That’s still an unsupported assumption. Chinese arriving 150 years ago were predominately laborers. Chinese arriving in the last 50 years were more likely to be professionals. They may have arrived with different genetics and different family values. No telling which is responsible for the latter group’s success.
The fact that genocide occurred in many regions of the world is not in question. The claim that a 600 year old genocide is responsible underperformance of an ethnic group because of lingering genetic inferiority is a wild speculative leap absolutely unsupported by evidence.
"Lingering genetic inferiority"?!! What are you writing about? There is no lingering anything. The leadership lines of descent were wiped out! Your implication--i.e. that eliminated genes can somehow be replaced over time--is what is speculative. Beyond speculative, mere fantasy.
This does not mean that other people of the region, by practicing selective mating for intelligence (i.e., following eugenic principles) will not develop a new class of leaders. But the dead are not going to be replaced. Nor, friend, do you develop tailess mice by cutting off the tails of several generations of mice. You have bought a Lamarckian pig in a poke, if there ever was one.
As for the Chinese. Of course the more recent arrivals have come from a higher class than the mid 19th Century rail workers. That is the whole point. Class differences do not usually arise from exploitation--as the Marxists and other Socialists hypothecate--but through different traits and different levels of ability. What you are buying here, is the underpinning of the far left--an idea that people are interchangeable, if you change their environment. That again is beyond speculative. It is pure fantasy, promoted by those with an axe to grind against the realities of human existence.
William Flax