Are the Race of a nation and Economic success linked? (Serious and respectful discussion)

[kratz]

Hey guys,

I was reading, "The rising tide of color against the white world" and Stoddard's predictions are uncanny from the rise of China, anachy in Latin America to Germany's full fled recovery after WWII. This last point is more attributed to national socialst thinkers who also believed that due to Germans being Germans would rise no matter what.

I've never been a racist or believed in race but after reading that book it might be consider it as a point worth studying. Moreover, I realized a lot of this ideas or thinkers were never directly addressed. Rather their ideas simply, 'fell out of favor' or became less popular. In favor of Franz Boas and his students ideas. Since they had more connection around different departments. Therefore, by consensus and not by truth that Boas and some cultural marxist ideas were embraced.

Any way, what do you guys think?

[Samnium]

Race can't be the end of all other explanations about why a country is successful or not. That's being said there are clearly proofs that different ethno-racial groups differ when it comes to intelligence tests, academic achievements and if we go to the past, in historical breakthroughs/discoveries.

I would say that's one of the main reasons, obviously, and in some cases like in Zimbabwe, the most important.

[sean]

Economists used to think that if you gave a country democratic institutions and capitalist law then it would automatically become just as prosperous as Western countries, in fact there are now many counterexamples to this. Latin America, Africa and India have persistently failed to get anywhere close to Western economic success despite massive amounts of aid. Whereas China, despite having the "wrong" economic system, managed levels of growth previously unseen anywhere in the world.

If you discount genetics it's almost impossible to adequately explain the way the world has developed.

[Nassbean]

Hi I would suggest you to read this book :



Most people here are kind of biased when it comes to this kind of questions.

[Samnium]

Economists used to think that if you gave a country democratic institutions and capitalist law then it would automatically become just as prosperous as Western countries, in fact there are now many counterexamples to this. Latin America, Africa and India have persistently failed to get anywhere close to Western economic success despite massive amounts of aid. Whereas China, despite having the "wrong" economic system, managed levels of growth previously unseen anywhere in the world.

If you discount genetics it's almost impossible to adequately explain the way the world has developed.

I would agree that african countries despite have been heavily subventioned, are really behind Western ones.

[Samnium]

Hi I would suggest you to read this book :



Most people here are kind of biased when it comes to this kind of questions.

Jared Diamond is a leftard that deny the fact that part of European success is linked to the genetics of this group. It would be like denying the link between intelligence and genes, which is well known and proved by dozens of scientific studies.

This is what Jared Diamond writes :


"The history of interaction among disparate peoples is what shaped the modern world through conquest, epidemics, and genocide. Those collisions created reverberations that have still not died down after many centuries.... [M]uch of Africa is still struggling with its legacies from colonialism. In other regions... civil unrest or guerrilla warfare pits still-numerous indigenous populations against governments dominated by descendants of invading conquerers. Many other indigenous populations... so reduced in numbers by genocide and disease that they are now greatly outnumbered by the descendants of invaders... they are nevertheless increasingly asserting their rights..."

If Africans have greatly increased their population it's thanks to Europeans that have partially resolved the problems of endemic diseases like malaria and several others (vaccines and medicines all developed by whites) or regular starvations, as well with the implantation of hospitals, sanitation of several areas. Europe basically "created" a lot of countries in Africa like France did with Algeria that didn't existed as a state until 1830.

Africa would be today a barren land if it wasn't for colonization. And think that I would be even against it if I lived in the imperialism era.

[Duffmannn]

Obviously, in the most admixed region in the world, Latin America, when whiter is a country/region/city, more prosperous and less violent is.

It is not exactly when whiter, but also when less black. The order is white - amerindian - black.

And this was known 500 years ago, a long time time before genetics.

The economic decay of many latin american countries (Argentina was the richest country in the world during some years in the 1890´s, and remained in the Top5 until 1950´s / Cuba or Venezuela were some of the richest countries in the world in the 1950´s) is directly related with the erosion of the european genetical base, when the initial emigratory effort is counterattacked by the miscegenation and the higher birthrates of the non-whites, irremediabily the economical depression begins.

[gadele]

I do not think it is the race, I believe it is a matter if ideology, corruption, criminality, mindset, lack of punishment, etc. Many of our countries had reached a peak for certain years in the past so this proves that it is possible. Anyway I do not see Latinamerica improving in the next centuries. Democracy is a failure here.

[Duffmannn]

Jared Diamond is a leftard that deny the fact that part of European success is linked to the genetics of this group. It would be like denying the link between intelligence and genes, which is well known and proved by dozens of scientific studies.

.

It´s easier to explain: Jared Diamond is jew.

[Samnium]

It´s easier to explain: Jared Diamond is jew.