Human populations adapted to the point where they could thrive in their local environs. Saying one is more evolved than the other is absolutely asinine. Everything on the planet is as evolved as everything else, as they are the most current and therefore most viable form of that organism.
learn2anthropology
Take a gander at how much aid goes to sub-saharan africa and haiti.
So much for that theory
You aren't looking at the whole issue here. This is historical. Most African civilizations were destroyed or massively disrupted by Anglo's for almost 300 hundred years, after which they became colonial protectorates of said European nations, who then raped them of their natural resources, forced Christianity onto mass portions of the populace, and attempted to stamp out indegenous culture wherever possible. On top of bringing in tasty treats like small pox with them wherever they went. After that they had WWII in which we blew up great swathes of North Africa, god knows what else, and then you have even more modern history of Africa which is even more convoluted and I don't know enough about it to speak accurately but let me tell you: It's fuckin' bad. All bad. A lot of implanting of corrupt dictators, hyper-inflation, massive industrial collapse...
Add on top of this the fact that most countries in Africa are run by extremely corrupt governments, which have almost no realistic checks on them except from international watch-dog agencies like the U.N.
IDK man, I'd be pretty hesitant to blame the individual African (which is a huge, HUGE number of people) for the present condition of Africa.
As a little addendum, I'd like to add that many economists are looking to Africa as the next potential boom economy 
As for Haiti...lol...their sister country is one of the most corrupt tax havens for the plutocracy on the planet, and their former leaders were literally stealing the blood of it's population to sell for their own private gain. Not to mention that most of the population of Haiti are former slaves who never had any sort of education of infrastructure or industrialization. They literally had to start from scratch in a hostile foreign land.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jean-Claude_Duvalier
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fran%C3%A7ois_Duvalier
^2 of the worst dictators known to history. And you accuse the people of the country of being a lower order person. Goddamn.
Interesting outtake on the situation. Spoken like someone who reads more than theyve experienced. Not only do I speak about the aggregate situation, I speak about individual niggers and their beliefs, practices, and thought processes. Haitian...nigerian...no matter where theyre from theyre all the same. Even when religion is 'forced' on them they still behave the same way, islam or christianity.
WWII took place virtually completely north of the sahara with little impact in nigger-majority countries
Muslims invaded, enslaved, and plundered more extensively and chronologically earlier, than christianity. Whether or not christians/anglos plundered resources is not the point. Native niggers not only plunder and rape their own environment, literally, in its entirety, they destroy and damage it irreparably.
Do some research on rhodesia and south africa in current times then make a post about what you learned
Haiti is a godforsaken shit hole and I do not exaggerate in the least when I say if the entire population was exterminated it would do the planet a great service. Do some research on how Haiti gained it independence, plus or minus a couple decades, and post back what you learned
Why are you accusing me of reading more than I've experienced (as a means to demean the entire quality and validity of my post) and then demanding I go and read more so that I will agree with the points of history you are bringing up?
What kind of sense does that make? By your own logic, even if I did read those things the sum of that knowledge would still be inferior to something you describe as "real world experience", of which you've provided no qualifications for.
So what's the point in engaging you, I ask.
because my reference material is more extensive than internetz and media. i know what the media/internetz says, and it is virtually identical to your point of view. dont be so paranoid. it wasnt meant to be demeaning...it was meant to clarify your lack of the big picture.
the rhodesia/haiti situations can be internetz/media studied to give you a general idea what im talking about as far as the history of the indigenous niggers and how they treat whites
there is no point.
