Question!

How come the populations who contributed the most to advancing cvilization were males from select areas of Europe, the Levant, the Far East, and South Asia? And even today their males lead (see the list of nobel prize winners)?

Meanwhile Africa has long been irrevalent beyond Egypt (who weren't Shaniquas) the Moors with other Maghrebs (not Shaniquas either) and farm equipment. The Redskins didn't do much. The Abbos accomplished even less than Negroes.

Other urls found in this thread:

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Selective_exposure_theory
youtube.com/watch?v=CkaX6tyq9pI

The material conditions of their respective homelands were unsuited for the development of productive forces.

And now?

women didn't have time to do shit, they were taking care of children.

I don;t understand what are you asking.

Because you disregard all the domestic work necessary to support the "males" as unimportant?

They're mostly either gone, form part of the great labouring mass extracting resources for the global market or are safely preserved in reservations.

And now? Where's all the STEM masters?

Now they're more or less integrated into global capital and have to either participate in its logic or perish.

Ignoring the loading of this question, what historically united all these regions?

Because de-colonization not only occurred historically recently, but in some cases still exists in an unofficial sense through various financial schemes that siphon capital from them to their colonial masters in Europe and elsewhere.

If you'd like to stick around you are strongly advised to knock that Holla Forums shit right off.

I don't know. Only about 10% of our class are women, we all would like to have more of them, especially because girls are usually highly above average and are very nice.
It almost feels like girls go to STEM only if that's what they really want do do, but men go to study STEM mostly because of money…

are you literally retarded

...

t. Jared Diamond

just fuck off

100,000 years is a lot of generations
race obviously isn't the entire reason, but we can't rule out that it isn't partially responsible

kill yourself shill

Well he posted PowerPoint slides so I guess that proves it

If you think race played a bigger role than isolations you have to be delusional.
Eskimos, Aboriginals, and Native Americans are basically at the same material status as Subsaharan Africans, the only difference being Africans weren't genocided.
What is the likely of "race" playing a huge role in the development of all those different races? How come not one of them is materially better off than the other?

You wouldn't all believe in We Wuz Kangz would you?

Imagine my shock, friends!

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Selective_exposure_theory


it's the consensus


that's an oversimplification

Not for the purpose of this argument.

hmmmm
elaborate

Songhai, Mali, Ethiopia

100 years ago women were mostly housekeepers. 50 years ago women became a major part of the work force. Only recently women started to really get into superior education. All the while it is still in many places socially unacceptable, many women are not incentivised and they still do most of the housekeeping.

Don't forget about the Nubians and Kushites of Sudan who built almost twice as many pyramids of their own than Egypt.

Read it.

Wheat and rice

Ugh, please don't.

...

...

who are you quoting, r/the_donald?

This isn't tumblr.

It's not Reddit either family

he doesn't sufficiently explain the shitshow that is half of hispanola
also he doesn't really refute the arguments of racists, just show that there are also other factors at play

youtube.com/watch?v=CkaX6tyq9pI

Boy now you just went against Holla Forums doctrine. Prepare to be bullied.