|
Post by Minstrel on May 27, 2005 2:38:04 GMT -5
One psychological trend I see amongst European descended people on the internet (especially in right-wing circles) and life in general is the incessecant need to talk about their "acheivements" as a collective entity. Psychologically, that is a trait of insecurity. Suppose to say, they are the most accomplished group (ack, racial collectivism and all its evils, I hate to refer to them in such a way), why must they continously croon about their accomplishments? Is'nt that already self-evident enough?
Looking in the book store the other day, whole book racks were dedicated european history, a long-ass shelf on a single subject (the civil war) whilst other groups and geograhical areas received sections. When you read the is on books, 90% greece, rome, the renaissance, industrial revolution etc. How much can you write on a single subject?
Their is nothing inherently superior about whites as a group .They have many problems, because individuals are subject to more things than "racial" stereotyping, I try to refrain from such labeling, however, where I live, (an area of mostly whites) white folks here are as dumb as you can get. They don't exhibit "superior" behavior, ther is much class division, sickness, mental problems etc. They are regular-ass people.
But okay, they managed to deebo (whoop everyones ass) the world in a very big way, and implanted christian/greeco-roman culture everywhere, everybody knows right now white folks run stuff, do they have to continously croon and talk about it? I am extremely tired of hearing european/eurasian history, it is incredibly played out, I want to see more of a diversity of study, and europeans are not super-men, circumstance favored them.
"Race" as a concept represents a failure of the ego. What happened to individualism? Is it dead?
|
|
|
Post by nockwasright on May 27, 2005 3:44:11 GMT -5
Looking in the book store the other day, whole book racks were dedicated european history, a long-ass shelf on a single subject (the civil war) whilst other groups and geograhical areas received sections. When you read the is on books, 90% greece, rome, the renaissance, industrial revolution etc. Their is nothing inherently superior about whites as a group .They have many problems, because individuals are subject to more things than "racial" stereotyping, I try to refrain from such labeling, however, where I live, (an area of mostly whites) white folks here are as dumb as you can get. They don't exhibit "superior" behavior, ther is much class division, sickness, mental problems etc. They are regular-ass people. But okay, they managed to deebo (whoop everyones ass) the world in a very big way, and implanted christian/greeco-roman culture everywhere, everybody knows right now white folks run stuff, do they have to continously croon and talk about it? I am extremely tired of hearing european/eurasian history, it is incredibly played out, I want to see more of a diversity of study, and europeans are not super-men, circumstance favored them. "Race" as a concept represents a failure of the ego. What happened to individualism? Is it dead? I think your perception is wrong. What is there for "psychologycal reasons" in the book shop is not the civil war book shelf, but the women/black/eastern studies shelf. Until relatively few years ago, those last sections did not exist at all (in Europe they still don't, with rare exceptions). It is not like a white man plot to brag about how he achieved world dominance ... only the producers and consumers of books in the USA belong mainly to European descended ethnicity and culture, and thus the book shelfs. Also, as this culture is dominant, many have interest in knowing it even if it's not theirs. If you go to China, probably they'll have more books on Chinese history than on USA's civil war. Then in the cd's shop you find a lot of "non white" music just because there is demand for it. It's only a problem of supply and demand, if people will start buying books on Africa, market will provide them. Actually most "European descended people" don't even have a "racial consciousness" as to them the "European" world is the only world they know. They may have a national consciusness, and brag about their nation, instead. Europe is still like this, only in the USA is emerging a sort of "white man" consciousness that mimics the minorities' consciousness. I agree with you that "Race as a concept rapresent a failure of the ego" and that whites are "regular ass people". Actually I think it's you who are seeing from a racial perspective a phenomenon that isn't racial at all.
|
|
|
Post by guntank on May 27, 2005 4:18:56 GMT -5
this is one long empty polemic that's really stupid. I assume you're from America and I have to say that America is built by Westerners, employing Western philosophy or whatnots. That's why you see bookshelves reflect that heiritage and history. On the other hand, I'm chinese and in our bookstores and libraries we have TONS of stuff on Chinese culture and history, with european/western history sidelined a bit. What's wrong with that? I wouldn't expect a westerner to shout that it's unfair to have so many chinese books in China or Taiwan but not an equal number of western books. Let's face it, african history is just not as important or relevant to the world, and shelf space reflects that, understand?
|
|
|
Post by Minstrel on May 27, 2005 5:03:48 GMT -5
this is one long empty polemic that's really stupid. I assume you're from America and I have to say that America is built by Westerners, employing Western philosophy or whatnots. That's why you see bookshelves reflect that heiritage and history. On the other hand, I'm chinese and in our bookstores and libraries we have TONS of stuff on Chinese culture and history, with european/western history sidelined a bit. What's wrong with that? I wouldn't expect a westerner to shout that it's unfair to have so many chinese books in China or Taiwan but not an equal number of western books. Let's face it,, and shelf space reflects that, understand? Okay, that is your opinion, and as your opinion it ofcourse is subject to individual interpretation. History is not biased, like genetics, it is an academic discipline. One continent (eurasia) is not the only one with history, obviously. Therefore, history should reflect all recorded/discovered events not just just within the main cultural sphere, its called academics, its called learning. And yes there is something wrong with presenting a skewed representation of history. Is taiwan a multiracial society like america or a homogenous, mostly chinese one? Theres your answer, taiwan does'nt have a large population of western immigrants does it? Thats why there is no protest. Thats because you know nothing of africa, because only someone who knew nothing of it would make an ignorant statement like that. Africa is the cradle of humankind and home to hundreds of cultures. It begs to be studied. Africans were participants in the world while chinese were isolationists. Henceforth, I would'nt expect much influence from a closed society. They had the technology to explore and do great things but instead chose to stagnate. African history is indeed relevant to the world. I suppose you did'nt know that ancient mali (west africa) sent an armada of ships across the atlantic to see what was on the other side 200 years before columbus? Were not the swahili of the east coast involved in a huge indian ocean trading network, the worlds first mercantile, cosmopolitan, "globalised" society? Chinese influence is rather minimal (probably stuff like martial arts) and relegated to mainly chinese and other asians, while SSA culture is a cross-cultural world phenomena, would'nt you want to know where that influence started? Do not insult the cultures/history of others, you will open to yourself unwanted negative atttention.
|
|
|
Post by guntank on May 27, 2005 5:21:50 GMT -5
you gotta be shitting me if you think Africa is that relevant. If so, why nobody pays enough attention to the sorrows in the dark continent, from widespread poverty to genocides and civil wars? It needs help the most but the majority of the world aren't bothered to do anything. Darfur just claimed close to a million lives in just two years yet the international community isn't doing enough to put a stop to this. Why? I don't suppose the answer is that Africa is still relevant, no?
|
|
|
Post by Minstrel on May 27, 2005 5:22:22 GMT -5
You might be right, maybe its more cultural than racial, however I always get the feeling "whites" or europeans are out to prove something. Something which has already obviously been proven (dominance) and like to collecetively chest pound, make movies (alexander), write the same stories over again, lol some europeans even feel proud of their respective nations record on colonialism and empire! (and all the evil that entails) Who would want to be proud of exploiting people? Thats like being proud to be a pimp.......................
|
|
|
Post by Minstrel on May 27, 2005 5:29:15 GMT -5
you gotta be shitting me if you think Africa is that relevant. If so, why nobody pays enough attention to the sorrows in the dark continent, from widespread poverty to genocides and civil wars? It needs help the most but the majority of the world aren't bothered to do anything. Darfur just claimed close to a million lives in just two years yet the international community isn't doing enough to put a stop to this. Why? I don't suppose the answer is that Africa is still relevant, no? If it was'nt relevant how would you know about darfur? It's just not relevant to the worlds political establishment unless it effects them, thats how it is everywhere. However troublingly I do agree with you somewhat, just think about the huge outpouring of support the victims of the tsunami got while many africans continue to starve, suffer genocide, curruption etc. However I believe that attitude is changing, and there is more reporting on africa as well a resurected interest in its happening recently, one has only to look at the recent surge of articles on human origins, sudan, south africa, timbuktu etc.
|
|
|
Post by guntank on May 27, 2005 5:32:48 GMT -5
Africans were participants in the world while chinese were isolationists. Henceforth, I would'nt expect much influence from a closed society. They had the technology to explore and do great things but instead chose to stagnate. African history is indeed relevant to the world. I suppose you did'nt know that ancient mali (west africa) sent an armada of ships across the atlantic to see what was on the other side 200 years before columbus? Were not the swahili of the east coast involved in a huge indian ocean trading network, the worlds first mercantile, cosmopolitan, "globalised" society? Chinese influence is rather minimal (probably stuff like martial arts) and relegated to mainly chinese and other asians, while SSA culture is a cross-cultural world phenomena, would'nt you want to know where that influence started? Do not insult the cultures/history of others, you will open to yourself unwanted negative atttention. Your grasp on history, civilizations and their degree of sophistication is really lacking. Do you have any idea on how big China is and how much influence it has over East and Southeast Asia? For most of the history all the way up until early 1800s east asia was their whole world with China right in the middle of it. It's not fragmented like european states, each vying for commerical or political supremacy. China is a giant self-reliant country, with around 400 million inhabitants at the middle of the Qing dynasty. Yeah sure, China was really small closed isolationist society that just isn't as receptive as others . China influenced the philosophy and culture of all east asia, with billions of people, and that's magnitudes more than people from sub-saharan africa ever accomplished. Jeez, do you really believe that africans had that much influence and attained the same degree of accomplishment as the chinese civilization?
|
|
|
Post by Minstrel on May 27, 2005 5:40:53 GMT -5
But the question is, how much did they influence western society? That is the question here, and the answer (as you can see around you) is minimal. The chinese have given us fortune cookies, gunpowder, and kung-fu lol other than that you can't really say much. Who care about south-east asia, were they really major world players?
Again the question arises, how did they influence the dominant culture, that is, greco-roman traditon? Virtually none. The east and west are two entirely different worlds, one obviously has played and continues to play a larget role than the other.
And yes the chinese were mainly isolationist (regardless of what you say they did in south-east asia), such was their policy regarding foreign polities, how do you think the opium war started?
|
|
|
Post by guntank on May 27, 2005 5:45:54 GMT -5
if you're talking about african contribution to western civilization, most likely regarding egypt and greece, then i'm sure there are more than a few here who'll have a bone to pick wih you ;D
|
|
|
Post by guntank on May 27, 2005 5:50:27 GMT -5
And yes the chinese were mainly isolationist (regardless of what you say they did in south-east asia), such was their policy regarding foreign polities, how do you think the opium war started? The opium war started when an imperial official burned around 20,000 crates of opium, imported into China to set off a trade imbalance because China wouldnt buy anything substantial from Great Britain while GB was importing loads of stuff. China didn't need to open up its ports or forego an isolationist policy because it's a big, self-reliant country. 400 million people on a landmass that's more than quite a few european countries combined. Too bad that was the colonial times, so whoever with the higher firepower wins. It wasn't china's fault that it was isolationist.
|
|
|
Post by Minstrel on May 27, 2005 6:07:37 GMT -5
if you're talking about african contribution to western civilization, most likely regarding egypt and greece, then i'm sure there are more than a few here who'll have a bone to pick wih you ;D Egypt maybe so, probably not so much greece, but that is not the issue here, we are talking about from the early medieval, pre-columbian era to present, that is the time frame most relevant to our discussion because it is the period of the most dramatic changes in human history/culture. And I know very well those figures you are refering to And ofcourse I will not go there, that is not my style, I'm not an afrocentrist. regardless of whose fault it was what matters is how history turned out, and from the position of chinese influence on the world up to modern times, it was fairly minimal. They did'nt colonise anything, instead they create little niche, immigrant societies around the world much like the jews. They did'nt fight any wars with non-asians (i.e. westerners) except the opium war and maybe a few wars with persia (if you'll excuse the mongols). They did'nt influence western linguistics in any way. Frankly sir, I believe you are over-hyping chinese influence on the world, the fact of the matter is, SS africans and their diaspora, influenced the world culturally far more than chinese.
|
|
|
Post by mike2 on May 27, 2005 6:07:44 GMT -5
I think tribal societies are generally not respected in Eurasian circles because they are too fragmentary, they don't fly under the banner of one mega meta-ethnicity. Black Africans are thus not unlike Amerinds. A few full-fledged "civilizations," but still mostly tribal. Of course, you could argue that some tribes became so powerful as to almost be worthy of being called a full-fledged civilization. This is probably true of people like the Ashantis who sold the slaves to the Europeans. The Europeans had to show the Asante respect or they wouldn't have gotten nothin'.
|
|
|
Post by Minstrel on May 27, 2005 6:14:54 GMT -5
I think tribal societies are generally not respected in Eurasian circles because they are too fragmentary, they don't fly under the banner of one mega meta-ethnicity. Black Africans are thus not unlike Amerinds. A few full-fledged "civilizations," but still mostly tribal. Of course, you could argue that some tribes became so powerful as to almost be worthy of being called a full-fledged civilization. This is probably true of people like the Ashantis who sold the slaves to the Europeans. The Europeans had to show the Asante respect or they wouldn't have gotten nothin'. Tribes are the first unit of human organization and they have been effective for hundreds of thousands of years, there is nothing inherently wrong with them. Though there is the question of too much division. Tribes eventually develope into states when conditions warrant it. In africa, certain conditions (such as ruralism) facilitated tribalism. Probably born from the need to produce for the sake of sustenance rather than export or sale because the soil was so poor. Urbanism, centralisation and productive surplus eventually dispells tribalism, for instance the swahili were separated more into productive , merchant clans than tribes.
|
|
|
Post by mike2 on May 27, 2005 6:17:38 GMT -5
Tribes are the first unit of human organization and they have been effective for hundreds of thousands of years, there is nothing inherently wrong with them. Tribes eventually develope into states when conditions warrant it. In africa, certain conditions (such as ruralism) facilitated tribalism. Probably born from the need to produce for the sake of sustenance rather than export or sale because the soil was so poor. Urbanism eventually dispells tribalism, for instance the swahili were separated more into productive clans than tribes. I agree. I see nothing wrong with tribalism. But a tepee isn't going to wow people as much as a grand palace would, for instance. I think it really is a function of complexity and creativity. And unity, as well. Just compare the linguistic diversity of black Africa with that of Europe. Very fragmentary. Could you imagine the sheer power if all Bantus united under one enormous Bantu kingdom with Bantu costumes and Bantu palaces and one Bantu language? But it would never happen because they are too spread out and diversified, both culturally and linguistically. You don't have this kind of massive variation in places like Europe. You see, these are generally respected: These generally are not simply because they are not as impressive to our spoiled American eyes, who are used to expecting Parthenons and Coliseums and Pagodas when we hear of great civilizations:
|
|