Well, since I'm German, let's take the eurocentric approach. When we were walking around in furs scalping Romans, Africa was going pretty strong, wasn't it. China was going strong. The middle east was a major power. At that point, you could feasibly say that the Germanic savages were unanimously across the world, across all human time (eg. the last 200 years), doing worse than other groups of people. We just did kinda well, hit or miss, over the last 1000 years, which across the timescales humanity has been existing, isn't that much.
Other areas haven't been as lucky. Native Americans (last 200 years), Africa (last 300 years), China (last 200 years), the Ottoman empire (last 100 years), Russia (last 100 years) but hell, Austria isn't as hot as it was 100 years ago. But China is bouncing back, Africa is bouncing back, India is bouncing back.
Here's a precis:
In the area of the Tigris and Euphrates rivers (Iraq/Syria today), several species of grains grow natively - oats, barley, rye, etc. And several species of domesticatable large animals - sheep, horses, cattle - are also native. Very few animals can actually be domesticated.
Grains can be stored for a long time (years), but are hard to digest for humans. The accidental discovery of fermentation led to bread and beer. This gave the people living there a much more stable and high-quality food source than hunter-gathers. Improving the storage led to ceramics. Ceramics led to firing. Firing led to plaster, so they could also build much more durable structures. Experience with high heat fires led to smelting, alloying, and forging metal. The wealth these practices produced led to towns and then cities, and economic specialization - especially trained and well-equipped soldiers. Specialization led to writing, which created more wealth. Herding sheep and cattle, and riding horses, became practical and effective. The wealthy early kingdoms of the Middle East started conquering their neighbors and spreading their technologies.
Fast forward to the example of the Spanish conquistador Francisco Pizarro and the Incas. Pizarro had 160 or so men, with horses, swords, and guns. He completely destroyed a 5000 man Inca army. How? Technology. The Incas weren't stupid or weak, as you're suggesting. They were unprepared. The Incas didn't have horses or sophisticated metalworking - their environment didn't lead to those discoveries. The Spanish sword was the deadliest weapon in the world, the product of a couple thousand years of refinement. Their horses and mounted warfare techniques were the product of thousands of additional years of refinement. Europeans, of course, knew how to fight men on horseback. You build long spears and polearms, and train soldiers to stand their ground against the terrifying charge. The Incas didn't know that. They panicked, scattered, and were easily slaughtered.
They weren't stupid. They weren't weak. They were outgunned.
The Spaniards, of course, were smart as we are, by your concepts. Imagine what would happen if 160 fully armed armed modern soldiers, with the latest weapons, traveling in modern armored vehicles, encountered a 5000 man army of Spaniards with horses and swords?
It's all luck. It's all an accident of history. You're not either intellectually or morally superior to any other race.