Call me crazy, but I prefer bank loans. They accomplish the same result without requiring me to clothe, house and feed the bank staff into perpetuity.

Lots Pell grants and Stafford loans in Africa, eh?

It's the end of the world as we know it, and I feel fine

"Your implication seems to be that blacks are racially incapable of the same degree of civilization as whites.  And that, we know, is not the case"

You mean you desperately have to believe that is not the case, even though there is no evidence to support such a belief.

"Other comments in this discussion have explained that some of the pre-existing cultural traditions in Africa have proven to be incompatible with European concepts of civilization"

Where does culture come from?  

"Black people raised in different cultures will adapt to those cultures in exactly the same way as a person of different skin color"

Zimbabwe reverted to the black norm. South Africa is reverting to the black norm. What's Detroit like?

You know, I already presented you with evidence, in the form of my own observations at least (admittedly without any details, although I could certainly offer details) that black people, or more accurately, people of African ancestry, have the same capability for civilized or intellectual attainment as do white people, or those of European ancestry.  I am a science fiction fan; several of my favorite authors are African-American (I will particularly mention the late Octavia Butler, who was truly excellent).  I know of distinguished African-American scientists, artists, political leaders (Barack Obama, you may have heard  of him) etc.  There is no field of attainment in which African-Americans have failed to distinguish themselves.  

But what about Detroit?  We really can't blame the problems of Detroit on the supposed racial characteristics of African-Americans, who have hardly been free to seek their own destiny, these past 400 years, without the interference of European-Americans.  Many (although not all) white people have worked very hard to prevent social progress and accomplishment by black people.  Perhaps you have heard of slavery, and racial discrimination.  No, the problems of Detroit are the joint product of all the ethnic groups of America.  I would, of course, encourage African-Americans to do more to solve their own problems.  The tendency to blame everything on white people is just as pernicious (or possibly more pernicious) than the tendency to blame everything on black people.

The fact that Africans have developed particular kinds of culture which are not entirely compatible with European culture does not necessarily prove either than African culture is inferior or that Africans have demonstrated their inferiority by making those cultural choices.  Now, personally I enjoy the advantages of European-derived culture.  If I didn't, I wouldn't be participating in this internet-based conversation which obviously utilizes technology that derives from European culture.  But I could also point out that such things as the two world wars, and the Holocaust that accompanied the second of those two wars, were perpetrated by Europeans and depended upon European technology (although there are also instances of African genocide committed with African technology, such as that which Chaka Zulu committed in southern Africa just before the arrival of European immigrants, who were of course thrilled to discover an unpopulated region for them to colonize).  Perhaps more significantly, the dire environmental crises which the planet Earth currently faces are the result of the reckless use of European technology, and could never have resulted from the more harmless, neolithic African technology.  So one could argue that in the long term, it may be that European civilization wasn't such a great idea after all.  It may be the death of us all.  Still, I will enjoy it while it lasts.

I also think that you are mistaken in your belief that the particular type of culture developed by Africans, or the particular type of culture developed by Europeans, were in either case the necessary result of some inherent racial propensity.  They are the result of many historical accidents.  Human cultural evolution is basically chaotic in nature.  If we could re-create the planet Earth as it existed 10,000 years ago, let us say a thousand copies, and let them all evolve at random, I think (although I can't actually prove) that we would get a thousand different results, all of which would also differ from the world as we know it.  Sometimes it would be Europe where technological and advanced civilization would evolve, sometimes it would be Africa, sometimes Asia, sometimes South America, and so forth; in some worlds there would still be no advanced civilization even after 10,000 years or perhaps even after a million years.  Whereas other possible worlds would have advanced faster than ours has.  Why would I expect such a thing?  Because I have seen that people of African descent have no difficulty in adapting to the culture of any country in which they live.  The African-British population reflects the British culture, the African-American population reflects the American culture, etc.  There is no sign that people of African descent will necessarily exhibit the cultural attributes of Africa unless they actually live in Africa.  This can be easily observed.  Don't pretend you haven't seen it.

"We really can't blame the problems of Detroit on the supposed racial characteristics of African-Americans, who have hardly been free to seek their own destiny, these past 400 years, without the interference of European-Americans"

Where blacks do poorly - which is everywhere - it's the fault of white influence. When blacks starve in Ethiopia, which was never colonized by whites, it's still whites' fault for not helping enough. Australia began as a penal colony. How did that work out?

"The fact that Africans have developed particular kinds of culture which are not entirely compatible with European culture does not necessarily prove either than African culture is inferior or that Africans have demonstrated their inferiority by making those cultural choices."

It's strange how people who are so able to judge others by some abstract standard of racism are incapable of judging whether or not Sierra Leone is inferior to the Netherlands.

"The African-British population reflects the British culture, the African-American population reflects the American culture, etc.  There is no sign that people of African descent will necessarily exhibit the cultural attributes of Africa unless they actually live in Africa."

Except they do. Left alone, family structure and crime rates quickly come to resemble those of blacks in Africa.

The real reason why Africa is the horrendous mess that it is, is not the fault of indigenous African culture, but the fault of failed European colonialism.  That's the main reason why the Netherlands is doing so much better than Sierra Leone (although there are many other factors - the success or failure of a nation is generally a complex issue).

You seem to be doubtful that white influence could really be responsible for black failure everywhere (and blacks haven't really failed everywhere, as I will discuss later).  But we whites have been amazingly influential.  White empires ruled the world for a long time, not black empires.  And these empires have left terrible legacies.

The success of Australia derives from the fact that it was a European culture from the beginning, even as a penal colony, which successfully obliterated the indigenous Aboriginal culture, rather than being, as in Africa, a non-European culture which was distorted by the colonial influence.

Your belief that people of African descent are always prone to dysfunctional families and high crime rates when "left alone" (presumably, when not under the care and guidance of the superior white race) is simply not true.  There are many cases of people of African descent who have been successful and honest members of society in spite of the generally harmful influence of their European neighbors.

Nonetheless, there is lots of crime among the African-American ethnicity, that is certainly true.  There are obvious sociological reasons for this.  I have already explained this in my previous comment.  Those who believe that blacks are genetically inferior to whites are simply unable to explain the existence of highly talented black people of whom I have mentioned a few, in my previous comment.  Although sometimes it is argued that "they must have some white blood in them" which is a tremendously feeble response; even if they do, they have still outdone a great many people whose ancestry is entirely white.  Black ancestry must be contributing SOMETHING to the mix of a successful African-American, or he or she would just have the value (or success) of a small fraction of a white person.

Logically, it would be possible to believe that black people are inferior to white people, yet to also believe that this inferiority in no way justifies any cruelty or mistreatment of black people (perhaps in the sense that although most of us would agree that although dogs are intellectually the inferior to human beings, we still like dogs and wish to treat them with kindness).  But historically, the belief in black inferiority has lead to lynchings, and innumerable cruelties and abuses.  So, the arguments that you are making place you in very bad company.  You seem to be philosophically allied with the Ku Klux Klan.  If so, you are not a credit to the white race of which you seem to be so proud.  

The claim that blacks do poorly everywhere is a terrible oversimplification.  Many black people are doing poorly in the US (for example) yet many black people are also doing very well.  We could say that statistically, black people are doing worse than white people in the US, and this again is for very understandable reasons given the long history of racial discrimination in the US, but the degree of success of black people is easily large enough to demonstrate that as an ethnic group, they have the capacity for success.  They are not doomed to failure by their own racial inferiority.  That myth has been destroyed.  You would be very foolish to cling to it.

It appears that Urkel believes that your skin and your brain are somehow organically related, so that high melanin content in one causes damage the other.

Africans show more genetic variation than any other population, a natural consequence of Africa being the place of origin of the human race.  Trying to point to skin color as a marker of anything other than ancestral exposure to equatorial sun is simply ignorant...or trolling.

Skin color isn't the only difference that's evolved between humans.

"is not the fault of indigenous African culture, but the fault of failed European colonialism.  That's the main reason why the Netherlands is doing so much better than Sierra Leone "

I see: African failure is the Europeans fault, while European achievements are an accident of history. (Even though Ethiopia was never colonized, but the Netherlands was a Spanish territory and then later occupied by the French) Earlier you were claimimg we can't really call African culture inferior. If it isn't inferior, why are you blaming Europeans for the fact Africa isn't like Europe?

"Your belief that people of African descent are always prone to dysfunctional families and high crime rates when "left alone" (presumably, when not under the care and guidance of the superior white race) is simply not true"

It is true. That's an accurate description of how things are. Pointing to "cases of people" doesn't disprove what has happened in general.

"there is lots of crime among the African-American ethnicity, that is certainly true.  There are obvious sociological reasons for this."

What are those?

"historically, the belief in black inferiority has lead to lynchings, and innumerable cruelties and abuses."

What has denying there are any differences between blacks and whites led to in Zimbabwe?

"the degree of success of black people is easily large enough to demonstrate that as an ethnic group, they have the capacity for success.  They are not doomed to failure by their own racial inferiority.  That myth has been destroyed"

You can't point to a sucessful black country. Even black cities within the US are embarassing for your argument.  At the most all you can say is that the black failure which is observable everywhere is the fault of white racism. Strangely even when the white racists leave, even in instances where the white racists had little influence over most of the population and even improved conditions while they were there, the whites are still to blame for the failure that exists decades later.

I actually find it distasteful to be called upon to refute nakedly racist arguments of white supremacy.  I do believe in explaining to people things that they for some reason have trouble understanding, but there is a limit.  As Jimmy Havok points out, you may just be trolling.  However, I will try one more time, briefly.

You again express your disbelief that the white race has achieved a globally dominant position due to accidents of history, rather than due to inherent racial superiority, but history does indeed proceed as the net result of many accidental events.  On an individual level, when black people are compared to white people we find the same range of capabilities, personalities, and accomplishments.  White people can be either successful or unsuccessful, smart or stupid, kind or cruel, selfish or generous, honest or criminal, monogamous or philanderers, etc. etc., and exactly the same is true of black people.  The entire range of human possibility exists in every ethnic group, and that is because we are, basically, ALL HUMAN BEINGS.  We have not differentiated into separate species.  Biologically, that is demonstrated by the fact that all ethnic groups are inter-fertile.  Ethnicity entails minor differences in appearance, that is the extent of its biological significance.  One can be loyal to one's ethnic group even above one's loyalty to the human race in general, but then, one can be loyal to a football team as well, or to anything else one likes; such choices are arbitrary, not biological in nature.  

You ask, what has denying there is any difference between blacks and whites lead to in Zimbabwe?  The end of white supremacist rule in Zimbabwe was not exactly motivated by the belief that there are no differences between blacks and whites, although it was motivated by the belief, which I have reiterated, that the differences between blacks and whites are not very important, and that both races (and all other races of people) are morally equivalent and are entitled to equal rights.  And as it turned out, very unfortunately, in Zimbabwe white supremacists have been replaced by black supremacists.  What does this prove?  It proves that white people and black people are both capable of the same intellectual errors and the same sense of ethnic selfishness.

The real alternatives in this world are not between white supremacy and black supremacy.  They are between sanity and insanity.  In a reasonable society, people of every ethnicity would have equal rights under the law everywhere, and we would all accept eachother as fellow human beings.

If you are unable to see this, I probably can't help you any further.

Ethnicity entails minor differences in appearance, that is the extent of its biological significance

That you are ignorant of those substantial differences makes you unable to debate racial differences except at a very rudimentary level.

You have misinterpreted my comment.  I am well aware that there are a variety of biological differences connected to race, including lactose intolerance (which, incidentally, I have).  I have stated that the biological differences relating to ethnicity are minor and primarily relate to appearance in response to claims by Urkel that blacks are racially inferior to whites and that this racial inferiority is the reason why the continent of Africa is having the terrible problems that it currently has, rather than, as I claim, primarily because of the disruptions caused by failed European colonialism.  There are lots of biological differences but not the kind that Urkel perceives.  Lactose intolerance is not the downfall of Africa.  

I can never express myself with such absolute precision as to make myself impossible to misinterpret, and even my limited attempts at clarity have resulted in such long comments as to elicit criticism for their excessive length.  In a sense, I would be better off not even trying to make a point on an internet web-site such as this.  My point is perfectly clear, yet you manage to find a way to misinterpret it.  You will probably misinterpret this comment, too.  No reason to stop now.  We can argue about this for another week, easily.  I don't look forward to it.

I have stated that the biological differences relating to ethnicity are minor and primarily relate to appearance...

Lactose intolerance is not the downfall of Africa

I was hoping that people would meet me halfway and at least try to understand what I was saying, since as I have mentioned, it is not feasible for me to be absolutely explicit about everything I am saying, given that my comments are already too long.  But yes, my statement was not absolutely correct.

You could argue that the problem with Africa is not the legacy of colonialism but the survival of the pre-colonial tribal culture, however, prior to European colonization of Africa, those tribal cultures existed successfully for many thousands of years, and were perfectly viable.  Africans were reasonably happy with the culture that they had.  Now things are a mess.  It's when you mix modern technology and primitive tribalism that things start to get very dysfunctional.    

my statement was not absolutely correct

...prior to European colonization of Africa, those tribal cultures existed successfully for many thousands of years, and were perfectly viable.  Africans were reasonably happy with the culture that they had

I am not talking about the supposedly "noble savage".  I do not believe, and certainly did not say, that people in a more primitive culture are in some way more noble than those of more advanced cultures, although it is worth noting (as I have done previously in this discussion) that it is the advanced cultures, not the primitive ones, which are in the process of creating a number of environmental disasters for the planet, and that civilization as we know it may collapse as a result.  There is something to be said for primitivism.

The point I was trying to make about racial differences is correct:  people of all races and ethnicities are more genetically and biologically similar than we are different, we all remain part of a single, inter-fertile species, and the races are all essentially equal in their range of potential accomplishments and attributes whether good or bad; there are no superior or inferior races, just people.  That is the point.  It is not true that I was not even remotely correct.  I just wasn't explicit enough for you.  Aside from our essential similarity, yes, there are all kinds of differences.  Some races are more prone to lactose intolerance than others, some are more prone to sickle-cell anemia, some are more prone to Tay-Sachs disease, and so on and so forth.  But these are relatively minor differences in terms of the overall value or capabilities of a given race, which is what I was arguing about with Urkel.

Or do you agree with Urkel that the current disasters which afflict Africa are proof of the racial inferiority of people of African descent, and that only people of European descent are qualified to run countries?

...it is the advanced cultures, not the primitive ones, which are in the process of creating a number of environmental disasters for the planet...

There is something to be said for primitivism

The point I was trying to make about racial differences is correct:  people of all races and ethnicities are more genetically and biologically similar than we are different, we all remain part of a single, inter-fertile species, and the races are all essentially equal in their range of potential accomplishments and attributes whether good or bad; there are no superior or inferior races, just people

Or do you agree with Urkel that the current disasters which afflict Africa are proof of the racial inferiority of people of African descent, and that only people of European descent are qualified to run countries?

Primitive cultures existed for a very long time, perhaps half a million years, without destroying the global environment, although they did CHANGE the global environment, and some species were indeed hunted to extinction (the aurochs, etc.) which is an entirely different order of problem that what we now face in terms of global warming, global pollution, and other massive effects.  The potential harm that can be done to the global biosphere by nuclear weapons is remarkably greater than that which can be done by spears or even bows and arrows (except, of course, for arrows equipped with plutonium arrowheads).  Right now we are facing a remarkable combination of environmental, political, and economic threats, which seem to be leading to a remarkably destructive result that primitive societies could not have accomplished.  The human race does have a remarkable history of destructiveness and short-sightedness, whether it is using primitive or advanced technology.  That much is true.  Nonetheless, the truly catastrophic problems of Africa in the 21st century could not have happened without the destructive influence of European colonialism.

I explained my previous statement ("ethnicity entails minor differences of appearance...") to you in detail, and your response is to dismiss my explanation and return to my original, unexplained statement and declare it to be wrong.  I could explain it to you again, but what is the point?  You have no interest in understanding what I am trying to say.

And why am I now asking you about racial inferiority?  Perhaps because that is the entire reason for this discussion, which began with Urkel's assertion that black people are racially incapable of managing their own countries.  You, of course, have no idea what I am talking about.  From your point of view, this entire discussion was about lactose intolerance from the beginning, right?

I PREDICTED that your comment, which started off with a misinterpretation of my comment, would proceed with a continued series of misinterpretations, and sure enough it has.  I know how you operate.  So, what can I do about this?  I can stop talking to you.  Bye bye.

"On an individual level, when black people are compared to white people we find the same range of capabilities, personalities, and accomplishments"

We aren't talking about individual accomplishment, we are talking about group accomplishment. Individual blacks are more sucessful in majority white countries than they are in majority black countries.

"We have not differentiated into separate species.  Biologically, that is demonstrated by the fact that all ethnic groups are inter-fertile"

This is a non-sequitor.

"Ethnicity entails minor differences in appearance, that is the extent of its biological significance."

This is an article of faith. It is not supported by observation or science.

"The end of white supremacist rule in Zimbabwe was not exactly motivated by the belief that there are no differences between blacks and whites, although it was motivated by the belief, which I have reiterated, that the differences between blacks and whites are not very important"

And this belief turned out to be horiffically wrong. White run Rhodesia was an exporter of food. In black run Zimbabwe people are starving.

"in Zimbabwe white supremacists have been replaced by black supremacists"

Why do you imply there is some sort of moral equivalence between the two, even though black rule has been a disasaster?

"The real alternatives in this world are not between white supremacy and black supremacy.  They are between sanity and insanity"

What was sane about what was done to Rhodesia?  

In black run Zimbabwe people are starving.
What was sane about what was done to Rhodesia?

You decry the starving of black people...but lynching is just fine.  I guess it's better to be hung with a full belly.

Or is your concern about starvation focused on the fact that hungry servants don't work as well as the well fed?

It's the end of the world as we know it, and I feel fine

Are you drunk?

No, are you racist?

It's the end of the world as we know it, and I feel fine

Define racist. I don't hate anyone for being a particular race. At the same time I don't think entire countries should be turned into hellholes to live up to abstract, unreal notions of racial equality.

The same sort of arguments were advanced for the natural inferiority of the Irish, back in the 19th century.

Thank you, Jim.  I was hoping someone would bring that up.  Here's a short article that has some interesting stuff to say about the topic.

It's the end of the world as we know it, and I feel fine

You mean a bunch of nonsense about the topic. You realize Marxists are biased on this issue, don't you? It's funny how the "debunkings" always bring up IQ testing in the 1920's (though that article manages to misrepresent even that).

Sigh...if you say so Gord.  Sorry to have brought something up that is at odds with your beliefs.

It's the end of the world as we know it, and I feel fine

Nothing was sane about what was done to Rhodesia.  But who caused the problem?  Had the region (which originally wasn't actually a nation as such) not been subjected to European colonization, it would have functioned perfectly well as it had been doing for tens of thousands (possibly hundreds of thousands) of years.  The current, horribly dysfunctional black-majority government is a consequence of failed colonialism.  In this particular case, everyone is to blame, whether of European or African ethnicity.  There is no reason to interpret the events of Rhodesia/Zimbabwe as proof of the inferiority of Africans.

I offered an observation which supports the conclusion that the differences between white and black races are not important, which is that when we examine individuals of both races we find the full range of human characteristics, both good and bad, in both races.  You call this a non-sequitor, and claim that there is no observation supporting my conclusion.  I am not sure what it would take to get through to you or even if it is worth the effort to do so.  However, I think you will find, if you are willing to look, that there are at least some people of African descent whose accomplishments in life are superior to yours, despite what I presume is your own immaculately white ancestry.  This does not fit with your belief in the superiority of the white race.

If this makes no sense to you, fine, I give up.

"The current, horribly dysfunctional black-majority government is a consequence of failed colonialism. "

The colonialism worked. The failure happened after Western governments forced the handing of Rhodesia over to blacks.

"it would have functioned perfectly well as it had been doing for tens of thousands (possibly hundreds of thousands) of years."

It's amazing how the people in that region were able to maintain backwards tribalism for "possibly hundreds of thousands" of years without white people opressing them into doing it.

"I offered an observation which supports the conclusion that the differences between white and black races are not important"

Africa demonstrates that it is important.

"when we examine individuals of both races we find the full range of human characteristics"

And when we examine group performances we see a certain range of outcomes as well.

I was going to let my previous comment be my last on this topic, but I have changed my mind, giving in to my typically unpredictable whim as I so often do.

If colonialism in Rhodesia had actually worked, as you assert, then Rhodesia would still be ruled by its white colonial minority.  I will grant that it worked for a certain period of time.  Then it failed.  The failure was NOT merely that the country is no longer under colonial management.  The more serious failure lies in the transition of power, leading to the current disastrous government.  Had the country been READY for majority rule, then majority rule would presumably have worked as well there as it does in Britain, the source of the colonialism as well as the model for the new democratic government.  To turn over a country to people who are not ready to run it is much like turning over the operation of a nuclear reactor to people who have not been adequately trained in nuclear reactor technology; a meltdown is coming.

Of course your point of view is that no amount of preparation is adequate for the inferior black race, which is simply not capable of a high level of civilization.  Once again (and forgive me, this discussion does get a bit repetitious) since there are lots of people of African descent who DO participate successfully, and in some cases, extremely successfully, in all aspects of Western civilization, there does not seem to be any reason to believe that they could not manage an entire country.  

Indeed, the United States itself may soon be under the management of an African-American President, if Barack Obama is successful in his bid, which going by present polls, seems likely to happen (that's right, he has pulled ahead of McCain in the polls).  Is open race warfare going to break out, will there be rioting in the streets, mutiny in the armed forces, followed by the final collapse of America?  This hardly seems likely.  Obama, as far as I can tell, appears to be as competent and reliable as any of the other currently leading 3 candidates for President.  And again, while you might be inclined to attribute Obama's good qualities to his 50% white ancestry, this doesn't explain why he isn't just 50% as good as a normal white person.  He is already far more successful than most white people, even those of 100% white ancestry, and may well become the next President, which is generally thought to be the highest accomplishment to which an American can aspire.  And hardly anyone at this point would doubt that Obama would be a better President than the current, white office holder, George W. Bush.  So if a black President can be better than a white President, what then of your theories of white supremacy?  They don't seem to hold up.

I have made the point before, when we started this discussion, that more primitive cultures are not necessarily inferior to more technologically advanced cultures, because although advanced technology is unquestionably fun, and offers many advantages, it is also very dangerous, has constantly been abused, and seems to currently be leading us toward unprecedented environmental disasters.  In other words, modern civilization has been a great ride, but that ride may be ending after a mere few centuries.  Whereas primitive cultures are much more stable and environmentally benign.

Personally, I do prefer technologically advanced civilization and I would greatly hope that we as a species will rise to the  challenges of the 21st century, get our act together, and solve the environmental, political, and economic crises by which we are currently threatened, leading in due course to a peaceful, happy, and sustainable civilization of high technology which would be used wisely and prudently.  That would be ideal.  I really do not aspire to revert to some kind of neolithic primitivism.  But realistically, civilization may fail, whether I like it or not, in spite of whatever beneficial influence I am able to exert (which, in all honesty, does not appear to be much).  And it may be that primitive African culture will have the last laugh.

It is really very unfair, after European empires have worked so diligently and so devastatingly to sabotage and destroy all African cultures, to then conclude that Africans are just not racially capable of managing a civilization.  

You have known (I am certain) both smart white people and stupid white people.  You regard the smart white people as the racial norm, and the stupid white people as the exceptions.  When you also encounter (or at least hear about) both smart and stupid black people, you regard the stupid black people as the racial norm, and the smart ones as the exceptions, possibly resulting from some influence of white blood.  You view everything through the distorting lens of your racial preconceptions.  And this is not worthy of you.  You can do better than that.

" I will grant that it worked for a certain period of time.  Then it failed"
It didn't fail  in Rhodesia.  The racially enlightened countries in the rest of the world colluded to end "colonialism" in Rhodesia, and they succeeded.  
"Had the country been READY for majority rule, then majority rule would presumably have worked as well there as it does in Britain"

Why weren't blacks "READY" for majority rule?

"Of course your point of view is that no amount of preparation is adequate for the inferior black race"

I'm confused by what you are saying here. Are you claiming white people have to properly prepare blacks to be fit to manage their own affairs?  That's a bit paternalistic, don't you think?

"since there are lots of people of African descent who DO participate successfully, and in some cases, extremely successfully, in all aspects of Western civilization, there does not seem to be any reason to believe that they could not manage an entire country."

Every country in Africa is a reason to believe black countries can't be successful.

"Indeed, the United States itself may soon be under the management of an African-American President"

 There are blacks that pilot airplanes, too. But blacks are incapable of inventing airplanes, in the same way they are incapable of building a successful country.

"And again, while you might be inclined to attribute Obama's good qualities to his 50% white ancestry" "then of your theories of white supremacy"

There's no need to invent things and attribute them to me.

"I have made the point before, when we started this discussion, that more primitive cultures are not necessarily inferior"

I find that comical, but if that's the case then why get upset when the "not necessarily inferior" primitive cultures don't do the same things as the not necessarily superior advanced cultures?

"after European empires have worked so diligently and so devastatingly to sabotage and destroy all African cultures"

You mean like how the British sabotaged the African culture of Nigeria when they ended the traditional slave trade there? That's such a dishonest characterization of European influence in many parts of Africa, not only what was done but how much influence there really was, and what African cultures were like before Europeans arrived.  

 "You regard the smart white people as the racial norm, and the stupid white people as the exceptions.  When you also encounter (or at least hear about) both smart and stupid black people, you regard the stupid black people as the racial norm, and the smart ones as the exceptions"

I recognize there is a gap between average white and black intelligence that is the result of evolved differences, and that this gap is wider in Africa as a result of environmental conditions there.

"You view everything through the distorting lens of your racial preconceptions"

It would seem you do, which is why you have to deny the reality of racial differences, the reality of European influence, and the reality of what Africa is like today. Just like the people who killed Rhodesia, you see everything through the lens of black white race relations in Western countries.

But blacks are incapable of inventing airplanes

Well, I give you that since the airplane was invented in 1903...at time when blacks in the US were barely two generations out of slavery.  However, designing airplanes and other cool stuff...yeah, they can do it.

It's the end of the world as we know it, and I feel fine

That's a bit paternalistic, don't you think?

Well, so is slavery.

It's the end of the world as we know it, and I feel fine

This is becoming an interminable and overly complicated discussion.  I am not going to reply to each point that you are making - I don't even have that much time available, at present (which is one reason why I am trying to avoid interminable and overly complicated discussions).

You ask, why do white people have to prepare blacks to manage their own affairs?  As I have pointed out twice already, black people WERE managing their own affairs, before European colonialists took over those affairs by force and imposed a European-style civilization on the previously black-run territory.  (Actually Africa is a bit more complicated than that, having been dominated by Arab cultures in the north, and by European colonialism in sub-Saharan Africa, but the result is similar in either case.)  The fact that the native African population is having trouble adapting to the imposed European culture once it is no longer being run by the Europeans who imposed it, is therefore somewhat understandable.  

You may argue that the reason for the failure of European colonialism in Rhodesia or in South Africa is because of pressure applied by other countries in the world who objected to the racist form of government in use in those countries, but that does not alter the fact that the colonialism did fail.  That is the relevant fact.  Perhaps in a different kind of world, one in which, let us say, the British Empire wound up ruling the entire world (we might imagine, for starters, that the American War of Independence failed - which it came very close to doing) and hence there was no large-scale or governmental opposition to British colonialism anywhere, colonialism in Africa would not have failed and would be a tremendous success to this day.  Even that would not entirely exonerate evils of racism, by which a person of darker skin is automatically judged to be inferior, and to have inferior legal rights to, a person of lighter skin, without any effort even being made to observe the actual quality of the people in question.  A lot of terrible unfairness results from institutionalized racism.  But orderly, functional countries can and have existed which are based upon such systems.

Sometimes we have a choice of evils in this world.  I was delighted by the fall of the Soviet empire in 1990, which had been a truly repressive and corrupt regime and a danger to world peace.  Yet, the defeat of the USSR in Afghanistan was accomplished at the cost of supporting Osama bin Laden and his gang, who then attacked their benefactor, the US, a decade later, leaving me to wonder if perhaps the US had supported the wrong side in Afghanistan - at least the USSR never attacked the US directly (although it fought or contributed support to lots of wars by proxy in other countries).  Similarly, racist apartheit regimes in Africa were immoral and had to go - yet it is still unfortunate that the result has been the rise in Zimbabwe of an even more harmful and corrupt regime, as well as the current relatively chaotic situation in South Africa.  White racists did, at least, establish the virtues of law and order.  However, what we need, somehow, is a society that is not racist yet still maintains a suitable degree of law and order.  This ideal is not easy, but it is not impossible either.  After all, the US (as well as Canada and many others) is a country in which democracy functions, people of all races are granted equal legal rights, and the country does not (so far) collapse into anarchy as a result.

As for the rest of your long, complicated comment, I just don't have time to reply to it at this time.  Maybe later.

"black people WERE managing their own affairs"

And doing the same miserable job then as they are now.

"You may argue that the reason for the failure of European colonialism in Rhodesia or in South Africa is because of pressure applied by other countries in the world"

I'm not arguing that, it's a statement of fact.

Now now, don't quibble.  I didn't say that you were wrong about attributing the fall of white colonial rule in Africa to outside pressure - although there certainly were internal causes as well - I just said that this is what you are arguing.  Which you were.  That, too, is a statement of fact.  

And no, Africa was not in the same mess prior to European colonization that is in today, following the end of white colonial rule.  There is a difference between a primitive but functioning society, and an advanced but non-functional society.  It is primarily the abundance of guns and other modern weaponry, introduced by Europeans, which has created such anarchy in Africa.  Many other elements of modern European civilization are also proving troublesome.  In some areas, the exploitation of mineral resources is devastating the local ecology.  Modern medicine has lead to a population explosion, exceeding the local food supply.  Now, you may ask, do I actually prefer the previous high infant mortality rate?  But that's not the point.  In Europe, as well as in other successful advanced nations blessed with European civilization, we have a low infant mortality rate balanced by a correspondingly low birth rate; family planning is in use.  In Africa, the adaptation has not been as successful.  European civilization has messed things up.  Africans were perfectly happy with the culture that they had prior to European colonization, yet you say they were messed up and needed the guidance of Europeans.  That was not true.  Or at least, the guidance received was not adequate, or Africa would not be in the mess it is in today.  I judge by results.  Europeans meddled on a massive scale, and now Africa is a mess.  You blame the Africans, and to some extent yes, they could have done better, but they are not really the ones who created the problem.  To interpret this situation as evidence of the racial inferiority of Africans is entirely unjustified.  

"There is a difference between a primitive but functioning society, and an advanced but non-functional society.  It is primarily the abundance of guns and other modern weaponry, introduced by Europeans, which has created such anarchy in Africa."

You continue to pretend Africa was idyllic before the evil Europeans arrived.

"Modern medicine has lead to a population explosion, exceeding the local food supply."

So the problem is modern medicine, not the inability of Africans to grow food? This is getting increasingly absurd. It should be remembered that Rhodesia was a net food exporter, and still would be if it had been left alone.

"Europeans meddled on a massive scale, and now Africa is a mess"

In lots of places they didn't meddle that much at all, and those places are no different than anywhere else in Africa.  

Actually no, I do not pretend that Africa was idyllic before the arrival of Europeans, I merely point out that their own culture did function on its own terms, before being wrecked by European invaders.

As for the idea that even where European invaders did not meddle as much, African countries are still a mess, that could have something to do with the overall condition of the continent.  Neighbors do have an influence on each other.  Populations migrate.  Weapons are traded.  Etc.

Although you now accuse Africans of an inability to grow food, the fact remains that Africans existed in Africa and fed themselves successfully for a very long time prior to European invasion.  The problems of the post-colonial period are unique in the history of Africa.

"The problems of the post-colonial period are unique in the history of Africa."

Except they aren't.  

I'm glad we cleared that up.

Lou already made an excellent reply to your assertion that black people, although capable of piloting an airplane, are not capable of inventing one.  The fact that white people invented airplanes does not in any sense mean that black people are incapable of doing so.  Does the fact that the banjo was invented by black people mean that it would have been beyond the racial capability of white people to invent one?  Of course, banjos are a less radical invention than airplanes, and closely resemble other stringed instruments such as the mandolin, that white people did invent.  But the argument would be equally silly.  I could also, for example, ask you if the fact that Einstein's theory of relativity was invented by a Jew, means that non-Jews could never have invented it, thus proving the racial superiority of Jews (and yes, there are some Jews who would argue exactly that).  Does that make sense to you?  Will you now accept that Jews are the Master Race?

The actual reason why airplanes were invented in America rather than Africa is again largely an accident of history.  Africans simply were not pursuing that particular direction of technological development.  Not because they couldn't, but because they made other choices.  That's how it works.  Had they foreseen that by living in a static (but environmentally benign) culture they would in due course become vulnerable to conquest by Europeans with more advanced technology, they might have made different choices.  But hindsight is notoriously better than foresight.  They did not know what was coming.  And really, none of us do.  I honestly believe that technological civilization, glorious though it is, will fail in this century.  It is already showing serious signs of failure.  The world is in serious trouble, not just Africa.  That, as Al Gore said, is an inconvenient truth.

"if the fact that Einstein's theory of relativity was invented by a Jew, means that non-Jews could never have invented it"

Non-jews have a lengthy track record of scientific contributions. Africans never invent anything. It is true Ashkenazi Jews have made disproportionate contributions to science. This is because of their high average IQ's. There's no need to bring up the Nazi's. There are evolved differences between races.

"The actual reason why airplanes were invented in America rather than Africa is again largely an accident of history."

It's all a giant coincidence, that's been going on for thousands of years.

"Not because they couldn't, but because they made other choices"

That's the funniest thing you've said so far.

Describing the course of African cultural evolution as an accident of history is not exactly the same as calling it a giant coincidence.  And as for the history of Africa being the result of a giant coincidence that has been going on for thousands of years, historical events do not have to go on for thousands of years in order to have consequences that go on for thousands of years.  History has turning points.  A culture moving in a particular direction can continue for a long time before something deflects it.  Cultures, like mass, have inertia.  So does our conversation, apparently.  

Africans never invent anything.

Good god, Gord....I have been wanting to take a break from posting...or at least slow down a little.  Now I feel like the Godfather...just when I think I'm done, they pull me back...

Are you serious...Africans.never.invent.anything?

There are no inventors from or in Africa...like this one?

...or this one?

...hell Gord...they got themselves one of those high falutin' inventor societies.

Although, if I believed in half the racial crap that you do, I can only imagine a typical day at ANPII goes like this...

African Inventor 1 - What do you want to do today?
African Inventor 2 - I would like to invent something!
AI1 - Can't.
AI2 - Why not?
AI1 - We are not smart enough.
AI2 - If only we were smart enough.
AI1 - Or white
AI2 - Same thing.

It's the end of the world as we know it, and I feel fine

From your link:

"The pot-in-pot refrigerator, also known as a Zeer الزير in Arabic, is a refrigeration device which keeps food cool without electricity by using evaporative cooling.

It is constructed by placing a clay pot within a larger clay pot with wet sand in between and a wet cloth on top. As the water evaporates it cools, allowing food stored in the inner pot to be kept fresh for much longer in a hot, dry climate"

Wow. That's truly amazing. Maybe someday Africa will land a clay pot on the moon.

What's going on...weren't there some goal posts here just a minute ago?

It's the end of the world as we know it, and I feel fine

And hardly anyone at this point would doubt that Obama would be a better President than the current, white office holder, George W. Bush.

Stating this before he's even won the Democratic nomination, much less the general election, is kind of cocky, don't you think?

Actually there is a subtle distinction between saying that Obama WILL be a better President, and saying (as I did) that he WOULD be a better President.  I am not predicting that Obama will necessarily become the next President although he has an excellent chance of doing so; what I am saying is that if he does become the next President, he will be a better President than George W. Bush and it is my belief that few people at this point would doubt that Obama has the potential to be a better President than Bush, who has done such a terrible job and who has a correspondingly low approval rating.

What about the Cosby family?

It is easy to buy small plaster models of what you think life is like.

The fact that Africans have developed particular kinds of culture which are not entirely compatible with European culture does not necessarily prove either than African culture is inferior...