A serious question - are black people inferior to whites?

Question

I ask this question based on the following:

South Africa is the richest country in the African continent and for many years was under white rule. Is this coincidence? Why are many of the countries that are under Black rule in Africa plagued by civil war and poverty? If the whites can turn South Africa into a prosperous nation why can the blacks not do it. Angola is potentially one of the richest countries in the world due to huge natural resources but do the blacks take advantage of this? No, too busy fighting each other. Zimbabwe is another country that has descended into chaos since the blacks have got back in power.

Please, answer my questions.....don't be PC and start shouting racist. This is a serious question about an actual reality.

Answer 1

O.K. good thing you clarified that! So, taking in consideration your basis for the question, and although I have never been there, from what I have heard and read, you are probably right - at least about the fact that the parts of Africa under 'white rule' do seem to be quite a bit more progressive than those we see under 'black rule'.

I do not believe, however, that this has anything to do with intellect. I'm quite sure that it has much more to do with the wealth, which almost always accompanies power and control that surely came into Africa with the white people who now inhabit parts of the region.

And, I barely understand the politics of this country, much less know anything about what REALLY goes on in and around the Whitehouse, that is not told to us by the media. However, I have a hunch that pretty much everything that happens is a result of bribery, blackmail, extortion, propaganda, and at the bottom of it all, who has the most money/power. All around the world, the rich and powerful tend to get what they want, and anything that may or may not be left over goes to the rest of us common people - of any color in any land.

As I say, I don't know this for sure or anything, but are you so sure that Angola and Zimbabwe are really completely run by their own people? Or maybe it just is made to appear that way. I'm fairly sure that if there are resources there, and if the leaders of those countries are the true leaders (not "puppets", put in place by wealthy and powerful while people), then they would surely have taken advantage of them. Unless, they are being prevented from doing so by circumstances beyond their control.

And just FYI, I'm not trying to stick up for or stand against any particular race. I'm white, born in America - for better or worse. I'm just writing from the perspective with which I see things.

I dont' think that the present Iraqi "government" is really in control of Iraq. I don't mean that they are having trouble with the civil war there that was not there before the US invasion, but that even if there weren't a civil war, that government is just an extention of George Bush, Rumsfeld, et al. I only brought up Iraq to try to illustrate a concept that things aren't always the way they appear. And just because it appears that certain African countries are under 'black rule', that in reality, they probably aren't. They probably answer to outsiders, and probably not by choice either. Just like the Iraqi's.

Just what I suspect, no proof....just my 2 cents. Hope it helps?

Answer 2

No. Black people are not inferior to whites. That notion is a throwback to the days of raw imperialism. As for South Africa, surely the struggle against Apartheid must count as one of the longest civil wars in history - from Gandhi to Mandela.

As for Angola and Zimbabwe, again it can be argued that imperialism's need for cheap resources has lead to machinations that undermine African countries development. However, Zimbabwe under Mugabe is a special case as he seems to have lost the plot when his first wife died.

Angola, Zaire and other countries do have the potential to be among the richest nations on the planet. But, when even chancers like Mark Thatcher feel they can intervene in Africa for their own personal gain, is it any wonder that the African nations do not seem to be able to counter the more subtle forms of economic imperialism

Answer 3

South Africa was a rich country ecause they used the coloured people as slave labour, making them work extremely long hours for virtually no pay, therefore making a huge profit on all thier products. Now they have to pay a fair days wage for a fair days work, then the amount of money the owners are getting is so much less, and the whole economy feels it. Zimbabwe is a different matter, the leader is acting as a dictator, and taking the land from the people who know how to work and farm it, and giving it to people who have no idea how a farm needs to be run, therefore you just get chaos, crops don't get planted at the right time etc. Many of the people who are running the farms are poorly educated people from the same party as Mugabwe.

Answer 4

Your question is a fair one ,
but the word "inferior" has too wide a meaning
therefore suggesting a "leaning" either way ..
Dont think u meant that ..

Looking at the "picture" of Africa, one could
even say they would be better of, under
Colonial rule.

But that is NOT the case. Development
takes time , and it would appear the WHITE ,
Chinese, Japanese, and Indians have
for SOME REASON , developed FASTER
than others...

Crude , but simple question ; How come
other "colours" DONT MAKE GUNS, PLANES
SUBMARINES ? ..... Colonisation can only
take place if one has SUPERIOR POWER ....

As "humans" , like the Aborigines in Australia
one could argue , THEY are superior
but it is difficult for them to "slot-in" to the
Capitalist/Materialistic way of the "Developped
World" . In the case of the Aboriginals , 200
years ago they lived HAPPILY in the Stone
Age...

I rest my case ....

Answer 5

once you come across out the genuine answer, confirm to proportion it. I even have been questioning the comparable issues for an prolonged time. How we are able to be referred to as crackers, and its no longer racist, how if we had a moist (White leisure television) we would be racist. All that stuff. i'm in no way racist against a definite community, I fantastically plenty dislike rather everyone the two. in basic terms continually questioned why they get maximum of rights now, and nonetheless *****.

Answer 6

Black people are not 'inferior' to White people...Period. You are asking people not to be PC & not to be 'racisit', but you are naturally inviting these comments. I think your question is a 'loaded one' & that perhaps you already believe that Blacks are inferior. I would look forward to that debate elsewhere.
South Africa was led by a white minority Government & during the darkest depths of Apartheid non-whites, specifically Blacks were oppressed, had no democratic rights, very few legal or social rights, were arrested, torturted & inprisioned against world wide condemnation. Is that your perfect society ?

Answer 7

Hello! Someone in my twitter feed shared this question so I came to take a look. I'm definitely enjoying the information. I'm book-marking and will be tweeting this to my followers!

Answer 8

All human beings are so geneticly related that we are essentially from exactly the same source. In other words, our skin colors and other ethnic evolutionary developments are only covers over people who are like siblings. So obviously, no one group is any smarter or more gifted than another. The troubles you describe are the aftermatch of a long oppressive colonial history that makes African nations ideal targets for exploitation and manipulations by evil people.

Answer 9

after being under white rule for so long i think there are now dictators in some african countries who are desperate to better themselves individually before appeasing there fellow countrymen. it's not a skin colour issue but personal greed

Answer 10

black and white people are of the same neither one is inferior to the other,just because some whites thought it right to be stupid and treat blacks that way shows just how mad the system in south africa really was or is!!!!