lol coz mosquitoes don’t really live in higher altitudes - (hint - swampy water bodies are a lower altitude thing)
Next you’ll say the dry area nomads controlled malaria lol
because you can’t grow stuff in the Kalahari. If they want to cultivate they have to kick an inhabitant out but seems they’ve never been able to do that.
It makes sense though, doesn’t it? If a hunter tribe meets an agricultural tribe it’s the farmers who’ll win
if Africans had a cure for it then the Portuguese who were the first Europeans to east Africa would have controlled the region but instead, they stayed at the coast
Before 1470 the islands were uninhabited. The islands were discovered by Portuguese sailors and was first settled in 1473. So even if cinchona existed there it would have taken them new inhabitants lot’s of time to know of it’s medicinal properties
I’m following but I’m a little disturbed that you guys are quoting Wikipedia (anybody can sign-up to edit articles over there). Keep it going, intriguing topic. Personally I believe in nurture. We come in as blank slates and equipped with a minimum set of abilities which become sharpened or blunted depending on who raises you and where you’re raised
One instructor told us that when a baby is born, or even before, the first thing he does is to learn how to learn. Basically learning is a form of adapting to a situation to improve your present circumstance. But society imposes penalties to those not conforming to their standards. So most of us have an inherent ability to adapt and change and improve. But many of us in Africa are held back by society norms.
So the answer to the question is both .
Besides the stereotyping of sorts which is normal all over the world,and in this here village,the debate over whether the strengths ,weaknesses habits e.t.c of people are the result of nature or nurture has, and somewhat continued to rage on between people alike.,this leads to a significant social implications, particularly concerning people’s (nationalities) predespositions.
intelligence is the result of some combination of both nature and nurture and genes have a great influence on the size of the brain hence subsequent learning which in this village I view as being largely molded by the environment the person grows up in, both before and after birth,so back to stereotyping,is it for a particular ethnic group,tribe or general communities ?because a luo growing up in mombasa differs alot from a nyalgunga one and a nairobi one and so forth
In short,remember ‘tabula rasa’?[SIZE=1] i don’t mean flat a$$[/SIZE]:D,but blank slates,thats how people are born and their eventual individual differences develop solely due to the result of environmental influences
We’re shaped by an intricate interaction between nature and nature, IQ = nature, Education+resources+values+environment = nurture. An interaction between the two determines whether one becomes a Billy Gates or an African oligarch. Some ethnicities my be smarter or physically endowed than others, as a result of evolutionary forces. For instance Africans Dominate physically demanding athletic sports thanks to their physics attributes. East asians, Japs and Koreans, dominate tech thanks to their higher than average IQ.
Our background definitely has a big impact on who we are.during our early years our parents set the foundations of who we are ,how we think,our perception. But when we start interacting with others in a diffrent environment other than that of the family that environment starts to influence us to adapt.i believe we build on the backround that the family environment makes us during our formative years.
But IQ itself is a Western standard. Do you think a techie from Tokyo can survive in the Kalahari like the San? IQ is overestimated, intelligence is a broad thing. Book smarts, emotional smarts, wisdom, etc. So for me IQ is something to discredit.
Grassroots ni muhimu (nurturing) thereafter ni ujinga unaokotanga along the way. We all know when you got an ID ile ujinga uko nayo ni RAM yako (default settings) huwes funzwa jambo geni.