Pertinent quote from the results section of the publication:
Most people who come from a socio-economically less favorable background do not commit more crime than people who come from a more favorable background, and it also happens that people from a more favorable background do commit crime. This means that even if there is a connection between socio-economic background and involvement in crime, that connection is weak. It is not possible to appreciably predict who will commit crimes based on knowledge of people's socio-economic background.
https://bra.se/publikationer/arkiv/publikationer/2023-03-01-socioekonomisk-bakgrund-och-brott.html
Black apologetics is tiresome.
https://www.amren.com/news/2020/02/why-is-africa-poor/
Yes, tell me more about the single mothers please.
Somebody here recommended the documentary Empire of Dust (2011), where a Chinese company gets a contract to rebuild a road between two major cities in Congo(?).
It's pretty hard to watch because you feel bad for those poor Chinese guys trying to get the locals to do anything right.
There's one poignant exchange where the lead Chinaman is shaming them for letting the road go to shit, the workers say it's not their fault the French came and built the road but left and didn't maintain it for them, and the Chinese guy I forget what he said but he's like 'are you fucking serious? it's your country how can you let it go to shit like this'.
27 retards upvoted the 28th retard. Where did he mention Africa? You posted something only somewhat related and acted smug about it. I hate to break it to you but majority of black Americans are of European descent and are generations removed from Africa. Now if you'd posted about how black crime rates were still higher than white crime rates in the early 1900s that'd be one thing but instead you posted "ha africa" as if that proves anything to people with functioning brains.
in other news, up is down, wrong is right, and left is right.
Lol right? We got a kangz here.
Liberia says "hi" numbnuts.
Interesting that you can make these claims based on animals that have a 5,000 to 10,000 year history of domestication compared to those that have not been subject to that process.
If the situation were swapped, we'd be hearing today about how Europeans had an unfair advantage because they had Zebras that are so easy to domesticate while the Africans had to deal with bullshit horses.
Oh look, it's the Jared Diamond argument.
I used to buy it, but when I started thinking about it, it quickly fell apart. The cow is not a naturally occurring animal. It was domesticated from the now extinct Aurochs over the course of millennia.
Similarly, wild horses (considered an endangered species) are not the same as their domesticated counterparts, and you won't have an easy time trying to train one to pull a cart or let you ride on its back - although, crucially, just as with the Zebra, it is possible. Just difficult and dangerous.
The domesticated species prevalent across Eurasia are man-made creations born through the ingenuity and efforts of countless generations of determined, prehistoric animal handlers to contend with that difficulty and danger of controlling a wild animal - a class of people that never came into existence in Sub-Saharan Africa until European and Arab incursion.
Africa's problem is the one problem you are not allowed to talk about: Average IQ.
You can't have developed country when half (or more) of your population has an IQ under 85 and is literally incapable of pondering a conditional hypothetical.
You can make the same case for all of Europe.
Again the same for the entirety of Europe, by your argument, West Asians are the Supreme race with Mesopotamia
Once again Mesopotamia and Asia.
You're ignoring the reality that Eurasian populations, when they encounter a new technology invented by another tribe, they instantly understand its value, and rapidly learn to reproduce it.
Today, even the act of building a bridge over a river is something Africans struggle with without the instruction of a foreign engineer.
That’s not what was being argued, and even under that sentiment you would have to remove have of Asia as they fall in the same category as Africa in that regard. Mesopotamia was the origin of every technology that was listed there and then later spread through Europe.
The wheel comes from Mesopotamia, yes. The spoked wheel, a MASSIVE improvement, comes from Russia.
So not only was the wheel understood and mastered by other tribes, it was improved upon.
Can you name one technological innovation a sub-saharan African group not only mastered, but improved?
Remove half of Asia? Inventors of toilet paper, gunpowder? Domesticators of the silk moth? Inventors of crucible steel!?
By that logic, those technologies should have been passed to Africa through Egypt and contact with the Nubians and Ethiopians, who regularly traded both with the African interior and with the Egyptians. No?
Which is why iron tools from the Iron Age were found as far south as Tanzania…