|
Post by MC anunnaki on Jul 31, 2005 11:01:48 GMT -5
America has never been a white country. It wasn't a white country when the first Europeans arrived, and it sure as hell wasn't very white when the Euros started bringing over black African slaves.
|
|
|
Post by Requiem on Jul 31, 2005 11:16:38 GMT -5
|
|
|
Post by henerte on Jul 31, 2005 15:26:52 GMT -5
America has never been a white country. It wasn't a white country when the first Europeans arrived, and it sure as hell wasn't very white when the Euros started bringing over black African slaves. America as a country, not a continent, was always white or better to say protestant & anglo-saxon. Unless you are a racial purist and think that a small minority of different race makes a huge difference. Anyway, most blacks have been derooted and are also considered to be anglo-saxon. Even catholics that arrived in America were considered to be of different culture, so to speak, and needed to be assimilated. Sometimes they were creating they own communities like Italians e.g. The backbone of America was always anglo-saxon which found its reflection in the attitude toward wealth, work and also God. They problem is that America today is absorbing huge waves of Hispanic (Catholic) immigrants who despite of not being a race, belong to one cultural sphere. The number of immigrants is too big to be fully assimilated and therefore many analysts say that America is not only changing its racial composition but also culture, mentality etc. I think that S.Huntington wrote a book about it.
|
|
|
Post by Igu on Jul 31, 2005 16:36:25 GMT -5
America has never been a white country. It wasn't a white country when the first Europeans arrived, and it sure as hell wasn't very white when the Euros started bringing over black African slaves. America as a country, not a continent, was always white or better to say protestant & anglo-saxon. Unless you are a racial purist and think that a small minority of different race makes a huge difference. Anyway, most blacks have been derooted and are also considered to be anglo-saxon. Even catholics that arrived in America were considered to be of different culture, so to speak, and needed to be assimilated. Sometimes they were creating they own communities like Italians e.g. The backbone of America was always anglo-saxon which found its reflection in the attitude toward wealth, work and also God. They problem is that America today is absorbing huge waves of Hispanic (Catholic) immigrants who despite of not being a race, belong to one cultural sphere. The number of immigrants is too big to be fully assimilated and therefore many analysts say that America is not only changing its racial composition but also culture, mentality etc. I think that S.Huntington wrote a book about it. If affirmative action is not implemented, those non-assimilated "hispanics" will not destroy american civilization, they'll just keep taking low-level Jobs and nothing will happen. But if things go as they are, bye bye USA. PS: Sorry to disturb the mods, but I thought that racial slurs were to be banned from the forum? (first page, this topic).
|
|
|
Post by eufrenio on Jul 31, 2005 17:16:53 GMT -5
Igu, manabovetime has been given a fair warning.
|
|
|
Post by Wadaad on Jul 31, 2005 17:18:16 GMT -5
Great point, CooCooCaChoo. Before I read your post, I would have said flat-out 'no.' Now I no longer can. But there is a problem with the concept of Memes. Because as we all know, one can adjust ones teaching methods within a day, let alone accross generations. So Genetics favor any piece of culture that survives for a long period of time. ...And you might have added within a specific habitat. So relative to habitat, the culture that is most progressive (I'm so very sorry), survives. But as with other progressiveness (please forgive me), once community is established, cultural transmission is assured and the local habitat conquered in proper homo sapiens fashion, what role does genetics play after that? If that stage is reached at a fairly primitive level what accounts for more differences in advanced cultures? (Is there much diversity between primitive cultures? Hunting, sleeping, eating, fornicating, painting animal pictures on cave walls. That about covers it. Right?) I would say coincidence and isolation. (I just realized that that sounds atheist.) As to the persistence of culture in spite of the interaction of different cultures, couldn't we put that down to what American teachers call "home training?" There are no blank slates. But if you have custody of a child until he is 5, can't you mold him in subtle, profound ways that you the parent/guardian might not even be aware of? Someone else can talk about intelligence. I hate talking about it. hmm, about geography and climatic factors...say desert cultures vs cultures of the temperate climates of the north with its long winters
|
|
|
Post by Dodona Underground on Jul 31, 2005 21:17:57 GMT -5
hmm, about geography and climatic factors...say desert cultures vs cultures of the temperate climates of the north with its long winters Is that a response to this? (Is there much diversity between primitive cultures? Hunting, sleeping, eating, fornicating, painting animal pictures on cave walls. That about covers it. Right?) Since I don't really know the differences between the primitive ancestors of the Mongols, the Celts and the Yoruba, I can only speculate. But wouldn't it be nothing more substantial than differences in kinds of fruits, nuts and roots to gather; kinds of animals to fish, trap, hunt and domesticate; and housing and clothing strategies in dealing with "the elements." Would these things, even at a primitive stage, of themselves tend to create the distinctly different sets of memes that Coocoocachoo mentioned? I honestly don't know. I could speculate that even primitive artists who depict camels and palm trees come to develop a different kind of artistic sensibility than primitive artists who depict fish and bamboo trees. But I can't even imagine how this would interrelate with other aspects of life. I guess that Coocoocachoo would say that these things develop at the same time that the environment is also developing the race of the participants. In that case, race doesn't really cause culture. In that case, race and culture would both be caused by environment. Coo can speak for himself, though. Why did you mention long winters? Are you hinting at geographical factors in the early development of agriculture and trade? Storing food and wine for the winter? How alcoholism affects culture? ;D
|
|
|
Post by captainusa1 on Aug 1, 2005 0:22:25 GMT -5
I doubt it. I think that it has more to do with economics and geography. For example, crime rates were high in poor White urban areas in the 1800's. There's nothing new under the sun.
|
|
|
Post by zemelmete on Aug 3, 2005 7:06:17 GMT -5
I think race and culture doesn't correlate. Let's take for example japanese and eskimo. Do they, both being mongoloids, share someting similar in culture? Absolutely nothing! Japanese and eskimo cultures are so different, that there is hard to find something similar. I think culture depends much more from environment and not from race.
|
|
|
Post by greatness on Aug 11, 2005 0:25:37 GMT -5
|
|