and after looking back at my comment... I noticed all the wonderful grammatical errors... too lazy to fix them. deal with it. If you can't understand what I said then you dont need to even be here.
In all reality... The first people to prove that the earth is older than 6 thousand years (and that it is actually 4 billion years old) were geologists, not the creators of carbon dating. Back in the 1800's people (I know the story, just not the particular name) began to realize that every year, a new layer of sediment built up on top of the one from the previous year. (Just like a tree) By noticing the fact that there are MILLIONS of these layers built up, we learned that the earth us damn old
The world is only 6 thousand years old! If you don't believe this fact, than you will continue to experience difficulties in your research... PNG only got inhabited recently, not more than 3000 years ago! How do I know? I'm Fijian, I know when my ancestors came from Egypt... And when we came, the pacific was still empty!
@BALEnaVICO The world is 4 billion years old. This is a fact. PNG was populated a long time ago. the burden of proof is on you to prove otherwise, besides using a book written by iron age shepards as evidence.
@CodArk2 4 billion years ago? What else you going to tell me? Man came from sludge? You don't even have proof that anything existed 7 thousand years ago! Carbon dating is flawed a mile open mate! If PNG was populated a long time ago, than why do some PNG tribes still have record of their ancestors that came across the ocean not too long ago? Your theories are really leaking truth! Don't tell them who or where they come from!!! ASK THEM you Muppet!!
@BALEnaVICO Actaully man didn't come from sludge, man came from apes, apes from other mammals and so on. it makes about as much sense to me as saying a sky fairy came to earth, took dust and made humans. We do have proof things existed thousands, even millions of years ago, and claiming carbon dating is flawed is something you have to prove. I tend to believe archaeological evidence over stories, since stories can be changed and rewritten
@CodArk2 And NO! The burden of proof is not on me... Its on you to proof otherwise because your theory is built on refutable facts whilst mine is solid!
@BALEnaVICO What exactly is yours built on? The bible? The bible is not solid. it has holes and illogical gaps in it as well. The bible is like any other book written by men: imperfect. It has also been retranslated, re-edited, recompiled and used to enforce social mores or the culture and times. In science the burden of proof is on the one with the different theory. if the world were proven 6 thousand years old, it would be a huge breakthrough in science
@whitevoice White people learned much of what they know from Native Americans, Ancient Egyptians and Israelites (blacks). Your opinion is based in denial, deception and racism. People like you make a bad name for all caucasians. Grow.
This video says it was our advanced technology that helped us rise, correct, cause we had the brains to use the resources and invent said technology. Indians and African'ts sat on the resources and never thought to use them! We have made countries and handed them to blacks countless times, well ran, and they destroy it!
Just an excuse flick, saying we had this or that and helped us get where we are, lol maybe it takes brains to make those things! S. American Indians sat on vast resources for eons there why didn't they ever try to make something out of it? It took us going there to do it
This crap is stupid so far, saying we had steel, there was raw Iron in North & south America, We made the gums, invented them, this is just mainstream trying to explain away our greatness over savage primitives!This bullshit video is just propaganda, they can't say the truth, no scientist can they would be called Nazi's! So they make excuses!No scientist will say anything to intelligence being the issue, they would be expelled and fired and black balled! Nothing they say would get on TV!
@Whitevoice14 You dismissed other cultures as savage and primitive. That's an extremely sweeping statement to say that other parts of the world failed to develop because they were 'savage'.
@MrFreddieBurgoyne Pretty savage to still be in the stone age (some Indian & African tribes away from our influence) and to have resources under ur feet the same as Asians and Europeans and fail and never get nowhere till we helped and even now Africans still fail! Everywhere we went we was able to win and conquer because the people was ass naked with spears something we advanced past and we had better technology, and some Africans still eat each other, sounds savage to me!
@Whitevoice14 They certainly did not have the same resources as Eurasian people, that's the entire point. The geographies of Africa and Australasia are not suited to support the development of advanced cultures much beyond the hunter gatherer stage.. Eurasia however, did have these resources which enabled other aspects of culture to develop over time. You're basically saying other races are stupid, aren't you?
@Whitevoice14 They certainly did not have the same resources as Eurasian people, that's the entire point. The geographies of Africa and Australasia are not suited to support the development of advanced cultures much beyond the hunter gatherer stage.. Eurasia however, did have these resources which enabled other aspects of culture to develop over time. You're basically saying other races are stupid, aren't you?
Canada has 1/3 of the Great Plains and if we ever get over 100 million people we gonna be the Second Coming of Uncle Sam cause same shit been going on NOrth of 49 for 400 years bitches !
this is not entirely true because in the caribbean..it has perfect climate for growing crops..however the europeans used it for THEIR gain and gained millions from it.Why not did the natives in the caribbean and south central america become "rich"?? The europeans got their wealth from these countries.
@shottaboss24 It's not only farming. The fertile crescent had the most plants and animals for domestication. After the land became arid, humans migrated from the region and bringing those resources elsewhere across Eurasia. The combination of domesticated plants and animals gave the Europeans an advantage at development. The people of Papua New Guinea lack either, hence their archaic farming practices and poor health.
@shottaboss24 I know you posted this a while ago but.....i don't care.
I find it a shame that you have top comment because your claim is actually a wide misconception.Many of those tropical areas have inadequate soil for growing crops; the soil is very thin.Thus many of the inhabitants were hunter gatherers because they couldn't be farmers. A chain-reaction that begins with the proper environment, not genetic "intelligence"
Free energy is finaly here!But the Oil companies want these technologies unknown to the masses,Go to LT-MAGNET-MOTORdotCOM and get the blueprints for a genuine magnet motor ,The revolution begins!
Africans had bufallo, wildebeest and other large game, and some of them had agriculture, apparently, so why then didn't they develope in the same way as the middle easterners?
@gunninlinguist Because of the the difference in the weather in the middle east. Africa is a very hot place where many farm land and animals that are good for humans just simply cant survive.
@overOOview animals like large spiders can't be domesticated because they are A)dangerous B) they don't follow a social structure and C) They are difficult to breed.
@Abu7929 but they all come from the phylum Arthropods. Crustaceans and Arachnids have very similar biology. The structure of the exoskeleton, organs.. etc
Whoops, it looks like the Papuas actually DID have a plant suitable for use as a staple crop.
I guess it would be too much work planting a tuber like taro...except that potatoes (imported from the New World) were a staple crop in northern Europe.
Bruce Lahn professor of human genetics at the Unv. Chicago stood before a packed lecture hall and reported the results of new DNA analysis He had found signs of evolution in the brains of some people, but not of others
He flashed maps showing changes (in brain size/ IQ ) had taken hold in Europe but weren't common in Black/Brown Populations
tiktak, your replies really are tick tak with no substance, this man is trying to answer a challenging question. its not just farming that seprated people but climate, natural predators and many other selective pressures. you have clearly missed point of this video.
Why 18th-century Britain? You said "some during the industrial revolution". White slaves shipped to Africa or Arab countres were a tiny number compared to Europe's population: most slaves there came from Africa. And those who went aren't ancestral to today's Europeans because few made it back. Ottoman slaves were more numerous, but again only a tiny proportion of Europe's people, perhaps 1% if that: the Balkans remained a peasant region. White slavery remains very much a minority phenomenon.
In the past 2000 years Africa's only contained more people than Europe since the 1990s.
12 million Africans were shipped to the Americas as slaves between the 16th and 19th centuries, most to the Caribbean and Brazil. Europe hadn't seen slavery on such a scale since the days of Rome, many of whose slaves came from outside the continent.
Most Africans weren't slaves, most Europeans weren't and most Slavs weren't. But Africa and the Americas are where where the trade made its deepest impact.
I said "12 million Africans were shipped to the Americas as slaves between the 16th and 19th centuries, most to the Caribbean and Brazil." Tell me what part of that you have difficulty understanding.
You were the one who then sought to limit discussion to the US, thereby excluding 96% of transatlantic slave shipments.
America is correctly the Americas. The United States is not America. That's why it's properly called the United States, not America.
No it does not! How could South America not be a part of America?
And I wrote of "the Americas"., not "America", precisely to avoid any confusion. You're the one who started prattling on about "America" and equating it with one country.
So here's what I wrote again: "12 million Africans were shipped to the Americas". Just how is that "a huge lie", as you claimed?
I never wrote "America" until you started making absurd claims about the word. None of my substantive points referred to "America". I'm not that interested in your idiot definition of a word only you seem interested in using.
So for the THIRD time, why did you say that my statement that "12 million Africans were shipped to the Americas" was "a huge lie"? Come on, answer.
You haven't been able to substantiate a single one of you assertions, and even now you can't. You've posted nothing but nonsense here, resorting to abuse every time your ignorance is exposed. Go and learn something instead of making ludicrous claims about issues you know nothing about,
@adrastea99 America is a region. In that region, there is a group of states that are united as a single sovereign state. That is collectively known as the United States of America.
Apparently by your logic, because 'South Africa' has the word 'Africa' in it, I can exclude the 'South' and just call the country 'Africa'.
Calling the USA just America is the single most annoying piece of laziness and ignorance that currently exists in the English language. The U and S are there for a reason.
@davepx do not argue with stupid people, because they can not understand- because they are stupid! :) people that could understood and knew that or knew how to learn it did and they wouldnt argue with something the whole world knows! I would like to add something to your words: 12M africans were shipped to the Americas, after 10 times more native americans died from torture, labor and starvation!
No it is not. Never mind "check it out anywhere", name a reputable source that equates the two terms. There's a difference between colloquial and proper usage.
thnx for uploading these video's bro (Y) i can't use p2p downloads in my college flat because our internet will crash. so i couldnt get them another way! got exams on this book in a few days, this is a big help, thnx alot bro!
Animals can do hard labour. This allows humans more time to develop technology and science. Animals are also a concentrated form of protein that would give people more strength and energy then plants alone, allowing them to conquer other peoples.
This comment has received too many negative votesshow
The reason that the negroid is still living in mud huts while the white man is living in space stations is because biology keeps culture on a leash. You have to evolve the genes for higher intelligence first and only then can the corresponding higher culture be produced.
What good luck for us that your Caucasian super race family still lives in the trailer park and is looking for Elvis and fighting over the last sighting of a UFO when Aunt Bobby-Jo got drunk. She was sleeping with her first cousin in the fields when all that happened.
Domestication and Native Americans is fact. Dogs were domesticated by nearly all human races at one point in time. Horses were later tamed by the natives after introduction by the Spaniards.
I'm sorry I didn't mean to say that. I think I meant to say 'did' and not 'didn't' because it is even obvious from the video that they domesticated llamas. Sorry for that. I mispoke.
And turkeys and llamas and beans and corn (which is much harder to domesticate than wheat). They just didn't have the variety that the Eurasians did to use.
people never just ate plants. People always ate animals. I don't think this guy really studied Papua NeW Gunean and other people really well, atleast not their past. People all over the world alwasy sought out fatty and protein packed foods and secured them for themselves. I don't think this documentary is accurate but that is typical of National Geographic. They didn't even include Egypt as part of Africa. National Geographic is stupid in my opinion.
People with Black skin are closer to the original and ancestral human, making their bodies more studier, which is why they excel in sports, because they are built like the original humans. However, as the skin gets lighter you see the decrease in physical activities, making the mind the most worked muscle. So in reality, People with Black skin have less health problems, and live longer, while White people tend to be more intelligent but don't live as long or live as long healthily.
This is absolute nonsense. africans show more diversity in any traits that any other people outside Africa. And they are nothing like a original humans since Africas climate varies widely from region to region and it is the environment that determines evolution.
But you're looking at only a small part of the African race. African-Americans. The reason they excel at sports over other Americans and even over other Africans from Africa is because when slaves were brought over, the conditions were so harsh only the physically strongest survived and passed these traits onto their offspring.
Since slaves were only kept for their ability to perform manual labour. Physically weaker, but perhaps smarter, ones were left to starve or die.
50 years? they were there even in the 1800s dude, thats like a couple of years after the whites arrive in america... they were too lazy to do choirs so they enslave the africans.. the late comers are the irish and the asians
"Blacks practiced slavery, therefore, white enslavement of blacks is excusable."
Just for the hell of it, google Ronald Reagan was a senile old dumb fuck who murdered thousands of Central Americans ... but they were communists, therefore, it's excusable ... AND EVEN DESIREABLE!
When will you worthless animals leave this Earth? THAT is the most important question of our time.
very emotional... i doubt you would be able to come up with a non biased answer to such question. you are simply driven by emotion and need of love , be it even from blacks or mexicans you do not care. the truth has no place in your world. "whites practiced slavery, therefore, black enslavement of whites is excusable." what do you have to say to that?
Here's what I'm driven by: A thorough and bottomless hatred of all things conservative and Republican. You and your kind are are scum without a shred of socially redeemable qualities.
My ancestors didn't enslave any blacks either; they entered America about 50 years after the Emancipation Proclamation. I feel no guilt over slavery, me or my ancestors having never participated in it. So what's your point?
So these black kids attacked you. Did they verbally tell you why ? I doubt it.
And if blacks had been paid for the 400 years of free labor they gave to white Americans, do you think the black community would be so crime ridden today?
>if blacks had been paid for the 400 years of free labor
Find me a black person in america who worked 400 years for free and I will gladly pay that ONE PERSON all the money he or she is due
Anything else and you are talking about racism, equally ridiculous to asking Muslim people to pay the Spanish, East Europeans, Greeks etc people for 700 years of occupation and slavery
Find you a black person who has worked 400 years for free?
Given the average human life-span, that's about as dumb a fucking question as I've ever read. A question the answer to which you already know.
Now, try this question:
Find me a white person whose ancestors were never paid a dime for their labor who truly believes that it was a good thing his ancestors were penniless servants without rights.
Now you're talking sense.
The Greeks, etc are someone else's problem. I'm American.
adrastea99, your knowledge of American History is seriously deficient. You espouse a storybook interpretation of US history that is as simplistic as it is inaccurate. Economics was overall a far more important aspect of immigration then, as it is now. People came here for a better standard of living more often than not.
And it's strange that people who allegedly came here to escape slavery and persecution perpetrated the same against others, isn't it?
Which in the list of ethnic groups you'e listed were slaves? And where exactly did this bondage occur?
As for persecution, yes of course. And this means what in the context of ensalved Africans? Nothing, that's what it means. The fact that some group was persecuted in another land & immigrated to America, has no bearing on the American institution of slavery.
Jewish = Slave camps during WWII, huge exodus to America
Spanish, French, Russian, Dutch, English and so on = Slavery during feudalism and before, first pilgrims and settlers came on account of serfdom and slavery in feudal Europe, second bout of settlers came during economic exploitation during the industrial age
You're conflating time periods & reasons for immigration incompatible with a discussion of enslaved Africans brought to America. The PIlgrims were a religious sect. They weren't anyone's "serfs."
Yes, some African slaves were sold by other Africans. And what is the economic advantage for these slave-holding Africans that is comparable to the economic advantage European slave holders enjoyed in the Americas? Where are/were the fabulously wealthy African slave-holders to which you allude?
There are hundreds of millionaires and billionaires in Africa, people who get rich off of resources like diamonds and oil but leave the rest of Africas population in poverty
Slavery still happens in Africa according to the Anti Slavery society (a British organization lol)
Oh really? Considering that black people who were brought over as slaves were already slaves in Africa, your argument is moot. I don't see anyone seeking reparations from present day Africans which captured and sold other blacks into slavery
America didn't institute slavery, it existed for many millenia beforehand on every continent
In fact, you could say that America had a huge part in stopping slavery
Americans termed it an institurion. The word does not denote origin. The US abolished slavery in 1863, 80 years after independence and more than 200 years after its arrival in the then North American colonies. .
Every white ancestor underwent slavery, some during the industrial revolution, some during the moor conquests, the ottoman incursion, some through the middle ages etc
And all those years of slavery forged the white people and gave us the ability to do what we did
So am I thankful for the pain of my ancestors, no. But I am thankful for their strength
Really? How many white slaves were held in 18th-century Britain? Or by the Moors or Ottomans, both of whom ruled large Christan peasant populations? Slavery had probably never involved more than a tenth of Europe's population, and that had been well over a millennium earlier.
The word slave indeed comes from "Slav". But that doesn't mean Slavs were slaves, it means the Slav lands (as the nearest source of non-Christians before their conversion) were the principal source of slaves in western Europe at a time when slavery was already well past its peak (enslaving fellow Christians was frowned upon). Slaves in the west were still termed servi at that time, sclavus being a later form.
The overwhelming majority weren't slaves.The word comes from the minority who were, Some Slavs were enslaved and sent to the west and south, but most weren't.
Those who doubt and think of the possible supremacy of races, should look at the documentary "Tocar y Luchar" where 250 thousand the poorest children in Venezuela form symphonic orchestras and play Mahler in a way that brings tears to Placido Domingo's eyes. These are children from the slumps. The Director of the Berlin Orchestra said "I just wish Mahler was here to see this". It is Venezuelans people! It is just a matter of opportunity!
Heck even the Wall Street Journal now adits the TRUTH
{"Racial Differences in IQ Genes found
The Wall Street Journal
By ANTONIO REGALADO
Bruce Lahn professor of human genetics at the Unv. Chicago stood before a packed lecture hall and reported the results of a new DNA analysis He had found signs of evolution in the brains of some people, but not of others
He flashed maps showing changes (in brain size/ IQ ) had taken hold in Europe but weren't common in Black/Brown Populations
Bruce tested his own brain... and it turned out he did not have that gene. But still he was smart. Became a professor, discover stuff etc.
Dude stop being so narrow... it's only crazy to ignore genes the only factor is genes. Turns out there are so many other factors outside that you conveniently ignore and put your "genes" in caps haha
Genes may play a role, the role is shared with numerous other factors. Plants weather terrain altitude latitude seasons diseases animals natural disasters ....
racial differences were there since the begining of time, all natural selection really did, was to select the strongest members of each given race to thrive and move forward. see how easy it can be to pass on ones opinion without using caps?...amazing isnt it...
Big difference, plants regenerate once or more times a year!!! then even with your poisoned reasoning it would take 1000s of generations to achieve superiority of one 'breed' over another, humans move and often exchange DNA that racial differences in plants are hardly like animal divergence of species. It would even be ridiculous to argue the finches of Galapagos (which produce new generations often) display detectible differences in intelligence.
Doctor R. Lynn "The Evolution of Racial Differences in Intelligence"
"The races show consistent differences in both brain size and intelligence because the Caucasoids/Mongoloids colonized a new cognitively demanding niche when they migrated into the cold regions. In this harsh environment the less intelligent failed to survive this left Caucasoids/Mongoloids the two most intelligent races and the only two races that have made any significant contribution to the development of civilization
Ashkenazim generally do well in IQ tests, scoring 12-15 points above the mean value of 100,
...
He argues that the professions occupied by European Jews were all ones that put a premium on intelligence. Of course, it is hard to prove that this intelligence premium existed in the Middle Ages, but it is certainly true that it exists in the modern versions of those occupations.
7:54 Why is he wearing a Pi symbol? XD
CrossLucane 1 week ago
this is gay
MegaBigpapa007 3 weeks ago
and after looking back at my comment... I noticed all the wonderful grammatical errors... too lazy to fix them. deal with it. If you can't understand what I said then you dont need to even be here.
altmusicguy 2 months ago
In all reality... The first people to prove that the earth is older than 6 thousand years (and that it is actually 4 billion years old) were geologists, not the creators of carbon dating. Back in the 1800's people (I know the story, just not the particular name) began to realize that every year, a new layer of sediment built up on top of the one from the previous year. (Just like a tree) By noticing the fact that there are MILLIONS of these layers built up, we learned that the earth us damn old
altmusicguy 2 months ago
This is so incredible!
AirbornePig 2 months ago
The world is only 6 thousand years old! If you don't believe this fact, than you will continue to experience difficulties in your research... PNG only got inhabited recently, not more than 3000 years ago! How do I know? I'm Fijian, I know when my ancestors came from Egypt... And when we came, the pacific was still empty!
BALEnaVICO 3 months ago
@BALEnaVICO The world is 4 billion years old. This is a fact. PNG was populated a long time ago. the burden of proof is on you to prove otherwise, besides using a book written by iron age shepards as evidence.
CodArk2 3 months ago
@CodArk2 4 billion years ago? What else you going to tell me? Man came from sludge? You don't even have proof that anything existed 7 thousand years ago! Carbon dating is flawed a mile open mate! If PNG was populated a long time ago, than why do some PNG tribes still have record of their ancestors that came across the ocean not too long ago? Your theories are really leaking truth! Don't tell them who or where they come from!!! ASK THEM you Muppet!!
BALEnaVICO 3 months ago
@BALEnaVICO Actaully man didn't come from sludge, man came from apes, apes from other mammals and so on. it makes about as much sense to me as saying a sky fairy came to earth, took dust and made humans. We do have proof things existed thousands, even millions of years ago, and claiming carbon dating is flawed is something you have to prove. I tend to believe archaeological evidence over stories, since stories can be changed and rewritten
CodArk2 3 months ago
@CodArk2 And NO! The burden of proof is not on me... Its on you to proof otherwise because your theory is built on refutable facts whilst mine is solid!
BALEnaVICO 3 months ago
@BALEnaVICO What exactly is yours built on? The bible? The bible is not solid. it has holes and illogical gaps in it as well. The bible is like any other book written by men: imperfect. It has also been retranslated, re-edited, recompiled and used to enforce social mores or the culture and times. In science the burden of proof is on the one with the different theory. if the world were proven 6 thousand years old, it would be a huge breakthrough in science
CodArk2 3 months ago
so putting cellulose in our food might be a bad idea?
figureoflight 3 months ago
@whitevoice White people learned much of what they know from Native Americans, Ancient Egyptians and Israelites (blacks). Your opinion is based in denial, deception and racism. People like you make a bad name for all caucasians. Grow.
Bonnofowler 4 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
This video says it was our advanced technology that helped us rise, correct, cause we had the brains to use the resources and invent said technology. Indians and African'ts sat on the resources and never thought to use them! We have made countries and handed them to blacks countless times, well ran, and they destroy it!
Whitevoice14 4 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
Just an excuse flick, saying we had this or that and helped us get where we are, lol maybe it takes brains to make those things! S. American Indians sat on vast resources for eons there why didn't they ever try to make something out of it? It took us going there to do it
Whitevoice14 4 months ago
This crap is stupid so far, saying we had steel, there was raw Iron in North & south America, We made the gums, invented them, this is just mainstream trying to explain away our greatness over savage primitives!This bullshit video is just propaganda, they can't say the truth, no scientist can they would be called Nazi's! So they make excuses!No scientist will say anything to intelligence being the issue, they would be expelled and fired and black balled! Nothing they say would get on TV!
Whitevoice14 4 months ago
@Whitevoice14 You're sounding a little primitive yourself to be honest.
MrFreddieBurgoyne 4 months ago
@MrFreddieBurgoyne u sound fail troll to be honest
Whitevoice14 4 months ago
@Whitevoice14 I am in no way trolling.. I'm simply alerting you to you're own ignorance.
MrFreddieBurgoyne 4 months ago
@MrFreddieBurgoyne With no real comeback just saying nothing!
Whitevoice14 4 months ago
@Whitevoice14 This isn't about smart, one line comebacks it's about valid reasons.. which you seem to lack.
MrFreddieBurgoyne 4 months ago
@MrFreddieBurgoyne If I am wrong show me don't come here screaming how I am but leave no valid comment!
Whitevoice14 4 months ago
@Whitevoice14 You dismissed other cultures as savage and primitive. That's an extremely sweeping statement to say that other parts of the world failed to develop because they were 'savage'.
MrFreddieBurgoyne 4 months ago
@MrFreddieBurgoyne Pretty savage to still be in the stone age (some Indian & African tribes away from our influence) and to have resources under ur feet the same as Asians and Europeans and fail and never get nowhere till we helped and even now Africans still fail! Everywhere we went we was able to win and conquer because the people was ass naked with spears something we advanced past and we had better technology, and some Africans still eat each other, sounds savage to me!
Whitevoice14 4 months ago
@Whitevoice14 They certainly did not have the same resources as Eurasian people, that's the entire point. The geographies of Africa and Australasia are not suited to support the development of advanced cultures much beyond the hunter gatherer stage.. Eurasia however, did have these resources which enabled other aspects of culture to develop over time. You're basically saying other races are stupid, aren't you?
MrFreddieBurgoyne 4 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@Whitevoice14 They certainly did not have the same resources as Eurasian people, that's the entire point. The geographies of Africa and Australasia are not suited to support the development of advanced cultures much beyond the hunter gatherer stage.. Eurasia however, did have these resources which enabled other aspects of culture to develop over time. You're basically saying other races are stupid, aren't you?
MrFreddieBurgoyne 4 months ago
When he says pigs don't give you milk or leather or hide that is incorrect.
erkziltonz 4 months ago
1:51 Nephila pilipes (golden orb-web spider).
criskity 4 months ago
The goats sound like they're saying "Jeffrey!"
yerk3 4 months ago
@yerk3 lol
MisterMarmatote 4 months ago
Doesn't psilocybin mushrooms grow in the dung of these ungulate animals? Maybe there's a missing factor here.
Hanahleia 5 months ago in playlist Guns, Germs and Steel
I wanna adopt those sheep :D
andyjalc 6 months ago
goats....
UtopiaMinor666 6 months ago
finally! no racist comments! =DDD... *shudder* spiders....... *shudder*
lachiskisify 6 months ago
also fuck America!
Canada has 1/3 of the Great Plains and if we ever get over 100 million people we gonna be the Second Coming of Uncle Sam cause same shit been going on NOrth of 49 for 400 years bitches !
RimlandThesis 6 months ago
@RimlandThesis yeah . canada has a shit tonne of resources .. just no ppl to get those :P
rhn94 4 months ago
Diamond's got it right.
Geography is the only constant... without it there is no food production.
Read the geopolitcs by Sir Halford Mackinder or Geography of the Peace by Niclas Spykman...
in the context of geopolitics.... grand strategy... civilization.... geography, what it allows to be produced is all that matters !
New Guinea is a fucking island that did not produce the proper food... fucking luck!
RimlandThesis 6 months ago
@RimlandThesis Yeh, New Guinea got owned in that respect.
in3x 4 months ago
I love the π symbol on his t-shirt @7:55
UppruniTegundanna 6 months ago
this is not entirely true because in the caribbean..it has perfect climate for growing crops..however the europeans used it for THEIR gain and gained millions from it.Why not did the natives in the caribbean and south central america become "rich"?? The europeans got their wealth from these countries.
shottaboss24 7 months ago 3
@shottaboss24 It's not only farming. The fertile crescent had the most plants and animals for domestication. After the land became arid, humans migrated from the region and bringing those resources elsewhere across Eurasia. The combination of domesticated plants and animals gave the Europeans an advantage at development. The people of Papua New Guinea lack either, hence their archaic farming practices and poor health.
JCouture4u369 2 months ago
@shottaboss24 Please read the book before you conclude something so ignorant.
jlittlewings 2 months ago
@shottaboss24
Go read the book dumbass.
StuartTheScot74 2 months ago
@shottaboss24 I know you posted this a while ago but.....i don't care.
I find it a shame that you have top comment because your claim is actually a wide misconception.Many of those tropical areas have inadequate soil for growing crops; the soil is very thin.Thus many of the inhabitants were hunter gatherers because they couldn't be farmers. A chain-reaction that begins with the proper environment, not genetic "intelligence"
711DAS 3 weeks ago 6
those lucky bastards!!
srinathredful 10 months ago
whered he get a gold "Pi" chain
JonYodice 1 year ago
Serial crops?
awesome220 1 year ago
@awesome220 cereal
theropodia 8 months ago
@theropodia Fruit Loops?
awesome220 8 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
Free energy is finaly here!But the Oil companies want these technologies unknown to the masses,Go to LT-MAGNET-MOTORdotCOM and get the blueprints for a genuine magnet motor ,The revolution begins!
dharmastipulate 1 year ago
Comment removed
AlienSexRanger 1 year ago
Why not learn to fish, they are on an island surrounded by water... plenty of protein out there.
cobrachoppergirl 1 year ago 3
@cobrachoppergirl go try to fish there
awesome220 1 year ago
Africans had bufallo, wildebeest and other large game, and some of them had agriculture, apparently, so why then didn't they develope in the same way as the middle easterners?
gunninlinguist 1 year ago
@gunninlinguist
they are domesticated there too aggressive.
lumpwump 1 year ago
@lumpwump
Large animals are generally agressive until domesticated-cyclical argument.
gunninlinguist 1 year ago
@gunninlinguist he gets into more detail in the book
superbacon321 1 year ago
@gunninlinguist Because of the the difference in the weather in the middle east. Africa is a very hot place where many farm land and animals that are good for humans just simply cant survive.
milleroh 1 year ago
@milleroh
In the Sahara, but not on the coastlines, or the South, which, as Diamond says later, is similar ro European climate.
gunninlinguist 1 year ago
Ooloosoon, go back to school or go out in the woods with a banjo-dumb ass
Deguello321 1 year ago
Ooloosoon=KKK
Deguello321 1 year ago
"Geographic luck," all you nationalistic and racist twits!
ForkliftsOfVagisil 1 year ago
Jared Diamond is great. Geographic luck explains everything I've every wondered about european dominance.
whitesox889 1 year ago
White racism has permanently been smashed and debunked thanks to Diamond. Good job Jared!
Deguello321 1 year ago
We should domesticate those giant spiders.
overOOview 1 year ago 75
@overOOview animals like large spiders can't be domesticated because they are A)dangerous B) they don't follow a social structure and C) They are difficult to breed.
But that would be epic
Fliping8 1 year ago
@Fliping8 it was a joke
nbonko49 1 year ago
@nbonko49 i know i just fail....at life lol
Fliping8 1 year ago
@overOOview We kinda do. They are called Lobsters :).
yellowman88 1 year ago
@yellowman88 Lobsters are crustaceans bro, it is scorpions which are arachnids
Abu7929 11 months ago 5
@Abu7929 but they all come from the phylum Arthropods. Crustaceans and Arachnids have very similar biology. The structure of the exoskeleton, organs.. etc
yellowman88 11 months ago
@overOOview ewww
NinetiesYouth 6 months ago
@overOOview Not a bad idea, lots of protein, tastes like lobster, the only difficulty is selling others on the idea.
EVERYVERSER 4 months ago
@overOOview I would rather pull off all my fingernails than eat spiders for the rest of my life..... !
OdeToFoliage 1 month ago
Whoops, it looks like the Papuas actually DID have a plant suitable for use as a staple crop.
I guess it would be too much work planting a tuber like taro...except that potatoes (imported from the New World) were a staple crop in northern Europe.
Whoops!
SD78 1 year ago
@SD78
...and they had the pig as a domesticated species for over a thousand years!
SD78 1 year ago
@SD78 Potatoes were unknown in Europe before 1500 - the advantage had already been made...
hrothgleas 1 year ago
@hrothgleas
Bizzarely enough, the Romans actually used taro as a staple crop.
SD78 1 year ago
Good Video Thanks For Posting it Ive Been Looking For It Everywhere
DonnttPushhItt 1 year ago
Racial Differences in IQ Genes found
The Wall Street Journal
By ANTONIO REGALADO
Bruce Lahn professor of human genetics at the Unv. Chicago stood before a packed lecture hall and reported the results of new DNA analysis He had found signs of evolution in the brains of some people, but not of others
He flashed maps showing changes (in brain size/ IQ ) had taken hold in Europe but weren't common in Black/Brown Populations
Ooloosoon 1 year ago
GIANT FUCKIN SPIDERS!
epowers52 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
Read the new book "The Evolution or Racial Differences In Intelligence" (written by the worlds Top Scientist Dr R Lynn)
Dr Lynn uses the work of over 500 different Scientific Research teams to show there are large Racial Differences in Brain size and IQ
Blacks have 5 cubic inch smaller brains than Whites
Dr Lynn also shows these are Genetic Differences pointing out that mixed race children also have smaller brains and lower IQs than White Children
Ooloosoon 1 year ago
Go UMD! Go TERPS!
HLSDK 1 year ago
This comment has received too many negative votes show
I cant believe i wasted 30 minutres on this. "farming is good" wow amazing discovery!!
tikitak 2 years ago
tiktak, your replies really are tick tak with no substance, this man is trying to answer a challenging question. its not just farming that seprated people but climate, natural predators and many other selective pressures. you have clearly missed point of this video.
TheDaleisdale 2 years ago
Why 18th-century Britain? You said "some during the industrial revolution". White slaves shipped to Africa or Arab countres were a tiny number compared to Europe's population: most slaves there came from Africa. And those who went aren't ancestral to today's Europeans because few made it back. Ottoman slaves were more numerous, but again only a tiny proportion of Europe's people, perhaps 1% if that: the Balkans remained a peasant region. White slavery remains very much a minority phenomenon.
davepx 2 years ago
What the hell are you talking about "minority"
You do realize there are more people in Africa than in Europe, and that only about a million were shipped as slaves to America....
adrastea99 2 years ago
In the past 2000 years Africa's only contained more people than Europe since the 1990s.
12 million Africans were shipped to the Americas as slaves between the 16th and 19th centuries, most to the Caribbean and Brazil. Europe hadn't seen slavery on such a scale since the days of Rome, many of whose slaves came from outside the continent.
Most Africans weren't slaves, most Europeans weren't and most Slavs weren't. But Africa and the Americas are where where the trade made its deepest impact.
davepx 2 years ago 2
12 million is a huge lie, less than a million blacks were taken to America
At the height of slavery in America, there were less than five million blacks in America
You are so blatantly wrong, it would be almost funny if the topic wasn't so serious
If by "deepest impact" you mean "the place where slavery was finally abolished", then you're right
adrastea99 2 years ago
@adrastea99
The 13 colonies are not America. Only 4% of shipped African slaves went to what's now the US. Learn some elementary geography.
davepx 2 years ago 5
You are thinking of the Americas
Americas =/= America
adrastea99 2 years ago
@adrastea99
I said "12 million Africans were shipped to the Americas as slaves between the 16th and 19th centuries, most to the Caribbean and Brazil." Tell me what part of that you have difficulty understanding.
You were the one who then sought to limit discussion to the US, thereby excluding 96% of transatlantic slave shipments.
America is correctly the Americas. The United States is not America. That's why it's properly called the United States, not America.
davepx 2 years ago 3
This comment has received too many negative votes show
United states = America
What the hell are you doing?
They are called the Americas because there are two of them, north and south
Speaking singular "America" means USA
adrastea99 2 years ago
@adrastea99
No it does not! How could South America not be a part of America?
And I wrote of "the Americas"., not "America", precisely to avoid any confusion. You're the one who started prattling on about "America" and equating it with one country.
So here's what I wrote again: "12 million Africans were shipped to the Americas". Just how is that "a huge lie", as you claimed?
davepx 2 years ago 35
Facepalm
Because America is a political region, not a geographic one
And you wrote "America" without the "s", why do you think you can lie when any idiot can go back and check what you said?
"America is correctly the Americas. The United States is not America. That's why it's properly called the United States, not America."
Fucking retard
adrastea99 2 years ago
@adrastea99
I never wrote "America" until you started making absurd claims about the word. None of my substantive points referred to "America". I'm not that interested in your idiot definition of a word only you seem interested in using.
So for the THIRD time, why did you say that my statement that "12 million Africans were shipped to the Americas" was "a huge lie"? Come on, answer.
davepx 2 years ago 3
You're the one making the absurd claim that America = Americas and that USA is not America
GTFO
adrastea99 2 years ago
You haven't been able to substantiate a single one of you assertions, and even now you can't. You've posted nothing but nonsense here, resorting to abuse every time your ignorance is exposed. Go and learn something instead of making ludicrous claims about issues you know nothing about,
davepx 2 years ago 3
Abuse? Like verbal abuse?
Pussy
adrastea99 2 years ago
@davepx So it's okay then to make ludicrous claims about issues you do know something about? Uhh...
mike4ty4 1 year ago
@adrastea99 America is a region. In that region, there is a group of states that are united as a single sovereign state. That is collectively known as the United States of America.
Apparently by your logic, because 'South Africa' has the word 'Africa' in it, I can exclude the 'South' and just call the country 'Africa'.
Calling the USA just America is the single most annoying piece of laziness and ignorance that currently exists in the English language. The U and S are there for a reason.
MegaMonkeyExtreme 4 months ago
@davepx do not argue with stupid people, because they can not understand- because they are stupid! :) people that could understood and knew that or knew how to learn it did and they wouldnt argue with something the whole world knows! I would like to add something to your words: 12M africans were shipped to the Americas, after 10 times more native americans died from torture, labor and starvation!
alendarzhana 1 year ago
@alendarzhana Torture, labor, genocide, and starvation certainly happened, and were awful. But accidental spread of disease killed far more.
hrothgleas 1 year ago
This comment has received too many negative votes show
@davepx
Lol no, America and the USA are one in the same, check it out anywhere. America is proper in referring to the USA, end of story.
tikitak 2 years ago
No it is not. Never mind "check it out anywhere", name a reputable source that equates the two terms. There's a difference between colloquial and proper usage.
davepx 2 years ago
Pigs do give you leather, it's just not very usual.
saxz99 2 years ago
sorry uragan its 'moops'
sugarfreemacca 2 years ago
thnx for uploading these video's bro (Y) i can't use p2p downloads in my college flat because our internet will crash. so i couldnt get them another way! got exams on this book in a few days, this is a big help, thnx alot bro!
StaartjesAart 2 years ago
I like the dude with the pi shirt lol
JAKCLUB08 2 years ago
This has been flagged as spam show
Oh jesus, can't someone teach this guy to speak normal. Can't stand his sorry excuse of an accent.
WatchinYou22 2 years ago
Kudos guy with π (pi) shirt 7:55 - 8:00
SynerJetics 2 years ago 2
american food is not very good, hamburguers and pizzas. i prefer simple life.
26blanco 2 years ago
He sounds like Raymond
drivenhome 2 years ago
i have a question:
what advantages are gained by being the first to domesticate animals?
123ashAHHlee 2 years ago
Animals can do hard labour. This allows humans more time to develop technology and science. Animals are also a concentrated form of protein that would give people more strength and energy then plants alone, allowing them to conquer other peoples.
nerzule 2 years ago
Comment removed
StaartjesAart 2 years ago
lol animals cant pick cotten
macmac436 2 years ago
I'm done with this thread, line of commentary or whatever. I'd appreciate it if all of you stopped responding to y comments. thank you.
Quranite 2 years ago
This comment has received too many negative votes show
The reason that the negroid is still living in mud huts while the white man is living in space stations is because biology keeps culture on a leash. You have to evolve the genes for higher intelligence first and only then can the corresponding higher culture be produced.
AKOBADAGETHXIII 2 years ago
What good luck for us that your Caucasian super race family still lives in the trailer park and is looking for Elvis and fighting over the last sighting of a UFO when Aunt Bobby-Jo got drunk. She was sleeping with her first cousin in the fields when all that happened.
mfondini 2 years ago
i love the inaccuracies.
oops we were wrong ... again!!
Azzaiel 2 years ago
Oh and pigs DO give leather. And the Native Americans sure didn't domesticate any animals. This documentary seems very very flawed.
Quranite 2 years ago
If you people know so goddamn much why don't you make a documentary to stop the lies?
tysongeisler 2 years ago
Domestication and Native Americans is fact. Dogs were domesticated by nearly all human races at one point in time. Horses were later tamed by the natives after introduction by the Spaniards.
bobbied3 2 years ago
I'm sorry I didn't mean to say that. I think I meant to say 'did' and not 'didn't' because it is even obvious from the video that they domesticated llamas. Sorry for that. I mispoke.
Quranite 2 years ago
And turkeys and llamas and beans and corn (which is much harder to domesticate than wheat). They just didn't have the variety that the Eurasians did to use.
Tareltonlives 2 years ago
people never just ate plants. People always ate animals. I don't think this guy really studied Papua NeW Gunean and other people really well, atleast not their past. People all over the world alwasy sought out fatty and protein packed foods and secured them for themselves. I don't think this documentary is accurate but that is typical of National Geographic. They didn't even include Egypt as part of Africa. National Geographic is stupid in my opinion.
Quranite 2 years ago
Actually, you are stupid.
DanMorgan98 2 years ago
People with Black skin are closer to the original and ancestral human, making their bodies more studier, which is why they excel in sports, because they are built like the original humans. However, as the skin gets lighter you see the decrease in physical activities, making the mind the most worked muscle. So in reality, People with Black skin have less health problems, and live longer, while White people tend to be more intelligent but don't live as long or live as long healthily.
Onyxsonal 2 years ago
This is absolute nonsense. africans show more diversity in any traits that any other people outside Africa. And they are nothing like a original humans since Africas climate varies widely from region to region and it is the environment that determines evolution.
TemplarX2 2 years ago
....your CORRECT in much of what you say but there are a few errors
Google "Doctor JP Rushton Race and evolution harbornet" ....Doctor Rushtons work goes into a broad range of racial differences
You should also Google the new book "The Evolution of Racial Differences in Intelligence" writting by the world TOP EXPERT Doctor Richard Lynn
Both are MUST READS (and you can read them for FREE online...just google them
Ooloosoon 2 years ago
But you're looking at only a small part of the African race. African-Americans. The reason they excel at sports over other Americans and even over other Africans from Africa is because when slaves were brought over, the conditions were so harsh only the physically strongest survived and passed these traits onto their offspring.
Since slaves were only kept for their ability to perform manual labour. Physically weaker, but perhaps smarter, ones were left to starve or die.
bladit 2 years ago
Most Africans living in the USA are immigrants from the last 50 years from Africa.
nerzule 2 years ago
50 years? they were there even in the 1800s dude, thats like a couple of years after the whites arrive in america... they were too lazy to do choirs so they enslave the africans.. the late comers are the irish and the asians
MiLSeLrAhC 2 years ago
This comment has received too many negative votes show
typical liberal myth junkie.
you seem to forget slavery was started by blacks against blacks and then moved onto enslaving white europeans. just for the hell of it google "moors"
Uragan 2 years ago
Typical conservative myth rationalizing:
"Blacks practiced slavery, therefore, white enslavement of blacks is excusable."
Just for the hell of it, google Ronald Reagan was a senile old dumb fuck who murdered thousands of Central Americans ... but they were communists, therefore, it's excusable ... AND EVEN DESIREABLE!
When will you worthless animals leave this Earth? THAT is the most important question of our time.
bapyou 2 years ago
very emotional... i doubt you would be able to come up with a non biased answer to such question. you are simply driven by emotion and need of love , be it even from blacks or mexicans you do not care. the truth has no place in your world. "whites practiced slavery, therefore, black enslavement of whites is excusable." what do you have to say to that?
Uragan 2 years ago
I'm driven by a "need of love"?
Ha ha ha ha ha ha!
Here's what I'm driven by: A thorough and bottomless hatred of all things conservative and Republican. You and your kind are are scum without a shred of socially redeemable qualities.
Discuss the Reagan analogy if you dare, scum.
bapyou 2 years ago
It's not excusable but it doesn't mean that "All whites are slavers and they all need to pay reparations for black slavery in America"
I'm a white man from eastern Europe, when I moved to America I was assaulted by 4 black teenagers who were angry at ME over black slavery in America
My ancestors and my people (slavs) never enslaved any blacks, but that didn't stop blacks from being racist towards me
Fuck your shit
adrastea99 2 years ago
My ancestors didn't enslave any blacks either; they entered America about 50 years after the Emancipation Proclamation. I feel no guilt over slavery, me or my ancestors having never participated in it. So what's your point?
So these black kids attacked you. Did they verbally tell you why ? I doubt it.
And if blacks had been paid for the 400 years of free labor they gave to white Americans, do you think the black community would be so crime ridden today?
Fuck your shit as well.
bapyou 2 years ago
>Did they verbally tell you why ?
They did
>if blacks had been paid for the 400 years of free labor
Find me a black person in america who worked 400 years for free and I will gladly pay that ONE PERSON all the money he or she is due
Anything else and you are talking about racism, equally ridiculous to asking Muslim people to pay the Spanish, East Europeans, Greeks etc people for 700 years of occupation and slavery
Don't be a silly billy
adrastea99 2 years ago
Find you a black person who has worked 400 years for free?
Given the average human life-span, that's about as dumb a fucking question as I've ever read. A question the answer to which you already know.
Now, try this question:
Find me a white person whose ancestors were never paid a dime for their labor who truly believes that it was a good thing his ancestors were penniless servants without rights.
Now you're talking sense.
The Greeks, etc are someone else's problem. I'm American.
bapyou 2 years ago
You're a retard for answering a rhetorical question meant to prove a point
America was made of Jewish, Spanish, French, Russian and Dutch settlers escaping persecution and slavery
adrastea99 2 years ago
adrastea99, your knowledge of American History is seriously deficient. You espouse a storybook interpretation of US history that is as simplistic as it is inaccurate. Economics was overall a far more important aspect of immigration then, as it is now. People came here for a better standard of living more often than not.
And it's strange that people who allegedly came here to escape slavery and persecution perpetrated the same against others, isn't it?
MohanndasChutney 2 years ago 3
"rhetorical question meant to prove a point"
Meant to, but proved absolutely nothing.
"America was made of ..... "
Which in the list of ethnic groups you'e listed were slaves? And where exactly did this bondage occur?
As for persecution, yes of course. And this means what in the context of ensalved Africans? Nothing, that's what it means. The fact that some group was persecuted in another land & immigrated to America, has no bearing on the American institution of slavery.
bapyou 2 years ago
Jewish = Slave camps during WWII, huge exodus to America
Spanish, French, Russian, Dutch, English and so on = Slavery during feudalism and before, first pilgrims and settlers came on account of serfdom and slavery in feudal Europe, second bout of settlers came during economic exploitation during the industrial age
adrastea99 2 years ago
You're conflating time periods & reasons for immigration incompatible with a discussion of enslaved Africans brought to America. The PIlgrims were a religious sect. They weren't anyone's "serfs."
Yes, some African slaves were sold by other Africans. And what is the economic advantage for these slave-holding Africans that is comparable to the economic advantage European slave holders enjoyed in the Americas? Where are/were the fabulously wealthy African slave-holders to which you allude?
bapyou 2 years ago
There are hundreds of millionaires and billionaires in Africa, people who get rich off of resources like diamonds and oil but leave the rest of Africas population in poverty
Slavery still happens in Africa according to the Anti Slavery society (a British organization lol)
What the hell kind of question is that?
adrastea99 2 years ago
Oh really? Considering that black people who were brought over as slaves were already slaves in Africa, your argument is moot. I don't see anyone seeking reparations from present day Africans which captured and sold other blacks into slavery
America didn't institute slavery, it existed for many millenia beforehand on every continent
In fact, you could say that America had a huge part in stopping slavery
adrastea99 2 years ago
Well ... who made the claim that slavery was started by Americans?
"America had a huge part in stopping slavery"
So you are using this statement as a justifiucation FOR slavery?
What kind of a self-serving pissant are you?
bapyou 2 years ago 2
You did
"American institution of slavery"
To institute means to establish
And no I'm not justifying slavery, I'm saying that America is the opposite of that you claim
Instead of a creator, it is an ender of slavery
adrastea99 2 years ago
@adrastea99
Americans termed it an institurion. The word does not denote origin. The US abolished slavery in 1863, 80 years after independence and more than 200 years after its arrival in the then North American colonies. .
davepx 2 years ago
Every white ancestor underwent slavery, some during the industrial revolution, some during the moor conquests, the ottoman incursion, some through the middle ages etc
And all those years of slavery forged the white people and gave us the ability to do what we did
So am I thankful for the pain of my ancestors, no. But I am thankful for their strength
adrastea99 2 years ago
Really? How many white slaves were held in 18th-century Britain? Or by the Moors or Ottomans, both of whom ruled large Christan peasant populations? Slavery had probably never involved more than a tenth of Europe's population, and that had been well over a millennium earlier.
davepx 2 years ago
Every white ancestor at some point in history
Why specifically 18th century? Why Britain?
Moors and Ottomans shipped slaves back to Africa and Middle east
Ottomans had a policy where the first born child of conquered races would become cannon fodder in their armies
The word slave comes from the largest ethnic group in Europe, "Slavs"
>that had been well over a millennium earlier
I get it, water under the bridge
Ok, don't complain about black slavery anymore, it's all water under the bridge
adrastea99 2 years ago
The word slave indeed comes from "Slav". But that doesn't mean Slavs were slaves, it means the Slav lands (as the nearest source of non-Christians before their conversion) were the principal source of slaves in western Europe at a time when slavery was already well past its peak (enslaving fellow Christians was frowned upon). Slaves in the west were still termed servi at that time, sclavus being a later form.
davepx 2 years ago
What are you saying?
First you say Slavs weren't slaves, then you say their lands were primary source of slaves
Make up your damn mind or don't post altogether
Also, your chronology is confused
adrastea99 2 years ago
The overwhelming majority weren't slaves.The word comes from the minority who were, Some Slavs were enslaved and sent to the west and south, but most weren't.
Learn some history or don't post altogether.
davepx 2 years ago
Some black people were enslaved, not all, so it doesn't matter
adrastea99 2 years ago
"Every white ancestor underwent slavery"
Huh? What fantasy books are YOU reading?
Ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha!
bapyou 2 years ago
They did it for the money, not their racist bias. All about business and foreign policy interests.
Renegen1 2 years ago
I thought it was because the slave masters selectively bred the negros?
ImperviousMason 2 years ago
Those who doubt and think of the possible supremacy of races, should look at the documentary "Tocar y Luchar" where 250 thousand the poorest children in Venezuela form symphonic orchestras and play Mahler in a way that brings tears to Placido Domingo's eyes. These are children from the slumps. The Director of the Berlin Orchestra said "I just wish Mahler was here to see this". It is Venezuelans people! It is just a matter of opportunity!
altaescuelaecuestre 2 years ago
isnt there a book called guns, germs and steel?
novuku3 2 years ago
yeah this series is based on it
lucobis 2 years ago
It really is ODD to watch a "scientist" like Mr. Diamond produce a Movie that OPENLY TALKS ABOUT THE GENETIC SELECTION THAT PRODUCED BETTER PLANTS
then watch the dude TOTALLY IGNORE the EXACT SAME GENETIC SELECTION on this planet that produced LARGE RACIAL DIFFERENCES
Its crazy
If Humans can Select Genes out of a populations of Wheat/Rice..to produce totally different types of Grains
Then why cant Iceages and Yearly Winters select for Genes and produce REAL RACIAL DIFFERENCES?
Ooloosoon 2 years ago
This has been flagged as spam show
Heck even the Wall Street Journal now adits the TRUTH
{"Racial Differences in IQ Genes found
The Wall Street Journal
By ANTONIO REGALADO
Bruce Lahn professor of human genetics at the Unv. Chicago stood before a packed lecture hall and reported the results of a new DNA analysis He had found signs of evolution in the brains of some people, but not of others
He flashed maps showing changes (in brain size/ IQ ) had taken hold in Europe but weren't common in Black/Brown Populations
Ooloosoon 2 years ago
Bruce tested his own brain... and it turned out he did not have that gene. But still he was smart. Became a professor, discover stuff etc.
Dude stop being so narrow... it's only crazy to ignore genes the only factor is genes. Turns out there are so many other factors outside that you conveniently ignore and put your "genes" in caps haha
Genes may play a role, the role is shared with numerous other factors. Plants weather terrain altitude latitude seasons diseases animals natural disasters ....
L02T 2 years ago
racial differences were there since the begining of time, all natural selection really did, was to select the strongest members of each given race to thrive and move forward. see how easy it can be to pass on ones opinion without using caps?...amazing isnt it...
boumerangg 2 years ago
Big difference, plants regenerate once or more times a year!!! then even with your poisoned reasoning it would take 1000s of generations to achieve superiority of one 'breed' over another, humans move and often exchange DNA that racial differences in plants are hardly like animal divergence of species. It would even be ridiculous to argue the finches of Galapagos (which produce new generations often) display detectible differences in intelligence.
joe11484 2 years ago
becuase the real racial diffrences that produce better inteligence dosent exist.
and we dont live in hittlers eroupe were only the fittest can reproduce.
nezahualcoyotl85 2 years ago
This has been flagged as spam show
Doctor R. Lynn "The Evolution of Racial Differences in Intelligence"
"The races show consistent differences in both brain size and intelligence because the Caucasoids/Mongoloids colonized a new cognitively demanding niche when they migrated into the cold regions. In this harsh environment the less intelligent failed to survive this left Caucasoids/Mongoloids the two most intelligent races and the only two races that have made any significant contribution to the development of civilization
Ooloosoon 2 years ago
Natural genius?
Jun 2nd 2005
From The Economist print edition
Ashkenazim generally do well in IQ tests, scoring 12-15 points above the mean value of 100,
...
He argues that the professions occupied by European Jews were all ones that put a premium on intelligence. Of course, it is hard to prove that this intelligence premium existed in the Middle Ages, but it is certainly true that it exists in the modern versions of those occupations.
EuropeanIntDF 2 years ago