Lindy, the loss of the British Empire from Africa was a tragedy for Africa.
It was presented as a great "freedom" for the locals, but it was merely serving them up to become prisoners of tribal totalitarian self-serving regimes with vast horrors such as Rwanda's genocide and other horrors the length and breadth of Africa [which was not all British - the French had half of it].
Around the world, the local yokels taking over didn't really do much for the locals at all. They recognize that and cling to the British Empire in effigy via the British Commonwealth.
Now, here's my racial theorizing.
Let's go back 200,000 years.
Humans had already spread all over the place. There was constant warring, sexual selection and natural challenges [such as living near the Arctic ice catching seals, which is different from living at the equator fleeing lions]. So gene pools spread out.
There was constant territorial transition as women sought out the interesting foreigners [genetic drive for female primates is to get DNA from further afield than the family and close males - avoids recessive gene problems] and conquering continued apace as males fought for food, territory and girls.
About 90,000 years ago, a woman moved out of Africa and her mitochondria took over from all other females who had spread around the world, becoming the Eve of all non-Africans. All others fizzled out by the various challenges.
About 30,000 years ago, a bloke moved out of Africa and his Y chromosome took over from all other non-African Y chromosomes which were out there. He became the father of all non-Africans.
Another lot of millennia went by with the populations not in Africa burgeoning to a huge extent, especially when the ice age rolled back and huge tracts of land became habitable.
All the time, genetic selection was on the rampage with successful male and female DNA gaining ascendancy over the rest. Sometimes Genghis Khan would be ascendant and his DNA would make big inroads. Other times other groups would be more successful. There were vast surgings of DNA as the battle for ascendancy continued across vast tracts of land and sea.
Part of the deal is that the losers really do lose. Neanderthals all gone. The winnowing system is relentless and merciless. Amerindians were replaced by Europeans. Mexicans are now replacing Americans. Peruvians are largely Spanish with less local input than in the Inca days. Aztecs over-run.
It's not simply that one group replaces another, there is a comingling and a hybrid results, combining the best of both worlds, with one being dominant, usually not completely.
Now to Africa in modern days. They simply don't have the "right stuff". One of the variables they lack is brain-power. IQ averages are very low. That means they simply can't run modern societies which are so successful in many ways.
What will happen is what has been happening. The 5 billion non-African will mix it with the Africans. The good results will go on to succeed. Slaves were taken to the USA and miscegenation resulted in Tiger Woods, Condoleezza Rice, Colin Powell, Michael Jordan, Cassius Clay, Thomas Sowell. The good DNA combinations result in great success. But the loser DNA is filtered out.
There are lots of useless genes. Most of us have various glitches which we would have chosen better if we could do. Our parents would no doubt like to have selected even better partners, but they each had to make do with what they could get. The winnowing process is slow.
As is evident from the big lump above our eyebrows, brainpower is a major way for humans to do well in the DNA stakes. Otherwise we'd still be like chimps [which we are, but I mean even more like them].
Like it or not, not everyone has the same brain-power, contrary to popular mythology and it is NOT as a result of giving them the wrong toys to play with or other "environmental" effects. It's in the DNA, the same as a 286 ASIC is not as good as a Pentium. A sow's ear is not a silk purse.
People with more brainpower on average do better than those with less. Groups with more brainpower do better than those with less.
Africa will be taken over by the rest. Incrementally perhaps, but bit by bit it'll happen. There are now something like 5 billion non-Africans and fewer than 1 billion Africans. library.advanced.org
30,000 years ago, the first bloke left Africa and fathered that 5 billion. He went from 1 to 5 billion while his African ancestors went from a million or so, to not even 1 billion.
He won in a BIG way. He hasn't finished yet. The lady from 90,000 years ago won big too.
In brainpower, it's pretty clear that Africa's average is going to go up, or they'll remain as a human zoo where a time gone by remains like one of those wilderness parks where lions and the rest roam around as always.
The British brought civilization, more or less, various matters notwithstanding. Mugabe won in Rhodesia. I plead guilty to thinking at the time that the local yokels should run their own affairs. Now I am embarrassed at my thinking. Rwanda would better be run by Britain than mass machete.
Unfortunately, transitions in the gene pools are not conducted always in a civilized way. Look at Adolf's Aryan ideas and his thinking about Ashkenazi Jews, with umpty millions dying as his idiot ideas were filtered out of Europe. Look at WWI with millions dying. Genghis Khan was not promoting democracy.
I don't know what will happen. But something will happen and it will be that Africa's average intelligence goes up. 5 billion smarties beats a few hundred million not too bright. The trend for 30,000 years has been clear.
Here's the gory detail on brainpower and why countries do better or worse: lagriffedulion.f2s.com
Mqurice |
