Matthew Parris, longtime fixture of center-right British journalism at publications like The Spectator, has been thinking about the intractable problems of Africa:
…I observe that tribal belief is no more peaceable than ours; and that it suppresses individuality. People think collectively; first in terms of the community, extended family and tribe. This rural-traditional mindset feeds into the “big man” and gangster politics of the African city: the exaggerated respect for a swaggering leader, and the (literal) inability to understand the whole idea of loyal opposition….
Christianity, post-Reformation and post-Luther, with its teaching of a direct, personal, two-way link between the individual and God, unmediated by the collective, and unsubordinate to any other human being, smashes straight through the philosophical/spiritual framework I’ve just described. It offers something to hold on to to those anxious to cast off a crushing tribal groupthink. That is why and how it liberates.
Another version of the oft-heard “useful whether or not true” argument? An analogue to what economists sometimes call the “theory of the second best“? Or some third thing?
This idea is most associated with the Straussians — secret atheists who support public piety for the masses. It’s also something that is arguably part of America’s Founding. After meticulously studying the record I DON’T think the FFs were secret atheists like the Straussians; rather they were secretly heterodox not believing in things like the Trinity and infallibility of the Bible, in an era when wearing one’s heterodoxy on one’s sleeve could get one into social trouble with the “orthodox” who held a great deal more social power back then than they do today.
That said, George Washington’s Farewell Address reads like a Straussian tome. It never gets into whether “religion” is true, but just notes that it is “indispensable” in how it supports republican self-government.
According to wikipedia less than one percent of Africa is without God(s). He hasn’t saved them yet. It shouldn’t really be treated as a single entity though, since places like Egypt are doing just fine, and obviously is nothing like much of the rest of the continent.
Giving them God as a stepping stone is like the way public schools taught us about the pilgrims and indians. Why teach something you fully know is wrong and you know you will have to unteach them later? The unity brought by religion brings war and atrocity. If you want to give them unity, peace, and goals, give them jobs. Start in a more stable section of the continent and expand outwards. Now that China is getting industrialized, they will be looking for cheap labor.
Perhaps it’s time to admit that Africa is pretty much a lost cause. If reports are to be believed, in most regions, mean IQ is too low to hope for an indigenous “modern” society and economy – gods or no gods. As un-PC as it sounds, they perhaps should not have kicked out the foreigners.
I can’t speak to Africa but my own – quite plausibly biased – perspective is that traditional religion has manifold pleasures to more people than does atheism and it also aids in the establishment of communities of human beings where some semblance of law and order prevails. (Maimonides says something quite similar though to what extent he was a hidden heretic or non-believer [and of what and and when] is still subject to some debate.)
My perspective may be romanticized beyond any reasonable limit, but I’m of the view that “traditional values” are, in general, in greater conformance to our biological propensities and that there’s nothing quite like religion to keep people living by these “traditional” values.
I wish that we human beings could be rational enough to live by traditional/biological values WITHOUT the irrational beliefs of religion to bolster our commitment to living by those values but it appears that – for the most part – we can’t.
mnuez
Totally OT, but quite apropos to the general zeitgeist of quite a few comment threads as of late. People have been complaining about why there’s so much happy and/or militant atheism going on here in stead of policy discussions. My own view on the subject is in some agreement with that view while I also would want to acknowledge that I appreciate the sense of community that we have going here and as a majority among, not only americans, but the Conservative movement in general, I believe that a few happy and/or militantly atheistic/skeptical posts and discusisons are in order. We feel lonely and it’s nice to do some gossipping ABOUT those others who more often are gossipping about us. But my greater point is to wonder about the supposed uniqueness of this community in the first place. To the best that I’ve been able to make out, the majority of the commentors here are “Conservative” primarily in the fact that their in favor of more rampant capitalism and have a visceral hatred for socialism. How then is this community any different from that at hit n’ run (Reason’s blog) or any other mainstream “libertarian” community?
Freetraders who don’t give a hang about religion and who support abortion and same-sex marriage are a dime a dozen on the internets. In fact it’s hard not to run into them any any every where. What then is the unifying identity of this group? that some forty percent or so are closet “neo-conservatives” (aka wilsonian democrats)? The only sort of interesting niche that one could expect to find among people who might be labeled “secular-right” would be people who, despite being secular, are social conservatives – heck, even somewhat socialistic conservatives (’cause, let’s be honest, a major aspect of social conservativism is helping out others in the community who are too feeble [in body, mind or any other which way] to help themselves – witness orthodox jews and mormons for two of the brightest examples). But instead, most of the speaking parts have been given over to “Objectivist” free-traders. Are the many (anarcho-capitalist) libertarian blogs not sufficient for these folks?
Even if we wanted to, we couldn’t export European-style, individualistic Christianity because European-style Christianity only appeals to Europeans. Christianity, when it has been exported, has generally adapted itself to the local culture at least as much as vice versa… what Parris seems to really wish is that Africans would become European in culture. Well, 100 years of colonialism didn’t achieve that, so I don’t think we will.
@mnuez:
I’m one of the unapologetically militant libertarian atheists. I’ve argued in recent posts that we shouldn’t chase out the crazy religious people either, so long as they aren’t horribly disruptive. Are you suggesting they should boot everyone who doesn’t fit within their very rare narrow niche of secular social conservatives?
I guess to answer your question, no, the other blogs aren’t enough for me. I see very little point in talking to people who agree with me on everything. I can talk to myself if I want that, I do in fact. My blog has very few readers.
No, no, no. I don’t want to boot anyone. I just don’t understand in what way the demographics or political/social preferences of this blog are in any way different from the very many libertarian blogs out there. I may be a minority of one here with my interest in seeing a more “traditional” sort of society, yet one that needs no belief in invisible magicians to keep it such – but I’d like to know if that’s the case. If secular-right means nothing more than anarcho-capitalist then what the heck is novel about this blog or the community that frequents it?
I’m not the booting type, in fact if there’s any booting to be happening here I’m supposing that it would happen to lil ole me who, in a comedy of errors, may have wandered through the wrong door. It was labeled “secular conservative” but the most gregarious people at the party all appear to be standard-issue libertarians.
Nueroskeptic,
Your point about religion soaking up the flavor of the local culture (like tofu is supposed to do with surrounding flavors – but doesn’t BTW) is a very good one and one that I like to stress when people suggest that Christianity is responsible for the accomplishments of The West.
Christianity MAY have contributed to the development of science and democracy, but then again it may have picked them up from its host.
The idea that Christianity in Africa could do there what it has (in theory) done in Europe seems a bit…optimistic.
Islam, as well, may become appealing to Africans as a robust, confident and uncompromising “solution” to what appears to be a never-ending mess.
I agree. I was about to write something similar. In addition, I would also argue that recognition of the many positive aspects of Christianity, along with a more realistic assessment of human nature, are things that separate much of the secular right from most of the secular left.
It is almost impossible to tease out cause and effect in analysing culture, but my instinct would be that some of the roots of Western individualism predate Christianity and have a broader set of tributaries feeding them than religion alone.
. If secular-right means nothing more than anarcho-capitalist then what the heck is novel about this blog or the community that frequents it?
Who here is anarcho-capitalist? I’m not even much of a libertarian.
As some commenters have stated, Africa has plenty of God. Nigerians like to joke that the export preachers and oil. A prescription of “more God” fundamentally neglects the complexities of human cultures. Reminds me of liberal prescriptions that more money = better students. One Variable to Rule Them.
Snippet : Mmm. In fact, if you like the tofu analogy, the flavor of Africa has soaked into the Tofu of Christianity in the form of African Initiated Churches, like “Kimbanguism”.
They look like perfectly good religious movements (as good as any other), but they ain’t Christianity as your average WASP would understand it.
Reading Robert D. Kaplan’s Anarchy will create a deep pessimism about Africa. Tribal religion is extremely primitive and irrational. However, young Africans can be converted very easily to Islam or Christianity and both of these send missionaries for that purpose.In the meantime China moves in and exploits the mineral wealth while promising to raise the standard of living.
We must wonder if Richard Lynn and Tatu Vandanen have it right when they use IQ as a key factor in the distinction between rich and poor countries. It surely is THE key factor in socio-economic distinctions between whites and blacks in America.In a PC environment we beat to death the environmental factors that might suppress some glorious potential in black schoolchildren while utterly disregarding their low IQ’s. If Lynn and Vandanen are right then IQ could well prevent the ultimate remaking of African cultures into Western-style democracies. Superstition and other irrationalities abound in a world of tribal hostility and chaos, making restructuring nearly impossible.
Christianity gradually became more liberal in the West and permitted science to grow as freedom of enquiry became more basic to democracy.Islam did not encourage science in the same manner and surely it’s fundamentalists would destroy any signs of it.Which way Africa goes is unclear right now but one cannot imagine any secular solution for peoples whose belief in magic and witchcraft, together with low IQs, poses a formidable obstacle.Only advanced peoples like Scandinavians, living on the moral inertia of Christianity, can handle a secular social order.
Pingback: Secular Right » Which came first & why?
Christianity gradually became more liberal in the West and permitted science to grow as freedom of enquiry became more basic to democracy.Islam did not encourage science in the same manner and surely it’s fundamentalists would destroy any signs of it.
Anti-science Christianity waxed particularly after science started challenging religion as the central framework within which elites understood the world. The Copernican controversy was small potatoes, and the fact that most scientists remained religious until the 19th century suggests little perception of conflict. I also think that “liberal” and “conservative” frames for Christianity don’t make any sense before Higher Criticism fueled the Fundamentalist counter-reaction.
I’ve yet to see any evidence that belief in god will raise your IQ.
Shall we pamphlet bomb them with sudoku?
The life expectancy there is short enough that any changes made would have a rapid effect. Their problems aren’t nature, they are nurture. I’m predicting that with or without the effects of religion or charity, Africa will be much improved in a decade.
You wouldn’t happen to have any evidence for that assertion, would you?
At least in the sentence that followed, you said “I predict . . .”
The concern I have with the IQ hypothesis ( I say ‘concern’ because I hope it is not true ), is, if you assume it is true, it explains so very very much that previously resisted explanation. The entire cultural and economic history of Africa, for starters, and the performance, everywhere on the globe, of those who are more immediately descended from there ( we’re all Africans if you go back far enough). That’s not final proof, but it is extremely suggestive of truth.
Here is exactly the wrong thing for Africa to be doing, it would seem to me.
http://www.news.com.au/story/0,27574,24850910-23109,00.html
The proof is all around us. Obama being the most obvious, but elsewhere in society as well. My immediate black family are all intelligent, productive members of society. I’m not claiming all problems are nurture, I don’t deny that genetic differences go beyond skin color. There may be a high black crime rate, but that is hardly proof of genetic inability to form society. They may have simply had fewer years of the kind of genetic castration that has evolved out the more aggressive members of European society and left us a metrosexual generation. By your thinking we should all be trying to find Japanese mates.
Steel Phoenix
The proof is all around us. Obama being the most obvious, but elsewhere in society as well.
Well, anyone can have any IQ, of course. We’re dealing with a bell curve, and a mean. A Sub-Sahara African could have a 115 IQ, but for them it would be a +3 SD event. A Swede with a 115 IQ would be a 1 SD event, if that. That’s the point about Africa. Not enough of the higher IQs that they need for social and political stability.
My immediate black family are all intelligent, productive members of society. I’m not claiming all problems are nurture, I don’t deny that genetic differences go beyond skin color. There may be a high black crime rate, but that is hardly proof of genetic inability to form society. They may have simply had fewer years of the kind of genetic castration that has evolved out the more aggressive members of European society and left us a metrosexual generation.
If the reason you propose is true, thenwe should develop a certain social policy in response. But if, instead, IQ is the reason, a very different social policy would be called for. This is why it is important to find the real root cause. I DO understand why you would hope the problem to be one of nurture. So do I. That way there is real hope. Reality doesn’t care though. It is so constructed that you can ignore it, but not the consequences of ignoring it.
By your thinking we should all be trying to find Japanese mates.
Ha. Jewish or Chinese might be even better, but only if you wish to maximize the odds of a higher IQ. There are many other factors that one might consider. Love, for instance. But, there are no guarantees. I think I remember one Nobel Prize winner, when asked if he wanted to donate his DNA to a sperm bank, said something like “You want a Nobel winner? Go find a plumber and a school teacher. That’s who my parents were”.
A Sub-Sahara African could have a 115 IQ, but for them it would be a +3 SD event.
The Guassian approximation gets worse and worse the further you deviate from the median. The tails start to get real fat around 3 sigs. IOW, 1 sig and 3 sigs exhibit a big difference in terms of how much they deviate from your theoretical distribution.
Ha. Jewish or Chinese might be even better, but only if you wish to maximize the odds of a higher IQ. There are many other factors that one might consider. Love, for instance. But, there are no guarantees. I think I remember one Nobel Prize winner, when asked if he wanted to donate his DNA to a sperm bank, said something like “You want a Nobel winner? Go find a plumber and a school teacher. That’s who my parents were”.
Just be a Bayesian is all I would say.
Obama being the most obvious
FWIW, in a discussion grounded in genetic presuppositions Barack Hussein Obama should not be counted as “black.”
Also, I think people need to stop using the nature/nurture terminology. It just makes people neglect issues such as gene-environment correlation, and makes it almost impossible to take an understanding of heritability for granted in a discussion. After 6 years blogging about behavior genetics regular readers still get confused as to what heritability is.
Setting aside the issue of whether certain racial or ethnic groups have higher IQs than others, I really think that it’s tribalism more than religion that keeps primitive people primitive. And primitivism may predispose primitive people to the more repressive forms of religion.
Maybe this is as good a place to add this thought, as any.
If we do end up with a big IQ by Race problem, it would seem the Secular Right might be quicker to acknowledge the cruel facts, and quicker to get about a just remedy, than the Religious Right. The religious have to also get their heads around why God would allow such a situation in his Creation, in the first place. And if they can’t get their head around that, they may never acknowledge the situation, or support the effective remedies, whatever they be.
Points taken on Obama and environmental correlation. I perhaps sacrificed too much accuracy for expediency, but my point stands that Africans are genetically capable of coexisting in society. There are individual examples all throughout our country. If genetics play a role, It clearly isn’t insurmountable.
Nice quote about the Nobel winner.
In cases like Obama, often the mutt ends up with fewer problems than the purebred, which would argue for efforts towards racial integration as part of the solution in Africa. I have a niece and nephew who are half white, and both are honor students.
The line we have to walk is between letting political correctness delude us, and letting our statistical preconceptions cause problems where they may not exist. It is possible under environmental correlation that we are just pushing the wrong society on them. They may have to find their own way.
@David Hume
“The Guassian approximation gets worse and worse the further you deviate from the median. The tails start to get real fat around 3 sigs. IOW, 1 sig and 3 sigs exhibit a big difference in terms of how much they deviate from your theoretical distribution.”
IQ test are set up so that the populational distribution is normal with a median of 100 and a standard dev of 15, either by choosing questions that generate such a distribution or by transforming (i.e. “normalizing”) test scores.
It is likely that there is some inaccuracy in the outer reaches of the distribution given the paucity of test subjects at that level, but I have never heard friend or foe of IQ testing assert that they “get real fat”, or words to that effect, beyond a certain point. Such a phenomenon would be a significant factor when the issue of black academic underperformance is debated, but it is never mentioned.
Also, you don’t indicate whether this behavior of the tails (assuming it exists) is the same for both the black and the white distributions.
@Steel Phoenix
Well put. Thanks for the reply.
In cases like Obama, often the mutt ends up with fewer problems than the purebred,
This is a complicated question, but I would say here that the marginal returns on outbreeding at the level of races probably is, well, marginal. At least in terms of the individual cases.
but I have never heard friend or foe of IQ testing assert that they “get real fat”, or words to that effect, beyond a certain point. Such a phenomenon would be a significant factor when the issue of black academic underperformance is debated, but it is never mentioned.
See here (this is a friend of IQ). I doubt the races are different in the nature of fat tailing, just as they seem not to differ in variance (there’s an urban myth that Europeans have a bigger variance than Asians, which can be falsified by looking up things like East Asian vs. white SAT scores). IQ is a normally distributed trait, but there are almost certainly gene-gene interactions and non-additive independent dynamics in there which only appear in rare circumstances. But many sigmas from the norm the’re probably more common, as I think Jensen saw some heritability weirdness at the really high end (these sort of non-linearities would make sense if it is less and less Gaussian at the high end).
@Ivan Karamazov
That was an incredibly ignorant generalization that couldn’t be farther from the truth. Africa is a continent, not a country and can no more be generalized than Europe. The continent flourishes with a wealth of languages, religions, ethnicities, social mores, architecture, literature, art, and economies. There are thriving regions and suffering regions, vibrant countries and countries in upheaval.
Most importantly, the people are kind, generous, spiritual, filled with a love of humor and fun, clever, and above all else, industrious. Clearly, the continent as a whole is long suffering. But solutions and progress are only possible by not painting human beings with the broad brush of “Africans”. I see real progress every day in the work I do and it gives me genuine hope for the next generation of Malians, Moroccans, Kenyans, South Africans, and on…
That was an incredibly ignorant generalization that couldn’t be farther from the truth. Africa is a continent, not a country and can no more be generalized than Europe.
Lynn & Vanhenen’s data report that Sub-Saharan African nations have IQs on the order of 60-75. European nations between 95-105. You may contend that these IQs do not reflect genetic potentialities, but the data are what they are, and that’s what Ivan was probably referring to. It was a generalization, but not an ignorant one (perhaps you do not think it was accurate, but again, that’s not ignorant).
And I think some of the “wealth” you mention Africa could probably do without. e.g., languages, ethnicities, social mores and religion for starters. As for architecture and literature, it’s just not true. Most regions of Sub-Saharan Africa did not have literacy until colonialism. And grand architecture needs large states, which most of Africa did not have until recently.
I see real progress every day in the work I do and it gives me genuine hope for the next generation of Malians, Moroccans, Kenyans, South Africans, and on…
Hope is good. But would you invest all your money in the bonds of any African nation?
Individual cases are, of course, dangerous to draw conclusions from, but I think it might be interesting to watch the Pitt-Jolie family for at least anecdotal results. They have a mix of adopted races, as well as their own biological children. They’ll all get identical environmental upbringing, including the best education money can buy. Lets see how the different siblings do.
The same goes for all adoptions of 3rd world kids by celebrities. Usually there is much fanfare about the initial adoption, then silence.
Individual cases are, of course, dangerous to draw conclusions from, but I think it might be interesting to watch the Pitt-Jolie family for at least anecdotal results. They have a mix of adopted races, as well as their own biological children. They’ll all get identical environmental upbringing, including the best education money can buy. Lets see how the different siblings do.
I’m not talking about that. I was alluding to genetic hybridization and the gains one obtains by masking deleterious alleles.
The same goes for all adoptions of 3rd world kids by celebrities. Usually there is much fanfare about the initial adoption, then silence.
Who are you talking about?
Also, many celebrities are stupid, but very good looking. If their success is due to the necessary condition of their good looks, naturally adopted children won’t succeed in the same way. Race (which is obviously what you meant by 3rd world kids) only matters if you just think that some groups are way better looking, on average, than others (though with how good looking celebrities generally are, I think between group averages are pretty trivial).
First, I know you weren’t talking about what I digressed to. Sorry. I just picked up on the word individual , and meant to make a point about the Blank Slate presumption that I think is behind celebrity adoptions. They grab very young kids out of 3rd world environments, and I bet they think they will show everyone what access to the Best of the West can do for them. The Pitt-Jolie clan covers, I think, Europe, Asia, and SSH. It might be interesting to see what happens to them, was all I was saying. I’m guessing that if it turns out bad, we won’t hear about it, despite the publicity of the initial adoptions.
The n is awfully small, but it’s all we got.
Right, but who besides Pitt-Jolie? I think the celebrities are a bad example, many of them are irresponsible and exhibit social pathologies. Only their wealth due to the confluence of good looks and luck (and today, nepotism) buffers them from the normal consequences of drug addiction or fiscal profligacy. We’re not talking people who mastered the Ivy League system and adopted kids from Guatemala whose parents were semi-literate; that’s really what you’re getting at.
@Cornelius J. Troost
“Tribal religion is extremely primitive and irrational. ”
Do you have any idea how funny that sounds to someone who doesn’t believe in the invisible omnipotent alien? You should do stand-up comedy at The Atheists Club Lounge. We’d love ya!
@Susan
“I really think that it’s tribalism more than religion that keeps primitive people primitive.”
Yes, for instance: “You’re either with us, or you’re with the terrorists.”
There’s some good ol’ primitive tribalism for ya.
@David Hume
“Hope is good. But would you invest all your money in the bonds of any African nation?”
Given your comments, in light of recent news reports from New York and D.C., I’d like to extend an offer for you to perform your shtick at the Atheists Club Lounge as well. We enjoy financial comedy along with usual religious jokes. Just curious; do you perform with a straight face?
I am a total atheist and yet I find nothing “funny” in Troost’s remark.
From what I read in anthropology I can only concur that “Tribal religion is extremely primitive and irrational” in many cases even dumber and harsher than our best “civilised” monotheisms.
I have some remembrance of the religious myths and practices of an australian tribe (it was about some “Big Emu” of sorts) seen at at expo in a museum which were outranking the best Islamists and Torquemada himself for oppressive cretinism and violence.
@Kevembuangga
Oh yes, “Big Emu” is so much more primitive than the three-gods-for-the-price-of-one of the rational western worshipers. Puh-leeeze!
And speaking of “oppressive cretinism and violence”, we’re number one! We’re number one! Yoo ess eh! Yoo ess eh!
” Discussing the battle against a Muslim warlord in Somalia, Boykin told another audience, “I knew my God was bigger than his. I knew that my God was a real God and his was an idol.”
“We in the army of God, in the house of God, kingdom of God have been raised for such a time as this,” Boykin said last year.
On at least one occasion, in Sandy, Ore., in June, Boykin said of President Bush: “He’s in the White House because God put him there.”
If all of us were in a room together it would be Babel once again. It is interesting that people of the right who are secularists still talk past each other and commit fallacies to make their points.
People who pretend that Africa isn’t primitive are ignoring reality and that is their problem. If they are postmodernists they may well even believe in Afrocentrism. Fortunately, a book by Levitt and Gross called Higher Superstition will enlighten them. For those who are realists it is wise to listen to David Hume, who rightly appreciates the dismal prospects even with Chinese intervention. The Economist’s annual report called The World in Figures spells out the devestating statistics below the Sahara. This cannot be ignored.
The nature/nurture problem can be better understood if one reads The Agile Gene and related books on gene/environment interaction. Just using the PKU case will help you understand much better the interplay of factors.Schizophrenia can now be controlled with anti-psychotics like abilify that alter the neurotransmtter levels in key circuits.
As for IQ, if Lynn and Vanhanen are correct, not to mention Jensen and Murray, we must learn to live with a diversity that egalitarians were simply wrong about. Races are not equal in hundreds of biochemical, physiological, and structural ways so why on earth MUST they be equal in IQ? The Minnesota Transracial Adoption Study showed that from age 7 to 17 black and blended children living in advantaged white families ended up with the same IQ deficit they usually have with black parents.Compared to white controls the difference was 16 points on IQ tests.
Remember that full sibs are about 12 IQ points apart and no-one complains. Carl Sagan was a school mate of mine and likely 40 or 50 IQ points higher. We all knew he was smarter in an inexorable way. All my reading would never allow me to “equal” him. Darwinian biology predicts such variation among individuals and races. Get used to it.
“Schizophrenia can now be controlled with anti-psychotics like abilify that alter the neurotransmtter levels in key circuits.”
I hate to change the topic even briefly, and detract from what was otherwise an excellent post, but the above point is grossly inaccurate to the point of being incorrect, and as a person whose limited expertise is centered in psychology, I feel the need to point this out.
We now return to the original topic.
I will note that the question is not whether some Africans can exist in a ‘civilized’ society, or even whether most can. The question is whether they can create such a society in the first place and have it be stable.
It would seem that the few past cases of sub-Saharan Africa producing such a society collapsed due to endemic diseases… and the drag effect / selective pressure of those diseases makes it improbable that such a society will arise in the foreseeable future.
“hate to change the topic even briefly, and detract from what was otherwise an excellent post, but the above point is grossly inaccurate to the point of being incorrect, and as a person whose limited expertise is centered in psychology, I feel the need to point this out.”
The original issue posed by Mr. Parris is the suggestion that Christianity could do for Africans what it did for Europeans.The psychology of African groupthink may well work against such an eventual outcome because of limiting factors like IQ and a very difficult environment, including the terrible diseases Bill Gates is trying to defeat.
Numerous Africans have adapted to life in the USA and Europe.That is not the issue.Political corruption and tribal hatreds dominate African culture.Literacy is very low. Infant mortality rates are the worst in the world. They may well lack the cognitive toolkit that allowed Homo sapiens to replace Neanderthals and to build the first civilizations.Bruce Lahn discovered 2 kinds of brain-building genes which spread at about 37,000 years ago and 5800 years ago. These correspond to cultural leaps that are not matched in an Africa that lacks these genes. Here is genetic evidence for very important racial differences. Lahn, however, is in hiding because of the flamability of the issue.
If religion evolved from animism,etc. to monotheism, then Mr. Parris would have trouble transiting to Christianity but that might be wrong.Islam is moving into Africa as well, so the shootout may well turn physical, as do most disagreements in Africa.Again, while the Chinese logic of teaching them to fish is very sound, the day when any kind of democratic stability comes is surely far, far away.Our genetic differences will gain more attention and those few who think about how the minds of blacks can believe in OJ’s innocence and Obama’s omnipotence will begin to appreciate the emotional intelligence that seems to rule blacks rather than whites. We are behaviorally different because, in my view, our brains are not the same.
Africa needs Christianity about as much as they need snow shovels.
It’s amazing how arrogant the racists can be when prescribing cures for diseases they have so badly misdiagnosed. Africa has been robbed, raped, and neglected by every just about every Christian colonialist that ever buggered his houseboy; and that’s most of them. The last thing they need is more of the same from a bunch of superstitious mumbling supplicants. Especially from a pack of effete racist snobs like the ones blathering here about IQ tests. As a former MENSA member I can tell you, it ain’t a club worth joining. One stroll around the room will convince you that IQ has little to do with real intelligence. Just ask the 160 in the corner with snot on his nose and his fly wide open, or the 165 who keeps dribbling her frozen strawberry daiquiri, or some such goop, on her white Oxford shirt and tie. Tina Fey she ain’t. Sheesh!
@Diogenes
That is a truly embarrassing post. I actually feel sorry for you.
@Ivan Karamazov
Gee, thanks for the sympathy Dr. Mengele, but shouldn’t you be busy calculating “sub-Saharan” IQ’s and divining your personal mission re. the White Man’s Burden? What a pompous windbag! You may feel sorry for me, but I sure don’t feel sorry for you, or for any self-aggrandizing fool who sits on he spotty behind, harrumphing proclamations on the intelligence of an entire continent. That sort of pin-headed balloon juice might pass muster at the local country club bar, with the photos of Jesse Helms and Strom Thurmond enshrined above the lighted Dixie Beer sign, but out in the world, you’re just another whimpering racist, trying to soothe the sting of your own inadequacies with the rancid butter of racial prejudice. Why don’t you climb off that bar stool, turn it right side up, and step over to the mirror; you’ve got a lot of work to do.
@Diogenes
Agreed; and his rejoinder was even more pathetic. Having lived in Africa, where I learned to speak the local language and studied their rather interesting culture, it is sorely tempting to set him straight; but I personally found MENSA boring in my youth precisely because of just such closed-minded open-mouthed emoters, not the nerds. He goes on the “do not feed” list. ◄Dave►
Enough with the insults, folks. You’ve made your views amply clear, and nothing more is to be gained by letting off spleen.
As a former MENSA member I can tell you, it ain’t a club worth joining.
Agree.
One stroll around the room will convince you that IQ has little to do with real intelligence.
Disagree.
As anyone I have ever seen arguing about intelligence you confuse intelligence with “having an opinion akin to mine”.
Didn’t you notice the way fundies and wackos use the word intelligence, do you see any similarity?