Multiculturalism is Nonsense

I suggest you (Fraggle Rocker) post your response regarding the FACTUAL links here in your particular thread:

http://www.sciforums.com/showthread.php?t=97666

Edit: Fraggle Rocker, I am sorry for being very rude in this thread. I have deleted my post which was rude, and edited this particular one as well.
 
Last edited:
As far as I've been able to figure out, Genghis Khan was the high water mark in war. The Mongols killed ten percent of the population of the region they could effectively reach with the transportation and other technologies of the era. In WWII the entire planet was reachable, and we only killed three percent of the earth's population.
Many people and things have caused many deaths, yes.

Perhaps, but the whole point of civilization is for us to operate as a species-wide community, not as individual tribes.
That is your own superstition, and nothing to do with the history of civilisation. Are you telling me the point of the Spartan civilisation was species-wide cooperation?

We've already tried it the other way. The armies of Mohammed obliterated Egyptian civilization, and the world is hardly better off for it. The armies of Jesus obliterated both the Inca and Olmec/Maya/Aztec civilizations--and did a more thorough job of it, burning the Aztec libraries and melting down the Inca art objects. Three of the world's six precious independently-created civilizations were destroyed in paroxysms of tribal jealousy, inspired by fucking monotheistic religion. All those different ways of solving problems and moving forward--gone forever, for the sake of two fairy tales. How was this a "victory" for anyone? Perhaps their fairy tales will survive for a couple of millennia longer than they otherwise might have, but they're just waiting for some crisis to come along that the resulting narrower way of thinking can't cope with.
You make some huge and wrong assumptions about those glorious lost civilisations. They were not peaceful and noble awesome dudes who were all about progress and weaving rainbows. They conducted wars, rapes, human sacrifices, and every other sort of nasty activity. All of them did. Any of them was as corrupt as our civilisation today. They were just less successful.

Look at how the United States is flushing itself down the toilet due, in large part, to the victory of Christianity.
Bullshit. It's the triumph of greed, lust, and all those other things we call sins, which as I recall Christianity says are bad things. It's people, doing things people do, that have caused the problems. They were doing it before Christianity showed up. They'll be doing it long after Christianity is forgotten.

Despite our admirable efforts to become multicultural,
Why is it admirable?

this country still runs on a fundamentally Christian philosophy.
The USA and other Western nations are more multicultural than most other countries on this planet. Whether good or bad, the drive toward mixing in all sorts of different people has been quite successful.

That includes the faith-based principle, expressed in the Book of Acts and elsewhere, that what a man takes from civilization need not correlate with what he gives back. This is the basis of the steadily advancing welfare state, as well as the greed of today's corporate leaders who extract eight-figure salaries from failing enterprises.
Pretty sure you'll find such greed in Rome prior to the spread of Christianity. Along with welfare and other problems.

It was also the basis of communism, which has already imploded.
The USSR was not communist. That was merely the slogan that was slapped on it for PR purposes.

Sure, we have the Hindu and Confucian cultures competing with us, all of which believe that a man must contribute as much as he takes back,
They're as corrupt as anyone else.

but the world might be a better place if we also had 21st-century evolutions of the Egyptian, Aztec and Inca philosophies as counterpoint.
Yep. Love that human sacrifice. It'd be awesome to see an updated version of that.

As I noted earlier, the definition of "tribe" has changed.
No it hasn't. Except in that we now have dictionaries for people to write definitions in.

It doesn't literally mean complete homogenization of the gene pool or the culture. It's a sense that we're all pack-mates who trust and care for each other in the bare minimum way necessary to maintain harmony and cooperation.That's because you can't drag a Mesolithic or Neolithic culture, kicking and screaming, across the
There's no need to drag anything from the past that has always been with us, in all our actions and thoughts, every day of our evolution.

Paradigm Shift
You type that in capitals like it means anything. All it means is an arbitrary point you would invent and use to make your own arguments. There is no such well known point in history called the Paradigm Shift.

The primitive culture has to be the superstratum and the civilized culture the substratum, not vice versa.
I disagree. The successful culture is the only stratum. The other is allowed to exist, if at all, at the sufferance of the successful. Generally as a tourist attraction.

That's a conflict between the English and the Irish, not properly a conflict among the "British" people. Unlike the Scots, Welsh, Cornish, Manx, etc., the Irish are not a native people of the United Kingdom.
UK and Britain are not the same thing. The United Kingdom refers to the nations directly ruled by the English crown. Britain refers to the islands making up that archipelago, including Ireland.

There's nothing inconsistent about enlarging the definition of one's "own kind."
Except despite all the well-meaning self-delusion about "multicultural = good, not that I have a reason for saying that", research shows that it is actually bad. It's a matter of degrees; the closer they are to us, the happier we are with them.

We're just pack-mates.
That's one of those things modern Western folks say but don't believe; they fool themselves into thinking they actually believe it. Just like "We're all equal" or "love everyone the same". Westerners are masters of self-deception.

As I have expounded on at great length on the Economics board and elsewhere, the current Paradigm Shift from an industrial economy to an information-based economy is going to have just as wrenching an effect on the structure of human culture as the Industrial Revolution, the Iron Age, the Bronze Age, and each previous Paradigm Shift. Information is replacing goods and services as the driver of the economy, and the fundamental difference between information and goods and services is that the cost of replicating and distributing it is almost literally "too cheap to invoice." This is going to turn economic theory on its head. In addition, the information-based economy does not require the gigantic concentrations of surplus wealth or "capital" that the Industrial Revolution did, with its steel mills, transcontinental railroads, and forests of telephone poles. The empowerment of individual "prosumers," as Toffler calls us, comes at the expense of the eventual demise of the corporation--the new aristocracy created by government fiat to replace the nobility in the age of democracy, in order to divert our attention from the misdeeds of the ruling class. Corporations have already turned from producers into scavengers, buying up each others' rotting caracasses and trying to strip a few more morsels of profit off of them. Only a few corporations like Microsoft and FedEx will thrive in the new economy, because they comprise its physical infrastructure.
We're still doing the same shit we were doing in Rome 2,000 years ago. People with money run things, everyone else works or tries to get by. We have shares in companies just as they did then. Wealthier people living in better conditions as they did then. Wealthy folks buying politicians just as they did then. People on welfare just as they did then. Armies seizing resources and land just as they did then. There's no paradigm shift. Just people being people, as always. Only the methods change.

Duh??? That "roof over your head" is an artifact of civilization, or at least of the Agricultural Revolution, its precursor. Before people agreed to embark on that magnificent act of transcendence over nature, there were no roofs because there were no houses, because everybody spent every day migrating in pursuit of herds of prey animals and seasonal plant food sources, always trying to outrun the next famine because in a pre-agricultural "economy" there is no surplus of anything!
That's not really how things were. Prior to agriculture, people had their homes and roofs over their heads. They tended to either have stable homes and relied on hunting, fishing, and gathering, or they moved from home to home and relied on hunting, fishing, and gathering.

People who decry "civilization" while sitting in a chair in a climate-controlled environment with electric lights and a refrigerator are totally ignorant of what the word even means.
Are you implying that is my position?

Again, duh??? Until less than 150 years ago, 99% of the human race toiled for 100% of their life, working 80-100 hour weeks, in "careers" in the food production and distribution sector.
Again, not true. Archaeologists have found the remains of old folks who were unable to hunt of gather (often crippled) who had lived their later years around home caves and such. The assumption from the bones is they were fed and generally looked after by their tribe, ie. family.

The people you're grieving for today work a pansy 40-hour week (or 50 in the USA), which leaves considerable time to do whatever the fuck they want! Sure, if their job is working in a factory pushing a button on a machine tool, they probably can't go skiing in Utah every weekend, but they go to baseball games, dances, concerts, museums, and other noble and ignoble pursuits that strike their fancy.
You must live in an upper crust suburb if that's what you see around you.

I'm sure you're an elitist who thinks TV is an evil corporate tool,
I'm elite, sure. But the rest is a bad assumption.

but it's a window on culture that didn't exist before I was six years old, and most people find it entertaining, informative and enriching. And by the standards of a Paleolithic hunter-gatherer with no written language and only the art objects he could carry without wheels and draft animals, and who spent his entire life in the company of the same couple of dozen people, TV is entertaining, informative and enriching!
I'm glad you enjoy your television shows. I'm sure that proves something.

Geeze, you're making me feel embarrassed to be a Libertarian campaigning for lower taxes! Even I freely admit that we're getting something for our money, notwithstanding my contention that the cost, quality and responsiveness would be better if we relied on private enterprise to provide those services. The Egyptians had no public health service because they didn't have universities to invent modern scientific medicine, and because they regarded their people as anonymous, interchangeable work resources who weren't worth the expense of healing. The medieval Europeans--surely you jest? That was one of the most decrepit civilizations on earth. They didn't even maintain the waste-disposal technology (sewers) that the Romans invented! Their idea of cleaning the streets was to run a herd of pigs through town once a year to eat the garbage--and turn it into pig shit! Their "police departments" were useless--the murder rate was something like fifty thousand percent higher than it is today. And just as in Ancient Egypt, there was no education or health care system.
Many errors. In medieval Europe, the taxes were 15% to 25%. If people wanted to use the local mill or whatever, which was owned by the local lord, they would pay for it and use it. Like how we have toll roads. Except they only had the toll, whereas we have the toll plus extra taxes. They were also big on hygiene, especially the Anglo-Saxons. And even with those very low taxes, they still managed to build some of the most amazing structures on this planet, many of which still exist today; whereas we with much higher taxation build disposable pre-fabricated crap that will not last. That world produced amazing scholars, warriors, artists, leaders, and more. Today we have higher taxes, Britney Speares, and George Bush. Woohoo.

As for Egypt, they had their centres of learning, which is why we have this crazy little thing called chemistry. No, they didn't let everyone in; but neither do we today.

Medieval murder rates: http://medievalnews.blogspot.com/2009/12/murder-in-medieval-london-was.html

I do not approve of our high taxes, but if the people of the West demand a statist system of intensive government instead of a libertarian system of minimal government, we are at least getting something for our money and it enriches our lives!
We have vastly different perspectives. To you, television enriches your life, as does whatever it is you think you're getting from your government through taxes. To me, it's about something far less material.

You don't think the ancient Egyptian, Mesopotamian, Indian, Chinese, Olmec and Inca politicians used their power to mislead their citizens too?
I know they did. That's why I mentioned such things before. What's different today is that those agendas have straddled across all borders and bloodlines.

You seem to be one of those people who assumes that life was better in the past, just because you weren't there to experience its peculiar disadvantages.
Well, unlike some, I have an education. I know the good and bad points. And as I have made quite clear, some of the good points appeal to me greatly, such as lower taxes and leader who lead from the front instead of just ordering hundreds of thousands to march off and die for them.

One of the main reasons that the United States was able to become such a strong country is that it's one of the few places on earth that had been untouched by civilization before the occupiers arrived.
Really no. The American Indians had their towns and villages, which were not too shabby. They had their nations and alliances and wars. Farms and herds. They were all destroyed.

Forest, minerals, water, game, topsoil, air... none of these environmental resources had been exhausted or polluted as they had in the Old World, particularly Europe, and even in the civilization of Central America, which had built its own Dust Bowl by chopping down all the trees to build temples.
They just weren't as populous or as advanced in terms of technology. But they were using the land just the same. That's a mistake many people make, believing stone age cultures were somehow more noble and peaceful and in tune with rainbows and such. They weren't. They were just the same, but had not progressed as far along yet. In other words, they were doing the same thing but had not been as successful at it. Except in a few cases, where one tribe had totally wiped out another.

[quote[
Well I agree. I have postulated elsewhere that it is the nature of Homo sapiens to transcend nature, both his own and that of the external universe.

Welcome to the Paradigm Shift. They're always messy and create a lot of problems. The Industrial Revolution happened after the technology of writing had already been invented, so its woes are well-documented. Just for starters, read some Dickens. The down side of the Iron Age was the ability of every "barbarian horde" to make its own iron weapons and become a "barbarian kingdom." The down side of the Bronze Age was the emergence of metal blades and armor, the first "weapons of mass destruction" that made war as we know it possible. (You speak of "war" among Paleolithic tribes. One-on-one hand-to-hand combat with fists and flint-tipped spears and arrows is merely "brawling" by our standards, and is qualitatively different from the wars that have occurred since the invention of the technology of bronze metallurgy.)
It's always just people doing the same things. The only differences are that over time the groups merged with other groups to get bigger and more easily do the same thing to others, and we have over time increased the distance between the human cause and the human effect at the other end (as in now a button will do the trick).

We see it already. It's another conflict between two different cults of Abrahamic religion.
It's the lack of morality and the way they allow their own people and culture to give way to destructive external influences.

But DNA analysis confirms the broad correlation between language and ancestry.
Obviously, because if you have a group of people living on the island Darwinia, they're all going to share a language, and obviously they're going to be related. However, language and genetics are not the same thing. Europe has its people, its genetics, which obviously mix the further afield you go. The language exchanges happen across border regions, along trade routes, around centres of trade and commerce, et cetera. Which is why the Finno-Ugric group will be genetically close to the Europeans around them, but are classified as a different linguistic group; although nearby and related, they weren't as strongly influenced by the Persian and Indian linguistic and cultural influences from further south-east.

The original tribe came from somewhere in the Anatolia-Georgia region (based upon the plants and animals they had names for) and their language is referred to as proto-Indo-European.
Yeah, that's one theory. I couldn't hazard a guess. By the way, if anyone wants to know how fast languages change over a broad region, just check out anything in Middle English, and where and when it was spoken, and compare it to the form and presence of English today.

Around 5000 years ago they branched into two migrations. The Eastern Indo-Europeans went south and east into what is now India, Persia and Armenia, and a couple of thousand years later a group of them moved north, becoming the Balto-Slavic peoples.
This is wrong. The language influence is what moved and migrated. One tribe did not take most of Europe, the Middle East, and India in that short period. See my above point regarding the movements of English.

The Western Indo-Europeans moved north and west into Europe; first the Celts, then the Greeks and Romans (some anthropologists suggest that the Romans were really a Celtic offshoot), then the Germanic tribes who went straight into Scandinavia and came south later.
This is an entirely wrong view of history. Most of the European tribes we have today were already there at that stage, and earlier. That's why we have German cultures dating back prior to the supposed spread of the proto-Indo-European language group across Europe, and an unbroken chain of those cultures until the present. It's why there are archaeological digs examining the lives of the Scots from 5,000 BC, including examples in the Orkneys of the world's first indoor plumbing.

The Albanians showed up eventually and the Slavs began migrating west in the early centuries CE. Their DNA correlates well with their language families.
The Slavs are a specific group by ancestry. They reason they have their Slavic language group is simple: They were a people of common ancestry in a given area. They had their languages. They migrated, and brought their languages with them although with influences from the old and new areas. That's why the language group matches the genetic group.
 
I suggest you (Fraggle Rocker) post your response regarding the FACTUAL links here in your particular thread
Sorry, but this is fact. Do a Google search on the search argument "Indonesia Peat Greenhouse" and you will get dozens of hits. Here is one with that statistic right in the title! Of course there are always different ways of calculating staistics, so perhaps a different formula would rank Indonesia as #6 or #9 or #12.

The problem is that Indonesia has clear-cut a gigantic area of the rain forest on Borneo. It's about the size of Ohio. This dries out the peat that has been building up for thousands of years, shaded by the forest canopy. When peat dries, it releases massive amounts of carbon dioxide into the atmosphere.

Sorry, your link to the World Bank report does not work. Please post it as a hyperlink that we can navigate to by clicking. I'm sure you've found a statistic that ranks Indonesia lower on the list. The World Bank is very favorable to developing nations becase that is their business. As I noted above, there is always more than one way to calculate a statistical figure, and both ways can be perfectly honorable.

I did not mean to insult your country--at least no more harshly than I insult my own, which after all, is at the top of the list! Everyone on earth has been contributing to pollution and other environmental problems, since we began to alter nature eleven thousand years ago by inventing the technology of agriculture. It's only been within the last few decades, the blink of an eye on the earth's calendar, that we have begun to realize that we can't go on living this way.

So please forgive me if I appear to be singling out Indonesia for exceptional criticism. I could have listed the top six greenhouse emitters, but obviously there will be much greater disagreement over the statistical formulas as I go lower on the list,

Even if this ranking is not totally accurate, it's still an instructive citation of three quite different ways of producing greenhouse gases. My people do it by shameless and inefficient burning of fossil fuels, for example requiring us all to "go to work" every day even though a vast number of us do our work with computers and telephones. The Chinese do it by by not applying rigorous civil engineering standards to the operation of coal mines, resulting in enormous smoke-belching fires that no one can figure out a way to extinguish. The Indonesians have done it by clear-cutting forests in order to sell the exotic hardwoods, using the land to grow food, at a time when no one understood the consequences of letting the sun shine on a million-acre peat bog.

And the point of all of my posts on this topic is not to insult your country or your people, both of which we Americans regard with very high esteen and honor. Being the world's largest Muslim country, you lead the Muslim community by setting an example of peace and tolerance,

My point is simply that no one country can solve the greenhouse gas problem by changing its own technology, laws or culture. If the USA were to stop emitting CO2 tomorrow, China's emissions would be enough to bring on the looming crisis. If China, too, were to stop, the rest of the world would still produce enough emissions to take us down the same path to disaster.

So I apologize for the insult and humbly request your forgiveness. And if we are finding different statistics because we retrieve them from different sources, it becomes merely an illustration of the wise old saying, "Reasonable people can disagree."

We are all in this together, and ultimately that is what matters,
 
Last edited:
It's time to strip this down to it's essentials. If you wish to discuss specifics of the studies (yours or mine) we can open another thread.

Bollocks. That may be the definition you;re trying to push for the purposes of your forum arguments, but it ain't true. Genes drift, are exchanged, all sorts of things. That's why people in geographic boundary regions share traits.
Because of interbreeding as they live around a geographical border area.
It shows very clearly the heritability of traits associated with regions where people come from.
The point being that race or tribal groups are defined at every level of differentiation as you traverse the tree of commonality. My siblings and I are a discrete group of genetic commonality from our cousins, who are their own similar group. My siblings plus cousins and various others up the tree form another line of distinction. And so on. At each level there is a branch of difference, of distinction, and every such level of difference is as real as the ground beneath your feet. Some folks declare race as the local tribal boundary; some folks as a difference way further up the tree, to where we split between peoples migrating to different continents. But either way, those differences are absolutely real.

As far as I'm concerned you just demonstrated my point and there's little left to discuss.

If Racial categories have vague and broadly overlapping boundaries and differentiation can be made at any resolution from Kingdom all the way down to siblings then you'll need to show me a very powerful argument why I should accept the common classifications of Race to have any merit above any of the millions of other distinguishable groupings that are possible.

It would be much simpler and far more accurate merely to mark distinction by specific geographical regions of ancestry when useful (e.g. Eastern European Descent, Indochinese Ancestry, Mediterranean Origin). To classify populations by an arbitrary and variable selection of a very small number of traits that group people of more distant heritage together and divide populations that are closely related makes no logical sense.

You can show me as many examples as you like of how various populations are different (I've never disagreed) but until you can show me any that distinguish racial categories as collectively less diverse and more closely related than the groupings that cross racial lines I will remain entirely unconvinced.

To preserve this societal concept one must force the data. Inventing numerous exceptions and inclusions to the point where it is impossible to formulate a concise and accurate definition of any race. Genetic ancestry does not map true to classic racial definitions... and that's really all there is to it.

When I am more closely related to someone considered to be a different race than me than I am to another member of my race, I call arbitrary, meaningless bullshit.

~Raithere
 
First of all I would like to thank Fraggle Rocker for responding quickly to this thread and taking time to make elaborate reply. For this moment I can only post shortly because here in Germany is morning and I have to go to office, so I will read your response in more detail later in the evening. Thank you also that you have been very humble in your response (fro m the quick reading). Maybe I was all wrong abou t you lately.

For a quick reference, I wouldl like to give you this link (UN report) for annual data of all countries emission since 1990 until 2006 (it is html, not pdf):

http://mdgs.un.org/unsd/mdg/SeriesDetail.aspx?srid=749&crid=

The last official IPCC report (4th assessment) on it was published in 2007, the next one (5th assessment) will be published on 2014. So, official, latest data inventory that has been published is until 2006. That UN annual data is updated on July 2009. As you can see there, Indonesia isn't even the top 10 emitter (by a quick look, it is #19), but pls feel free to check. The table is very long becaus including all countries for data of 15 years. If needed, in evening I'll make a screenshot and graph of it.

Mabye I type with some mistakes as I am typing in hurry (have to go to office/uni), I am sorry about this!

p.s.: yes,I am aware of the issue of the deforestation, which is a bad thing about us, but I just thought that I woudl put it out that we aren't biggest 3. Thanks again :)
 
For a quick reference, I wouldl like to give you this link (UN report) for annual data of all countries emission since 1990 until 2006 (it is html, not pdf):

http://mdgs.un.org/unsd/mdg/SeriesDetail.aspx?srid=749&crid=

From what I can tell, that data excludes land-use changes, which comprise 85% of Indonesia's emissions (likewise Brazil).

You've been provided with the World Bank report you requested, which covers this issue in great detail. I suggest you stop calling people liars, and instead call your government and ask them to do something about deforestation and peat fires.
 
Fraggle Rocker and Quadraphonics, I will respond to your posts within the next couple of hours. I have to read the pdf document posted by Quadraphonics first (I just downloaded it, it is 90 pages), so I can post my response after I check all the facts. Thanks again, I appreciate all of these responses.

p.s.: I will post my response to your post not in this thread, but in your other thread here:

http://www.sciforums.com/showthread.php?t=97666

so that this one don't get hijacked. If in my reply there is relevant thing with the topic of current thread, I will split my reply. I hope that's ok! So, please give me 1-2 hours. See you =)
 
It's time to strip this down to it's essentials. If you wish to discuss specifics of the studies (yours or mine) we can open another thread.






As far as I'm concerned you just demonstrated my point and there's little left to discuss.

If Racial categories have vague and broadly overlapping boundaries and differentiation can be made at any resolution from Kingdom all the way down to siblings then you'll need to show me a very powerful argument why I should accept the common classifications of Race to have any merit above any of the millions of other distinguishable groupings that are possible.

It would be much simpler and far more accurate merely to mark distinction by specific geographical regions of ancestry when useful (e.g. Eastern European Descent, Indochinese Ancestry, Mediterranean Origin). To classify populations by an arbitrary and variable selection of a very small number of traits that group people of more distant heritage together and divide populations that are closely related makes no logical sense.

You can show me as many examples as you like of how various populations are different (I've never disagreed) but until you can show me any that distinguish racial categories as collectively less diverse and more closely related than the groupings that cross racial lines I will remain entirely unconvinced.

To preserve this societal concept one must force the data. Inventing numerous exceptions and inclusions to the point where it is impossible to formulate a concise and accurate definition of any race. Genetic ancestry does not map true to classic racial definitions... and that's really all there is to it.

When I am more closely related to someone considered to be a different race than me than I am to another member of my race, I call arbitrary, meaningless bullshit.

~Raithere

It's a biological concept, not a societal concept. The differences are very real. What is societal are the meanings we associate with those biological facts. Each and every difference as I mentioned earlier is an absolutely real thing, a fact. It's reality. You and others may attach emotional baggage to those facts, but I don't. For example, if I say "Me and Bob Africa are of different racial groups", to me it's just a fact of biology. Whether you attach any further meanings to it is up to you, and has nothing to do with those facts. Some folks look at such facts and think it means one group is smarter than another, or better behaved than another, and so on. I don't. Unless there is evidence showing it to be the case.
 
It's a biological concept, not a societal concept.
Actually it began as a societal concept and then became an anthropological one long before the sciences of genetics and evolutionary biology even existed. To ignore the "emotional baggage" (to borrow your kind euphemism) is to ignore history. The fact is that even as a vaguely scientific system of taxonomic classification it was almost entirely cultural and prejudicial.

"Von Linne, the Swedish taxonomist and botanist, was the first to place humans in a taxonomy of animals, in his Systema Naturae in 1758. He divided humans into four main groups on the basis of physical and psychological impressions: Europeans, who were “fair … gentle, acute, inventive … governed by laws”; Americans, who were “copper-coloured … obstinate, content free … regulated by customs”; Asiatics, who were “sooty … severe, haughty, covetous … governed by opinions”; and Africans, who were “black … crafty, indolent, negligent … governed by caprice”

Blumenbach, the German anthropologist and anatomist, first used the word “race” in 1775 to classify humans into five divisions: Caucasian, Mongolian, Ethiopian, American, and Malay. Blumenbach also coined the term “Caucasian” because he believed that the Caucasus region of Asia Minor produced “the most beautiful race of men”. Both von Linne and Blumenbach stated that humans are one species, and the latter remarked on the arbitrary nature of his proposed categories. "

http://www.annals.org/content/125/8/675.full
http://www.encyclopedia.com/doc/1O119-RaceConceptof.html

This is irrelevant to the main point however. Races as commonly defined do not match any actual identifiable populations. The differences you cling so desperately to are not related to any race but to populations of a specific ancestry. They are not exemplary of any race in toto and do nothing to support your argument.

~Raithere
 
Make division in order to avoid devision. Brilliant!

You aren't creating division; you are creating unity. You have to think of the context within the nation-state. If you have different nations within one state, like we have in the US, then you have division; if you divide them into separate states, then you have unity among themselves (as that is what we are aiming at, since the old state will be abandoned). Thus all are happy.
 
Blumenbach, the German anthropologist and anatomist, first used the word “race” in 1775 to classify humans into five divisions: Caucasian, Mongolian, Ethiopian, American, and Malay.
This paradigm was eventually simplifed to three "races": Caucasoid, Negroid and Mongoloid. The simplified paradigm has some validity, but only from a prehistorical perspective. Humans first settled in Asia 50KYA, creating a new population of Homo sapiens, and over the millennia mutation and genetic drift caused them to have different gene pools. It wasn't until 10,000 years later that they established a new population in East Asia, which also became separated and evolved its own genetic markers.

In the era before DNA was discovered skin color was perceived as the most prominent marker of the three "races." The "Caucasians" were the peoples of South and West Asia and Europe, the "Mongoloids" were the peoples of East Asia, and the "Negroids" were the peoples of Africa.

DNA analysis has destroyed this paradigm. We dog breeders are fond of saying, "The 'races' of humans are analogous to our dog breeds, and by that paradigm every single person on this planet is a MONGREL!"

It's undoubtedly true that 40KYA the three "racial" gene pools were quite thoroughly separated. But a few millennia after the Dawn of Civilization, say 6KYA, myriad new transportation technologies were available, such as draft animals, the wheel and sailing ships, and the populations began to explore, mingle and intermarry. The reason Blumenbach had to fudge and invent "Ethiopians" as a separate "race" is that (according to most of the material I've read) the modern North Africans are descended from Asian people who crossed back over to repopulate the place after desertification shifted the entire native population south. Of course their genes mingled and today they don't look like stereotyped "caucasians" or "negroes."

All throughout southeast Asia and Oceania the "caucasian" Indians and the "mongoloid" Chinese and Indochinese people have been intermarrying for thousands of years.

The Native Americans are a tribe of "mongoloids" who migrated so long ago that they don't have the epicanthic eye fold that characterizes their Asian cousins--and they intermarried with the European occupiers to form a new "race" in Latin America, presumably the one Blumenbach calls "Americans."

And of course it wasn't until a few years ago that ANYBODY knew the history of the Native Australians. Turns out that their ancestors left Africa ten thousand years before ours did. They went straight to Australia (because there was a worldwide famine due to an ice age and that was the first place they found food) and they stayed there. So even in the simplified three-race paradigm, the Australians really comprise a fourth "race" because they are not closely related to the "caucasians" and "mongoloids."
Races as commonly defined do not match any actual identifiable populations.
They don't match, but they do correlate. However, the correlation is too low to be useful except perhaps in sociological statistics.
The differences you cling so desperately to are not related to any race but to populations of a specific ancestry.
People change their culture much faster than they change their DNA.;)
 
Back
Top