Have u ever noticed this interesting trend about humans' skin color and their level of prosperity ?

wealth is transient. back in the day, india was considered a really prosperous country which is why there was such a craze to colonize it and steal all of its treasures. these days a lot of wealth is flowing to the middle east and china owns most of the us national debt. it's just that back in the day, the industrial revolution started in predominantly white europe and spread successfully to australia and north america whereas other countries remained mostly agricultural. after india's economy opened up in 1991(?) it has seen it's cumulative wealth go up, but a lot of ppl there still live in povery without any basic human facilities. since china adopted free market policies, its cumulative wealth has also gone up, but once again a lot of ppl there are very poor. a recent survey in fact showed that most of china's wealthy people want to emigrate. africa does seem to have a low gdp. a lot of it might have to do with colonial oppression, but i am not really an expert on africa. i like your question. i think questions like these encourage free discussion about race which a lot of ppl are hesitant to do thanks to political correctness taking over. no one can say anything about anyone of another race. everyone is going around walking on eggshells.

No, I think you'll find that the developed nations you listed are taking what little resources that the poor people from the low prosperity countries without their consent or by offering them crumbs! Those "prosperous" countries outsource to poorer ones giving them sometimes as little as 5c an hour then marking the price up in their own Country by sometimes 1000%. Stealing oil, diamonds, uranium you name it they will steal it. And because the poorer Countries have no resources left of their own they have no chance to find back. It's ******* disgusting. This is why I wont buy ANYTHING with a brand name or anything I haven't researched.

Well many European countries were advanced in killing and this video shows why... http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1hsDn2kNriI They perfected the act of killing and perfected the act of intimidation of other countries... They used this technology to conquer the Native inhabitants of Canada, North America, central and South America, New Zeland, Australia and some more, they take over their natural resources and it becomes theirs...being of the same origin they are likely to trade with each other and help each other to develop a functioning nation. With advanced weaponry came technological advances ....... Ghandi knew about this...which is whyhe did what he did...in India..prevented British colonization The Africans in South Africa had enough...threw them out... Europeans had to give up Hong Kong the Chinese were becoming powerful all thier own. LOOK AT THE UNITED STATES - MIDDLE EASTERN CONFLICT..NOTICE HOW THE "WESTERN COUNTRIES ARE ASSISTING (wink wink) and if you are in power, you must play the part...and look perfect doing so.....We are all humans...we all know we are not all perfect.

No, it has nothing to do with their skin colour. It would be like if you thought that a certain colour influences brain capacity or something. No. It has to do with their economy. By "luck", the European countries has had a winning history : the European countries had a powerful army and governing system that allowed them to take control and colonize many countries like the American and African countries. They used the richness found in these countries to make themselves richer. And the society is such that the more money you have, the more powerful you are. Some colonized countries found their independence, like the USA. Due to the common idea of the people to separate themselves from England (one of the top 'coloniser"country), they wanted to keep the richness among themselves instead of sharing it with England among other things. They succeeded. The climate, fauna, and natural products of the USA enabled them to develop a strong economy and later concentrate on buying and creating other businesses, and playing a role similar to the one England was playing before, a role of a "coloniser". Again proving its power. All this by some sort of luck...not because of their skin colour. The African countries, on the other hand, were less lucky. They had a harder time to become independent of the European countries. They also have a less fruitful soil, and less natural resources. I guess most natural resources companies there are american or european owned. They use the help of the International Monetary Fund (IMF) which gives them loans, with a high interest rate, and asking them to repay them. The countries debts keeps increasing because their companies are not producing enough to pay back, so they just keep getting more and more in debt, which makes it even harder for them to eventually see the end of their poverty. I would like to cite an interesting fact about Ethiopia. They had a airplane company, that belonged to them. It was not an american or american company. Ethiopia sold the company and offered the IMF the money they had received for the sell. IMF refused the money stating that they should have consulted them first before selling the company. Some claim there is some sort of conspiracy on the part of the rich countries : they would not want the poors to get richer. As for Brazil, or other third world countries...the idea you have of Brazil is false. I live in Brazil and I would say a big part of the population is of italian or german descent. There are a lot of whites, blacks, Japaneses or mixed races. So because we are mixed, we would have an average economy? Nah... Also, think of the Eastern European countries, the ones that did not colonize anyone, because they did not have this power. Romania, Bulgaria, Macedonia...they are white and sorta poor. So again, I think some "white" countries are richer, not because they are white, but because they had had a long history of governing and economical power.

It's not a "trend", it's due to a range of lucky geographical and ecological breaks that northern Europeans benefited from. Got nothing to do with "race" or skin color. I agree with the suggestion that you read "Guns, Germs and Steel." You will gain a much better understanding of the world and the vagaries of history. That understanding will keep you from making foolish statements like this in the future.

You deserve a salute for your great finding my super intelligent friend.

It's easy to take one aspect and claim it's an explanation for everything else. However, then there's the "Six blind men and the elephant." where each takes one aspect and thinks it's the whole. What about the colonization and exploitation of Africa? Did the supposedly so advanced developed nations contribute to uplifting and developing their colonies or just exploited them? Where 'development" occurred wasn't it to the colonial nations culture and standards? Finally, didn't most colonial nations pretty much walkout when their rule ended?

No... you know why? Because Russia, Romania, Ukraine are not that prosperous, You know why? Because they had no colonies. And there are very high developed and prosperous dark countries: BArbados, the Bahamas, Costa Rica, Uruguay, Argentina, Chile... look they HDI...

A nice healthy tan helps with prosperity. People favour you more.