Even the author you quoted to support your point claimed its due to their low income envoroment and not racial make up.

I'm just quoting him for the empirics.

Ghana also has one of the highest gdps in africa. See the difference between infrastructure investment and resource extraction type colonies like the congo.

Negligible difference.

The japanese definitely did not treat the koreans like africans.

I just linked paragraphs that said they did.

But even if they did south korea was artificially bolstered by the USA in the korean war.

The country got devastated by war, of course it needed some help. Africa got lots of artificial bolstering too, hundreds of billions in aid.

Nothing that you posted supports any claim that skin color is anything but correlated with economic or intellectual achievement. In fact most of the things you posted coincide with different environments acting racially similar people to produce different results.

Environment is partially a product of genetics. Peoples with good genetics create good institutions.

Japan and Korea = same race = 2 cultures = 2 different outcomes

Not really, they're both successful industrialized first world countries.

Ghana and congo = same race = 2 different treatments = 2 different outcomes

Not really, they're both shitholes.

German immigrants and Italian immigrants = same race = 2 different cultures= 2 different outcomes

How are the outcomes different?

Your biggest problem is that correlation doesnt mean causation. Especially the more complex a trait is. Until I see a mechanism proposed that shows how different melanin levels act on brain to make people dumber or smarter ill keep thinking the difference are cultural and historical and not racial.

Right, but often correlation is causation.