>>17967015
>it's based on distance
Depending on where you draw the line in that chart, there are 1, 2, 5 or 42 races. The original chart posted defines 8 races, which is not the traditional schema either.
Explain to me why your distinction of race is more objective than any of the ones in pic related. These all divide categories according to clusters, these all have a history of being accepted at different times, these all look at biological race.
>that doesn't disprove the notion that there is a difference in intellect between these racial clusters
We can't talk about race if we can't accurately define it. There isn't a practical difference in native intellect between races, in that being of a certain ethnic group is not the biological cause of intelligence, and we can demonstrate this through genetics and neurology. But that's not really a history question, the original point was that Europe did not rise to prominence because Europeans are more intelligent.