The wealth of the colonies did not go to the natives, but to the Europeans. This is seen in most of colonies around the world. Colonization itself didn’t make the Somalis poor, but it sent a clear message that Europeans were more powerful in coercion.
I understand that, but do you have an explanation for the wealth of Hong Kong and Singapore (or are they Europeans?). Why do some colonies do well, but others turn into Somalia?
I think that would be the Western world’s interpretation of Xeer, as most of us advocate for private social organization aimed for profit. Xeer trusts the power of judgment not to the businessman, but to the wise elder of the family. Family is a major value of the Somalis, so naturally they would base a legal system off of it.
That doesn’t explain how Orthodox Christianity was accepted in Russia of all places.
In anarchy like Somalia, it’s impossible to “transplant” a law, unlike the common transplanting of laws in the central governments of the Western World. Rather, a law must spread across a population and be generally accepted as right and just (kind of like a fashion trend, but more important).
Hong Kong was fortunate enough to host massive trade. Somalia was generally used for cattle.
Yes, but would Hong Kong have had massive trade if it wasn’t a colony? Doesn’t that show that colonialism can cause riches OR poverty depending on how it is done?
Exactly! Colonization can make a population rich or poor. Unfortunately for Somalia, they had to suffer with the latter. Although that doesn’t mean colonization is the only contributor, there are many other variables in that equation.
What are you going on about? Some racist crap?
No. That is like saying statism can cause riches OR poverty depending on how it is done. Capitalism (and colonisation) causes riches. Not colonialization, statism or other violence.
You will note American revolution which ended colonialization of America (but not colonization of it) occured because Britain was making Americans poorer than they would have been if left untaxed by London.
All other things being equal, median IQ of the natives. The average Han Chinese is probably a standard deviation or more above the average Somali.
Whoops, I did not notice that bit sounded racist. I said “Russia of all places” because the distance of spreading ideas from the eastern Mediterranean to Russia is significant for ancient civilizations.
Mainland China is full of extremely dull peasants. However, the brightest and most motivated of them eventually made it across to the British colonies, and so the IQ of Hong Kong and Singapore is more than likely far higher than that of mainland Chinese provinces.
The same thing is likely true for the U.S. as well, with large cities having much higher IQs than backwater regions.
Well after the prince converted it still took decades for the populace to accept the new faith. It was no magic wand thing.
[sarcasm]And seeing how Hong Kong`s populace is 5cm taller than that of China, I guess all the tall people migrated to Hong Kong too.[/sarcasm]
That’s likely due to better nutrition, which will also bump you up a few points in g intelligence, and again, signifying a populace with more future-time orientation.
The point is IQs like height are not etched in stone.