Can Europe learn from Ghana? Buried on Wikipedia is a 3 sentence part about how Ghana deported 20% of the population -- 3 million people -- all the non-Ghanans. And it only took 3 months. The "Ghana Aliens Compliance Order" (GACO)
This website provides the history. It begins, of course, with economic migration since Ghana was the gold coast. In fact, these migrants were going into a British colony, probably for the usual reasons of wanting to live under European domain: rule of lawand prosperity.
European rule eventually declined, and just after they left (1957), the economy goes bad. At least, so they say, but it doesn't look that way until 1970s by GDP stats.
So the government decides to expel the foreigners, and it works out in 3 months despite being a staggering number of people. It the economy keeps failing for another 15 years, but then recovers and growth looks good since 1983.
Wikipedia seems to be wrong about the number. It's not 3 million people out of Ghana. It was some hundreds of thousands. Sources don't really know. But Ghana had 12% foreign born in 1960, similar to a typical western country.
Happy to release our newest and largest admixture project. 🧵 Thread with the main findings.
First, we compiled data from 100s of sources to estimate genetic ancestry for over 400 units in the Americas. These are countries and subnational divisions of the larger countries, such as US states, Canadian provinces, various Caribbean islands. Results can be seen in these 4 maps.
It was a real pain in the ass to merge the spatial data to produce the maps!
Next up, we gathered cognitive ability data from international datasets, and various regional and subnational scholastic tests, and any other source of standardized testing we could find. These were then converted to British international norms (Greenwich mean IQ) as best we could. It gives this map.
Using data from across the world, we estimated the speed of selection against intelligence across countries.
There is a certain regionality to the data
Relatively atheistic north Europeans have apparently quite weak selection, while more religious areas have stronger negative selection. This is the opposite of what American data suggested when studying individuals.
Some big accounts as asking why so many MAGA types are suddenly so very anti-Indian, considering that Indians in the US and to some degree in the rest of the West, are model immigrants (high performance, low crime). The main answer is not difficult to understand.
This answer is based on the typical finding of sociology. In terms of partisanship, whichever groups in society you dislike is just the ones you perceive to be most different from you politically. Brandt and colleagues worked this out in 2014.
On top of this general pattern, there's the fact that importing a bunch of foreign workers depress local salaries. That is of course why the companies do this. What's the largest source of such foreigners? India. So capitalists love them (cheaper labor) and workers dislike them (suppress their wages).
Maybe you've seen a map like this one. It gives one the impression that Europeans were uniquely or particularly evil regarding slavery, in this case of Africans.
However, slavery was more or less a human universal. Pre-Columbian Americas, ancient China, or the Islamic world.
Europeans, rather than being the master enslavers (which they were also for a time), were rather the liberators. The only group of people who decided to take matters into their hands to free the slaves of the world.