The Bantu, all 600 some odd groupings expanded throughout Central and Southern Africa during the last 5,000 years because they were very good farmers. Colonists need workers for their farms or mines and the Bantu filled the bill. That has been in the last few hundred years and disrupted the culture of eons. Even before that, they were in some cases the slaves, in other the suppliers of slaves to primarily the Arabs / Muslims. So you have a bit of disruption of cultures there. In general, the British were less disruptive of the Africans’ society and were willing to educate and train Africans. With the notable and large exception of Zimbabwe (Rodesia) British colonies worldwide have fared better than others.
The point being, I’ve been reading Wade and tend to agree with some of the hypothesis he presents but I think the divisions and differences he proposes are based on groups segregated from others by geography and segregation (the Jews and Roma). Race seems too large an aggregation to be meaningfuly delt with. History throws so many variables in the what may be good for survival today might doom you tommarrow.
One other thing I forgot, Wade treats evolutionary change in the individual as causing or adapting to cultural necessities. That is if you live in an area where interpersonal cooperation is beneficial to survival, your culture will value group cooperation. Which came first the genetic change or the cultural adaptation? Has science isolated any thing in the DNA which might account for more cooperation in one group than another?