Drlee wrote:This thread is disturbing.
There is no race so there is no winner. Who cares if they "gain first world status". First world refers to highly capitalist, industrialized countries.
Portugal and Spain are not first world countries. They will never reach the GDP of the US. I would be more than happy living in either of them though I live in THE first world country.
So that is the deal. It "winning" setting Africa on a course to compete with the US and China? At the expense of their wonderful and rich history. At the expense of the various peoples living less than modern lives? Or is winning, allowing people to be happier, safer and healthier? Would a Dogun tribesman be happier with a Cadillac and a Mortgage?
The talk of IQ is also disturbing. Consider.
If the average IQ in Africa is 70 then the difference between the average American is less than the average American and any member of Mensa. Much less. A Mensa member is "smarter" than 98% of the people he/she meets. What does that even mean as a practical matter?
A country requires and benefits from really smart people. The percentage of "smart" people required to perform at their potential is minuscule. An average American with an IQ of 98 and working in a grocery store or as a business manager may well be excellent at his/her job while performing well below the potential indicated by their IQ.
"A country requires and benefits from really smart people."
So, if we apply that 'logic' to migration, say, into the U.K, that would be good politics would it, considering our experience of 'Third Country' migration to the E.U countries & the U.K decision to leave?
Conversely, if we deported, or allowed the economic migrants to return home, the 'home' countries of the migrants would see it as a positive for them?
Which raises a question, if the latter is true, why did they come here in the first place & why did we allow them to stay here as long as they have?
In reality, post WW2, Africa has been the main beneficiary of global 'charity', yet, the place is still awash in 'poverty', a result of, I suspect, much of that 'charity' being siphoned off into the pockets of the corrupt class of people in Africa who are not impoverished.
With charities like OXFAM, being the recipients, as well as agents of distribution from westerners charity, along with our government's giving 'foreign aid' for decades, the question ought to be asked as to why there is still any 'poverty' around in that place nowadays when in the U.K we have so-called food banks?