|
Post by AWAR on Dec 20, 2004 23:13:51 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. Yes, but everything you mentioned... it's all a consequence of conquest. There are several topics here about the way the British denigrated Irish people. They invented anthropological classification systems, just to make Irish look sub-human. It's a way for the authorities to convince the general population that the conquest is justified. Bear with me The rulers take foreign land and conquer and plunder, for the sake of increasing their wealth. They need their subjects to be obedient, and to listen to commands. The distribution of wealth gathered from this conquest are not equally distributed among the conquering people. The rulers take the most, while the general population gets little. The rulers must make the general population believe that it's a 'righteous' thing to do, to upkeep the illusion that all that plunder is/was for a 'higher cause'. The enemy must always be made into subhuman beasts. Similar to how Serbs were satanized during the 90's, similar to how anyone who doesn't believe in multi-cultural societies is frowned upon today, and regarded as a mindless beast, and an obstacle to be removed ( and not an opinion to be heard ). I've recently had a discussion ( on a multi-cult forum ) with some gay people about adoptions. IMO, gay people shouldn't adopt children. I don't have anything against gays, I just don't believe it's smart to give children to same-sex couples, and I think that advertizing homosexuality is a negative phenomenon. Well, the "discussion" was actually a manifestation of intolerance. Their intolerance against anyone who isn't extremely pro-gay rights. Soon, several Gay-Supremacists entered the discussion, and started spewing their propaganda on how homosexuals are superior over us, 'breeders' ( their label for heterosexuals ). In any case, I got banned for stating an opinion that is mildly negative about gay rights, while cries to "end the existence of gay-bashing cavemen", "attack the foundations of het majority" etc. were thought of as something positive. So, you see, every time has it's huge intolerances... the question is just who is geared against who, the result is, as always, that the rich become richer.
|
|
|
Post by vela on Dec 20, 2004 23:40:33 GMT -5
Yes. I see your point.
It wasn’t exactly like the (15th-16th century) British or Spaniards were thinking “Let’s go make some discoveries and colonize some lands so we can discriminate against anyone we find and show them that our race is superior.”
In that sense racism was not the “cause” of war but just an inevitable consequence of the encounter of two cultures at a different stage of evolution.
The thing is that, once the discovery of the new continent was made by the Europeans, they just couldn’t act in any other way but in a racist way and their racial beliefs were the driving force for subsequent conquests.
|
|
|
Post by AWAR on Dec 20, 2004 23:47:57 GMT -5
Yes. I see your point. It wasn’t exactly like the (15th-16th century) British or Spaniards were thinking “Let’s go make some discoveries and colonize some lands so we can discriminate against anyone we find and show them that our race is superior.” In that sense racism was not the “cause” of war but just an inevitable consequence of the encounter of two cultures at a different stage of evolution. The thing is that, once the discovery of the new continent was made by the Europeans, they just couldn’t act in any other way but in a racist way and their racial beliefs were the driving force for subsequent conquests. The same can be said about Romans who conquered Gaul, or about anyone who defeated anyone else... nothing new. When Yugoslavia became a communist state, everyone who didn't bow to Stalin and Tito, lost their head. The discrimination against non-commies was great, and people disappeared overnight, until nobody defied it. Christianity wasn't banned, but, it was frowned upon. Today, just 15 years after the fall of communism, I get frowned upon when I say I'm not religious. People never learn, no people ever learns. The masses will always be manipulated to do what the rulers want them to do. I guess it's just the way things go. Discrimination, hatred between ethnicities, races, religions, tensions etc. it's all the same.
|
|
|
Post by vela on Dec 21, 2004 0:28:23 GMT -5
(start of message truncated) People never learn, no people ever learns. The masses will always be manipulated to do what the rulers want them to do. I guess it's just the way things go. Discrimination, hatred between ethnicities, races, religions, tensions etc. it's all the same. I agree that there's not much hope for a real and significant change in the foreseeable future regarding “discrimination, hatred between ethnicities, races” etc. but, by the same logic, isn’t this a valid argument for those who favor racial mixing? For example, here in México where most of the population has a mix of European and Amerindian ancestries, the enormous cultural and racial barriers that existed originally between natives and foreigners five centuries ago have been eroding slowly but surely. The average person has to reconcile within him/herself this inescapable duality. Oneself can not tear apart and renounce to its own identity. Of course many try but that only leads to unhappiness. On the other hand, the big mess (in identity problems) that we see in Latin America could have been avoided if the Europeans hadn’t used their little head to make the crucial decisions. So much for their superiority! So, it is true. Things could have been done and planned much better but were not. Now we have to make the most out of it because we can’t turn back the clock.
|
|
|
Post by nordicyouth on Dec 21, 2004 3:06:04 GMT -5
lol.
|
|
|
Post by vela on Dec 21, 2004 9:01:17 GMT -5
Sounds funny. Now, doesn't it? But, is it really? The genie is out of the bottle! Pandora's box is open! We're beyond the point of no return!
|
|
|
Post by nymos on Dec 31, 2004 19:14:11 GMT -5
They are basically going to look like this
|
|
|
Post by tatc on Jan 12, 2005 2:12:32 GMT -5
Considering the development of nationalism, racism and critisism towards the multicultural, that is growing every year in Europe the prospect of an all out total racemix is kind of small.
For every action there is an reaction and for the action, multiculturalism, the reaction is conflicts and nationalism.
|
|
|
Post by idontlikeyou on Feb 25, 2005 14:32:11 GMT -5
after all races mix we will all look very similar to tiger woods.
|
|
|
Post by NuSapiens on Feb 25, 2005 18:59:49 GMT -5
When races mix, old packages of traits break down. That means culture and genetic groups are at least somewhat dissolved. Eventually, this chaos gives rise to some sort of order in the form of one or more new races/ethnic groups. Some groups might also disappear or be absorbed by larger/more dominant groups.
If anything, medium brown skin color is generally advantageous. Skin that is too black or too white cause problems with rickets and skin cancer, respectively.
What's more important than color or appearance for humans now are cognitive and behavioral traits such as general intelligence, exploratory nature, technical ability, sociability, etc.
|
|
|
Post by nordicyouth on Feb 28, 2005 3:35:33 GMT -5
NuSapiens, I'm afraid you are wrong. If everyone mixed and we all appeared 'Polynesian,' and socio-cultural and linguistic differences broke down, then the only divisions in human society would be socio-economic. Essentially, if the world became one and everyone looked the same, one would have to grudgingly agree that Marx had a point.
Isn't it our diversity that makes Humanity what it is? Are we not a global village of nation-states? Ethnocentrism, phenotypical discrimination, nationalism, and strong national identities may seem obsolete in light of the coming world order of supranational organizations like the E.U. and multinational corporations...however, these divisions (other than class - socio-economic) constitute red tape against a social hierarchy based solely on class.
Fortunately, I don't believe in that future, and even the Third World is largely becoming more mono-ethnic/cultural/racial, and eventually this fad of multiculturalism will end in the West.
Either way, Whites or no Whites around, the Bush, Harriman, Rothschild, Morgan, and Rockefeller families (along with others) will still rule the world. That way, when you see a White person, you KNOW they're in the elite, when there are only say 10,000 left.
BTW: contrary to your blog's thinking NuSapiens, the slums of Rio de Janeiro and the ghettos of New York City are not centres of advanced human evolution simply due to their multiracial/cultural/ethnic character.
In fact, from personal observation, I've noticed that people of a single or small number of ethnic background(s) seem to have better genes i.e. health, skin complexion, mental faculties, aside from being more aesthetically unusual.
|
|
|
Post by Buddyryvall on Mar 6, 2005 3:35:02 GMT -5
To answer your question, This is what happens after all races mix: The future is here
|
|
|
Post by NuSapiens on Mar 20, 2005 14:49:19 GMT -5
BTW: contrary to your blog's thinking NuSapiens, the slums of Rio de Janeiro and the ghettos of New York City are not centres of advanced human evolution simply due to their multiracial/cultural/ethnic character. In fact, from personal observation, I've noticed that people of a single or small number of ethnic background(s) seem to have better genes i.e. health, skin complexion, mental faculties, aside from being more aesthetically unusual. My point with the blog entry you refer to is not that the best types of humans live in Brazilian slums. My point was about biological evolution: that is, a change in the frequency of genes in a population. Genetic evolution happens under harsh conditions, where lots of organisms in a species are born and are die: the character of that harshness will favor some genes over others, and that is how Darwinian selection takes place. Failed states in the Third World might be harsh enough to, by chance, generate a successful type of human or group of humans. They might not be smart or beautiful or noble or anything like that - they might be violent gang leaders with no cultural or technological contribution. But natural selection does not make aesthetic judgements, only practical ones. If humans want to mold themselves to be something better, they must make aesthetic decisions for themselves. Since you argue from a stance of Western preservation, you should consider it also. The only evolution in the West *might* be related to diseases, and even more to reproductive rates. Underclasses are outbreeding upper classes. The educated and affluent don't have many offspring. In a strictly Darwinian sense, they are endangering their survival. The West has become comfortable as hegemon, but this might not last forever. Evolutionary competition is very much like what humans call war: it does not tend to reward complacency.
|
|
|
Post by Slick on Mar 20, 2005 16:54:26 GMT -5
To answer your question, This is what happens after all races mix: The future is here Gimme a "mixed" woman over a plain "unmixed" woman any day. ;D
|
|
|
Post by Funky Kong on Mar 25, 2005 20:12:02 GMT -5
If all races mixed, we would probably get a caste system like they have in India and to some extend Brazil today.
The whitest would be the minority upper class, and they would probably try to breed the white genes back again.
|
|