(09/16/2013) [-]
Research has found that diet is key in the issue. When you grow up without nutrients, particularly phosphorus, your brain simply cannot develop. Of course, intelligence also develops from stimulating and challenging your brain through and beyond your childhood, which doesn't happen for them either.
#51 to #50 - dedaluminus
Reply -1
(09/16/2013) [-]
God dammit ************ why couldn't you put your reply at the bottom like everyone else so that the text remained unbroken

like, I don't even care what you said now I'm just mad about the combo breaker
#52 to #51 - mutzaki
Reply -2
(09/16/2013) [-]
Well aren't you just a piece of ****?
#53 to #52 - dedaluminus
Reply +1
(09/16/2013) [-]
My post wasn't even about intelligence, why couldn't you put your dumbass **** somewhere else?
#54 to #53 - mutzaki
Reply -1
(09/16/2013) [-]
Okay, I think you need to take a nap or something.
"And the problem is not any inherent lack of intelligence in native african people..." So yeah, you did talk about intelligence, and the content was about intelligence, so I spun off on that and wanted to explain further why the average IQ in Africa is low.
How old are you if you get this upset by someone "combo breaking" your comment chain?
#56 to #54 - dedaluminus
Reply +1
(09/16/2013) [-]
But the whole point of my post was that African people are not any lower in intelligence than any other group of people, and that the problems are political and cultural rather than genetic.
#61 to #56 - mutzaki
Reply -2
(09/16/2013) [-]
Then you are uninformed about it. Research has found a connection between intelligence and diet. If your diet lacks phosphorus and other nutrients during childhood, which it does for most African people that live in famine, your brain isn't able to fully develop. That, along with lack of education and opportunities to stimulate your brain, results in lower intelligence, and there's nothing racist about that.
To be clear, I'm not denying that there's a cultural difference, but simply explaining why the IQ results are the way they are for Africa.
#28 to #27 - dedaluminus
Reply +9
(09/16/2013) [-]
Africa is the most fertile, resource-rich land in all of the Earth. Tribal societies worked well there, incredibly well. Yeah, the wildlife tries to kill you on a regular basis, but there was no real lack of food or potable water (every area naturally has water-borne diseases, so that isn't an excuse.) Naturally shaded and sheltered areas were prolific, and there was so much room to roam that you hardly ever ran into another tribe. Like, once every few generations. There was no reason to improve anything, because life was (relatively speaking) easy. So for generation after generation, children were taught that "this is how things work, it works well." There was no reason to advance. Unlike other places where resources were thin, and societies rubbed up against each other enough for that greatest harbinger of technological advancement, all-out war. Most anyone with a natural yen to explore was killed by wildlife in their journeys, or, whenever they got somewhere new and interesting, stayed there rather than go back to their home tribe with their discoveries. Or, if they did, the discoveries were written off as foolish. "Plant seeds, Mbunta? That's really hard. There's fruit right there, and tasty animals over there. Go stab one and stick it in a fire. Much better." And any advancements that were accepted were hardly ever improved upon and often destroyed when another tribe took advantage of the fact that agriculture is tiring to attack and kill. It's been ingrained deeply into most societies there, and societies don't change easily.

And when the innovators and explorers die off and don't breed, it gets even less likely for change to happen.
#29 to #28 - dedaluminus
Reply +9
(09/16/2013) [-]
But what about the areas conquered by european or middle-eastern societies? Well, some areas are doing incredibly well. The northern african nations, many of them, may have war problems and internal strife, but they are developed and have the capacity and the desire to develop further. South Africa was incredibly developed, but recently there is a food shortage there because land previously taken by european settlers is being given "back" to the natives. Large farms, once capable of being run by ten and supporting 500 with hard work, have turned into subsistence farms, that barely feed the people living there. Modern technology is often used, but much of the time it is used for a different class of tribalism-gangs, and bands, run by warlords. AK-47's instead of spears. Bush machetes instead of stone knives. There's not a lot of conquering going on, just pointless strife and killing. Tribe-on-tribe genocide happens a lot; rarely does one tribe conquer another and fold them into society as a work-force or as captive citizens. All the best of technology, being used for all the stupidest of ends. Now, there is an intense protectiveness of the land that they consider "theirs," but not much desire to expand it. Foreigners tend to come either to push them out and build buildings, dig things out of the ground, etc, or they come to bring free food if you'll listen to their stories. Or just free food, water, clothes, here you go. This created a welfare state in many places, which has become a profitable business for all those companies that run the ads on tv with the starving African children so that you'll send in money for your feel-good-about-yourself tote bag.
#30 to #29 - dedaluminus
Reply +9
(09/16/2013) [-]
Ethiopia in particular is an interesting case. Alone out of all the northern and horn countries, it was never conquered in the "Grab for Africa" that happened in the 1700's and 1800's. The reason for this, is that it did develop on its own. It had a functioning agricultural society, fortified cities, a regimented and organized military, a defined, consistent monarchal government, everything. In fact, it was one of the best countries there for quite some time, with a maintained, functioning road network, and public works departments. Everything changed with the ascension of King of Kings (often called Emperor) Haile Selassie I, in 1930. He actually had a very multicultural outlook, and was responsible for Ethiopia being a founding member of the UN. What is bad is that without building a single new road or bit of infrastructure, he squandered the 11 billion US dollar equivalent national treasury entirely during his reign, and accumulated another 20 billion USD in debt to boot. This was, in large part, due to the fact that he didn't keep watch of the fact that marxist and leninist thought was spreading rapidly among the intelligentsia in Ethiopia, and that these people were in high enough positions to spread the wealth around without any oversight. (Now, a disclaimer. I think communism is a wonderful idea. A beautiful thought. But the tendency of people to be lazy dicks makes it pretty much a terrible form of government, in the real world. It discourages working harder than you have to, and encourages reliance on the state.) The spread of communistic thought, coupled with the inevitable economic inflation from the redistribution of wealth, led to a 4 day general strike, which coincided with the famine in Wollo and Tigray. There was a military coup during this time, ostensibly over Haile Selassie denying the military an all-round 50% wage hike (he was only willing to go to 33%), and Haile Selassie was ousted as monarch.
#32 to #30 - dedaluminus
Reply +10
(09/16/2013) [-]
A prime minister briefly governed, in hopes of the return of the crown prince, but leadership of the country ultimately went to the Derg in 1974. The Derg, winners of the "Military Cabal with the Most Retarded Name" award, were, ironically, initially a group of capital military officers set up to investigate the military demands. They expanded to about 110 people, all picked from junior officers or non-commissioned officers, as senior officers were deemed to be "too close to the former regime." They quickly took control, and immediately declared Ethiopia to be a communist society. Anyone who resisted the Derg were killed, with total execution numbers thought to be around 50 thousand in the first year alone. Having inherited no wealth from Haile Selassie, the redistribution of wealth was not successful. With the downfall of the free market came the downfall of the economy. Money, and people, hemorrhaged from Ethiopia in a massive outflux. The agricultural industry collapsed into subsistence farming, and trade was crippled. Starvation became rampant. Other countries would have intervened, but the Derg government was Soviet-backed, and this was the Cold War. Nobody wanted to risk provoking Soviet Russia. The country spiralled downwards until the Derg were ousted in 1987 by the creation of the People's Democratic Republic of Ethiopia, which, like every other country with People's Democratic in front of it, was a one-party communist state. A democracy only in name. Interfaction warring and interethnic warring happened until 1991, when the Ethiopian People's Revolutionary Democratic Front took control. They have remained in power to this day, and though elections happen, strangely, their people always remain in charge. (The elections are fixed. It's still basically a one-party system, but a profit oriented one.) Now, Ethiopia's economy is recovering. It has a strong trade network, and agriculture is returning to former levels.
Now you know all about Africa and Ethiopia.
#37 to #32 - theaflackduck
Reply +2
(09/16/2013) [-]
******* brilliant sir.
#39 to #37 - dedaluminus
Reply 0
(09/16/2013) [-]
#34 to #32 - neoexdeath ONLINE
Reply +2
(09/16/2013) [-]
That was...exceptionally informative when most of the time, I'd expect to see a bad joke about *******.
#35 to #34 - dedaluminus
0
has deleted their comment [-]
#142 to #32 - goblingang
Reply +1
(09/16/2013) [-]
Good research there, but there are a couple things that I feel need to be mentioned. Haile Selassie, while clamoured as a great leader for opposing fascist Italy and modernising his army, was running Ethiopia under a feudal system, with many farmers unable to keep up with the extortionate rents forced upon them. A famine ensued in Wollo (though not the large one that would become so well known) and the Derg used it as a pretext to take power, with the coup following a showing of a documentary about the famine in which they had edited clips of Selassie enjoying lavish feasts. When the Derg gained power, Mengistu Haile Mariam quickly emerged as their leader. However they faced heavy opposition in Eritrea (which Selassie had invaded in a brutal campaign) and Tigray. The region of Tigray, it should be known, is arid and at high altitudes, causing harvests to be below average at the best of times. This coupled with Mengistu leading a scorched earth campaign in the region, and a refusal to allow any foreigners into the region, caused a famine of biblical size to hit the region. By the time outsiders had seen it first hand, the death toll was in the tens of thousands.

Now as for agriculture in Africa, contrary to popular belief, it did indeed happen. Africa was already full of herding tribes when the Bantu people descended from Central West Africa (approx. modern Nigeria), bringing with them iron age technology and, of course, agriculture. Crops like maize and millet were widely cultivated in southern Africa long before meeting outsiders, and advanced societies did develop. In east Africa, the Swahili cities were strong players in the Indian Ocean trade network, with cities like Mombasa and Mogadishu being hubs of activity, as well as the islands of Zanzibar. In the area of what is modern Zimbabwe, which is in fact named after the stone fortresses built by the local kingdom, said kingdom was involved in the Indian Ocean trade via the kingdoms in Mozambique.
#148 to #142 - goblingang
Reply +1
(09/16/2013) [-]
This image of the "uncivilised Africans" probably came about as a way of justifying the land grab by the European empires, by portraying them as backwards, even exaggerating it to the point of calling them foragers. Let's not forget that history is written by the victors, and that for centuries Carthage was seen as a foreign, eastern culture in the Mediterranean, when it had been there long before the Romans (even influencing much of their culture) who portrayed them as evil and strange to get public opinion to support the punic wars. Or the fact that the Gallic tribes are often portrayed as backwards and wild, when in fact they were already trading with the Greeks, with a more advanced economic system than the Romans (small coinage, allowing for trade at low levels, not just bartering or gold like the Romans did). Conquerors almost always portray the conquered as their cultural inferiors in order to justify themselves to their people and the rest of the world.
#126 to #32 - adak
Reply +1
(09/16/2013) [-]
There were several other large civilizations in Africa like the empire of Ghana, and the Mali empire (which was incredibly rich) in western Africa and several large city states in eastern Africa. They were Muslims, but that was believed to be because of the fact that they traded a lot with Islamic countries, and a common religion eases diplomacy and trading.

It is also quite difficult to make a good account of African history since much of it never was written down, but instead passed on in oral tradition. This is also one of the reasons Africa gets branded as uncivilized since we view a written language as a criteria for a civilization, even though many of the Greek classic plays and their history was passed on orally for very long before they ever got written down. The Iliad for example was staged centuries before it was written down, and was passed on orally until then.
#149 to #32 - jarofdirt
Reply 0
(09/16/2013) [-]
Look at me, I learn things.
Look at me, I learn things.
#109 to #32 - alleksi ONLINE
Reply 0
(09/16/2013) [-]
Africa is the most fertile, resource-rich land in all of the Earth.

#104 to #32 - superintrovert
Reply 0
(09/16/2013) [-]
That. . .that was actually very interesting and informative. History usually bores me unless it's about something I had prior interest in but you hooked me straight from the beginning and I learned something today. That was a really cool ******* story bro!
#167 to #104 - dedaluminus
Reply 0
(09/17/2013) [-]
If this had been a history class, you would have spent an entire week on that topic. Now you know it backwards and forwards and it took you about ten minutes.
#168 to #167 - superintrovert
Reply 0
(09/17/2013) [-]
Much appreciated Dedaluminus.
#169 to #168 - dedaluminus
Reply 0
(09/17/2013) [-]
Post your very favorite reaction pic, so I can add it to my collection.
#170 to #169 - superintrovert
Reply 0
(09/17/2013) [-]
Relatively new, I don't save any pics and I'm not sure how. Sorry.
#154 to #30 - sanguinesolitude
Reply 0
(09/16/2013) [-]
wollo (lo)
wollo (lo)
#159 to #28 - Ruspanic
Reply 0
(09/16/2013) [-]
As far as climate and geography goes, I'd argue the opposite.

Climate and geography is the reason for what you call a lack of ambition. The abundance of predators and water-borne diseases and the lack of domesticable animals (in Central Africa in particular) are all conditions inhospitable to civilization - you can't farm or raise livestock in a jungle. That's precisely why the tribal, nomadic, and hunter-gatherer lifestyle prevailed - it was best suited to the circumstances. If you can't have a stationary food source, you've got to keep moving to follow your food. And, of course, without permanent settlements and agriculture you can have no civilization, because those are necessary prerequisites.

Tropical climates in general are not very suitable for civilization. Look at Papua New Guinea and the aboriginals of Southeast Asia. In general, the closer you are to the equator, the less technological and societal development you'll have (central Africa, New Guinea, the Amazon).
#2 - slone
Reply +14
(09/16/2013) [-]
holy **** there are 10 african countries where the average iq is legally retarded (below 70) or borderline retarded (70 - 85)

www.statisticbrain.com/countries-with-the-highest-lowest-average-iq/

#42 to #2 - damnfaithlessdogs
Reply -2
(09/16/2013) [-]
Yeah but think about what they were asked. I've had an IQ test done and it's mostly mathematical questions and logic and so on, but in the US we're legally bound to go to school and get an education. Most kids/people over there don't have access to those things.
#88 to #2 - buddhistzilla
Reply -2
(09/16/2013) [-]
You have to realize that IQ test have IMMENSE cultural bias.
#97 to #88 - economic
-5
has deleted their comment [-]
#7 to #2 - anon
Reply 0
(09/16/2013) [-]
i really do not see how that is any surprise
#40 - lolikikolik
Reply +10
(09/16/2013) [-]
**lolikikolik rolls 33** My IQ
#145 to #40 - kikkilinu
Reply 0
(09/16/2013) [-]
**kikkilinu rolls 83** Mine.
#146 to #145 - kikkilinu
Reply 0
(09/16/2013) [-]
**kikkilinu rolls 94** minus this.
#147 to #146 - kikkilinu
Reply +1
(09/16/2013) [-]
seems about right
#41 to #40 - lolikikolik
Reply +6
(09/16/2013) [-]
#47 to #41 - osamathemamalama
Reply +9
(09/16/2013) [-]
#43 to #40 - apocalypticburrito
Reply +9
(09/16/2013) [-]
at least its dubs right?
#14 - anon
Reply 0
(09/16/2013) [-]
IQ tests are extremely ethnocentric (i.e. questions are based on what a person living in a first world country- normally a Western country- would know). IQ tests are not a true measure of intelligence, but merely a measure of how well can perform on an IQ test. I took one and got 121. There's no ******* way I'm that smart.
#15 to #14 - schnizel [OP] ONLINE
Reply -7
(09/16/2013) [-]
Well, but ******* can't even do anything right. So yeah, the test is accurate.
#99 to #14 - economic
-2
has deleted their comment [-]
#127 to #99 - vigorion
Reply 0
(09/16/2013) [-]
They are still ethnocentric. The way they changed it was (for one) by using national norm-scales, meaning that the 100 score and standard deviations are set based on the national averages. This, however, does not mean that the questions are culturally independent. Because of this, we know that the only possible way a whole nation can score an average other than 100 is if they are compared to another norm-scale than their own. And in that case, the test results are affected by a cultural bias... Source: I am a soon-to-be-psychologist. I administer IQ-tests.
#16 to #14 - anon
Reply 0
(09/16/2013) [-]
I also live in Hong Kong, which is at the very top of the below list (brought to you by comments #2 and 8). The people here are often, if not perpetually, mind-numbingly stupid. There's no way the retards I see every day are that smart.
www.statisticbrain.com/countries-with-the-highest-lowest-average-iq/
#17 to #16 - alegitusername
Reply +6
(09/16/2013) [-]
well there's your problem.
#72 - smokingman
Reply +4
(09/16/2013) [-]
I'll put it this way.
Over the years I've done six IQ tests.
My results: 106, 101, 99, 97, 108, 122(?).
And I'm ******* stupid.
I have the slight impression that IQ tests are only good at verifying how good you are at undergoing IQ tests.
#74 to #72 - schnizel [OP] ONLINE
Reply 0
(09/16/2013) [-]
You just clicked randomly, did you Squidy?
#77 to #74 - smokingman
Reply 0
(09/16/2013) [-]
I did not.
#79 to #77 - schnizel [OP] ONLINE
Reply 0
(09/16/2013) [-]
#76 to #72 - anon
Reply 0
(09/16/2013) [-]
You truly are ******* stupid. Those results are ******* low
#102 to #72 - Ganifromholland
Reply 0
(09/16/2013) [-]
Ive always scored between the 150 and 160 those IQ test were mandatory on the school i went to, the average was between 100 and 120.... does this mean i'm a genius ?
#78 to #72 - darksideofthebeast
Reply +1
(09/16/2013) [-]
Mine is 140...

Hashtagnotthatsmart
#87 to #78 - bitchplzzz
Reply +3
(09/16/2013) [-]
Mine said "error"
#121 to #87 - smashingprodigy
Reply +1
(09/16/2013) [-]
I believe congratulations are in order!
#82 to #78 - smokingman
Reply 0
(09/16/2013) [-]
No, really, I have terrible grades, I'm repeating the last high-school year.
None of the false modesty here, I simply believe IQ test to be inadequate.
One can probably become accustomed to certain thought patterns and start performing much better.
#83 to #82 - darksideofthebeast
Reply +1
(09/16/2013) [-]
IQ Tests mean nothing, it means you're good at IQ tests.
But it can also mean you are good at paying attention.
#91 to #72 - thebestpieever
Reply +1
(09/16/2013) [-]
Pretty much yeah... I've kept an IQ score that floats around 130 and 136 for all of my life and I am thick.
#66 - lorkhan
Reply 0
(09/16/2013) [-]
**lorkhan rolls 37** Tis my IQ.
#80 to #66 - darksideofthebeast
Reply 0
(09/16/2013) [-]
**darksideofthebeast rolls 87**
#164 to #66 - iamnotacleverman
Reply 0
(09/16/2013) [-]
**iamnotacleverman rolls 273**
#125 to #66 - Ruspanic
Reply +2
(09/16/2013) [-]
>rolling two-digit numbers
#68 to #66 - lordscooby
Reply +4
(09/16/2013) [-]
**lordscooby rolls 38**
#31 - riwukas
Reply -3
(09/16/2013) [-]
What about russians? They have to be even lower.
#36 to #31 - rzthree
Reply +4
(09/16/2013) [-]
Actually, The Russians are known for producing some of the most brilliant people in the world. According to one source I found however, the Average IQ in Russia is 96
#101 - economic
+3
has deleted their comment [-]
#103 to #101 - schnizel [OP] ONLINE
Reply -1
(09/16/2013) [-]
Lol, ******* and ****** lovers don't understand the IQ is a test that determines your thinking capabilities, not how smart you get by reading books, but it can be improved by up to 5-6%.
#105 to #103 - economic
-2
has deleted their comment [-]
#106 to #105 - schnizel [OP] ONLINE
Reply -2
(09/16/2013) [-]
I know.
I know.
#20 - metalmind
Reply +3
(09/16/2013) [-]
2 Generations ago the average IQ of white americans was below 70.
IQ is largely determined by how good an education you get in your early childhood and through your teen years, both of which most Africans don't get.

Don't misrepresent facts.
And yes, western countries have higher average IQs, but America has a pretty low average IQ for a western country (even just among whites).
Germany and Austria are the only western countries that are equal to asian countries (both share the 6th place), and only some Asian countries have higher average IQs, while** America** is far behind on the 19th place.
#58 to #20 - schnizel [OP] ONLINE
Reply -3
(09/16/2013) [-]
Sup **********, did you suck some jew cock today.
#21 to #20 - idunnolol
Reply -2
(09/16/2013) [-]
"2 Generations ago the average IQ of white americans was below 70. "


And now its 50
#60 to #20 - schnizel [OP] ONLINE
Reply -2
(09/16/2013) [-]
>IQ is largely determined by how good an education you get in your early childhood and through your teen years, both of which most Africans don't get.
Even ******* that earn 100, 000 per year have 10% lower IQ than whites that earn the same.
#25 to #20 - rayner
Reply 0
(09/16/2013) [-]
So why don't they grow vegetables to not starve to death? I think that's a valid question.