|
Post by AWAR on Dec 29, 2003 0:47:52 GMT -5
I didn't say all or even most of Latin America was mixed, I said it was a place where mixing of all 3 types had occurred. Too late, Tsuntzu was banned a while ago
|
|
|
Post by Stribog on Dec 29, 2003 0:56:54 GMT -5
LOL oops I should keep up with this forum more. I keep getting sucked into stupid arguments at Skadi.
|
|
|
Post by AWAR on Dec 30, 2003 22:35:33 GMT -5
LOL oops I should keep up with this forum more. I keep getting sucked into stupid arguments at Skadi. Eh! If I was an admin at Skadi, I'd ban Friedrich as a new year present for you
|
|
felix
New Member
Posts: 9
|
Post by felix on Jan 3, 2004 15:12:46 GMT -5
my opinion is that main racial groups will persist, with areas of broad mixing. The example is latin america, with 500 years of intermarriage, and still recognizable racial groups, among a variable size of mestizos and mulattoes. The present-day mare magnum of mixing is too recent (1970- ) to permit any expeculation for the future. Migrations ad diasphoras can stop or change direction, and so demographical trends and cultural attitudes. Who nows? tomorrow a China converted in the firs economic superpower could be target for migrations from india and latin america, europe culd restore it's demographic decline, etc. Nobody can be a prophet, in a world changin so fast ...
|
|
|
Post by Berserk15 on Dec 19, 2004 16:48:38 GMT -5
One thing no one ever seems to mention is the fact that racial groups are not evenly distributed throughout the world. Some races contain higher numbers than others. It seems to me, IMHO that certain racial charicteristics will will be predominant in this new "single" race.
|
|
|
Post by LibLabDog on Dec 19, 2004 17:58:50 GMT -5
After the races all mix?
...There will be one Swede left, and s/he will star in all the movies. ...And we will all pay $10 to go stare up in wonderment at her recessive traits.
But it's a small price to pay for world peace.
|
|
|
Post by AWAR on Dec 19, 2004 20:10:16 GMT -5
After the races all mix? ...There will be one Swede left, and s/he will star in all the movies. ...And we will all pay $10 to go stare up in wonderment at her recessive traits. But it's a small price to pay for world peace. LOL! So you think that when races cease to exist, there will be peace. Like there ever was a race-related war.
|
|
|
Post by Berserk15 on Dec 19, 2004 23:05:31 GMT -5
Wars are not fought over race. The whole concept pf "World Peace" is completely and utterly ridiculous. We fight, always have, and always will.
|
|
|
Post by LibLabDog on Dec 20, 2004 1:21:43 GMT -5
Wars are not fought over race. The whole concept pf "World Peace" is completely and utterly ridiculous. We fight, always have, and always will. ...I think the Tutsi's and the Hutu's might disagree with you. There's two of you declaring that there's no such thing as a race war. Ok, I'll bite. ...Why do you internet wackos NOT think Race and cultural differences contribute to war? Take off your tinfoil hat for a minute and tell me.
|
|
|
Post by AWAR on Dec 20, 2004 12:33:18 GMT -5
...I think the Tutsi's and the Hutu's might disagree with you. There's two of you declaring that there's no such thing as a race war. Ok, I'll bite. ...Why do you internet wackos NOT think Race and cultural differences contribute to war? Take off your tinfoil hat for a minute and tell me. First, I'll reply to you, then I'll ban you. OK? Lay off the insults. You must be an American, right? Cultural and religious differences do contribute to war, but, in reality, most wars occured between neighbouring peoples which are very similar. Wars are mostly economic, or have a background in economy. The talk about cultural/racial differences is just rhetorics aimed at the masses who need apparent justification for war. Sweden, Nigeria and Korea are three totally different countries. Yet, you can rest assured that they won't go to war in the next trillion years. On the other hand, all three have been at war, or are in danger of war with their most immediate neighbours.
|
|
|
Post by buddyrydell on Dec 20, 2004 19:25:47 GMT -5
I agree that the vast majority of wars are fought between nations over reasons that have much more to do with religious, economic, or political reasons rather than racial. To assume otherwise would be ridiculous. Look at Northern Ireland, the Hutus and Tutsis, Israelis and Palestinians, and ex-Yugoslavia. All of these groups bickering with one another were largely of the same stock, but because they differed in religious upbringing, political ideology, economic power, etc., they've been (and still are) at each other's throats. Wars are certainly not fought over race the vast majority of time.
On the other hand, colonization by a more powerful country may be partly rooted in racial reasons. Take Latin America for example. The European Spaniards and Portuguese developed a caste system based on race so that the most powerful positions were to be reserved for "pure" Europeans. Unfortunately, here in America there is also some history of this with the European slavery of Africans and genocide of Amerindians, as well as the "one drop rule," which meant that anyone who had any African ancestry at all (no matter how European they were in ancestry and/or appearance), was regarded as African-American so as to maintain "white purity."
|
|
|
Post by Faelcind on Dec 20, 2004 19:40:53 GMT -5
I agree with buddy in general race is rarely or never the cause of war but it is very often used as an excuse for opression. Just wanted to point out that the Hutu and Tutsi are fairly distinctly lookin from each other, tutsi are lighter skinned, 3 inches aller and 15 pounds lighter IIRC, and could easily be as genetically distinct as europeans and asians for instance.
|
|
|
Post by Faelcind on Dec 20, 2004 19:42:24 GMT -5
Awar thank you that poster has done little but flame ever one since appearing on the board.
|
|
|
Post by AWAR on Dec 20, 2004 20:18:52 GMT -5
Awar thank you that poster has done little but flame ever one since appearing on the board. I haven't baneed him yet. He's just entered that contest I don't think colonization is rooted in racism. It appears as a consequence of conquests the important thing is that the conqueror is on a higher technologic and organizational level than the conquered. Napoleon and Hitler mostly killed genetically closely related people. The British Empire was created by conquering technically backward people. The Brits had most of their wars against the very similar French, the Germans fought the similar French and Poles, the Russians often fought against Poles, Germans and French, the Chinese fought the similar Japanese, Serbs fought the similar both racially and culturally Bulgarians, Croats...
|
|
|
Post by vela on Dec 20, 2004 22:41:49 GMT -5
Buddyrydell wrote:
I find buddy’s comments very well balanced regarding the reasons why nations go to war. The quote above is what I found the most insightful and I tend to agree that certain colonizations had a deep racial component as the main motivating force.
AWAR wrote:
First, we cannot asseverate or deny that all colonizations in general are rooted in racism. But I’m thinking of some particular instances where it can be argued that racism had an important role. The example cited by buddy (Latinamerica) is one of them. Of course the discrimination practiced by the Europeans towards the natives of the Indies was never formulated in the racial terminology that we use today, but nonetheless it was a form of racism. A rose is a rose by any other name!
I don’t think it is a matter of the conquerors having a superior technology but of their belief of being superior than those conquered. (Technology doesn’t have a mind of its own.) The feeling that “I am better, I am more deserving than these Indians therefore I am taking what belongs to them as mine.” Of course these superior beings resorted to all kinds of convoluted arguments to justify their actions, mostly based on their religion, but the end results where exactly the same as racism: segregation, discrimination, abuse, etc.
The colonization of America has a lot of similarities to what happened in the Indies, but with its own peculiarities. The first colonizers drew their inspiration from the bible, particularly from that story where Moses and Joshua led the people of Israel to the promised land, and believed that it was God’s will for them to exterminate the natives, as the Israelites exterminated the Cananites, in order to fulfill the prophecy and gain their own promised land. At some point in the early history of the United States, Indians (as well as black slaves) were not even considered of the same species as white man, say nothing of the same race.
|
|