If you're going to defend him, do it how Jonathan Catalan did in the comment section, not the way Current did.
There is an inherent ability distribution. It is augmented by the acquisition of human and social capital during a person's life, largely as a function of the wealth of that person's family and society but also as a function of the initial inherent ability distribution.
Together, that creates a skill distribution. And it is a distribution (i.e. - some people have more than others and indeed there get to be some very thin tails for some skills). Granted, there are a variety of skills we can talk about and few people are unusually good at a whole lot of things.
People in the tails of these distributions clearly enrich our lives.
This is all fine.
However, to the extent that I am talented in this sense, if I ever talk about people who are to the left of me on a given skills distribution where I excel (remember, there are many distributions) as "inferior" people, somebody please take me aside, give me a good walloping, and talk some sense into me.
When you go from talking about skills distributions to talking about whole groups of people being "inferior" then something is very, very wrong - at least in my opinion (and I happen to think that opinion is right, otherwise I wouldn't be holding it).
This, of course, doesn't even get into the question of how much value is generated by comparative rather than absolute advantage. A lot of the value we enjoy is generated by people that are rather to the left of the skill distribution relevant to the skills they are applying to production.