There are No Successful Black Nations - Foreign Policy Mag, written by a black writer

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Consider the difference it might make if you go through life being told your "chosen" versus being told that your inferior.

Please explain what you mean by "chosen." I don't know anyone who's ever been told that.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Consider the difference it might make if you go through life being told your "chosen" versus being told that your inferior.

All non-whites are told that. It's nothing new. What matters is how you respond to that. As an Asian guy who came here with nothing but few bucks in my pocket, I have heard just about everything. You just got to keep going though, right? The more you spend time feeling sorry for yourself, the more you fall behind.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Consider the difference it might make if you go through life being told your "chosen" versus being told that your inferior.

Well, Jews are told that they cheapskates who are going to hell. How do you think that makes THEM feel?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The ignorance is astounding...

Please feel free to point out anything that is factually incorrect.

Nothing you wrote is a fact period. You can't refute it because it is imaginary bullshit you came up with. Like if I told you the tooth fairy exists, could you go and find me a study that says she doesn't?

new pp - not fully agreeing with the poster you are responding to, but the poster did use certain attributes that when measured between racial groups, tends to break the way the poster you are quoting says they break. The poster limited it to: SAT scores, higher HHI, lower crime, school suspension and out of wedlock birth rates. Those are all very easily measurable and the list goes: jews > asians > whites > blacks. IQ studies tend to follow this order as well.

Sure, but if a white high-income couple adopts a black baby, that child will be as smart and successful as a white baby. Environment goes a long way.

HO HO and another HO
My friend that is a middle aged widowed white woman at the University that adopted an Asian female and Black male would quickly disagree with you. You can guess what her daughter did after graduating HS. You'd be wrong about what her son did after graduating, because he never graduated. Instead he stole her car at 16 after getting involved with a gang. His gang life eventually led him to prison the last several years.

I know a white couple who adopted two black boys decades ago. They both attended private schools and elite colleges. One is now a physician, and the other is a senior exec at a well-known US company.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:South Africa has issues but could hardly be described as unsuccessful.

Yes, I wonder what was different about South Africa...

Perhaps people like Nelson Mandela and Desmond Tutu plus quantities old gold and diamonds that weren't completely depleted by colonial powers.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:South Africa has issues but could hardly be described as unsuccessful.

Yes, I wonder what was different about South Africa...

Perhaps people like Nelson Mandela and Desmond Tutu plus quantities old gold and diamonds that weren't completely depleted by colonial powers.

Most african nations were depleted and then left in a state of poor agriculture, no infrastructure, and no industry, i.e. no functioning economy. The better off black nations transitioned to states with functioning economies.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:South Africa has issues but could hardly be described as unsuccessful.

Yes, I wonder what was different about South Africa...

Perhaps people like Nelson Mandela and Desmond Tutu plus quantities old gold and diamonds that weren't completely depleted by colonial powers.

Yes, that must be it.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:South Africa has issues but could hardly be described as unsuccessful.

Yes, I wonder what was different about South Africa...

Perhaps people like Nelson Mandela and Desmond Tutu plus quantities old gold and diamonds that weren't completely depleted by colonial powers.

Most african nations were depleted and then left in a state of poor agriculture, no infrastructure, and no industry, i.e. no functioning economy. The better off black nations transitioned to states with functioning economies.

So then what happened with Zimbabwe? When the British pulled out it was producing so much agriculture it was called Africa's breadbasket. Under Mugabe, farming has all but stopped and now the citizens are starving.

You can't blame EVERYTHING on white people.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:South Africa has issues but could hardly be described as unsuccessful.

Yes, I wonder what was different about South Africa...

Perhaps people like Nelson Mandela and Desmond Tutu plus quantities old gold and diamonds that weren't completely depleted by colonial powers.

Most african nations were depleted and then left in a state of poor agriculture, no infrastructure, and no industry, i.e. no functioning economy. The better off black nations transitioned to states with functioning economies.

So then what happened with Zimbabwe? When the British pulled out it was producing so much agriculture it was called Africa's breadbasket. Under Mugabe, farming has all but stopped and now the citizens are starving.

You can't blame EVERYTHING on white people.

Unfortunately, a crazy madman took over. When you have a population that was not allowed to thrive, left uneducated and poor, you get a crazy person who can easily take over.

Korea had a huge uneducated population prior to 80's maybe even 90's. It was largely agricultural prior to the 60's. Japan colonized Korea for over 30y rs. The only reason S. Korea was able to thrive was because 1. it had a lot of financial help from the US after the country was decimated 2. it had a military rule for a long time, and the continued backing of the US military such that there was no way a crazy person was going to be able to take over. Before the late 80's/early 90's, that country was not doing so well.

Look at N. Korea. It was left to fend for itself, and look what happened? You got a crazy leader (more like, family) and a largely uneducated population. I'm not saying all poor, former colonies end up with crazy leaders, obviously. But, I think such countries are easy pickings for crazy leaders to take over. Many countries have been fortunate enough to escape that end, but unfortunately, others haven't.

Similar things have happened in Eastern Europe, btw. Hungary was one such example. Though we don't call it "colonized", I think being part of the USSR is kind of like colonialism.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The ignorance is astounding...

Please feel free to point out anything that is factually incorrect.

Ignorance is so overrated in certain groups..trumpsupporters-achoooo. Did somebody say something? Go read the Bell Curve, learn a bit about statistics, genetics, and environment. Come back and let us know what you learned. It might be too difficult a read for you, but try, try try.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:South Africa has issues but could hardly be described as unsuccessful.

Yes, I wonder what was different about South Africa...

Perhaps people like Nelson Mandela and Desmond Tutu plus quantities old gold and diamonds that weren't completely depleted by colonial powers.

Most african nations were depleted and then left in a state of poor agriculture, no infrastructure, and no industry, i.e. no functioning economy. The better off black nations transitioned to states with functioning economies.

So then what happened with Zimbabwe? When the British pulled out it was producing so much agriculture it was called Africa's breadbasket. Under Mugabe, farming has all but stopped and now the citizens are starving.

You can't blame EVERYTHING on white people.

Unfortunately, a crazy madman took over. When you have a population that was not allowed to thrive, left uneducated and poor, you get a crazy person who can easily take over.

Korea had a huge uneducated population prior to 80's maybe even 90's. It was largely agricultural prior to the 60's. Japan colonized Korea for over 30y rs. The only reason S. Korea was able to thritve was because 1. it had a lot of financial help from the US after the country was decimated 2. it had a military rule for a long time, and the continued backing of the US military such that there was no way a crazy person was going to be able to take over. Before the late 80's/early 90's, that country was not doing so well.

Look at N. Korea. It was left to fend for itself, and look what happened? You got a crazy leader (more like, family) and a largely uneducated population. I'm not saying all poor, former colonies end up with crazy leaders, obviously. But, I think such countries are easy pickings for crazy leaders to take over. Many countries have been fortunate enough to escape that end, but unfortunately, others haven't.

Similar things have happened in Eastern Europe, btw. Hungary was one such example. Though we don't call it "colonized", I think being part of the USSR is kind of like colonialism.

Reason #3 why South Korea was able to thrive; the average Korean has an IQ of 105.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:South Africa has issues but could hardly be described as unsuccessful.

Yes, I wonder what was different about South Africa...

Perhaps people like Nelson Mandela and Desmond Tutu plus quantities old gold and diamonds that weren't completely depleted by colonial powers.

Most african nations were depleted and then left in a state of poor agriculture, no infrastructure, and no industry, i.e. no functioning economy. The better off black nations transitioned to states with functioning economies.

So then what happened with Zimbabwe? When the British pulled out it was producing so much agriculture it was called Africa's breadbasket. Under Mugabe, farming has all but stopped and now the citizens are starving.

You can't blame EVERYTHING on white people.

Unfortunately, a crazy madman took over. When you have a population that was not allowed to thrive, left uneducated and poor, you get a crazy person who can easily take over.

Korea had a huge uneducated population prior to 80's maybe even 90's. It was largely agricultural prior to the 60's. Japan colonized Korea for over 30y rs. The only reason S. Korea was able to thritve was because 1. it had a lot of financial help from the US after the country was decimated 2. it had a military rule for a long time, and the continued backing of the US military such that there was no way a crazy person was going to be able to take over. Before the late 80's/early 90's, that country was not doing so well.

Look at N. Korea. It was left to fend for itself, and look what happened? You got a crazy leader (more like, family) and a largely uneducated population. I'm not saying all poor, former colonies end up with crazy leaders, obviously. But, I think such countries are easy pickings for crazy leaders to take over. Many countries have been fortunate enough to escape that end, but unfortunately, others haven't.

Similar things have happened in Eastern Europe, btw. Hungary was one such example. Though we don't call it "colonized", I think being part of the USSR is kind of like colonialism.

Reason #3 why South Korea was able to thrive; the average Korean has an IQ of 105.

You missed the point *entirely*. Why then didn't N. Korea thrive? Because they have a batshit crazy leader that won't let that country grow. Believe me, the healthy N. Koreans on average are no less intelligent than S. Koreans. But, now, with massive malnutrition, you can bet their average IQ is going down, along with their stature; they are on average shorter than S. Koreans.

IQ tests also have a component where exposure to more academics increases your chance of getting a higher IQ score. Do you know how many hours the average S. Korean student studies as part of school and after school cram schools? Some cram schools go way passed midnight.

I'm from S. Korea. I don't think people from S. Korea are any smarter or dumber than other countries. S. Koreans just place a high importance on education. It's the only way for average people there to get a great job. They are all about test scores and what university you went to (which is all based on test scores). I'm very thankful my kids are growing up and being educated in the US, as are a lot of Koreans here.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:South Africa has issues but could hardly be described as unsuccessful.

Yes, I wonder what was different about South Africa...

Perhaps people like Nelson Mandela and Desmond Tutu plus quantities old gold and diamonds that weren't completely depleted by colonial powers.

Most african nations were depleted and then left in a state of poor agriculture, no infrastructure, and no industry, i.e. no functioning economy. The better off black nations transitioned to states with functioning economies.

So then what happened with Zimbabwe? When the British pulled out it was producing so much agriculture it was called Africa's breadbasket. Under Mugabe, farming has all but stopped and now the citizens are starving.

You can't blame EVERYTHING on white people.

Unfortunately, a crazy madman took over. When you have a population that was not allowed to thrive, left uneducated and poor, you get a crazy person who can easily take over.

Korea had a huge uneducated population prior to 80's maybe even 90's. It was largely agricultural prior to the 60's. Japan colonized Korea for over 30y rs. The only reason S. Korea was able to thritve was because 1. it had a lot of financial help from the US after the country was decimated 2. it had a military rule for a long time, and the continued backing of the US military such that there was no way a crazy person was going to be able to take over. Before the late 80's/early 90's, that country was not doing so well.

Look at N. Korea. It was left to fend for itself, and look what happened? You got a crazy leader (more like, family) and a largely uneducated population. I'm not saying all poor, former colonies end up with crazy leaders, obviously. But, I think such countries are easy pickings for crazy leaders to take over. Many countries have been fortunate enough to escape that end, but unfortunately, others haven't.

Similar things have happened in Eastern Europe, btw. Hungary was one such example. Though we don't call it "colonized", I think being part of the USSR is kind of like colonialism.

Reason #3 why South Korea was able to thrive; the average Korean has an IQ of 105.

Is the difference between the economies of North Korea and South Korea due to the IQs of their populations, or might there be factors much more important than racial/ethnic average IQ in the economic development of nations? If the US and other developed nations stopped trading with South Korea, would their IQs drop, or just their GDP?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:South Africa has issues but could hardly be described as unsuccessful.

Yes, I wonder what was different about South Africa...

Perhaps people like Nelson Mandela and Desmond Tutu plus quantities old gold and diamonds that weren't completely depleted by colonial powers.

Most african nations were depleted and then left in a state of poor agriculture, no infrastructure, and no industry, i.e. no functioning economy. The better off black nations transitioned to states with functioning economies.

So then what happened with Zimbabwe? When the British pulled out it was producing so much agriculture it was called Africa's breadbasket. Under Mugabe, farming has all but stopped and now the citizens are starving.

You can't blame EVERYTHING on white people.

Unfortunately, a crazy madman took over. When you have a population that was not allowed to thrive, left uneducated and poor, you get a crazy person who can easily take over.

Korea had a huge uneducated population prior to 80's maybe even 90's. It was largely agricultural prior to the 60's. Japan colonized Korea for over 30y rs. The only reason S. Korea was able to thritve was because 1. it had a lot of financial help from the US after the country was decimated 2. it had a military rule for a long time, and the continued backing of the US military such that there was no way a crazy person was going to be able to take over. Before the late 80's/early 90's, that country was not doing so well.

Look at N. Korea. It was left to fend for itself, and look what happened? You got a crazy leader (more like, family) and a largely uneducated population. I'm not saying all poor, former colonies end up with crazy leaders, obviously. But, I think such countries are easy pickings for crazy leaders to take over. Many countries have been fortunate enough to escape that end, but unfortunately, others haven't.

Similar things have happened in Eastern Europe, btw. Hungary was one such example. Though we don't call it "colonized", I think being part of the USSR is kind of like colonialism.

Reason #3 why South Korea was able to thrive; the average Korean has an IQ of 105.

Is the difference between the economies of North Korea and South Korea due to the IQs of their populations, or might there be factors much more important than racial/ethnic average IQ in the economic development of nations? If the US and other developed nations stopped trading with South Korea, would their IQs drop, or just their GDP?

No, authoritarian/communist governments can definitely keep people with a lot of natural abilities down. High IQ is necessary, but not sufficient in creating a first world country. The astounding progress South Korea has made wouldn't have been possible if the population wasn't intelligent.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:South Africa has issues but could hardly be described as unsuccessful.

Yes, I wonder what was different about South Africa...

Perhaps people like Nelson Mandela and Desmond Tutu plus quantities old gold and diamonds that weren't completely depleted by colonial powers.

Most african nations were depleted and then left in a state of poor agriculture, no infrastructure, and no industry, i.e. no functioning economy. The better off black nations transitioned to states with functioning economies.

So then what happened with Zimbabwe? When the British pulled out it was producing so much agriculture it was called Africa's breadbasket. Under Mugabe, farming has all but stopped and now the citizens are starving.

You can't blame EVERYTHING on white people.

people will try!!