In nearly every culture and every political system, light-skinned black people have ruled over darker skinned black people. From the Tutsi to the Fulbe to our own American black elites, light skin is tied to power.
Is this because the gene for “leadership” is directly tied the gene for skin color, or is it because even whatever small percentage of non-black genes in there are enough to give light-skinned black people an advantage?
I’m wondering about the basis of your suspicion. So far as I know, no one is even close to defining the black race (or any race) on the basis of genetics.
I’m wondering whether, if we were having this discussion in the 9th or 10th century, you’d be saying that it’s scientifically obvious that white people are genetically incapable, compared to East Asians, Indians, Arabs, and North Africans.
When it comes right down to it, it seems to me you’re working with a data set of only about 11 centuries or less. Is that sufficient, do you think?
A black perons’s butt is higher up than a white persons butt, hence the athletic superiority.
Jimmy The Greek knew that way back when, and we’re still arguing it now?
It’s only obvious to you if you ignore the whole history of how African countries and blacks have been treated throughout the last centuries of history. The Europeans (and the US later too) not only exploited raw materials from their colonies, they also used every political measure to keep the people down: little or no education (a big factor when talking about IQs being measured is looking first at access to education to develop the possible IQs people have); using ancient tribal rivalries to keep the people from uniting (and almost all African countries still suffer from the oil-on-fire approach to different tribes in one country; compare that to European countries who felt themselves as one nation for several centuries); relocating natives from places (hills with cool wind, so no flies that carried diseases) suited for living and farming, into huge areas to work industries for the Europeans - with too many people on too small a place, food wasn’t enough, plus the nearby rives multiplied diseases - but today people live there because that’s where the cities are now, the old settlements having been destroyed; by forcing Africans into labour for the colonials, they made it difficult for the Africans to feed themselves or develop better agricultural techniques (a large improvment today is by simple methods of teaching people the best way of farming - because they don’t know about it). Etc.
Also, that there’s little industry in African countries today is another leftover from colonial times: the colonial powers shipped the raw materials to Europe for processing there on purpose, because this meant skilled labour for European workers, and thus money staying in Europe. For the same reason, the rich countries prefer (pressure) African countries to sell them raw materials, instead of sponsoring/ giving a loan/ building a processing factory there.
Same with tourism: if the tourists stay in their little TUI ghettos with swimming pool run by the European-based tourist company, the bulk of the money goes back to Europe. Only the low-level jobs of waiters and chambermaids, and the small money for delivering food stays in the country. Compare that to tourism in the US, where people travel around visiting the cities, leaving money with the locals, doing activities like surfing, diving, hiking that leave money locally etc.
To build these things up, poor countries need money first before they can earn money with them. Rich countries already have money anyway. So it’s not so much that they can’t because they’re too dumb/incompetent/uneducated, but they can’t because nobody gives them the starting money. (Since you don’t seem to know much history, in the US, the start-up money to become rich was stealing land and gold from the Indians. The Africans can’t steal from somebody else).
Looking at how the world’s today without looking at how it got there, and then saying that some people aren’t as capable as others…
Just a simple example with democracy: the US has (a so-called form of ) democracy for over 200 years. Most African countries gained their indepence after WWII, less than 60 years ago. (Yes, I know Haiti is an exception - but you applied your statement to all blacks and Africans). So they had far less time to get the experience and knowledge necessary to be capable.
So if I understand you correctly, external circumstances play no role at all in how people get ahead, or don’t? To use the old race comparison, a talented sprinter should win even starting 200 yards behing the starting line, when his opponent has a 50 yard advantage? I’ll side with logic and plausability in this case, thanks.
I think it has more to do with the lack of any scientific merit or good results for that kind of theory. The French guy who measured the size of skulls in the 19th century to determine that Europeans had bigger heads and were therefore more intelligent than Africans has at least a part excuse that a lot of things biology, sociology etc. have discovered today were unknown then. But today, this stuff’s been debunked roundly by serious scientists.
Well, that would make me glad, if I wanted to be a friend with the kind of person who says the things you did.
Except for the part where the rich countries force unfair trading conditions on poor countries, or send in soldiers if the democracy the poor countries have isn’t benefical for their economy, and so on. Or does that count as being smart, too, instead of rigging the race?