5 ms·

> Africans aren't more corrupt or warlike than anyone else How do you know? My history teacher never hesitated to teach us how Prussia was good at war, and ho

> Africans aren't more corrupt or warlike than anyone else How do you know? My history teacher never hesitated to teach us how Prussia was good at war, and how France sucked at war. Edit: this is an honest question. If I said anything wrong, please let me know as well.

chad_oliver 13y ago
Africans at the moment are, as a group, the most corrupt people on earth [1]. This is equivalent to saying that Prussians were better than the French at making war. However, this different from saying that Africans are inherently corrupt, or that every Frenchman is destined to make a terrible soldier. I intended to assert that Africans aren't inherently corrupt, and I think you were downvoted because people thought you were disputing this. [1] http://www.transparency.org/whatwedo/pub/global_corruption_barometer_2013 http://www.transparency.org/whatwedo/pub/global_corruption_b...
- anotheraccount7 13y ago
  I guess it would matter what you mean by "inherently corrupt". physiologically? very unlikely - but it could definitely be a cultural issue
  - chrischen 13y ago
    Yes, you'd have to define inherently corrupt. Since it could be genetic, cultural, situational... etc. And even then, you can't really jump to the conclusion that we are all the same. Being corrupt or warlike are, in my opinions, just traits. They could be evolutionary adaptations to various environmental situations, for all anyone knows. Everyone on Earth is different, with different traits... Africans included. I'm not saying that's what Africans are, but I'm also saying you can't make the claim that those aren't inherent traits. It's a total possibility and nothing should be left out for scientific and reasonable analysis.
smtddr 13y ago
As a person from a Nigerian family, I'm already offended... but... let me try and answer you. 1) It's one thing to say something about a country(France & Prussia), it's another thing to talk about a race(Africans). Take a look at Youtube's attempt at defining hate-speech in their guidelines: ""Hate speech" refers to content that promotes hatred against members of a protected group. For instance, racist or sexist content may be considered hate speech. Sometimes there is a fine line between what is and what is not considered hate speech. For instance, it is generally okay to criticize a nation, but not okay to make insulting generalizations about people of a particular nationality. " (Note that I think Google should remove the "protected group" part and just say "any group of people") 2) How far down this endless rabbit-hole are we going to go? I can't prove to you the nature of any group of people, anymore than you can prove to me that you're not just another racist/troll that always shows up during conversations about Africa or African-Americans on Google+, on Reddit, on HN or any other site that always ends up derailing the main topic into oblivion.
- chrischen 13y ago
  > It's one thing to say something about a country(France & Prussia), it's another thing to talk about a race(Africans). Africa is a continent. There are white Africans. If I had said, black people, that would be different, however I did not. I did not because the OP mentioned Africans and I was only pointing out that his statement about a generalization of an entire continent (he implied most Africans cannot be different from most other humans, which is already untrue even if you consider just skin color). However, had the OP stated what he stated and used "black people" instead of "Africans," I would have still asked the same question. Because he still would have made a generalization that he could not possibly know. > How far down this endless rabbit-hole are we going to go? I can't prove to you the nature of any group of people, anymore than you can prove to me that you're not just another racist/troll that always shows up during conversations about Africa or African-Americans on Google+ Exactly. You can't prove that it's not a trait. That's all I'm questioning. Btw, I can't prove I'm not a racist to you, but I can prove that I have not yet made a racist remark. By YouTube's definition, I have not made an insulting remark based on a generalization of a race. Just because I don't agree with the author's assertions, does not necessarily mean I agree with the opposite assertion (that Africans are more corrupt and warlike). I have not made the claim or generalization that Africans, or black people, are more corrupt or warlike. Just because you are insulted, does not mean what I have said is actually insulting. That being said, I'm sorry if it offended you, but I stand by my point. All I wanted to say was that the OP himself made a generalization. And I tried pointing it out with a question that might have made me look like I was making a racist remark... but I was just pointing out the fallacy in his claim by implying the opposite could be true..
ajuc 13y ago
Your history teacher thinks in stereotypes (or thinks only history between 1870 and 1945 is relevant). Nothing to be proud of. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Jena%E2%80%93Auerstedt http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Jena%E2%80%93Auersted...
- chrischen 13y ago
  Not stating I'm proud. Only stating the obvious double standard.
jeltz 13y ago
> My history teacher never hesitated to teach us how Prussia was good at war, and how France sucked at war. He should have hesitated, since historically France is one of the most militarily successful nations.
- pbhjpbhj 13y ago
  I've read/heard that too I'm thinking either on QI or r/AskHistorians?

chad_oliver 13y ago

Africans at the moment are, as a group, the most corrupt people on earth [1]. This is equivalent to saying that Prussians were better than the French at making war. However, this different from saying that Africans are inherently corrupt, or that every Frenchman is destined to make a terrible soldier. I intended to assert that Africans aren't inherently corrupt, and I think you were downvoted because people thought you were disputing this. [1] http://www.transparency.org/whatwedo/pub/global_corruption_barometer_2013 http://www.transparency.org/whatwedo/pub/global_corruption_b...

anotheraccount7 13y ago
I guess it would matter what you mean by "inherently corrupt". physiologically? very unlikely - but it could definitely be a cultural issue
- chrischen 13y ago
  Yes, you'd have to define inherently corrupt. Since it could be genetic, cultural, situational... etc. And even then, you can't really jump to the conclusion that we are all the same. Being corrupt or warlike are, in my opinions, just traits. They could be evolutionary adaptations to various environmental situations, for all anyone knows. Everyone on Earth is different, with different traits... Africans included. I'm not saying that's what Africans are, but I'm also saying you can't make the claim that those aren't inherent traits. It's a total possibility and nothing should be left out for scientific and reasonable analysis.

smtddr 13y ago

As a person from a Nigerian family, I'm already offended... but... let me try and answer you. 1) It's one thing to say something about a country(France & Prussia), it's another thing to talk about a race(Africans). Take a look at Youtube's attempt at defining hate-speech in their guidelines: ""Hate speech" refers to content that promotes hatred against members of a protected group. For instance, racist or sexist content may be considered hate speech. Sometimes there is a fine line between what is and what is not considered hate speech. For instance, it is generally okay to criticize a nation, but not okay to make insulting generalizations about people of a particular nationality. " (Note that I think Google should remove the "protected group" part and just say "any group of people") 2) How far down this endless rabbit-hole are we going to go? I can't prove to you the nature of any group of people, anymore than you can prove to me that you're not just another racist/troll that always shows up during conversations about Africa or African-Americans on Google+, on Reddit, on HN or any other site that always ends up derailing the main topic into oblivion.

chrischen 13y ago
> It's one thing to say something about a country(France & Prussia), it's another thing to talk about a race(Africans). Africa is a continent. There are white Africans. If I had said, black people, that would be different, however I did not. I did not because the OP mentioned Africans and I was only pointing out that his statement about a generalization of an entire continent (he implied most Africans cannot be different from most other humans, which is already untrue even if you consider just skin color). However, had the OP stated what he stated and used "black people" instead of "Africans," I would have still asked the same question. Because he still would have made a generalization that he could not possibly know. > How far down this endless rabbit-hole are we going to go? I can't prove to you the nature of any group of people, anymore than you can prove to me that you're not just another racist/troll that always shows up during conversations about Africa or African-Americans on Google+ Exactly. You can't prove that it's not a trait. That's all I'm questioning. Btw, I can't prove I'm not a racist to you, but I can prove that I have not yet made a racist remark. By YouTube's definition, I have not made an insulting remark based on a generalization of a race. Just because I don't agree with the author's assertions, does not necessarily mean I agree with the opposite assertion (that Africans are more corrupt and warlike). I have not made the claim or generalization that Africans, or black people, are more corrupt or warlike. Just because you are insulted, does not mean what I have said is actually insulting. That being said, I'm sorry if it offended you, but I stand by my point. All I wanted to say was that the OP himself made a generalization. And I tried pointing it out with a question that might have made me look like I was making a racist remark... but I was just pointing out the fallacy in his claim by implying the opposite could be true..

ajuc 13y ago

Your history teacher thinks in stereotypes (or thinks only history between 1870 and 1945 is relevant). Nothing to be proud of. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Jena%E2%80%93Auerstedt http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Jena%E2%80%93Auersted...

chrischen 13y ago
Not stating I'm proud. Only stating the obvious double standard.

jeltz 13y ago

> My history teacher never hesitated to teach us how Prussia was good at war, and how France sucked at war. He should have hesitated, since historically France is one of the most militarily successful nations.

pbhjpbhj 13y ago
I've read/heard that too I'm thinking either on QI or r/AskHistorians?