The Math Forum

Search All of the Math Forum:

Views expressed in these public forums are not endorsed by NCTM or The Math Forum.

Math Forum » Discussions » sci.math.* » sci.math

Notice: We are no longer accepting new posts, but the forums will continue to be readable.

Topic: Solving Africa's Problem
Replies: 11   Last Post: Aug 31, 2012 5:34 PM

Advanced Search

Back to Topic List Back to Topic List Jump to Tree View Jump to Tree View   Messages: [ Previous | Next ]

Posts: 1,651
Registered: 12/13/04
Re: Solving Africa's Problem
Posted: Aug 26, 2012 7:03 PM
  Click to see the message monospaced in plain text Plain Text   Click to reply to this topic Reply

"Immortalist" <> gave a
nice rendition of Jared Diamond's TV series on the
"White Man's Cargo" that aired about 5-7 years ago.
Good job, dude. I enjoyed it then as well as now.
Kudos to you, albeit you didn't really address Topaz's
main beef who sees US-Black people as a Block and
wants to send them back to Africa.
The obvious though is (if you believe in DNA), that we
all came OUT OF Africa and hence we are all Black.
To boot, all Afro-Americans living today do have AT
LEAST one white male ancestor, which came about
when on Saturday nights the Slave-owner's lily white
wife had a "head ache" and he decided to check what
was "available" in the Slave quarters... ahahahahahaha
The same in Europe & England. The black DNA strain
was (re-) introduced there by Black Legionnaires from
the ancient Roman Empire. Same for the Scandinavian
Ruz (Russians) who sired children with black Mediterranean
women on their sojourn's South and brought them back
home North.
All in all, we are mixtures of all kinds of cultural strains
today, incl. Abos, Inuits, Mongols & even Neanderthals,
as researchers finally begin to admit to... ahahaha...
Humans migrate, and when "Dickie" meets "Twattie"
then they make Youngens... & the more "exotic" they
look to each other the greater their sexual attraction.
So, where does Topaz draw the line in US-Blacks as
to which ones he tries to send back to Africa?
Topaz also ought to remember that stemming and
reversing this natural/evolutionary diversification by
racial purification attempts, like when tried by the 3rd
Reich & the current Jewish State, were not and are
not exactly successful examples or models to follow.

Topaz better check his own family tree and be careful
what he wishes for... Topaz just may be and become
one of the Deportees too... ahahahaha... AHAHAHA.
Thanks for the laughs, guys... ahahaha... ahahahanson
Topaz <> wrote:
The reason America is rich is because it was made by
White people. < see rest at the end of post>
>. ________

"Immortalist" <> wrote:
But why was it made by white people? Was it something inherent in
their race or just the luck of geography that gave them the power to
cut up the world in chunks to keep as trophys?

Another reason for the higher local diversity of domesticated plants
and animals in Eurasia than in the Americas is that Eurasia's main
axis is east/west, whereas the main axis of the Americas is north/
south. Eurasia's east/west axis meant that species domesticated in one
part of Eurasia could easily spread thousands of miles at the same
latitude, encountering the same day-length and climate to which they
were already adapted. As a result, chickens and citrus fruit
domesticated in Southeast Asia quickly spread westward to Europe;
horses domesticated in the Ukraine quickly spread eastward to China;
and the sheep, goats, cattle, wheat, and barley of the Fertile
Crescent quickly spread both west and east.

In contrast, the north/south axis of the Americas meant that species
domesticated in one area couldn't spread far without encountering day-
lengths and climates to which they were not adapted. As a result, the
turkey never spread from its site of domestication in Mexico to the
Andes; llamas and alpacas never spread from the Andes to Mexico, so
that the Indian civilizations of Central and North America remained
entirely without pack animals; and it took thousands of years for the
corn that evolved in Mexico's climate to become modified into a corn
adapted to the short growing season and seasonally changing day-length
of North America.

Eurasia's domesticated plants and animals were important for several
other reasons besides letting Europeans develop nasty germs.
Domesticated plants and animals yield far more calories per acre than
do wild habitats, in which most species are inedible to humans. As a
result, population densities of farmers and herders are typically ten
to a hundred times greater than those of hunter/gatherers. That fact
alone explains why farmers and herders everywhere in the world have
been able to push hunter/gatherers out of land suitable for farming
and herding. Domestic animals revolutionized land transport. They also
revolutionized agriculture, by letting one farmer plough and manure
much more land than the farmer could till or manure by the farmer's
own efforts. Also, hunter/gatherer societies tend to be egalitarian
and to have no political organization beyond the level of the band or
tribe, whereas the food surpluses and storage made possible by
agriculture permitted the development of stratified, politically
centralized societies with governing elites. Those food surpluses also
accelerated the development of technology, by supporting craftspeople
who didn't raise their own food and who could instead devote
themselves to developing metallurgy, writing, swords, and guns.

In Guns, Germs, and Steel, Jared Diamond joins the debate over racial
differences in IQ. In a few ex cathedra pronouncements, Diamond brands
the genetic argument "racist" (pp. 19-22), declares Herrnstein and
Murray?s (1994) The Bell Curve "notorious" (p. 431), and states: "The
objection to such racist explanations is not just that they are
loathsome but also that they are wrong" (p. 19). He summarises his
solution to one of philosophy and social science?s most enduring
questions in one credal sentence: "History followed different courses
for different peoples because of differences among people?s
environments, not because of biological differences among peoples
themselves" (p. 25).

The book grew out of an attempt to answer "Yali?s question." Yali, a
New Guinea native, allegedly asked Diamond, an evolutionary biologist,
"Why is it that you white people developed so much cargo and brought
it to New Guinea, but we black people had little cargo of our own?"
"Cargo" refers to all that technology?airplanes, guns, steel axes?
European whites brought to New Guinea, whose dark-skinned inhabitants
were still using stone tools. Diamond?s answer, is that the peoples of
the Eurasian continent were environmentally rather than biologically
advantaged. They had the good fortune to have lived in centrally
located homelands that were oriented along an east-west axis, thereby
allowing ready diffusion of their abundant supply of domesticable
animals, plants, and of cultural innovations.

According to Diamond?s reckoning, there are only 148 species of large,
wild creatures that can be tamed (and of these only 14 species have
made it to the farm). In the plant realm, only several hundred of
200,000 species can yield good protein. The ancestors of these mammals
and plants ? which include pigs, barley, and rice ? just happened to
be in the Fertile Crescent and China. Moreover, only the Eurasian
continent has an east-west axis allowing diffusion of plants, animals,
and people across similar, somewhat Mediterranean-style climate and
terrain. The north-south axis of Africa and America inhibited
diffusion due to severe changes in climate. For example, the tropical
jungle of central America effectively stopped the southward migration
of domestic corn from Mexico and the northward migration of the
domestic llama from Peru. Five thousand years after llamas had been
domesticated in the Andes, the Maya, Aztecs, and all the other native
societies of Mexico remained without pack animals. Similarly, the
Saharan desert and tropical rainforests of Africa impeded the
southward spread of technology from the Fertile Crescent of the Middle-

Thus, agriculturally wealthy Eurasians had a long head start in
developing a surplus population with a division of labor that enabled
the tools of civilization to arise. Agricultural settlements led small
bands of nomadic hunter-gatherers to coalesce into village-based
tribes. These grew into chiefdoms comprising thousands of people from
many villages. Chiefdoms led conflict-mediating laws to be codified.
Ruling classes and elites emerged to mobilize citizens and their
resources to wage war, build public works, and increase political
power. Finally, the state arose and with it the large populations and
technological developments including political organizations that
produced fleets of soldiers engaging in transoceanic conquest.

Astonishing, for example, is how Diamond describes the case of the
island of Madagascar. It was colonized around 500 A.D. (about the same
time as Hawaii) by an Austronesian-language people (similar to
Polynesians) from Borneo, some 4,000 miles across the Indian Ocean,
rather than by East Africans living only 250 miles away. Diamond?s
answer (again) is that conquerors had better homelands rather than
better brains. The immediate reason why Austronesians crossed the
Indian Ocean was because they invented ocean-going canoes. They did
this by outrigging dugouts, to stop them from capsizing, by lashing
two smaller logs parallel to the hull and several feet from it, one on
each side, connected to the hull by poles, with sails added later.

According to Diamond, the underlying explanation of why the
Austronesians were more inventive than Africans and developed a
technology that Africans did not dream of is that they were colonizing
farmers originating in south China where they had achieved a head
start through domesticating pigs, chickens, dogs, and rice. They
simply loaded their domesticated products into their ocean-going
canoes and moved on to replace the original tropical southeast Asians
(possibly hunter-gathering Negritoes). The Austronesian expansion
began in Taiwan (3,500 B.C.), then moved to the Philippines (3,000
B.C.), Indonesia (2,000 B.C.), New Zealand (1,000 A.D.) and the
Pacific Islands (500 A.D.).
>. _______

Topaz <> initially wrote:
> The reason America is rich is because it was made by White people.
> The former White nations and Japan are the first world. The Black
> countries are the third world. Leftist blame all the problems in the
> world on the Whites. The real reason Black countries are the third
> world is that Blacks are on average much less intelligent than Whites
> as all IQ tests have proven.
> In the past White people built colonies in Africa and brought
> civilization there. The Blacks were much better off with schools and
> hospitals and a lot of food. They were exporting food. But the
> liberals didn't like White people being in charge so they put a stop
> to the colonies. And they brought the starvation and misery back to
> Africa.
> The liberal plan of just giving food to the Blacks also causes more
> suffering. It always causes them to greatly increase their population
> and then there are a lot more people starving and needing even more
> food.
> Since the Liberals didn't like the colonies because Whites were
> running them, I propose that American Blacks be sent there. Many
> American Blacks are not very dark and have a lot of White blood in
> them and they are more intelligent than the African Blacks. They could
> teach the Africans how to farm and educate them in many other ways.
> With the proper leadership the starvation in Africa could be stopped.

Point your RSS reader here for a feed of the latest messages in this topic.

[Privacy Policy] [Terms of Use]

© The Math Forum at NCTM 1994-2018. All Rights Reserved.