I don't have all day for such research, so in your opinion should I focus on the precise level of melanin in their skin, or on social, demographic, and historical factors?
i was talking about south africa in the past and where its heading, i dont know what you are talking about. i was replying to some black rascist comment.. south africa is the perfect example of how 'whiteys' were helding down 'negroes' and what happens when 'negroes' come to govern for themselves.
Right. So whether you view SA's current and future conditions as good or bad, what do you believe is the more explanatory causative factor for that assessment, leadership's melanin content, or those other factors I mentioned?
whats to believe, facts are facts. 60 yrs ago Korea, Taiwan, and Singapore were dirt poor Vietnam and Cambodia are well on their way to prosperity. 20 yrs ago Eastern Europe was dirt poor not one country in africa has made any progress and thats despite abundance of natural resources. the only country in Africa which made some headway was South Africa, its not anymore ... does the change in leadership and their melanin content have anything to do with it... i guess its up to your personal interpretation...
Easy to think it is so simple that skin color is why. Much more complicated. http://www.hoover.org/publications/digest/3050836.html http://www.globalissues.org/issue/2/causes-of-poverty
im not saying that its simple... but if a black racist is going to call me a whitey and tell me that whiteys are holding blacks down, despite all the efforts and subsidies going around, then i will certainly take an issue with that and point my finger the other way.
so in other words you thought you recognized a distinction... but since you are incapable of explaining why that distinction supported your argument you opted for personal attack.