Do the Whites (Caucasoids) have superior brains that keep them technologically ahead of the blacks (negroids)?

Question

While some individual members of the black race have been known to have excelled beyond some Whites, on the whole the caucasoids have continued to exhibit superior power in science and technology. Today, it just dawned on me that 8 out of 10 things in my room and on my street were made possible because of the White man.

Are they born with superior brains? Or is there anything wrong with the Black man generally? Africa has virtually all the resources one can think of in the world - ore, gold, diamond, tin, coal, silicon, hydrocarbon, crude oil, granite, uranium, rich fauna, rich flora, clement weather, rocks, springs, mountains, vast arable land, PEOPLE!!!, etc etc - yet we are way back technologically &
scientifically speaking.

Can sombody in the house kindly tell me what went wrong. Can the Black race ever catch up with the Whites in this direction or is one having illusions?

Answer 1

ARE YOU SEIROUS

Answer 2

Try and look back more than the last twenty years to see what's happened before making judgements like this. Race is a sketchy concept to real Anthropologists, but if you want to look at things that way, fine. Also, if you want to measure progress by sheer number of technological leaps and inventions, go ahead, but don't forget the price at which these advances have come. Increased rates of cancer, increasing casualty numbers every time we have a war, and pollution, pollution, pollution.

The fact of the matter is that if you look back to the middle ages, called the Dark Ages in most of Europe, you see powerful, flourishing civilizations in Africa and many other parts of the world. Back then, one might have wondered how all these "white" people got so far behind, or if "black" people were born with larger brains. You get the idea.

Europe used economic power to slowly cement a hold over an increasingly larger area, and their guns (not an invention of the "white" man) and diseases did the rest. People not descended from European populations, in many parts of the world today, are still recovering from centuries of occupation, their own Dark Ages. Many of these nations became free of European rule only in the 20th Century.

When you consider how long it took Europe to progress from the Dark Ages to their own superior global standing (hundreds of years), you'll see that all these recovering nations and peoples are actually on about the same time table.

Europeans were slogging around in their own filth (when they weren't at war) in AD 1300, dominated the world by AD 1750, and those are ballpark numbers.

Africans were enslaved in America in AD 1850, and in 2006 are free citizens. Equal treatment under the law is still coming in some areas, but they're still on the same time table.

Answer 3

When I 1st read this I thought, "He can't be serious..." then I read on and realized you were...okay, here goes. To begin with, "race" as a concept, is completely cultural. Other than our physical appearance, "race" does not exist, biologically speaking. Genetics has proved that the ENTIRE human race is more closely related, genetically, than one family of chimpanzees, (meaning that there is more genetic variance in that one chimp family, than there is in the entire human "race"). So, no, the "white man's brain" is not superior to the "brain" of any other race, although there are variances among individuals. "Race" as a concept is not only merely cultural, it is outdated. It is more accurate to refer to the "culture" of the African-American, (this is not "p.c." bull-crap, it's scientifically sound).
As for the matter of the cultural differences between the continent of Africa and Western Civilization, read a little history. The Egyptian culture, the Afro-Phoenicians, (the 1st of ANY civilization to sail the oceans to a large extent) the ancient Nubian culture (as old as ancient Egypt, conquered Egypt at one point, and was a vast and extremely wealthy culture in it's own right) Ancient Cush (8th c. b.c., now Ethiopia)--ever hear of the queen of "Sheba?" she was the queen of the ancient civilization of Cush, another vast and wealthy civilization in Africa. As for much of Africa's current situation, Africa is still trying to recover from the centuries (15th to early 20th century) of Western colonization, that enslaved the entire continent and exported all valuable resources. If you don't think that kind of thing would have long lasting cultural ramifications, for ANY group of people, then...well, I have no idea what to say about THAT!
What went wrong? Guns, germs, and steel. The "white man" had 'em in abundance, and it is this trifecta that allowed them to conquer the black man, the brown man, and the red man. In many ways these cultures of Africa and the Americas were more advanced, but the fact that whites had the technology of guns and the biology of disease, they were able to subjugate entire civilizations. Much of what is considered the "third world" today, is a direct result of the conquest and colonization by the Western world.
Oh, BTW, just wondering why you didn't ask this question about the people of the Americas? Why not American-Indians? The same argument you made for Africa could possibly be made for a lot of S. America as well, although it would be just as invaluable.

Answer 4

This is a common, but slightly erring perception. When observing the level of "IQ", one has to look at the environment as that is a major factor. If one looks at the IQ of an individual in the inner city vs. a suburb, there are dramatic differences. Although genetics does play a role in the level of "intellectual talent", the major factor, especially in today's world is the environment of the individual at hand. That said, Europeans have generally enjoyed better living conditions on average that Africans who were forced to immigrate to other countries or live on subsistence farming in Sub-saharan Africa. It is irrelavant to debate whether any single group of humans has greater "brainpower". If that were the argument, the Asians (specifically Indians and Chinese) would be classified as having the most brain power as they developed many of the scientific and mathematical methods that Europeans utilize today, including the concept of the number "0".

In terms of resources, crude oil and uranium were not major factors in the early development of people so those facts are irrelavant at best. Europe has had significantly more areas of arable land than sub-saharan Africa, which was so key to early development.

Answer 5

That is very interesting. I believe Africa is so large and hot that is is difficult to do the thing others can in cooler environments. Africa should be one of the richest Countires in the world and show it, but something is blocking it. Colonial Rule might have had something to do with the way Afrikaners live. Remember there are a lot of white people living in Africa also.
I think the ancestry of whites being in civilized situations may have had something to do with continued success. Asians also make good use of their intelligence. And Middle Easterners pump out many college graduates. India, even Pakistan (nuclear technology). When a country stops warring within itself and decides to educate herself (Japan, China, Philipines, US) and start sending their youth to schools instead of training camps for extremists, then they start growing and prospering. Africa and Iraq now have many warring parties and tribes fighting for turf, and it isn't safe for the youth to attend schools, without fear of getting raped, killed or blown up. Those countries will never prosper as long as they fight for their warlords. Greed is a major killer for these people. They have the resources, obviously, so why can't they prosper? Greedy people in power who could give a s**t for anyone else. I think if given a chance, a black person could be doing the same thing as any white one. Makes sense to me.

Answer 6

There is a great Pulitzer Prize winning book that deals with this subject, Guns, Germs and Steel by Jerrod Diamond. SOme of the reasons include agriculture, horticulture, technology, and disease. Clearly lack of intelligence isn't their problem.

Because of its environment, there were no domesticatable plants in Africa of the qualities of those from the Mesopotamia. Wheat and barley, for example are relatively easilly farmed and stored. African plants typically are not as easily domesticated.

Africa doesn't have domesticatable animals such as horses, sheep, cows, etc. They do domesticate cows but it is very difficult and the wildlife and disease in Africa makes it hard. Most domestic animals were introduced.

Diseases that often developed in Asia through domestication of animals ravaged Eurasians resulting in a big advantage in disease resistance. When Europeans encountered Africans, their diseases devastated the native Africans weakening their resistance to European colonization.

Europeans developed steel and guns making military resistance to them practically impossible.

By developing agriculture, Europeans created a system of specialization and were able to support large Armies equipped with the deadly technology. Agriculture in subSaharan Africa made it difficult to create Armies that could compete with Europeans.

Although, Africa is rich in Natural resources, it lacks some very important ones, such as navigatable rivers. Without these rivers, much of the interior was restricted to further development. Creating centers that manufactured iron for example was also limited.

Answer 7

I believe Josiah Nott back in 1800s asked the same question as you did. Today, his findings are considered pseudoscience.

Whites do not have some sort of super cranial capacity...
technological advancement is born out of necessity. Africa has the perfect climate (or it used to before global warming), Africa also had abundant food supply, where they didn't have to invent something like agriculture.

Once people travelled out of Africa, the ones who migrated northward to Europe had to deal with cold temperatures.

Have you ever heard of the Dark Ages? Well, the Dark Ages wasn't such a bleak time for Africa, in fact, Africa was thriving. Did you know that Mali experienced great prosperity during this time, and Timbuktu was actually one of the first Universities?

If I were you, I wouldn't trash Africa the way you just did... that is where Human life started.

Answer 8

Congrats, Pastor! You present a brilliant argument to back up your question. On one hand, unfortunately, you have been misunderstood by many incomers. But, on the other, you have gotten very well-fundamented answers by people who are documented on what you have asked.
I don't have any valid answers but, I can say, I have learned something new from those who gave you serious info and I think it's gonna be hard for you to choose which is best from them.

Answer 9

by making use of you asserting it is how that's, are not you reinforcing that as a actuality? does not it is extra valuable to used words like maximum extremely of all so which you're actually not upholding racism as a stress of nature and not the opinion of a few or perhaps maximum yet not all (and thereby a decision)? working example i don't be attentive to every physique who says black human beings can not substitute their visual allure. in my view i detect the entire concern variety of stupid besides. we are all Africans in case you bypass lower back some distance sufficient, so somewhat it comes right down to generalizing human beings in step with geography and time. All individuals are African individuals, it is merely semantics so some distance as how lots time between whilst their ancestors lived in Africa, and whilst they lived in united statesa.. (and dissimilar of the black African individuals got here/have been further from places different than Africa besides). As a merely academic direction of concept, although, it may desire to be variety of appealing what you're saying approximately some human beings not desiring black human beings to alter their visual allure given the reality that black human beings look extra like the problem-unfastened ancestors of all mankind than every physique else in the worldwide. i ask your self whether on some subconscious point those human beings do not prefer black human beings to alter their visual allure considering's closer to the 'genuine' visual allure of problem-unfastened human history. And the will of those people who left Africa to colonize something of the planet could desire to choose changing their visual allure extra with the aid of fact of a popular instinct to prefer new and dissimilar issues (achronic to locate and triumph over new hairstyles?).

Answer 10

as you know black people unfortunatly were held down for a long time and it is real hard to develope superior technology from the bottom of a hut while your feet and hinds are tied together

Answer 11

How may "black" people do you know? Have you ever had an african american doctor? Friend? How about teacher?

I have. I can tell you that the color of a person's skin does not determine their intellect. You are a racist, and maybe you are comfortable with that because it makes you feel special, I don't know. But I would hope for your own intellectual and personal developement that you would move beyond this.