500 thousand years ago, we all started pretty much the same. Fast forward to the Colonial Era and the blacks in Africa (as well as the American Indian) were still pretty much in the Stone Age. Today in Africa, whatever modicum of civilized society they have, they owe to the Europeans. The WHEEL for chrissake was unknown in Africa until the 1600s. And no I don't buy they excuse they didn't develop because the fruit on their trees hung lower and the weather was nicer.
The book
Guns, Germs and Steel provides an interesting perspective on why sub-Sahara Africans and indigenous Americans (both South and North) were and are so backward compared to Asia and Europe.
Basically, Europe and Asia had 1) more and better indigenous crops that could be adapted to agriculture, which led to 2) more complex societies with larger urban populations, which led to 3) rapid technological development and 4) more infectious diseases. 3 and 4 led to a strong natural selection process in the European and Asian populations and more dynamic societies in which only the more dynamic individuals could thrive. The process, over a period of anywhere from 10,000 to 50,000 years or more, changed the population and character of Europe and Asia.
Sub-Saharan Africans did not get the benefit of this selective process. A minority (the special 10% as discussed in the OP) are capable of adapting to the more dynamic European or Asian society model, but the majority are not.
That's the argument, anyway. It makes some sense. But it doesn't account for the fact that black Africans were imported into the UK and other parts of Europe as slaves in the same time frame as America's slaves were imported, but they seem to have assimilated there quite well.
And in the end that leaves us with the question of what to do with all these folks who can't/won't fit into the American social model? I have no idea what the solution is.
