As to the population of Africa we are talking about over 40,000 years ago in comparison to Asia and Europe.
Well Inane, I am not sure where you are going with this. Does the time matter? Well prior to colonization by Europe, Africa had a number of different civilizations based on different political organizations, some (like the Ashanti or the Zulu) were more warlike than others. However, generally speaking these were fairly stable societies and relatively peaceful (if you want to compare them with other places in the world).
Economically they were less developed than Europe, but than that was also true with much of the world. Why did Europe develop so fast? Let's not forget that with the fall of Rome, Europe was swept across with barbarian invasions that became the forerunner of modern statemakers. That in Europe you had nearly 700 different politically autonomous bodies at one time, and yet most were destroyed or consumed. That because of the population densities and the need for food, war was frequent.
For a rather enjoyable read on this check out Charles Tilly's edited- Formation of National States in Western Europe, and then read his followup book Capital, Coercion and European Statemaking.
Adversity and challenge creates innovation- to survive, European states had to outperform potential rivals. Eventually the national state became the dominant organization because it could both harvest capital and coercive means, and inevitably these national states turned outward to the rest of the world- in part to gain access and monopoly over foreign imports (spices) or to seize wealth (gold from Mexico) or export surplus populations.
In contrast, Africa, being a tropical place has often had the problem of infectious diseases. Africa is also tremendously big. The Democratic Republic of Congo alone is almost as big as much of continental Europe. Whereas states in Europe often fought all or nothing war over territory, Africans could often move. If the local tribal chief was being a bit too tough, you went elsewhere beyond his periphery. Africans also suffered in types of food products that could be produced- you might want to read Jared Diamonds (Guns, Germs and Steel to examine a geographical argument of why some folks do better than others). Thus Africa lacked the incentives to innovate as did the Europeans. But don't be too harsh on Africa, while much of Europe was being swept under by barbarians, North Africans were doing great things with numbers and mathematics. Furthermore, Europeans would often - in part because of the racial chauvenism of the time- disparage signs of Africa's civilization, as the case of ancient Zimbabwe illustrates.
But this does not mean that Europeans were inherently more intelligent or clever- merely that their circumstances drove them innovate and adapt as well as the tools to do so, in ways that Africans did not.
Compare both to say Chinese- Again you are talking about a large population in a very narrow place. Yet you also have advantages to the Chinese in terms of food production (types of livestock and grains that could be produced). You also have a society that is very aware of the dangers of external invasion- The Great Wall is a technology to keep out invasion, but also the development of a bureaucratic system through the mandarins and the testing process. But again- little territory, favorable food cultivation, danger of war.
Blacks' living and social conditions are far better than most any seen in Asia.
Which blacks and where, or when? Colonization in Africa introduced all sorts of distortions to the political systems of those countries. In Congo alone it is estimated that nearly 2/3 of the population was wiped out in the first years of colonization. In Liberia, the longest soveriegn state, relocated American Blacks created a system of exploitation over indigenous groups with consequences that stretched into that country's recent turmoils. In South Africa, blacks were forceably removed from their lands by Boers who placed them in a clearly subordinate relationship. What is remarkable about the colonization of Africa is not only the bloodshed, but how overwheming European technologies were. A few guys with machineguns can do a lot of damage.
That said, colonization caused great hardships on the blacks, but when colonization ended, the structures of authority and domination were left in place while former colonies were able to sustain neo-imperial relationships over those territories. We've posted before about how prices on commodities vs manufactured and services disfavors Africa- creating entrenched poverty.
What explains violence when blacks are not around? Did I ever say that whites didn't commit violent acts? Hell no. It's simply put by the Department of Justice that blacks are 7 times more likely to commit murder... that is WAY too high of a difference to explain by culture only. That's the equivalent to saying that monkeys are 7 times less intelligent because they don't live in houses.
Yes, but you keep going to that one statistic. And I agree, culture alone doesn't account for it. There has to be more. But is it necessarily race? Is it the type of embalance between ethnicities? Or is it other factors that come baggaged with race- like income levels, urbanization, poverty.
For while we can accept that the past 30 or so years has meant a roll back on legal segregation and discrimination against blacks, we can also see, in the last 20 years, a roll back in social programs meant to alleviate poverty.
What matters more, hmmm? Let me see... what other groups in the entire world, living in the same cities and regions, based on economics, religion or culture have that much of a difference in occurence of murder? Can someone find me data on this? Two groups, same region... one having 7 times higher murder rate...
FIND IT!!!!
Inane- again, it is your responsibility to disprove other arguments, to marshal the evidence that other societies are worse.
However, since you ask.
Here is a discussion of the best and worse living standards in the world
quality of life report - global comparisons also
city surveys
You will no doubt note that the best cities in the world in which to live are in Switzerland, and then throughout Europe- why? Could it have anything to do with their notions of social democracy? That there is a more communitarian attitude towards social peace and community? Or is it because there are no blacks there.
No blacks? But then scroll down. Some of the best cities in the world in which to live include New York, Chicago, Washington DC. Now I'm from New York, and I live close to Washington and there is no way you can tell me that those cities don't have large black populations.
So what it is? Is it race or is it economics? How do you account for the crime rates in Russia? If you want to split the communities up- why not do it based on income rather than skin color- the haves vs the have nots? I am willing to bet that where you have populations where the havenots out rank the haves by 7 to 1 you are likely to have some pretty high crime rates.
Inane- don't take your info from here-
http://www.stormfront.org/forum/showthread.php?t=58978
)