I suppose such a question could be condemned as racist. That I presume depends on why the issue is being asked and is it meant to be racist?
Let us press on – is there a possible underlying psychological reason for black people in a predominately black country and black society not only to choose a white leader but for some of the electorate to almost worship the ground he walks on?
Is there an innate desire by descendants of black slaves to be owned and to serve white people? Do they feel safer with white masters than black ones? Is it possible some of that desire runs in the genes of many black people born of ex-slave societies?
When you consider that mulattoes, and the paler the better, are more respected by the black people than those who have some African purity, is the gene influence a possibility, more so even a probability?
It’s not just in the Caribbean that you find this anomaly. In India, the railways are almost predominantly run by pale skinned Indians who are proud to be called, proud to be recognised as, ‘Anglo-Indians’.
The Indian Parliament is totally transacted in the English language. Pale skinned Indian women and girls are the preferred marriage partner. Dark skinned girls are rejected by the middle and upper society in India.
What happens if the leader is chosen only because he is white, while in actual life is a narcissist, fornicator, molester, and rapist of black girls? He treats the majority of whom he leads with contempt and as dirty dogs, calling them nasty names, whilst rewarding those that bow down at his feet to scraps from his table.
A man who has shown immense spite to some black people going out of his way to destroy them and their families socially and commercially. If such a man was chosen by black people to lead, would that compound the belief that “it runs in your genes?” Is it really possible?
I think if such a leader behaves so, choosing him does run in the genes, I can see no other explanation for a whole black nation, a nation descended from a slavery ancestry to elect a white man that has the qualities described in the previous paragraph.
Of course there are many lovely white people who adore and love black people. Some marry their chosen black partner. That is surely the way it should be – to be chosen out of love and respect of each other.
There are good and bad in every race of this world, but to choose a known bad person cannot be a free choice of any sane person, it has to be an uncontrollable action, an inbred domination of you by your genes.
Looking at leadership, black or white, a person who is moral is concerned with the principles of right and wrong behaviour and the goodness or badness of human character. In spite of the prevailing moral relativism or pluralism, if everybody always knows, wants, and expects to be treated fairly and seeks after personal justice, then morality is universally established.
So what if the people choose a black leader and that leader turns out worse than the white ‘gene chosen’ one? It may happen, it could happen, but will it happen? We will never know until we try. But in the scheme of things whatever the people do it cannot be worse than being led by such a white man as described herein.
Nathan ‘Jolly’ Green