Speaking of Native Americans they aren't a spent force. Not even now. There is a country filled with them called Mexico and even right now that country still exists and is a reasonably developing nation. Natives in South America have their own states as well, such as Peru, Paraguay, etc.

Let me know when the Navajo or Cherokee get their own country.

How has this not been downvoted into oblivion yet? I'm tired of seeing it.

Ah yes, a topic is brought up that you can easily not click on but instead, since it isn't socially acceptable, you shut it down.

Ranek: maybe Africa would be better today without white interference in its history. However, if we accept that, we must look at it:

Africa was better, for both Africans and whites, when whites were in control. And you will not acknowledge this objective fact. You will call it racist. But it is very simple: to fix Africa, put whites in control.

Secondly, you didn't answer why Africa was so much worse than Europe before outside meddling. The answer to that is simple - racial differences


On the matter of Native Americans vs Africans, Africans had better technology, but also access to European/Middle Eastern influence technologically. Indians were also much more peaceful, and had, at least in the south, civiliations more advanced culturally if not technologically.

How do people who make racist genetic arguments explain Tabby?

Since "Republicans" are being elided with "racists" and also because healthcare came up, here's Richard Spencer at AltRight.com on healthcare: https://altright.com/2017/05/04/why-we-get-healthcare-totally-wrong/

Clint, if you're still on this thread: what's a "conservative?" What are you aiming to conserve? Also, are you a Baby Boomer?

Edited 5/11/2017 08:53:36

How do people who think blacks and whites are equal and we should let Africans into Europe explain the phenonena of Rhodesia and now South Africa, where as soon as whites lost control they went downhill?

your question already includes the answer, but maybe you should explain why blacks and whites are different in your opinion?

Races with their average IQ better than or even equal to that of blacks do better than blacks on average for whatever reason.

How do you measure the IQ without a reliable IQ-test? not to mention the IQ of an entire ethnicity? btw. everyone can make nukes with the right ingredients. You'll find the construction plan on google. and what has food and infrastructure to do with differences between black and whites?

Edited 5/11/2017 20:44:47

>everyone can make nukes
Patently false, African countries can not make nuclear weapons. The Republic of South Africa built nuclear weapons with WHITE EUROPEAN scientists during its apartheid era.

Nuclear construction like most modern engineering was pioneered by Europeans. Nuclear weapons are a product of Europeans. A group with an average IQ of 75 would have a difficult time producing original modern marvels. (Africans tried to build a plane out of basic materials and it was laughable, look it up.) There are social obstacles to building high-tech in low-IQ population.

Edited 5/11/2017 21:02:48

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Human_Development_Index#/media/File:2016_UN_Human_Development_Report.svg
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_GDP_(nominal)_per_capita#/media/File:GDP_per_capita_(nominal)_2015.png
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_literacy_rate#/media/File:World_map_of_countries_by_literacy_rate.svg

Why is sub-Saharan Africa lagging behind the world in terms of internationally recognized standards of human development despite trillions in charity from the first world?

Do they lack natural resources? No. Africa is home to large deposits of oil, gold, and diamonds. In fact, the wealthiest man ever, Mansa Musa, was an African King. Additionally, countries like Japan and South Korea have moved passed their lack of natural resources to become the 3rd and 11th largest economies, respectively.

But they were pillaged by Imperialist Europeans, right? The whole world was once occupied by Europeans with few exceptions. Sub-Saharan Africa still lags behind India and South Korea, who have greater claims to exploitation.

The combination of a warm climate and backwards cultural traditions have seriously harmed the evolution of the Congoid and it will take centuries for blacks in more favorable conditions to advance, at which point they will still be behind the ever improving Caucasoid and Mongoloid.

Edited 5/11/2017 22:24:29

oh boy. there is nothing left to say =D
Tabby Im glad you agree to facts. that is somehow remarkable - at least these days.
Although Im still uncertain, if you guys are just trolling, uneducated or simply stupid.
ever heard of neocolonialism?

however and never mind: Matthew 7.6“Do not give what is holy to dogs; and do not throw your pearls before swine, or they will trample them under foot and turn and maul you.

neocolonialism in south korea? =D seriously?
so, social and economic oppression is their own fault?...

All these explanations of "muh exploitation" still haven't addressed the pre-colonial failures of Africa

...what exactly was wrong with pre-colonial Africa?

Edited 5/12/2017 15:52:07

lmfao pre-arab africa was poor?

sure...by modern standards. everything was poor back then, including europe.

in fact, middle Africa(Mali area and Ethiopia) were pretty rich compared to other places in those times; outshined only by China.

tabby do you even know, what you are talking about?