Africa page 2

Nordic is like Northern European countries. It is mostly won my them.:http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/World’s_Strongest_Man

But if you look at Marathon runners, “Mostly South Africans win it.”: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_winners_of_the_New_York_City_Marathon Like look since 1987, most have been African.

Edit: I have no idea how to do these link things properly. Lol.

Those are East African countries racking up the wins.
And America actually has the most wins there.

EDIT: I’ll assume that you mean the global trend.
And then genetics have nothing to do with it.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/sport2/hi/olympic_games/world_olympic_dreams/8886705.stm
That pretty much explains it. There’s no genetic link, and there’s been a strong tradition of athletic running for a while, which, surprise surprise, coupled with high altitudes, makes for damn good endurance runners.

uhm..yeah. it’s very well known that marathons are always won by Kenyans and Ethiopians. in case you didn’t realise: that’s East Africa, not South Africa.

and of course i know that by Nordic you mean people living in Northern Europe (though, technically, doesn’t it mean people from Norway? otherwise you just use Scandinavian). but when you look at the link YOU yourself provided, you will see that, even though most winners in the late 90s were Scandinavian, since the early 00s they have been Polish and Lithuanian. iow: Slavic.

the last Scandinavian to be in the top 3 was a Swede in 2004, in third place. 2001 was the last Scandinavian dominance.

Location, location, location. Might want to check out the documentary “Guns, Germs, and Steel” based on the book of that same name. Nations that had the privilege of resources and trade commodities advanced faster.

African tribes fought and overwhelmed the guns and cannons of the British for quite some time with nothing but wooden spears and useless reed shields. What brought Africa into a disadvantaged state is a History of Imperial oppression and never having the freedom to develop technologically, scientifically, and even culturally without an outside influence.

If Native Americans and Africans had been left alone, there’s no telling what they might have accomplished.

lol. that’s quite surprising coming from someone like you, Hisler.

Originally posted by OmegaDoom:

lol. that’s quite surprising coming from someone like you, Hisler.

Long story, it’s my user name for Orbital Onslaught. Didn’t anticipate having “serious discussions”.
It’s funny how some users here are quoting Aristophanes and things like that with usernames like “Goofynumnuts”.

Originally posted by Azolf:

Location, location, location. Might want to check out the documentary “Guns, Germs, and Steel” based on the book of that same name. Nations that had the privilege of resources and trade commodities advanced faster.

African tribes fought and overwhelmed the guns and cannons of the British for quite some time with nothing but wooden spears and useless reed shields. What brought Africa into a disadvantaged state is a History of Imperial oppression and never having the freedom to develop technologically, scientifically, and even culturally without an outside influence.

If Native Americans and Africans had been left alone, there’s no telling what they might have accomplished.

Ah, yes, the Native Americans were always the interesting case. They’d just gone through a dark ages of their own- it’s fascinating to read about how little we really know, pre-Colombian. At least we know something about the African empires, but we don’t know shit about the Native Americans.

Originally posted by 1132:

Originally posted by Azolf:

Location, location, location. Might want to check out the documentary “Guns, Germs, and Steel” based on the book of that same name. Nations that had the privilege of resources and trade commodities advanced faster.

African tribes fought and overwhelmed the guns and cannons of the British for quite some time with nothing but wooden spears and useless reed shields. What brought Africa into a disadvantaged state is a History of Imperial oppression and never having the freedom to develop technologically, scientifically, and even culturally without an outside influence.

If Native Americans and Africans had been left alone, there’s no telling what they might have accomplished.

Ah, yes, the Native Americans were always the interesting case. They’d just gone through a dark ages of their own- it’s fascinating to read about how little we really know, pre-Colombian. At least we know something about the African empires, but we don’t know shit about the Native Americans.

Mayan cannibalism comes to mind, it’s still a mystery.

Originally posted by EPR89:

Originally posted by strawink1:

Originally posted by EPR89:

Looks like someone doesn’t know the difference between ethnicities and cultures.
And what wars are you talking about?

Exactly, what wars. They had no ambition to conquer, no ambition to be special. And i guess you could count when europeans like, took over africa.

Oh. You’re taking that road (the one of unclear definitions and quick over-generalisations that are not based on conclusive evidence/no evidence at all).
Well, how about that:
Since Africans have had significantly less conflicts that basically put whole continents into war they obviously have more order and civilization than for example Europeans, who managed to start two world wars in less than fifty years.

Oh boy, this sure is fun.

What the fuck are you talking about? African tribes and civilizations fought all the fucking time lol.

Africans enslave, rape, kill, and pillage the hell out of each other.

Originally posted by scoopolard:

Originally posted by EPR89:

Originally posted by strawink1:

Originally posted by EPR89:

Looks like someone doesn’t know the difference between ethnicities and cultures.
And what wars are you talking about?

Exactly, what wars. They had no ambition to conquer, no ambition to be special. And i guess you could count when europeans like, took over africa.

Oh. You’re taking that road (the one of unclear definitions and quick over-generalisations that are not based on conclusive evidence/no evidence at all).
Well, how about that:
Since Africans have had significantly less conflicts that basically put whole continents into war they obviously have more order and civilization than for example Europeans, who managed to start two world wars in less than fifty years.

Oh boy, this sure is fun.

What the fuck are you talking about? African tribes and civilizations fought all the fucking time lol.

But not against other continents and races, which the OP established as the only valid sort of aggression.
Like I said, heaps of fun…

in sub-Saharan Africa there’s always been a lot of endemic warfare going on, and in places that’s still going on. but in scale, that’s nothing compared to wars fought in Eurasia.

and yet, at the same time, African cities are often safer than US cities.

Originally posted by EPR89:

Originally posted by scoopolard:

Originally posted by EPR89:

Originally posted by strawink1:

Originally posted by EPR89:

Looks like someone doesn’t know the difference between ethnicities and cultures.
And what wars are you talking about?

Exactly, what wars. They had no ambition to conquer, no ambition to be special. And i guess you could count when europeans like, took over africa.

Oh. You’re taking that road (the one of unclear definitions and quick over-generalisations that are not based on conclusive evidence/no evidence at all).
Well, how about that:
Since Africans have had significantly less conflicts that basically put whole continents into war they obviously have more order and civilization than for example Europeans, who managed to start two world wars in less than fifty years.

Oh boy, this sure is fun.

What the fuck are you talking about? African tribes and civilizations fought all the fucking time lol.

But not against other continents and races, which the OP established as the only valid sort of aggression.
Like I said, heaps of fun…

To have a fight/war you have to assault a whole other continent. BULL. SHIT. I’m assuming countries fighting other countries doesn’t count at all. In that case, all those medieval conflicts that the Europeans had for about a thousand or so years didn’t ever count. Ever.

So much fun.

Whites were generally smarter and more educated then Africans and had a head start advantage. A weak scrawny white boy will win a battle against the tallest, most buff black man in the world as long as the white guy has a gun and knows how to aim and pull the trigger.

Originally posted by EPR89:

So much fun.

just for curiosity

The Roman province of Africa (named for a people who lived there) was established after the Romans defeated Carthage in the Third Punic War. It roughly comprised the territory of present-day northern Tunisia, and the small Mediterranean coast of modern-day western Libya along the Syrtis Minor. The Arabs later named roughly the same region as the original province Ifriqiya, a rendering of Africa.

And Amerika is named by Amerigo Vespucci (italian)

Originally posted by bobbert4ever:

Whites were generally smarter and more educated then Africans and had a head start advantage. A weak scrawny white boy will win a battle against the tallest, most buff black man in the world as long as the white guy has a gun and knows how to aim and pull the trigger.

uhm…yeah, that’s what the British thought, too.

but you’re not thinking far enough into history here. guns have only been such an overpowering weapon for a few centuries at most.

It roughly comprised the territory of present-day northern Tunisia, and the small Mediterranean coast of modern-day western Libya along the Syrtis Minor.

that’s weird. why these two seperate regoins?

Originally posted by bobbert4ever:

Whites were generally smarter

Citation needed. Higher education and better technology does not equal higher intelligence. It’s a sign of different social developments.

A weak scrawny white boy will win a battle against the tallest, most buff black man in the world as long as the white guy has a gun and knows how to aim and pull the trigger.

A weak scrawny black boy will win a battle against the tallest, most buff white man in the world as long as the black guy has a gun and knows how to aim and pull the trigger.

The OP says this thread isn’t a racist thread, but his post is very ignorant, and it shows he has no prior knowledge to other ethnicities and cultures.

Q: What’s the difference between stupid white man and a stupid black man?

A: Absolutely nothing.

Originally posted by Azolf:

Q: What’s the difference between stupid white man and a stupid black man?

A: Absolutely nothing.

I wish more people were like you. This world is so violent and full of hateful people

Originally posted by Deathnote76:

Originally posted by Azolf:

Q: What’s the difference between stupid white man and a stupid black man?

A: Absolutely nothing.

I wish more people were like you. This world is so violent and full of hateful people

Bless you for that. Thank you.

Originally posted by Azolf:

Originally posted by Deathnote76:

Originally posted by Azolf:

Q: What’s the difference between stupid white man and a stupid black man?

A: Absolutely nothing.

I wish more people were like you. This world is so violent and full of hateful people

Bless you for that. Thank you.

No problem…I’m friends with Gays, Lesbians, Bi-sexuals, African Americans, Mexicans, etc…every ethnicity pretty much. And most have been insulted beyond belief >:( (lot of Rednecks where I live)

Originally posted by Azolf:

Q: What’s the difference between stupid white man and a stupid black man?

A: Absolutely nothing.

his skin color. the size of his nose-bone. his hair. to name a few things.

anyway, would you two get a room please?

Originally posted by OmegaDoom:

Originally posted by Azolf:

Q: What’s the difference between stupid white man and a stupid black man?

A: Absolutely nothing.

his skin color. the size of his nose-bone. his hair. to name a few things.

anyway, would you two get a room please?

Join us, we’ll grab some beers and play cards.