Racial Average and Personal Pride

[Kabbealompost]

Topdog said:

Finns do but Hungarians have far less.

Correct.

[alexandrian]

Topdog said:

I'm sorry but you are a hypocrite. Grouping Lebanese, Greeks, Italians, Syrians, Iraqis, Egyptians, etc, together and talking about 'Mediterranean superiority' while simultaneously complaining about Afrocentrists and Nordicists attempting to connect themselves with cultures and civilizations that have nothing to do with them is pure hypocrisy. If African-Americans[in your biased opinion] have nothing to do with ancient Egypt, neither Romans, Greeks, Lebanese, Iraqis, Italians, and Syrians. 'Mediterranean pride' is just glorified ethnocentric chest pounding.

Greeks, Romans, Lebanese, and other Middle Eastern groups had far far far more to do with ancient Egypt than any West AFrican-derived group. Egypt's sole black African trading partner was Nubia/Kush, compare that to the multitude of Near Eastern and Mediterranean partners it had. There were far more incursion from other places in the Near East and Mediterranean to Egypt than from West Africa. Greeks and Levantines in particular have always had a presence in Egypt and played a very active role in the countries history. There were high levels of interaction between Greeks and Egyptians during Pharaonic times, Hellenic ages, Roman times, Christian era, during the Islamic Spice trade era, during the Ottoman period, and finally during the 19th and 20th century colonial era. West Africans only started appearing in Egypt after they were converted to Islam. Also, when I mentioned those nations, I was just drawing from my personal, diverse heritage. I wasn't making claims regarding ancient Egypt. YOu're so paranoid and low-esteemed that you think I'm always trying to prove a point about the Egyptians. You have no connection to Egypt. Just get over it. I hope this otherwise-interesting thread doesn't turn into another Egypt thread, but I just can't help but respond to these idiotic statements.

[Kabbealompost]

I can understand the pride of great ancestors, but still, it's a bit like if a lizard was proud of his dinosaur ancestors...

(sorry)

[CooCooCachoo]

Alexandrian said:

I couldn't disagree more. I don't see how being proud in the accomplishments of your ancestors or your fellows is a bad thing. Asians taking pride in having higher IQ is healthy. Arab-Americans and Indian-Americans taking pride in having influential and successful American communities is healthy. Egyptians,Lebanese, Greeks, Syrians, Iraqis, Italians, etc. being proud of their rich heritage and wanted to preserve/protect it is also healthy. Obviously this can add self-confidence to someone, however I don't think only people with terribly low self esteem or an inferiority complex look to their ancestors for inspiration or their fellows for confidence and pride. Self-pride however is obviously most important.

Deriving pride out of race, or even history, is a sad state of affairs. ...It shows you have nothing else worthwhile to be proud of. (Like no personal accomplishments of your own.)

If you're Asian, you may "enjoy" the benefits of being part of a group that has good standing, etc. But I don't think pride should come into the picture.

Pride is an empty hollow house of cards that comes crashing down. It has no real substance. It's a very personal, and slow moving emotion, and should not be appropriated to any group or event outside of your own personal process of motivation and accomplishment.

Race and pride don't go together. A very dangerous combination. It shows a deficiency of character to have that line blurred.

[buddyrydell]

Topdog said:

Northern and southern Europeans are descended largely from Paleolithic Europeans, genetically speaking. On average, 20% of Europeans have 'Neolithic' ancestry from the Middle East, though it is higher in the south than in the north. So you are correct, Northern and southern Europeans are more related to each other than to North Africans and Middle Easterners.

That's true. Northern and southern Europeans are of the same basic stock, Paleolithic and Neolithic with later Indo-European contributions (though the linguistic contribution was far more significant than the genetic), and it's just that in the south, Neolithic ancestry is considerably higher.

Certain genes were swapped around the Mediterranean to a certain extent, and you'll find some common traits shared between groups, hence there is some overlap in physical appearance and genes between southern Euros, NAs, and MEs, but for the most part the populations are rather distinct.

[CCC]

Can someone explain to me what "proving" your "race" is better than another accomplishes? If you can prove in your eyes that asians are better than say blacks does that make all the black doctors disappear; or that whites live in mansions while native americans live in dirty reservations, does that make every Cherokee living in a country club community all of a sudden vanish into thin air. Its all so trivial and we're all going to day one day no matter what we are.