Environment is a significant influence.
Exactly - see Africans. - and I am not talking about the climate nor vegetation. It's called correctly "
Social Environment"
And a social environment needs to be CREATED/DEVELOPED and lived by people - it doesn't grow on trees, nor can it be bought.
The Malayan world had created a social environment - equal to that of the European world of 1000 B.C. - by themselves latest by 500 B.C. and was further developed from 600 A.D. due to influence and partial colonization by India. And again further developed from 1100 A.D. due to the Arabs.
It's culture and social environment was suppressed by the European colonialists from 1550 A.D. onward - however further social development was not hindered - but factually replaced with European aspects of social environment.
That the further development of the original Malayan culture and customs were severely impacted is undeniable. They factually lost their original identity - but continued to live in a progressing social environment, dictated by the Europeans.
In 1957 Malaysia - a part of the previous Malayan world, became a sovereign and independent country. It was on the exact same social environment status/level as it's Colonial master Britain. It's infrastructure and industry was on a comparable level with the British standard of the 1930'ies.
It took Malaysia and it's population around 35-40 years to attain the same overall standards in 1995, as Britain had to show for in 1995.
There was NEVER slavery in the Malayan world - since it would have been incompatible with their culture. As such neither the Arabs, nor their colonial overlords, the Portuguese, nor the Dutch and nor the British ever considered to take or trade Malays as slaves. Simply because Malay's were not traded or held by their own kind as slaves.
So how about e.g. Tanzania? a former German colony, and under UN mandated British control, gained independence in 1962.
Partially influenced before - from the 11th century onward till the Germans arrived in 1885, by the Arabs. - just like e.g. Malaysia.
The only thing that stuck in small parts with Tanzania's population was the conversion to Islam. They were not WILLING to adopt any aspects of the Arab world in regards to a social environment - except providing slaves and raw goods - just like all over Sub-Saharan Africa.
Dar es Salaam on the mainland and
Zanzibar island were by far the largest slave trading-posts, harbors on the entire East-African coast - now how come the Arabs chose this place on the Eastern African coast? Because slaves were in abundant supply - and they offered no problems to Arabs and Europeans since they were absolutely familiar with already being or having become slaves for sale.
After the Germans left (barley 30 years)- they possessed large agricultural farms with own refineries (therefore selling end products) (whose initiation they opposed bitterly - uprisings) Mining and Industrial companies were also setup (Therefore selling end products) - they possessed a rudimentary railway - (which they love until today). And every larger settlement possessed a hospital and a school. (Which they seem to have forgotten). 90% of the German Askari (3000) were recruited from Sudan - since the local population proved to be unreliable and ill suited, aside from being employed as porters in their thousands.
From 1918 till 1962 Tanzania was governed by the British - generally investing and increasing the existing infrastructure and economy that the Germans had left behind.
Tanzania today (2023) is industrial and infrastructural wise on a level of Britain or Germany from the 30'ies. Due to massive help and investments, foremost from China since the 60'ies. Their entire school and medical system and infrastructure was brought in by China - until today.
Their social environment - aside from major cities displaying high-rise buildings, is exactly the same when Germany came in and when the Arabs came in 900 years ago and when the British left 60 years ago. So why unlike e.g. Malay's, those living in Tanzania never managed to develop, nor copy, aka adopt a social - environment/culture comparable to what Malays already possessed 1400 years ago?
Because their tribal neolithic culture, ruled and controlled over by tribal chieftains, simply never permitted the people towards progressing.
And every-time the respective colonial power tried to encourage or even impose progress - those tribal chieftains with their tribal warriors (excluded from being a slave or traded as a slave) made sure that an uprising was certain. Today they love to point out such occurrences as massacres and genocides conducted by those evil Colonialists.
See the USA - the Europeans had the numbers and simply (cruel but true) wiped out the resisting indigenous population till their resistance simply crumbled. Those Red-Indians that adapted, live and enjoy the same lifestyle and social environment of any other European-American aka Caucasian-American - those that did not adapt (mostly those in reservations) hang around and complain that they don't have clean drinking water. - just like Africans.
Until today this plagues Africa - the respective Black governments (beholding some educated people) are not able to control their neolithic tribal chieftains and it's culture. Unlike any other cultures or race/ethnicity - e.g. Sub-Saharan Africa was never conquered or united by a tribe or culture that would have been strong enough to impose such changes (e.g. India's influence onto Java) - nor could they have imposed changes - because they ALL share the same neolithic tribal attitude and culture.
See the Zulu-Nation's conquest of Southern Africa - the only thing that changed in those 400 years - was as who is to becomes a slave now, and who has to pay tribute to who. Absolutely nothing else ever changed.
And every-time a Black government starts to impose/enforce change - we get to read and learn in the Western Press about genocides happening throughout Africa (incited and ordered by those tribal heads and their warrior-cast gangs) - exactly as to those claimed, during Colonial rule by lefty&lib ignorant morons as having been the result of exploitation and suppression by Europeans - pure BULLSHIT.
That some colonists or some members of the colonial powers, treated the local population just as bad as they have been treated by their own kind for the past 4000 years is certainly true. However the vast majority of European colonists in Africa treated them far better then they had ever been treated by their own kind, especially in countries like former Rhodesia or Apartheid South-Africa.
Therefore, unlike Lefty&Lib morons, I am fully aware about the factual problem that governs and plagues Africa and Africans - if this neolithic tribal culture is due to genetics, or simply being dumber then other races, due to not having intermixed with other races and ethnicity (mixing, exchange and therefore further development of existing cultures), see North-Africa, Middle-East, Europe parts of the Americas and Asia) - I leave that discussion to others.
It is however interesting to note that the "African tribal issue" also applies toward those, who also did not participate in significant cultural exchanges - e.g. The Australian Aborigines, Papua's, the Papua related folks on the Solomon's or the Amazon Indians. Despite partially practicing cannibalism (probably the lowest form of a human civilization) - NONE of these ethnics ever beheld a slave culture or traded slaves.
As such Sub-Saharan Africans, in respect to evolutionary terms, were obviously just slightly ahead of these aforementioned primitive neolithic ethnicity's or cultures - when the Arab and European world come into contact with Sub-Saharan Africa.
I am aware that this post is too long for you to read and to comprehend - But at least no one could state that I didn't give it a try.
medlineplus.gov
