Why are black and brown countries so bad while white and northeast Asian countries seem to be decent?

France is getting better tho

because racial features like whiteness are correlated with geographical features that allow for prosperous nations

Just in the economy, and because they are 85% white. Welfare niggers don't contribute nothing to the world

That's a dumb excuse. You never saw Eskimos invent anything other than snow huts and they still live in the coldest regions of the world. The real answer is pure luck

WE

I think whites and northeast Asians are genetically inclined to have higher intelligence than niggers and brown people, and that is why their countries are better

Attached: 9315EFA0-2B7C-4FC7-9DCD-E1DDDA98AB86.png (1334x750, 2.1M)

IQ I guess lol. I mean at least the brown countries have some form of society. Blacks ones well, I'm sure they were doing all sorts like raping babies for rituals before colonisation.

Attached: JPP_5398.jpg (880x880, 650K)

Let's not jump into racist conclusions by saying that light skin is superior, please

Attached: 1556069549497.jpg (720x699, 313K)

Race goes deeper than the skin. There are racial differences in the brain.

Attached: BDAC67C9-DFA5-4FE9-B1D0-4AC12640DF50.jpg (950x534, 46K)

IQ has been demonstrated to be only partially genetic and it is very difficult to isolate nongenetic factors from IQ research. That being said, even a nation with an average IQ of 200 would struggle to found a civilization in places with undesirable geographical features.

I doubt it.

Attached: _159319261.jpg (807x676, 73K)

A region with an average IQ of 200 would looks like Somalia.
Ancap paradise

Not really. Look at Australia and South Africa. Shitholes until the whites came over. Clearly the natives couldn't do anything due to lack of intelligence.

>he thinks race is skin colour

Attached: 1536755432826.jpg (599x449, 38K)

Yeah I know that, you get my point though
I just think it's wrong to conclude that first world nations are better just because of their race

Climate and evolution

>Shitholes until the whites came over
They invented the technology and cultivated the crips they needed to colonize those regions in more foregiving climates that were parts of large trade networks.

Whites came over with resources and technology from other parts of the world. Can't say the same for isolated aborigines.

Yeah, I said that wrong, I should have said: " let's not jump into racist conclusions by saying that first world countries are better just because of their race" I think it's wrong and there is eay much more than that

no there aren't.

why do I keep coming back to this cesspool

Why don't the other races perform well in white countries?

wdym?

The wheel wasn't even invented by blacks until the 19th century when the white man introduced it to them. Think that sums up this thread.

Attached: 200px-Mursi_woman.jpg (200x267, 16K)

Ellaborate on what you mean?

>The wheel wasn't even invented by blacks until the 19th century
absolutely false

that's a lie tho

Nice cope, but it's true. Look at black countries and see for yourself. They cannot run without the white man either running them or funding them.

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wheel

Only asians are successful. Blacks are an embarrassment everywhere

There are. It was only in the past few centuries that mass migration became basically instantaneous (on an evolutionary timescale). Prior to that every population spent millions of years adapting to its own geographical environment.

Blacks and browns on average perform worse in school/life than than whites in white countries

This. And who causes most of the crimes in white countries?? Blacks of course!

That can be easily explained.
Black people (the vast majority) in other countries for the longest time were discriminated and not giventhe same oportunities, it's been recently since this has been kinda over, we are still working on that, so of course they'll be worse speaking socio-economically than the rest

t. moor from the south

>discriminated and not giventhe same oportunities
Muh oppression.

>but it's true
Even if it were true, it's a piss poor argument. Very few societies independently invented the wheel. The chinese did not invent the wheel, the indians did not invent the wheel and neither did the Romans. They all borrowed the invention because they were part of a a large trans eurasian trade network, which sub saharan africa for a large part missed out on.
There is also no point in having wheels if there are no domesticatable animals and the soil doesn't allow for easy construction of roads.

What do you mean with that?
What other explanation can you give other than racist conclusions?

No, please do not ever say such garbage again. In Brazil we try to give everything to blacks, they still fail and ask for more. They are the worst thing in this world and holding my country back. Genocide is too good for people like them

I thought Brazilians are black/part black

Africa has loads of domesticable animals kek. Yes the reason sub-saharan africa missed out on it as other cultures were intelligent to speak and get the resources from one another. Blacks had to have people go all the way there and introduce it to them as they know no better.

Read
You yourself are trying to reinvent the wheel with this convoluted argument. No race is objectively better or worse but you can’t deny that they’re different

add to this the fact that migrants often come with very few resources (often the reason why they migrate in the first place) and society is structured to keep the rich rich and the poor poor. Social mobility is stifled by barriers like discrimination, or lack of control on the language and culture of the country they migrate to.

Blacks aren't oppressed here you brainlet. They get gibs all the time, have the chance to study and even have most of the braindead society listening to their shitty music. But no, let's join a gang, it's cool.

America

>Africa has loads of domesticable animals kek
like which?

Not denying that. Just saying that geography is a more decisive factor than race and hence a better explanation.

>loads of domesticable animals
such as?

America is an exception to all rules, as was ordained by God

There are racial differences in the brain

Attached: 5BAAC7FF-0CB6-4DB5-A064-338DEAE2237D.jpg (2970x2483, 2.12M)

A simple example.

Attached: Ankole-Cattle-EAT.jpg (980x452, 114K)

Attached: 4ef1c2d33db0492db77ebbb05e9425e7.jpg (1000x693, 155K)

A page also on another breed
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nguni_cattle

Nice racist rant, now I know not to take you seriously
I think it's fascinating how are there still civilisations that were very big and still had no wheels or domesticated animals to help
Sub-saharan Africans were definitely very outdated, but would you really call them dumber because of that?

OK, genocide anyone with more than 20% nigger blood then. 28% of the population dies.

Socratic question: North America has the best strategic and economic geography on the planet, so how were Europeans able to conquer them so easily?

>civilisations that were very big and still had no wheels or domesticated animals to help
Some examples?

I was talking mainly in the past tho, the past still has big relevance to this day
It's a big struggle to get the black population in a better place and to break their stigma, we just gotta try, have more hope, and help each other
No need to insult me, sorry if I got a mistake somewhere

disease

Aztecs and Mayans

But that animal was introduced later when the Europeans arrived

Lack of domesticatable animals and plants

Well, they still were able to build impressive buildings. Also did they not domesticate the llama?

>The ancestors of Nguni cattle were brought by the Nguni people, Zulu, Xhosa, Ndebele and Swazi people, during their migration to southern Africa between 600 and 1400 AD

Read the origins section.

Lmao your ancestors had the fucking cycle of the planet right but they just could apply it

Attached: 6C90CF57-2BAA-4E01-8879-9778DFC75CEF.jpg (480x548, 63K)

>hard work over the course of thousands of years and hundreds of empires was pure luck
Subhuman mentality right there.

pic related is where you can find them in africa. They are a direct descendant of the eurasian cattle and have only been introduced to africa about 6000 years ago. Eurasians had domesticated cattle for 105000 years.

only introduced during the bantu expansion

Attached: ankole_all.jpg (220x220, 8K)

>what is maize

Demographics are destiny.

I don't know about South Africa but the natives of Australia were isolated from thousands of years on a continent as big as Europe.

Innovation comes from interaction and the transfer of knowledge. Places like the Mediterranean which was a bastion of smaller civilizations bounced their ideas back and forth on each other which is why they were more advanced then say, Northern Europe, around Roman era when some Northern Europeans still literally lived in caves.

* for thousands of years

They live in a complete wasteland with not even seasons for agriculture and no decent trade routes for spread of technology

So Bantu's aren't black?

True, I do see your point about Australia but natives of sub-saharan Africa did have the chance to but they did not until someone gave it to them.

The cold glacial eras also accelerated natural selection in the brain's ability to plan for the future.

the only reliable, domesticatable cerial to grow in the americas

where did I imply they weren't? My point is that the bantu migration took place a millenium ago whereas eurasia had domesticated cattle for litteraly thousands of millenia.

>True, I do see your point about Australia but natives of sub-saharan Africa did have the chance to but they did not until someone gave it to them.
The same is true for europe. Civilization could only take place after the fertile crescent gave them the necessary crops and animals.

>past still has big relevance to this day

Niggers who were born in western countries in 21st or 20th century don’t suffer from colonialism. They are unlike the natives in Europe because they are genetically inclined to have different behavioral profile, which is due to evolution. The winterless climate enables the reproduction of people with impulsive tendencies, since there is no need to plan ahead. The result is lower intelligence and different behavioral profile, namely the kind that thrives when nature provides everything essential: impulsive, dominant, sex driven and aggressive.

The llama was from the Incas, it was found only in South America
yeah, sad I guess
domestic cow is way older than that, it was introduced later

I see no Eurasians in that area of Africa though nowadays. Even if it was such a long time ago, that's no excuse to say there was no resources.

How come turkeys and buffalo have since been domesticated on large scales?

what point are you trying to make

brown and blacks are subhumans

That's wrong and you're sticking your head onto the sand

That even though it may be perceived Africans were not able the build civilzed societies due to lack of resources and conditions, that's not excuse really as even Scandinavians had some sort of high culture even though they had to live in the extreme cold. Maybe intelligence played a part.

Well they invented chocolate kek. Much more than the we wuzzing kangz keep going on about.

Maybe they don't sufder colonialism, but still suffered discrimination, classism, racism, inequality and all that stuff we all know about that racists ignire completely
How is it wrong and what do you mean that I'm sticking my head into sand?

I guess you are right on that
Did Africans at that time had the knowledge of European civilisations? Like, actual Sub-Saharan Africans knew how Europeans cities looked and had the people who would help them to achieve such things?

Eskimos invented a lot of things actually
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Snow_goggles

Oh no, our ancestors did not invented chocolate, that was Europeans
Aztecs and Mayans used the cacao fruit to make wine with it

>luck
Brainlet

Cuz nigrs r dum n low QI lole it prove by rudhton n jensrn