How do non-whites cope?

>How do non-whites cope?
how do non-jews cope?*

M*xico was part of the Spanish Empire. Name one significant Mexican thinker from that period.
Literally only two Jews in the rankings.

> all those greeks 2000 years ahead of their time

Attached: 1023.jpg (300x218, 12K)

fuck off cunt, Ernest Rutherford was ours

By fucking your wives.

Born in England mate.
At the very least though, EXTREMELY puzzled as to how that list has come to consider him German.

>europe
>amazing geographical location
compared to all the other continents (except australia and antarctica) it is tiny and has fuck all natural resources

no he was born in nz, in a town not too far from where I live actually
also the flag next to him is england, you just followed the line wrong

Fixed.

Attached: european achievement.png (1235x2422, 252K)

SEETHING

Sor Juana

>physics
>Pierre Curie
>not Marie
Roasties BTFO

what dose these score even mean

Please, she was literally 99% Spanish

Oh fuck you're right, he was a Kiwi, my bad.
But no, the flag was absolutely wrong, get your eyes checked.

Are you picking flags according to nationality or ethnicity ?
Euler was Swiss, Paul Dirac was half French. I think you should remove the SPQR flag, Ptolemy was simply Greek.
You have plenty of David crosses to add if you want to indicate if someone is jewish.

>Euripides on Literature instead of Sophocles

This is bullshit

Attached: Screen Shot 2018-12-03 at 2.22.50 PM.png (801x216, 58K)

He was a meme scientist and discovered literally nothing.

>tiny
who gives a shit about size when most of continents are covered by deserts and deep jungles, whereas europe is almost completely inhabitable

>natural resources
yeah, because surely for a tribesman/early civilization thats just getting started a diamond/uranium mine is going to be very useful

an aspect that often gets overlooked is that the british had plenty of (quality) woods and sizeable reserves of iron and coal, just what they needed at the time

Germany shouldn't get credit for the Jews

Attached: 837376.png (316x609, 27K)

Nationality is the only real way to do it.

other continents had pretty much all the same natural resources as europe mate, even if you were to erase all the desert area from say africa, whats left is still the same size as europe
also all the middle east is desert yet they managed to prosper and achieve/discover/invent great things just like the europeans

>no Nicolas Tesselat
he invented electricity you know, and he was French

oh I was looking at the physics one
yeah thats dumb

anyway both flags are wrong ;)

"¿Qué mágicas infusiones / de los INDIOS herbolarios / de MI PATRIA, entre mis letras / el hechizo derramaron?"

(What magical brewings of the herbalist INDIANS from MY HOMELAND, casted their spell amonst my writings?)

>wh*Tes claiming Einstein by not giving him a jewish star like the other jews in the rankings
Can't tell whether that's malice or laziness

>the dude who literally started the study of logic
>the dude who separated natural philosophy from the rest of philosophy

>literally nothing

>Euler was Swiss
Indeed. Fixed.
>Are you picking flags according to nationality or ethnicity ?
Nationality. I only count ethnicity when they emigrated back to their ancestral homeland, like in Rousseau's case.

Attached: european achievement.png (1235x2422, 252K)

>virgil higher than homer
what did they mean by this

>middle east is desert
good point it is a desert, but it wasnt in the past and thats why they did good in the past too, ever heard of the fertile crescent?

-Australia: Complete shithole, unforgivable fauna

-Africa: Pretty much the same thing, locked away from the world due to the Sahara, cant trade

-Middle East, India and China: Pretty good, thats why they did good, and during most of history they were on par with Europe, the breaking point being the discovery of America (due to geography), which granted Europe an entire continent of wealth to pillage

America as a whole was too big, lots of deserts, jungles and mountains, but the natives that got into good places developed quite quickly, but yeah, they got there too recently, and didnt have enough time to catch up

>Western philosophy
>Kant higher than Aquinas
>fucking Nietzsche higher than Russell
>Spinoza on the list period
yes sir i am mad

Attached: 1500150366426.png (801x595, 570K)

Attached: 1532542525118.png (918x543, 385K)

Kant would eat Aquinas, nigga

Pls, higher average IQ affected things too. Europeans succeeded everywhere partly because of it.

>got there too recently
but the natives had been in america for tens of thousands of years though since at least the last ice age
also the ones in the deserts of mexico and jungles in the south ironically were the most advanced in terms of societal structure/agriculture/astronomy etc
not too sure about technology wise but I would assume because of the presence of cities all those people gathered up together there would have been more innovation

I wonder how they achieved that high IQ though...
Because whent they left Africa they were the same as every other nignog.

Maybe it has to do with a much more tame fauna? With big access to cattle and draft animals, that allowed them to have great nutrients source?

And thats ignoring that East Asians have a higher IQ, again, due to great geography, but yeah, the fact that America was unreachable for them really turned the tides in favor of europe

>the ones in the deserts of mexico
The only natives in the deserts were all fucking semi-nomads, man. The Aztecs lived on a fucking lake. And the Mayans were already a decadent people by the time the Spanish got there

Attached: 1531613295936.jpg (655x527, 59K)

America was perfectly reachable for Japan.

the 3 of them make sense though

Ernest Rutherford was a NEW ZEALANDER.
Why the fuck do you have him as a German under combined sciences and English under physics?
Also whoever made that list was obviously biased against Jews. Far more Jews deserve to be on that list.

I think the only people who really could use geography as an excuse for not developing are the siberians or any other russian ethnic group living in the frozen wasteland parts several weeks ride from anywhere, native south americans who had to contend with the dense jungle and the polynesians/micronesians/melanesians who were limited to tiny little islands spread out over a huge distance
apparently some contact was made with the native americans (both north and south) a few times but they never settled on the continent for some reason
also surprised the maoris/micronesians/melanesians or the australian abos never went adventuring just a little bit and discovered the indonesians/malays/south east asian civilisations
that could have really helped develop the whole oceania area much more, not to the point of the old world obviously but it would have at least had something going on other than canniballistic tribal societies

The Pacific is enormous, I don't think it's close enough for regular contact even for Japan.

Attached: serveimahge.png (3316x2430, 684K)

Japan was isolationist for a while though
they didnt even get firearms until the europeans arrived from the other side of the world despite the fact that gunpowder was invented in china

What access? Horses and cows weren't always tame:

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aurochs

And I think natural selection is responsible for the higher average IQ of Europeans.

Horses and cows literally didn't exist un the new world before we took them there mate.

I think if polynesians managed to sail it in there shitty little boats then the asians really should have been able to pull SOMETHING off

they knew of everything down to majapahit for sure, how could they not go just a tiny bit further south and discover australia

I assumed he was talking about Europe in the beginning of the the post.

The Polynesian through their navigation skills explored the Pacific from Hawaii to Easter Island to New Zealand. They did bloody well considering their isolation from non-Polys.
Also the America's is vertical in shape, so the natives there were isolated from other peoples who lived in similar climates, therefore had to develop for their climate all on their own.

horses actually originated in north america and walked over to the old world via a land bridge during an ice age
they became extinct in the americas 8000-12000 years ago (aroudn the same time humns got there and were re introduced by the europeans

apparently eating fish increases brain power and our diet of fish is one of the theories about how humans became intelligent
if thats true then its probably the fact that many european groups historically had a huge diet of fish and would explain the modern asian high IQ as they also consume large amounts of it
that is just a theory though

That theory doesn't make any sense in the modern context. The historically under-performing groups do not turn into productive citizens in the West.

There is no excuse that east Asians didn't conquer swathes of the globe like Europeans did. Like Europeans, east Asians lived in a temperate climate situated on a horizontal continent which means more knowledge to be shared between different peoples of how to develop in a simiar climate. Japan was isolationist so they at least had an excuse for being undeveloped, however they sorted their shit out near instantly when they encountered Americans.

>Charles Murray

Horses and Auroch's were not domesticated by euros.

the "vertical continents isolate people" thing is really only applicable to africa, the north american continent has enough width that even though there were a lot of differing geography/biomes people were still able to live in similar climates/geography and contact each other

The mongols, timurids and turks did a pretty good job

yeah I know
there is much more complex and detailed explanations that cover things like that however I do not remember them so was just trying simplify it
and it is still a theory anyway, just thought I would put it out there in case anyone ITT wanted to look into it or hadnt heard of it before

I thought Leonhard Euler was swiss?

>Far more Jews deserve to be on that list.
>Jews on a list
>again

Attached: 1499512853019.png (928x8800, 1005K)

The point is that any animal is tameable, the Africans simply didn't do it.

And why do you bring up modern Euros anyway?

I have strong reservations about the litterature list. Lord Byron doesn't belong and Rousseau is much more known for his philosophy.

timurids and turks arent east asian
mongols conquered a lot of russia which was uninhabited or vary sparsely inhabited which just fluffed up their empire size on the maps
they did btfo china and have success against some middle east and euro nations but they got btfo by japan, majapahit, vietnamese and various other euro countries

none of the east asian countries had any global empire like colonial era europe I think is what he meant

Again, America was the breakpoint, that gave Europe the advantage it needed to overtake the Far East

>Lord Byron doesn't belong
'No'

Eurasia is twice the width of North America

Yeah, The northern Asiatic barbarians were way better than their southern cousins when it came to conquering. They did a great job on expanding through land, however you need seafaring skills to colonise places outside of your landmass, which is what Europeans and to a smaller extent, Polynesians did.

This is why the Asian reluctance to open ocean seafaring was their downfall. They never expanded beyond their horizon.

>none of the east asian countries had any global empire like colonial era europe I think is what he meant
This.

Blake would have fit in that spot much better, honestly

but europe had already overtaken the far east
especially in terms of technology and weaponry

Before 1492? In what way?

Blake should be in that list, but that's no reason to exclude Byron.

they were just too far m8, and even then, Europe only discovered it because there was some lunatic that believed that the earth was skinnier than it really was, against all evidence

and he was indeed wrong, but by simple luck, with a starving crew he just stumbled upon a new continent

You tell us

Attached: 1539722088958.jpg (334x334, 88K)

Wish i could go back to those days

Attached: 1542858912501.jpg (1024x1004, 60K)

cant really agree with this, they both had things over the other that the other one ended up adopting

>T-the English just got lucky!
Imagine being unlucky

Attached: Three atheists arguing about how Nigel Farage doesn't exist.jpg (640x428, 65K)

yeah but most of that is due to russia and the middle east both of which are extreme climates which are very difficult to inhabit/develop/travel
if you were to look at a biome map of north america there is still areas the size (both width and length) of multiple european countries combined where it is all the same climate

And remain there and never come back, please. Thanks

Attached: 1532915314070.jpg (225x225, 17K)

my bad I was going off first colony date not discovery date
but still, at that point in time did europe not already have far more advanced firearms as well as better artillery and ships?

i still think the east asians should have discovered oceania and all the pacific islands
although with how things are going im sure soon chinese historians will "discover" an ancient never before seen map that shows australia and NZ as part of china and gives them the right to annex us

Ottomans had more advanced guns and artillery
Chinese treasure ships dwarfed European galleys

How was Columbus a lunatic for wanting to find a shortcut to Asia? That's called having an entrepreneurial spirit.

Southern and western Russia aren't extreme climates, only extreme if you look from an NZ perspective. If you add the area of all the temperate grasslands and forests of Eurasia together compared to North America, Eurasia would have much more area, plus the civilisations in those biomes would have contact and trade with burgeoning populations in southern civilisations like India and the middle east as well. The old world was several orders of maginitude more populated than the Americas back then. It is unfair to criticise the isolated and relatively small populations of the Americas for not achieving as much as the huge and well connected populations of Eurasia. What we should wonder is how many American civilisations became as advanced as many Eurasian civilisations despite their isolation.

Nevermind
You said east asia

the lunatic part is that everyone knew more or less the radius of the earth and told him he would die before getting to Asia, Columbus (without any actual evidence) believed the Earth was more like an egg

and of course he was wrong, he just got lucky that he just stumbled upon a continent, he was already starving when he got there, there was no way he could have gotten to asia

Why is Thomas Edison on this list? I heard he just stole shit.

there is a lot of controversey about how big the chinese treasure ships actually were
besides, they werent practical for sailing on violent seas, they were just used for the imperials to display their power by sailing up and down the yangtze in

He did some actual inventing of his own alongside plagiarizing from others

>implying "whites" can take credit for that
i'm seeing a small handful of countries pop up again and again there.
It should really be "how do non-western Europeans cope?"

southern and western russia arent what I was talking about
the vast majority of russia is a frozen wasteland that is extremely difficult climate to do anything in, its one of their best defences as a nation

>If you add the area of all the temperate grasslands and forests of Eurasia together
but they arent all together though, they are scattered about the landmass with various deserts, arctic, jungles, mountain ranges etc separating them
of course I realise that afro-eurasia is overall bigger than the americas and the high population contributed to their development but the native american did have plenty of opportunity to form proper societies and more often than not they didnt and the most famous ones that did were stuck in a dense jungle