It’s going to give me a stroke.
2 Likes
So you always bash her over the head first and drag her to your cave? Kidding.
This is where I think people are going with this. Where you get pushback is with multiculturalism and all cultures being equal and valid. They aren’t, some cultures are better than others.
The Europeans took over the whole world and remade it in their image. Now everyone has gone soft and viewed this as a bad thing, they are slowly giving everything back. Somebody had to win. There are many reasons why this happened but in my view they aren’t racial… as in I don’t believe it was because white people are somehow genetically superior to others, in fact the NFL/NBA argues otherwise.
My cliffnotes view of why Europe won:
Stable cultures and oppressive class systems that allowed for division of labor. Both pre and post Christian. You can’t have an Aristotle or DaVinci if everyone is sustanence farming (see Africa to this day).
The Europeans have a really great tradition of carving up their continent with nearly endless wars. From antiquity all the way up through present day. While the East (Ottomans, Chinese, Mongols, Huns) had plenty of conflicts under their belt they can’t touch the bloodlust of Europe. 100 Years War anyone? They had the will to expand through conquest. So once navigation technology, steel and gunpowder gave them the edge. World domination.
It was definitely the biggest picture on the page, must be the most important
1 Like
Provide evidence
I would actually like to better understand your position on the above statement.
I think that would depend on your own personal definition of what is better.
If entrepreneur A amasses $1B in net worth and entrepreneur B amasses $100M in net worth, which is “better”? It depends, right? What if B is 100% liquid and A only has $1M in liquid assets, is he still better? What if B has amassed less because he’s given 10x as much to charity, does that make him better?
These questions are too complex to boil down to such finite terms, imo.
BTW isn’t the idea we are all the same just separated by classes cultural Marxism?
Sure once I’m behind my computer and not my cellphone
No, because cultural Marxism is a departure from economics, class-based criticism - cultural Marxism says cultural institutions like family and gender norms are the engines of oppression, not economics.
Let me guess - you read the term “cultural Marxism” on a National Policy Institute or American Renaissance website and have been dying to use it despite not understanding it?
1 Like
http://www.pnas.org/content/98/26/15387.short
1 Like
Every link I’ve clicked on is behind a pay wall, maybe you can go ahead and summarize a bit.
But from the abstract it seems they’re not denying differences just that it’s a categorical issue
BTW this isn’t evidence for what @usmccds423 believes it’s just an attempt at refuting my position.
How about some evidence to support his post?
I didn’t say we’re separated by classes…
That’s odd–none are paywalled when I click on them. (Although because I’m at work, it’s possible my institution has a licensing agreement with them which is getting me through.)
The issues are:
- To what extent humans can be genetically clustered that is not simply a post-hoc recapitulation of observed differences (and therefore tautological);
- Whether, and to what extent, genuine genetic clustering corresponds to ‘folk’ definitions of race; and
- Whether, and to what extent, such clustering is of meaningful consequence independent of sociocultural responses to superficial differences in appearance (eg, correlating with predisposition for certain medical conditions).
In fairness, here’s an article arguing in favor of the practical usefulness (from a medical standpoint) of categorizing humans into groups based on continent of ancestry (fair warning: It’s a long, difficult read):
How about a simpleton’s question?
If race is a social constraint, how can usmc (using 23&me) trace his racial background using DNA testing?
After this is answered, I will give a powerful and personal anecdote concerning my adopted daughter and her birth mother.
I think the general concern is more about the collateral damage. While you can find trends that are associated with certain races, the problem arises when you try to pass legislation or make large scale decisions based on those “differences” (school segregation, etc).
Since the trends will (usually) be more so in the shape of a bell curve, you end up making decisions that impact 100% of a group based on characteristics that are shared by an unknown % of the group (usually about 70%).
He is tracing genes. There are no genes for race.
Here’s an interesting example of race as a social construct - non-English speaking white South Africans (Afrikaners) have a substantial amount of African genes - when the Dutch East India Company built a supply station at the Cape of Good Hope in the early 17th century, there was a acute shortage of well…white women, so the Dutch sailors and soldiers had to resort to “socializing” local Khoikhoi/San African tribeswomen.
Since Good Hope was an isolated colonial outpost, their offspring, if sufficiently pale, were immediately introduced into the ranks of “whites”, if they were not, the assimilation occurred in the next generation or two if they married Europeans.
The mixed race offspring that married among themselves or with Africans, soon became a second-tier of inhabitants - the so called “Cape Coloreds” or as they’re now know “Mixed race”. Later they intermarried with Indians and Malay slaves so the story became even more complicated…
And ironically these white Afrikaners (around 15% of African genes) were a primary drivers behind the establishment of the strict apartheid system where the Coloreds (32% European genes) were relegated to the second tier of the racial system as a separate and inferior “race”.
1 Like
Tell me again your definition of race, serious question, not being sarcastic