For the life of me, I'll never understand how it can be said that whites are less violent, given the history of the years 1914 - 1945. Or what the Spanish did to the Indians they encountered in the New World. See Las Casas, who wrote it down in excruciating detail. Not saying Indians, or blacks, or Asians are less violent. Just that whites are just as violent. The worst urban riot in the history of the country was the Irish draft riot in NYC during the Civil War. Paul Johnson, a conservative historian, let it be noted, wrote in his "History of the American People", after citing numbers of race riots between whites and blacks over territory when blacks migrated to the cities in large numbers at the start of the twentieth century, "The urban whites had taught blacks how to riot, and the blacks learned the lesson with a vengeance." But with all due respect to Mr. Johnson, that "with a vengeance" clause is perhaps unjustified. Some interesting facts about the Irish draft riot from Low Life, by Luc Sante: But Mr. Johnson, and the rest of us, can be forgiven some ignorance of the riots and of their scale: Watts, Newark, and LA had nothing on the Irish in NYC. Blacks may have learned rioting from them and others, but they never managed anything quite so, um, grand. Ricter is correct though: Irish and black alike were all pigmented folks. No albinos among them.
Ahh, ok. You're saying that "blacks" never do warfare, they only do "recreational slaughter" (can't be called slaughter, can it?), and that "whites" never do recreational slaughter, they only do warfare. Therefore, since recreational slaughter is irrational and warfare is rational, then "blacks" are bad and "whites" are good! I'm a bit troubled by the case of albinos, though. If they are truly unpigmented, then they are actually white. What does that make "whites"... "tans"?
This is how I see it relate to today. Most people learn from the parents. If you born to wealth, you learn how to have wealth. If you are born to poverty, you can be better, but likely to stay in that poverty. Just like your example of people from Africa not have to learn planning, they can not show example to their children. Just like people who have wealth, they show their children how to have wealth. Some can go away from the poverty and learn, but most only go with what they (see) from the environment. So the wealthy family will give knowlege and money to their child. The poor family can not. That pass from generation, to generation, to generation. Then one of those children of uneducated and poverty will break that pattern. Most will not. But the one who break that pattern will have children more likely to follow them. And their children most likely follow that pattern. But it is a long time to make that change. Why most all presidents, successful people have children who do the same and have success?, and most poverty people have children who stay in poverty? Not genes, but environment most times. Like the ghetto of Camden, Chicago, Detroit...it passes on and on. Just like a presidents children who is successful, it pass on and on.
Darn, this is beginning to undermine rubberbird's emphasis on skin color and the possibility of a simple explanation for violence through history. Accepting what you said above, it's possibly true that "whites" also sometimes do "recreational slaughter". So if skin color is not the only causative factor, that opens the door to other possible factors. Now we're beginning to drift into some damned, wishy washy egghead bullcrap spouted by the liberals.