The United States and Canada rank first and second in the Americas on the Human Development Index, but Barbados and the Bahamas rank third and fourth, above Chile, Argentina, and Uruguay (fifth, sixth, and seventh), countries in which the population is predominantly euro, though admixed.

The ethnic constitution of Barbados is, "black 93%, white 3.2%, mixed 2.6%, East Indian 1%, other 0.2% (2000 census)." The literacy rate is 99.7%. Drinking water and sanitation facility access is 100%.

The ethnic constitution of the Bahamas is, "black 85%, white 12%, Asian and Hispanic 3%.". The literacy rate is 95.6%. Drinking water access is 98%, and sanitation facility access is 100%.

By looking at some old threads on Scumfront, I've anticipated some points that may come up, so I will address them in my post here so that you don't need to trouble yourselves with repeating them.

The initial objection is that these countries are governed by an elite white upper class that skews economic statistics. As a result, I have deliberately excluded GDP, GNP, and average income from consideration, and have only considered HDI and HDI-related statistics, which reflect the well-being of the general population.

The next is that they are reliant on external tourism for sustenance. Though no countries in the world are completely autarkic, these countries do derive the majority of income from tourist services.

However, tourist attractions are not based solely on natural scenery. Also integral is internal national, regional, and local stability sufficient to provide competitive services (i.e. lodging, food, entertainment), to begin with, as well as minimal threats to safety. Puerto Vallarta in Mexico, for example, is renowned for scenic coastal beauty:

Yet narcotics-related violent crime has caused a major cruise line to suspend travel there. Cruise line says no to Puerto Vallarta as port of call: "Princess Cruises has ditched Puerto Vallarta as a port of call, at least until the end of the year. It's all because of safety concerns for passengers."

Haiti is located on a tropical island with scenic coastal beauty:

The country lacks the internal stability to be promoted as a viable tourist destination.

Jamaica occupies a somewhat intermediate position between Haiti (frequently mentioned by white supremacists), and these successful black Caribbean Islands, but of interest is the fact that there is a lower average of African admixture and higher average of euro admixture in Jamaica than there is in Barbados, as evidenced in Admixture and Population Stratification in African Caribbean Populations: "Here we used a panel of 28 AIMs to examine the genetic ancestry of 298 individuals of African descent from the Caribbean islands of Jamaica, St. Thomas and Barbados. Differences in global admixture were observed, with Barbados having the highest level of West African ancestry (89.6% ± 2.0) and the lowest levels of European (10.2% ± 2.2) and Native American ancestry (0.2% ± 2.0), while Jamaica possessed the highest levels of European (12.4% ± 3.5) and Native American ancestry (3.2% ± 3.1)."

Another possible objection is that small islands with populations numbering in the hundreds of thousands do not have sufficient "sample sizes" to serve as empirically meaningful test cases. Yet cities (and even smaller communities such as neighborhoods), with similar populations that are dominated by African-Americans, such as Detroit, are frequently cited by white supremacists as examples of black failure, so consistency demands that sovereign countries with a greater degree of independence governed by people with a higher degree of African admixture also be considered.

Also previously mentioned on Scumfront is the idea that "the exception proves the rule." While this may be a legitimate objection when examples of successful black individuals are cited, since it can be demonstrated that group averages are lower, these national populations themselves constitute a group or aggregate. If your genetic determinist beliefs regarding sub-Saharan Africans are correct, there is no reason that countries populated by blacks (with higher proportions of African admixture than African-Americans), should be successful, and every reason that they should not be.

Yet the facts speak for themselves.