First, albeit trivially, Galton is not advocating genocide. He's saying that the Chinese, if transported in large numbers to the Indian Ocean coastline of Africa, would gradually outcompete and outbreed the natives there.
Second, and more importantly, Bryan Caplan is a professor at an American university. He is accordingly the beneficiary of an extremely thorough genocide by which the native population of the North American continent was almost completely replaced by Europeans and their descendants, one of whom is Bryan Caplan. Nothing that Galton advocates in "Africa for the Chinese" approaches in brutality or sweeping effect what actually happened in the territory of what is now the United States between 1600 and 1900. Caplan's argument is that "specialization and trade -- not killing people and looting their stuff -- are the material and moral foundations of civilization." But he never considers the relevance of his own country's history to that subject.
"The good news is that, 140 years after Galton wrote “Africa for the Chinese,” the forces he ignored are well at work. China will soon be Africa’s largest trading partner. Chinese businesses are investing heavily in Africa. 21st-century capitalism is building the better Africa that 19th-century eugenics tried and failed to kill in the womb."
Putting aside the hysterical mischaracterization of what Galton wrote -- which is more developed? Africa or the United States?
Galton should have realised that his premise was off based on historic trends. The civilised, ingenious Greeks (themselves previously invaders of Hella) were conquered and absorbed by the rough, martial Romans. The now effete Romans in their turn were overrun by dirty Germans in animal hides. The Germans never really developed much of a civilisation but what they did establish is now being overrun by half a hundred ethnic groups, their old enemies the Turks chief among them. Galton’s Chinese settlers would have found themselves Africanised rather than the Africans Sinecised.
What, precisely, would Africans bring to the table for mutually beneficial trade with the Chinese? Seems like Galton was only wrong about the timing of the takeover of African economic development by Chinese. You do realize, of course, that Chinese IQ averages around 103 while African IQ does well indeed to reach a mean of 75. Where's Ricardo when you REALLY need him...?
If Galton’s idea did not involve genocide but simply involved Chinese outbreeding Africans, then it might have been a tad more feasible. Probably not fully feasible, because of the eventual African population explosion, but enough for Africa to have a sizable Chinese smart fraction, just like some African countries have with whites and/or Indians right now. Surely Africans would have benefitted from that, no? At least if the Chinese did not try oppressing them and whatnot.
Africa could have looked more like Malaysia in this scenario, with a dull black majority, but also a huge Chinese minority that would have been moderately discriminated against but also helped push and uplift Africa upwards. What’s not to like about that, other than the anti-Chinese pro-black affirmative action discrimination?
A greater Chinese percentage would have produced greater prosperity for Africa assuming no genocide or ethnic cleansing since it would have very likely meant a smarter Africa. Of course, we could do voluntary eugenics on a huge scale and reach Wakanda that way, but this possibility was not available to 19th century European thinkers.
This is an extraordinarily unthinking post.
First, albeit trivially, Galton is not advocating genocide. He's saying that the Chinese, if transported in large numbers to the Indian Ocean coastline of Africa, would gradually outcompete and outbreed the natives there.
Second, and more importantly, Bryan Caplan is a professor at an American university. He is accordingly the beneficiary of an extremely thorough genocide by which the native population of the North American continent was almost completely replaced by Europeans and their descendants, one of whom is Bryan Caplan. Nothing that Galton advocates in "Africa for the Chinese" approaches in brutality or sweeping effect what actually happened in the territory of what is now the United States between 1600 and 1900. Caplan's argument is that "specialization and trade -- not killing people and looting their stuff -- are the material and moral foundations of civilization." But he never considers the relevance of his own country's history to that subject.
"The good news is that, 140 years after Galton wrote “Africa for the Chinese,” the forces he ignored are well at work. China will soon be Africa’s largest trading partner. Chinese businesses are investing heavily in Africa. 21st-century capitalism is building the better Africa that 19th-century eugenics tried and failed to kill in the womb."
Putting aside the hysterical mischaracterization of what Galton wrote -- which is more developed? Africa or the United States?
Galton should have realised that his premise was off based on historic trends. The civilised, ingenious Greeks (themselves previously invaders of Hella) were conquered and absorbed by the rough, martial Romans. The now effete Romans in their turn were overrun by dirty Germans in animal hides. The Germans never really developed much of a civilisation but what they did establish is now being overrun by half a hundred ethnic groups, their old enemies the Turks chief among them. Galton’s Chinese settlers would have found themselves Africanised rather than the Africans Sinecised.
Thank you. I have added your article to my eugenics graph:
https://embed.kumu.io/8ef99af0bd6e6efa398aef8698828a5a
What, precisely, would Africans bring to the table for mutually beneficial trade with the Chinese? Seems like Galton was only wrong about the timing of the takeover of African economic development by Chinese. You do realize, of course, that Chinese IQ averages around 103 while African IQ does well indeed to reach a mean of 75. Where's Ricardo when you REALLY need him...?
Intellectual history!
If Galton’s idea did not involve genocide but simply involved Chinese outbreeding Africans, then it might have been a tad more feasible. Probably not fully feasible, because of the eventual African population explosion, but enough for Africa to have a sizable Chinese smart fraction, just like some African countries have with whites and/or Indians right now. Surely Africans would have benefitted from that, no? At least if the Chinese did not try oppressing them and whatnot.
Africa could have looked more like Malaysia in this scenario, with a dull black majority, but also a huge Chinese minority that would have been moderately discriminated against but also helped push and uplift Africa upwards. What’s not to like about that, other than the anti-Chinese pro-black affirmative action discrimination?
A greater Chinese percentage would have produced greater prosperity for Africa assuming no genocide or ethnic cleansing since it would have very likely meant a smarter Africa. Of course, we could do voluntary eugenics on a huge scale and reach Wakanda that way, but this possibility was not available to 19th century European thinkers.