In what countries have blacks matched the success of other populations?

Factual Questions
21

Just to be clear, I am using the term “black” to describe a group which might more accurately be termed “of subsaharan African ancestry.” (An even looser term might be “self-described as black” except that there you get obvious casual definitions such as considering Mr Obama black when his mother is European.) I am, of course, aware of the argument that this is not a distinct genetic group because of the genetic diversity in that population. I am underwhelmed by that argument. A single gene difference with protean manifestations might be enough to separate two groups into two phenotypically identifiable ones even where one of the groups had substantial diversity in less phenotypically signficant areas.

I do understand that one approach to the racial divide is simply to argue that races and/or populations cannot be defined. OK. Definitely makes a better Coca Cola ad.

22

It would have to be to the same degree as US slavery, so the subjects of the experiment wouldn’t be able to maintain their language or family structure the way the Koreans did under Japanese occupation.

Although the thriving Koreans still appear to be furious about their experiences under Japanese occupation.

23

I never suggested that different populations couldn’t be defined.

In fact, I suggested the opposite. The population definitions in the OP weren’t specific enough.

By your broad definitions, Russians and Finns are the same “race”. Finns have a very low murder rate, and a very low violent crime rate overall. Russians currently have an astronomically high murder rate, as high as that of black Americans.

Russians have not always had such a high murder rate, and black American murder rates were lower than white American murder rates in the 1930’s.

Genetics? Environment? Culture?

There are genetic differences between the Russians and the Finns. Are these differences enough to define them as different races? Are these racial differences at the root of the differences in lifestyle and economic conditions between the the two?

How about the Estonians and Latvians? They lived under Communism too. Why are the Baltic states becoming more and more like Scandinavia while Russia remains dysfunctional?

I know I’m veering off from the OP, but it’s germane because we’re attempting to do cross cultural comparisons across the globe based on “race”.

24

I’m pretty sure that blacks in Queens, in NYC, are doing better than whites on average. Or maybe it’s just blacks from the West Indies. Maybe someone else can add to this.

25

I saw the stories reporting that blacks in Queens had median incomes than whites in Queens. This change has occurred in the past couple of years or so. A significant part of it is due to West Indian and African immigrants, with high levels of education and higher rates of business ownership than black Americans.

http://www.nytimes.com/2006/10/01/nyregion/01census.html?_r=1&ref=nyregion&oref=slogin

26

But this illustrates nicely the point, doesn’t it?

“Russians” might be doing crappy under a crappy Commie heritage but if one were to look elsewhere in the world, you’d find Russians flourishing as full equals–economically or educationally, say–under different circumstances. The expectation is that a given population, however defined, would have various success rates and failures but more or less overall it would be a reasonable expectation that they’d be able to achieve equality with other populations under different circumstances. You could then reasonably infer that the problems for a group in a specific circumstances result from those circumstances. Moreover you could make an argument that it’s unlikely there are any core differences in capability between that group and any others.

So what I’m looking for is simple: where are blacks flourishing as equals? If not anywhere else, then why is it so readily accepted that they do poorly in the US because of circumstances local to the US?

27

Oh yes, the Kor. Am. population still does think about the Jap occupation. Any Korean (or Taiwanese, or Singapore, or Mainlander) of course remembers and resents what the Japs did.

But so do all the Taiwanese – who avidly sell sushi on the high street.

Yes, it gets complex.

28

I feel almost churlish compared to the eloquence of Chief Pedant and tomndebb and others, but I would like to add a couple of things.

First, it is much easier to destroy a culture than to create a new one to replace it.

Second, people whose culture is destroyed and replaced by a slave culture are at a huge disadvantage in the world, for a large number of reasons unrelated to skin color. This disadvantage, being cultural, has lasted far beyond the end of slavery.

Third, it is very difficult to disentangle the complex threads of opportunity, education, culture, work ethic, discrimination, ambition, racism, oppression, and ignorance in the issue of the record of the American Black response to generations of slavery and discrimination.

Fourth, there are very, very few nations in the world where the bogus “White=Good Black=Bad” equation has not held true, to a greater or lesser degree, over much of recorded history. Go figure … we fear those who are different.

Fifth, racism takes a variety of forms, ranging from blatantly overt to very, very subtle. All of the forms, however, have a single aim - to hold the person of color in an inferior position. To varying degrees, these apply from early childhood on, in almost every field of endeavor, in every country that I have ever been in.

Sixth, for a good chunk of fairly recent history, white colonial powers dictated the education, status, and opportunities for a good chunk of the people of color on the planet.

Seventh, black people come from the tropics, which tends to engender different attitudes towards work (especially regarding preparing now for future conditions) than living in a place where if you don’t collect firewood in the summer, you freeze and die. Tropical folks have never heard of the parable of the Ant and the Grasshopper, nor do they have any need for it.

The combination of all of these has affected attitudes and education and opportunities for Black people for millennia. As a result, I see no way to answer the question posed in the OP. There is no black population which has avoided all of those damaging things listed above.

For example, the only country in Africa which was never colonized was Lesotho. I’ve worked there, they live in the highlands, ride horses, and wear Mexican style ponchos, nice folks.

But for the last hundred years or so, it has been mostly a country of women, because the men have been hired away to reside and work in the South African mines … so while their country was not colonized, the men were and for the most part are still all “kaffirs” for 11 months out of the year.

I don’t think there is any country on the planet with a “level playing field” that has actually been level enough, for enough generations, to let us determine the answer to the OP’s question.

w.

29

The Baltic states were under Communist rule too. Foreign (Russian) communist rule at that. The Baltic peoples have had much more success in adapting to market based economies, and they’re a lot less inclined than ethnic Russians towards drinking themselves into a stupor and/or stabbing each other to death. Even when ethnic Russians actually live in the Baltics, they don’t do as well as the natives ( and they damn sure don’t want to go back to Russian).

China was ruled by brutal, Marxist totalitarians. Why have the Chinese been able to transition to being a world economic power in such a short time?

There’s a black American expat community in Paris. They do well, as I pointed out, but this is a function of the bottom half of black America being entirely excluded. They don’t have the air fare, can’t get visas, can’t function in a non English speaking country, have no interest.

I would make the same argument vis a vis the Russians. The Russian thugs who mug you on the subway are not the ones with the ambition and skills that could get them to West Hollywood or Little Odessa.

The Russians are in control of Russia. I’ve heard some educated people actually make the argument that modern Russians are still recovering from the effects of the Mongol conquest. Okay.

Can you provide an example of a group of people who were conquered and had their original culture and family structure effectively obliterated, who then lived for over a century in a society with an ideology dedicated to demonstrating their lack of humanity? You can make an argument for the indigenous peoples of the Americas, but none of them are thriving. If anything, most of these people are worse off than black Americans. The Native peoples of Canada and the Upper Midwest in the US are about as cold adapted as you can get, but no one would describe them as thriving.
So we accept the idea because we can’t imagine a scenario where this kind of experience wouldn’t have long lasting effects.

30

I feel like you are missing the point so I’ll try one more time and let it go.

Imagine that someone analyzed Vietnam a few years back and found it to be underpeforming. One possibility might be the people themselves; another might be external circumstances (a war, perhaps). Now suppose one looked at the population of emigrants out of Vietnam to other countries–say, the US. If it turned out that within a generation or so that cohort was performing on par with the US population, it would be easy to argue that Vietnam’s predicament was external circumstance. If, on the other hand, displaced Vietnamese people everywhere underperformed their peer populations, one could look at Vietnam and suggest it would be hasty to conclude Vietnam’s problems were solely from their recent devastation by a war.

There’s no need to repeat the devastating history of blacks here in the US. I’ve heard it and I take no issue with the accuracy of that story. What I am asking for is a list of non-US places where blacks have achieved parity. I’m also wondering where in the entire world they have succeeded to a greater extent than they have succeeded in the US.

I understand the automatic reflex to inform me of all of the bad things that have happened, but I’m not asking for that. I’m just asking for suggestions on where–in the entire world, across all nations and all cultures–a black population has achieved parity with other peer populations. If there aren’t any, there aren’t any.

31

I reject the claim that there is such a thing as a generic black person. There is not.

That being the case, you can’t compare “blacks” in America to blacks in “Haiti” to “blacks” in Senegal. They are different in terms of history, culture, language, and genetics. Claiming that they are somehow more alike than different is first of all, an evasion, and secondly a claim that requires substantial proof. None has been offered.

You persist in the line of reasoning because it suits your political purposes. Indeed, most of the research done into “racial differences” in the US has been motivated by US politics, and the desire to maintain Jim Crow and exclude black Americans from full citizenship rights. It’s impossible to separate the Pioneer Fund and the other academic racialists from their white supremacist financial backers.

The categories you want to compare are largely social categories, not scientific ones. They stem from American history and American politics.

The point is not that terrible things have been done to black Americans. The point is to somehow prove that the terrible things done don’t have any long term effects. Provide one example where this is the case.

Let’s do a twin study. I’ll start by dropping one twin repeatedly on its head.

32

In modern times in several Sahelian states (think Niger, etc.) the black population dominates politically over Arab populations.

Of course this is a function of numbers and lifestyle (Much of the Arab population in these areas are nomadic) but we aren’t paying attention to that, are we? Anyway, in the rather poor city of Garoua, Cameroon, the only beggar family is full on white. It always tripped me out.

But in the end, every country with a mixed black and white population is either touched by slavery or colonialism.

Furthermore, the genetic diversity IS a factor. I said it before and I’ll say it again. I lived in an area that was a major source of of slaves. The men of one tribe 40 minutes away from me were all over 6 feet tall. Nobody from the tribe 40 minutes away the other way was over 5 feet. People’s skin ranged from as light enough you’d think they were white from a distance to as black as possible. We had every face shape imaginable. Bodies ranged from 300 pound women bulging with muscles to willowy 90 pound women. The diversity was unreal- you see as much diversity on a Cameroonian street as you do on an American one.

Unless you want to argue that your “smart” genes are somehow directly linked to skin color genes, I don’t see how your “skin color determines how successful you are” theory works. How could an area have such a great diversity in bodies, but somehow not have that diversity in other areas?

33

Chief Pedant, thanks for restating the OP, wherein you say:

If it were merely a matter of the history in the US, your idea would have merit. The problem is much, much more ancient than America, and much, much more widespread. I know of no country in the world where skin color plays no part in social life. Perhaps Cuba, I haven’t been there … but even there I suspect that skin color plays more of a role than people would like to admit.

So. We have a world that for most of recorded history, in most every country, has to a greater or lesser degree discriminated on the basis of skin color. China is racist and always has been, with black at the bottom of the list. So is Japan. So is Korea. So is India, and the US, and Europe, and Russia, and the Middle East, and Indonesia, and … I have worked on all of the continents except Antarctica, and I can assure you, it is a racist planet.

Now, I’m old enough that when I was a kid, black people had to drink at the “Colored” fountain and couldn’t eat in the restaurant where I could eat. So I am aware that the US, among many other countries, has made huge strides in eradicating racism, in particular institutionalized racism. But make no mistake … we still have a long ways to go, in every country.

And now, in a world that has been racist for untold centuries in untold countries, a world where we are just coming out of the darkness in my own lifetime, you are asking, seriously asking where black people have “achieved parity”?

Ummm … Great Zimbabwe?

Seriously, I can’t answer that, there’s too many unstated assumptions about level playing fields and the ongoing effects of overt and covert racism, so let me ask you a question in turn …

In a world where a black PhD can get mistaken for the stock boy in most any supermarket in most any country you care to name … has he “achieved parity”?

w.

34

Didn’t Ethiopia avoid conquest/enslavement? If memory serves, they even gave Italy a nightmarish time of it in World War 2. If anyone were handing out “Continental Badass” awards, I suspect Ethiopia would win the African division in a landslide.

35

In the 6th century Ethiopia’s Aksum Empire invaded and conquered Yemen. For a while there, Ethiopians were in the ascendant in a majority white country.

36

Ethiopia isn’t sub-Saharan, is it?

In any case, thanks for restating the OP and addressing the single-population-or-not argument. You say you are underwhelmed, that even a single gene can unite a group, and that’s fair enough, but consider:

  • There is not necessarily a single gene shared by all blacks worldwide; even skin color is a complicated and nuanced phenomenon, and if you’re going to blame melanin for socio-economic conditions you should really be looking askance at all those brown-haired people in Europe and Asia, too.

  • Thousands of individuals, if not millions, have had the same genetics but done very well, thank you very much; they may be mistaken for stockboys, but they do have the Ph.D.s

In other words, it’s nearly impossible to construct a genetic argument that includes all disadvantaged blacks but excludes all successful blacks; it is similarly impossible to account for those blacks who have “passed” (as white), or the millions of whites who live in poverty, or the European and Asian cultures that have done poorly against their neighbors (where are the Tocharians? The Picts? The Etruscans? — genetically still with us, but culturally extinct).

A non-genetic argument, on the other hand, one that takes into account culture, language, economics, history, religion, belief, and other factors, amply explains reality as we know it. So why the preference for the former? To take the onus of responsibility of white folks?

Besides, even if it were genetic, why is Africa involved? Perhaps it’s some rogue Choctaw gene which accounts for the lack of success of the Choctaw nation on the world stage as well. That would at least separate U.S. blacks from Caribbean and African blacks.

This is leaving aside any evolutionary arguments where lack of success is somehow an evolutionary advantage, or even not a disadvantage.

37

According to Sub-Saharan Africa - Wikipedia it is.

38

Most people seem to be interpreting the question to be: Where have blacks entered a majority non-black country, and done better than the ethnic majority?

But this is a straw man because we would always expect an immigrant population to do worse, earnings and employment-wise, than the ethnic majority for some time, even if there were no rascism.

We should be looking for majority black countries where blacks are doing better than ethnic minorities, and majority non-black countries where blacks are doing better than another ethnic minority.
I’d Google around, but I’m at work right now :wink:

39

You are absolutely correct. While the Cuban government likes to claim that racism is unheard of in Cuba just take a look http://www.cubapolidata.com/gpc/gpc_council_of_ministers.html. There are very few black faces there, for a country where blacks account for 60% of the population. Not to mention that the last black head of state was Batista, and the Castro brothers are very white.

There’s institutional racism everywhere, black tourists are usually stopped when entering hotels and must provide proof that they are not Cuban. White tourists, or white Cubans posing as tourists are not questioned.

40

This excludes the much-bandied-about topic of colonialism, where the “immigrant population” by definition is the dominant one. So what you would be looking for is examples of small numbers of blacks going to a non-black country and establishing dominance. I am not aware of an example, but there may be one. But it is certainly not the case that there are no examples of white “immigrant populations” doing much better, earnings and employment wise, than the ethnic majority in a country to which they (the whites) emigrated.