Lets not speak of the fact the "West" had the Berlin conference in 1884-85 to divvy up Africa between themselves. And committed lots of atrocities against the native populations (see atrocities by Belgium in the Congo as an example). So much for high IQ and education.

Wasn't Singapore also a a colony? How come it succeeded?

Genuine question.

Singapore was the focus of intensive capital expenditure by the British Empire prior to independence, and managed to maintain a stable market economy after independence which made it an attractive target for even more foreign investment.

A homogenous population. A lot of the violence and corruption in Africa (and the middle East) is a result of conflict between large tribes that hate each other and yet were placed in the same country by colonialists. This was done deliberately in many cases, to keep the colonies weak and easy to control, but continues to cause problems even after decades of "independence". I believe Singapore was spared of this due to their unique geography.

Singapore has a famously heterogeneous population. Historically, it has had a population of ethnic Chinese, ethnic Malays, ethnic Indians, and ethnic Europeans. Furthermore, there have been tensions between the various ethnic communities since Chinese, Indians, and Europeans began displacing the native Malays. There were terrible race riots in the 60s in Singapore. Singapore is blessed by geography, but it is not blessed by ethnic homogeneity.

You're right. Apologies for the misinformation.

Singapore - a homogenous population? Is this a joke, or are you outright lying to cover for your other arguments.

To say honestly whenever people compare nation states like Singapore , Denmark or even provinces like Hong Kong to large swathes like Africa or countries like India and compare their development it seems cringe worthy.

As long as National security is not the biggest concern , a homogeneous population or at least a shared of common values in the country controlled by a single party with a goal for the greater good can achieve economic development unlike anything else. It also helps being an outlier in the given region and attracting industries that other neighboring countries can't.

Except for Chinese provinces (which is a magic in itself due to the ruthlessness of a single party system) no other developing areas of the world have developed faster. Most of them share similar problems which have although reduced a lot over the past couple of decades. Even these places want a better future for themselves, the spread of information has made many individuals in all these areas aware of the world around them and they aspire for a better standard of living.

I fucked up. Apologies.

Its a City State, the dynamics of a Nation State and City State are different. Singapore is smaller than Houston both in size and population. Singapore exploited the local inefficiencies, they were the capitalist oasis in a region of Leftist/autocratic regimes esp. during their growth period. There are many factors including leadership, but their adherence to open trade gave them a leg up in the region.

That was an example of a largely uneducated population. Today, it would never happen.

I think the point is that Leopold of Belgium, who ordered the atrocities, and the civil service that condoned or encouraged it was highly educated. The world's pioneer in universal education voted for Nazis as the largest party in the Reichstag and implemented the Holocaust. One of the most despicable people behind atrocities carried out by that regime held multiple doctorates. Many peasant societies have been relatively peaceful.

Sure, I don't think the present European powers would take quite the same approach to Belgium, but that has more to do with the nature of politics rather than the availability of education.

When I listened to this RadioLab podcast[1], I was shocked at how recently that colonial atrocities in Africa occurred on the part of western governments. Though the 60s are 50+ years ago, I think they could still be considered part of the modern age of "today".

[1]http://www.radiolab.org/story/mau-mau/

Edit: err, not 70+ years ago, don't do simple math on the fly...

Nobody ever hears about this. British were adept at keeping their own atrocities under wraps, all the while decrying the actions of Germans - the so called "moral whipping boy" of Europe.

How are the 60s 70+ years ago?

Take the Algerian independence struggle which was long and harsh, culminating in a final war into the early 1960s leaving hundreds of thousands (probably over a million) dead. France committed some ridiculous levels of atrocities, this was 53 years ago, my dad was already an adult at the time and he was raised in a country where he wasn't allowed to go to school because he was a native. Literally a generation ago in some families like mine. (I'm just 25 years old by the way).

But yeah I agree, it is pretty shocking and often untold. We're all aware of the colonial era, mostly aware of the low levels of autonomy for the local population, the desire for self-determination and the final years of the eventual independence movement. But the atrocities are usually glossed over, you'll scarcely be confronted with pictures of French or Spanish soldiers holding the heads of decapitated freedom fighters in school (partially understandable, of course), although it was pretty common. Somehow we pretend like only ISIS is capable of doing something like that. I mean take Jean-Marie le Pen, father (and indeed still alive) of Marine le Pen who just doubled her seats in a record election result for her party Front National in France, he's been accused of torture of Algerians in credible French newspapers and books, none of this is all that long ago. And hell that's in Algeria, a lot of people don't know of things like the Paris Massacre, where French protesters were killed and thrown in the Seine, some of them tortured, by government forces. That's just absolutely shocking, the moment you kill civilians and throw them in the river (i.e. they're not even pretending these civilians were a threat, were killed in self-defence, then brought in for identification, investigation and ultimately buried by family... but rather just murdered and ditched in the nearest river), you know something is really fucked up and indeed it feels very recent.

Anyway, the colonial atrocities are one thing, but the effects of colonialism are still very much felt today. Take Angola for example, independent in 1975 (quite recent) after a 13 year (nasty) war for independence, but embroiled right after in a civil war that ended only in 2002, lasting more than 25 years. The latter is in many ways a product of the former. A bit simplistic of course, but ultimately the colonial story is one of arbitrary geographical borders being drawn, exploitation, a bloody independence movement, and a post-colonial consolidation/playing-out of the various ethnic groups that were arbitrarily grouped together in a new nation state, who often have different cultures, political ideas and are all driven by their own desire for self-determination. This process is bloody, too, it's like grouping the US, Canada and Mexico in one big area, having them partially mingle for a century, and then allowing their independence once more, having them fight for the establishment of new borders of their new nation states. It's not pretty, especially when you do it in some of the poorest and least educated areas in the world. It's really sad, but the post-colonial era too is one in which we have more blame than we behave like we do.

I was a little ticked off when the media was talking about the Paris attacks recently as the highest casualty event in Paris since WWII. I wondered if all those Algerians in 1961 didn't count as people....

The 60s are 70+ years ago? What's your relativistic velocity?

Relative velocity too high, fingers were going faster than my brain...

Were the Serbs in Bosnia (ex-communist Yugoslavia) an uneducated population when Biljana Plavsic would spew theories about defective Muslim genes? Were the Germans in 1939 an uneducated population?

Well Selim, the Serbs are wise people who fought against invading muslims for more than 500 years. If anything, the "west" needed to learn from them instead of bombing them to oblivion. Modern muslim population of the Balkans are essentially invaders, you can't put it any other way. Their introduction to Eastern Europe retarded the region for centuries. The real Albanians for example were evacuated by the Pope to Sicily when the Ottomans began stirring up trouble.

As for German exceptionalism in 1939 - this is what economic depression and a charismatic leader can do to a people. The difference between the Germans and say descenats of the Ottomans is that the former are still paying reparations to this day though while the later are busy burning churches in Kosovo.

Go ahead, try to debate me muslim-lovers and Islam apologists. Millions of Christians live in the Middle East as 2nd rate citizens - dhimmis with no practically no rights.

Where are the Assyrians of Iraq? You know the answer. This is whats attempting to spread to Europe and the rest of the world.

I would not think that I'm an Islam apologist just from my username. Since you're such an expert on the region, you should of course be perfectly familiar with how the clans on the Montenegro-Albania border are perfect examples of Albanianzed Serbs and Serbianized Albanians, and that there was a lot of intermixture between the two.

So are the Albanian Catholics who aren't in Italy "fake Albanians"?

Name me one region or country where the native population was treated fairly after its conquest by islamists, by sword or through the womb. Or that managed to progress economically or scientifically. There is not a single one.

And don't give me the bullshit of the islamic "Golden Age" in Spain pushed by the MSM. If it were that good, native Spaniards wouldn't have to melt down their church bells to make cannons.

Is there any region outside Arabia that got better? I can't think of a single one.

Indonesia? Although I doubt any proselytizing religion is going to meet such a standard.

And by the way, did the Serbs just sprout from the ground there in Kosovo? Surely they displaced the Illyrians around the time of Christianization?

"No racism here."

Really?

The racist part was the lack of sourcing for the statements above. I'm sure if the poster in question had stated sources for the various claims you would... Still call it racist?

The note that was added made a big difference. There is no genetic basis implied, it's assessed on an environmental basis. The links do an excellent job at summarising some measures of IQ.

Another question is why raise the comment? This could imply a prejudice. While the reasoning wasn't clear, it made me think that Africa is a source of radicals unless its education standard can be lifted.

I have little faith in most sites being able to objectively discuss differences, but HN is still better than most. I encourage people to challenge prejudice in a consistent way (eg. No free tickets on being prejudiced based on gender or skin colour, unlike what happens at The Verge and most other media sites).

> Nothing else demonstrates how much of HN became a "safe space"

This isn't about "safe spaces", but the tedium of ideological tangents. A few users insist on inflicting their race war fixations on the rest of us at the drop of any hat. People ought to be able to read a thread about e.g. demographic trends in Africa without having to endure a flamewar about how low-IQ Somalians are going to invade us, plus what about King Leopold.

Also, your comments are breaking the HN guidelines by attacking other users, conducting religious flamewars, and being inflammatory and unsubstantive. We ban accounts that won't stop doing that, so please stop doing that.