Announcement

Collapse

Civics 101 Guidelines

Want to argue about politics? Healthcare reform? Taxes? Governments? You've come to the right place!

Try to keep it civil though. The rules still apply here.
See more
See less

I'm White And I'm Proud?

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • #76
    Originally posted by Psychic Missile View Post
    I guess I should have been more specific. What types of metals and the quality of those metals a society has access to could matter. This can determine the quality of weapons (and thus military success and even survival) or the types of tools and chemical processes available.
    Resources sure didn't help the Congo (or much of Africa). In fact they attracted apex predators. Lack of resources didn't hurt Japan or Sweden from adopting European advancements then contribute to them. While much of Africa still seems to have little interest (or ability, take your pick) in doing so.

    Whether two societies intermingled or what effects a war has on a society could matter.
    Yes, and it's usually bad for one of them in the long run. Relative isolation certainly hasn't hurt Japan's capacity for developing into and contributing to advanced civilization.

    Two societies that join together could introduce new ideas born from their disparate works.
    How did those disparate works come about in the first place?

    A war could wipe out or hinder a society that would have flourished, or a war can force a society to innovate (like with U.S. history).
    How did that capacity to innovate come about in the first place and how do you know everybody can do that?

    If a climate is harsh a society may not be as prosperous,
    While climate probably has an effect on how a society develops (and its genes alter), it's not at all clear that harsh climate would be an issue since Arabs prospered despite the desert climate, as did a lot of Northern European and Asian countries despite the winters.

    or maybe a society is prosperous because it is in a geographically advantageous position (like a popular port city or trade route nexus).
    This might work for the middle east but it won't work for eurasian extremities like Europe and East Asia (the most developed countries in the world, incidentally). Places like these have to be prosperous already before it's worth the considerable time and effort to trade with them.

    What types of plants and animals a society is near can influence what medicine they can make and the animals they can use for food or labor (which supply their own advantages).
    Seeing how we've had successful societies all over the planet despite the differing flora and fauna I'm gonna guess this has pretty much no effect whatsoever.

    A disease might wipe out a society, or a society might build up immunity.
    This is a non-factor since the latter is the case with all societies that weren't wiped out by disease.
    "As for my people, children are their oppressors, and women rule over them. O my people, they which lead thee cause thee to err, and destroy the way of thy paths." Isaiah 3:12

    There is no such thing as innocence, only degrees of guilt.

    Comment


    • #77
      http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/racism

      Yes, it mentions superiority - but not as a mere belief but as a part of the greater belief that race matters significantly.

      Wiki? Really?
      "He is no fool who gives what he cannot keep to gain that which he cannot lose." - Jim Elliot

      "Forgiveness is the way of love." Gary Chapman

      My Personal Blog

      My Novella blog (Current Novella Begins on 7/25/14)

      Quill Sword

      Comment


      • #78
        Originally posted by Teallaura View Post
        http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/racism

        Yes, it mentions superiority - but not as a mere belief but as a part of the greater belief that race matters significantly.

        Wiki? Really?
        In recent years the definition of racism has been expanded in many quarters to include what used to be defined as bigotry.

        I'm always still in trouble again

        "You're by far the worst poster on TWeb" and "TWeb's biggest liar" --starlight (the guy who says Stalin was a right-winger)
        "Overall I would rate the withdrawal from Afghanistan as by far the best thing Biden's done" --Starlight
        "Of course, human life begins at fertilization that’s not the argument." --Tassman

        Comment


        • #79
          Originally posted by square_peg View Post
          Why point out race at all? People in Western civilization achieved great things, yes, but it wasn't because many of the people were white.
          How do you know this?

          They couldn't have accomplished what they did without building off the inventions and discoveries of other civilizations, who were not white.
          How do you know this?

          And in recent years, Western civilization has been losing its technological and educational edge over the nonwhite civilizations.
          Yes, it's incredible how the less racist and more liberal and welcoming of third worlders the west gets the more it loses its edge.

          This isn't actually true anyway. While the West is in decline relative to its former glory, there's nobody they're losing their edge over because aside from Korea and Japan (which have been doing well for a lot longer than "in recent years") there are no contenders. China might be OK in the long run, but that's about it.
          "As for my people, children are their oppressors, and women rule over them. O my people, they which lead thee cause thee to err, and destroy the way of thy paths." Isaiah 3:12

          There is no such thing as innocence, only degrees of guilt.

          Comment


          • #80
            Originally posted by rogue06 View Post
            In recent years the definition of racism has been expanded in many quarters to include what used to be defined as bigotry.
            Which makes it a useless definition - part of my point. Seriously, I know people that would once have been horrified by the accusation that merely shrug now - it's so overused that no one takes it seriously.
            "He is no fool who gives what he cannot keep to gain that which he cannot lose." - Jim Elliot

            "Forgiveness is the way of love." Gary Chapman

            My Personal Blog

            My Novella blog (Current Novella Begins on 7/25/14)

            Quill Sword

            Comment


            • #81
              Originally posted by rogue06 View Post
              Like many biologists of his time he tended to use race, variety, species and sub-species in an interchangeable manner[1] when discussing animals and plants. That is why he could speak, for instance, of "races" of cabbage.
              He may or may not have used them as interchangeable in some context but as you can see from the excerpt I quoted he certainly did not do that all (or even most, so far you provided one example, and a pretty poor one at that) the time.

              Darwin gently poked fun at those who tried to divide humans into different races.
              Darwin seems like a pretty serious and humorless person to me. What you see as "poking fun" is actually a serious argument.

              Source: Descent of Man" Chptr 7


              Man has been studied more carefully than any other animal, and yet there is the greatest possible diversity amongst capable judges whether he should be classed as a single species or race, or as two (Virey), as three (Jacquinot), as four (Kant), five (Blumenbach), six (Buffon), seven (Hunter), eight (Agassiz), eleven (Pickering), fifteen (Bory St. Vincent), sixteen (Desmoulins), twenty-two (Morton), sixty (Crawfurd), or as sixty-three, according to Burke. This diversity of judgment does not prove that the races ought not to be ranked as species, but it shews that they graduate into each other, and that it is hardly possible to discover clear distinctive characters between them.

              © Copyright Original Source

              First note how he equates species and race here.
              He's not equating them, he's listing them. It's clear from this paragraph that he thinks different races exist (though as I noted earlier he prefers the term sub-species and only uses race due to the conventions of his time), he just doesn't think they should be classified as separate species since he believes they form a continuum rather than distinct groups.

              This is important since one of Darwin's most radical ideas was to insist that all of mankind is but one species descended from a common ancestor. He received a lot of grief over this especially from virulent racists like Louis Agassiz[2] who maintained that the races were created separately and others who were horrified that whites were even the same species as blacks.

              In fact, in 1863 Darwin’s supporters rallied against the view proposed by the Anthropological Society of London that “Negroes” were a separate, inferior species that deserved to be enslaved.

              Second, as noted, Darwin seems to be subtly (or not so subtly) mocking the idea of dividing humanity up into two, three, four, five, six, seven, eight, eleven, fifteen, sixteen, twenty-two, sixty, sixty-three or however many "races" as other "capable judges" have done. And as an aside note that those who were sub-dividing humanity up in such a manner were generally creationists of one stripe or another with those still alive at the time when Darwin wrote this generally opposing evolution.
              Ok. I'm not sure why you're telling me this since I never argued Darwin thought humans were different species.

              Third, again as I have previously noted, for the most part it appears that Darwin didn't like to describe humans as belonging to different races which is why he often wrote about the "so-called races" of man or men. Two quick examples:
              "It is not my intention here to describe the several so-called races of men."

              "So again, it is almost a matter of indifference whether the so-called races of man are thus designated"

              Though he still employed the term probably because of its common usage much like someone still talks about sunrise and sunset while aware that the sun is not orbiting the earth.
              It's true. Darwin much preferred describing humans as belonging to different subspecies, not unlike the average modern racist.

              Fourth, notice how he points out the problem with even trying to divide humanity into separate races in "that it is hardly possible to discover clear distinctive characters between them."
              This statement can apply to quite a few other lifeforms that we do classify as separate.

              To elaborate a bit further on what I said earlier, genetic analysis has revealed that the vast majority of variation between humans correlates little, if at all, with any racial boundaries.
              And as I said earlier, "genetic variation between humans" doesn't mean anything. It's something that pops up in popular discourse but has jack to do with how life is classified

              Meaning that all humans are only one biological race which has led modern biologists to conclude that race is not a valid biological classification.
              Meaning biologists don't want to lose their jobs.

              1. On page 33 of the "On the Origin of the Species" we can even see an instance where he does this a couple times in the same sentence:

              Source:

              When we look to the hereditary varieties or races of our domestic animals and plants, and compare them with species closely allied together, we generally perceive in each domestic race, as already remarked, less uniformity of character than in true species.

              © Copyright Original Source

              Umm, can you not read your own quote? Thanks for posting another quote where he doesn't use race and species interchangeably.
              "As for my people, children are their oppressors, and women rule over them. O my people, they which lead thee cause thee to err, and destroy the way of thy paths." Isaiah 3:12

              There is no such thing as innocence, only degrees of guilt.

              Comment


              • #82
                Originally posted by Teallaura View Post
                Which makes it a useless definition - part of my point. Seriously, I know people that would once have been horrified by the accusation that merely shrug now - it's so overused that no one takes it seriously.
                I'm reminded of a somewhat humorous comment I saw once:

                "As nearly as I can tell, a racist is one who approves of rigorous education, good English, civilized manners, minimal criminality, and responsible parenthood, among other things. I am, then, a racist. I see no reason to grovel about it."
                "As for my people, children are their oppressors, and women rule over them. O my people, they which lead thee cause thee to err, and destroy the way of thy paths." Isaiah 3:12

                There is no such thing as innocence, only degrees of guilt.

                Comment


                • #83
                  Originally posted by Darth Executor View Post
                  Judging by all the white liberals avoiding living anywhere near blacks I'd argue that the "was" is a bit premature. Everybody chants "racial equality" but when you look at people's actions it's pretty clear few of them actually believe it.
                  Come on you are not saying liberals are hypocrites are you? Of course most of them are.

                  Originally posted by Darth Executor View Post
                  I'm glad we have white liberals to translate for us what black people really mean.
                  Yes. Of course while so called "white people" (no one can seem to agree who is white and who is not - it varies) have never been one homogenous faction, blacks are all the same. Tilt.
                  Micah 6:8 He has told you, O man, what is good; and what does the LORD require of you but to do justice, and to love kindness, and to walk humbly with your God?

                  Comment


                  • #84
                    Originally posted by Teallaura View Post
                    http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/racism

                    Yes, it mentions superiority - but not as a mere belief but as a part of the greater belief that race matters significantly.
                    Right. So...how does that change anything? Seer apparently believes that race does matter significantly (why else would he focus on the white aspect rather than merely on Western civilization's accomplishments?).

                    Wiki? Really?
                    Not really, because I didn't use Wikipedia anywhere.



                    Originally posted by Jedidiah View Post
                    Come on you are not saying liberals are hypocrites are you? Of course most of them are.
                    Some certainly are, and Darth's post is actually a fair point, although I see no reason to believe that people who are politically liberal are substantially more likely to be hypocritical than people who fall on other parts of the political spectrum.

                    Yes. Of course while so called "white people" (no one can seem to agree who is white and who is not - it varies) have never been one homogenous faction, blacks are all the same. Tilt.
                    I'm fairly certain that no one has ever said this in a serious discussion.
                    Last edited by fm93; 10-17-2014, 04:40 PM.
                    Learn to do right; seek justice. Defend the oppressed. Take up the cause of the fatherless; plead the case of the widow.--Isaiah 1:17

                    I don't think that all forms o[f] slavery are inherently immoral.--seer

                    Comment


                    • #85
                      Originally posted by square_peg View Post
                      Right. So...how does that change anything? Seer apparently believes that race does matter significantly (why else would he focus on the white aspect rather than merely on Western civilization's accomplishments?).
                      Your definition is/was merely holding the belief of superiority - and Seer hasn't said race is a major determinant - he might agree but he hasn't said it so don't assume it. According to your original definition, anyone believing a race can be superior to another would be a racist which is untrue. My definition addresses the issue by including judgment.

                      I find your tendency to label people just as distasteful as Seer's - to my mind, you act exactly the same, you only change the nouns.

                      Originally posted by SP
                      Not really, because I didn't use Wikipedia anywhere....
                      My apologies - I was being snarky. Wiki is the first thing that comes up when searching your definition, hence the comment. But it was uncalled for and I apologize.
                      "He is no fool who gives what he cannot keep to gain that which he cannot lose." - Jim Elliot

                      "Forgiveness is the way of love." Gary Chapman

                      My Personal Blog

                      My Novella blog (Current Novella Begins on 7/25/14)

                      Quill Sword

                      Comment


                      • #86
                        Originally posted by Teallaura View Post
                        Um, Japan, which is resource poor, has invaded China, which is resource rich. This is way over-simplified.
                        These are merely other variables that could influence the success or failure of a society.

                        Comment


                        • #87
                          Originally posted by Darth Executor View Post
                          Resources sure didn't help the Congo (or much of Africa). In fact they attracted apex predators. Lack of resources didn't hurt Japan or Sweden from adopting European advancements then contribute to them. While much of Africa still seems to have little interest (or ability, take your pick) in doing so.
                          So you don't think the presence or absence of natural resources can influence a society.

                          Yes, and it's usually bad for one of them in the long run. Relative isolation certainly hasn't hurt Japan's capacity for developing into and contributing to advanced civilization.
                          Japan became a world power because it decided to start relationships with other countries in the Meiji restoration

                          How did those disparate works come about in the first place?
                          I don't know.

                          How did that capacity to innovate come about in the first place and how do you know everybody can do that?
                          War requires innovation because it's competition. It's in the nature of competitors to innovate so as to gain an edge.

                          While climate probably has an effect on how a society develops (and its genes alter), it's not at all clear that harsh climate would be an issue since Arabs prospered despite the desert climate, as did a lot of Northern European and Asian countries despite the winters.
                          Do you know what the fertile crescent is and its role in human history?

                          This might work for the middle east but it won't work for eurasian extremities like Europe and East Asia (the most developed countries in the world, incidentally). Places like these have to be prosperous already before it's worth the considerable time and effort to trade with them.
                          I think the presence of the Mediterranean Sea influenced the development of European cultures.

                          Seeing how we've had successful societies all over the planet despite the differing flora and fauna I'm gonna guess this has pretty much no effect whatsoever.
                          I'm pretty sure the presence of horses helped a lot.

                          This is a non-factor since the latter is the case with all societies that weren't wiped out by disease.
                          I'm pretty sure the Black Death had a huge effect on many societies.

                          Comment


                          • #88
                            Originally posted by Psychic Missile View Post
                            So you don't think the presence or absence of natural resources can influence a society.
                            I don't think either one pushes them towards or away from success and is thus irrelevant.

                            Japan became a world power because it decided to start relationships with other countries in the Meiji restoration
                            Plenty of other countries had relationships with other countries without becoming world powers.

                            War requires innovation because it's competition. It's in the nature of competitors to innovate so as to gain an edge.
                            I asked about the capacity. War can require innovation but if you can't produce the advancements then it doesn't mather. If we went to war against badgers they wouldn't innovate much. That's because they don't really have the capacity for it. The colonization of Africa, while not quite as easy as a war on badgers, was still fairly easy in that a small number of European troops conquered huge masses of land with the locals (including some pretty savage warriors) being pretty much powerless to stop them. It's not like Africans weren't fighting before the Europeans got there seeing how the place was overrun with tribal wars, slavery and in many cases cannibalism. Where was the innovation?

                            Do you know what the fertile crescent is and its role in human history?
                            Muhammad didn't start his conquests from the fertile crescent. That's something they acquired later.

                            I think the presence of the Mediterranean Sea influenced the development of European cultures.
                            Nothing to do with what we were talking about.

                            I'm pretty sure the presence of horses helped a lot.
                            Incidentally, we have a sample of two continents without horses, and the South American natives were a lot better developed than North American ones. So no, not really.

                            I'm pretty sure the Black Death had a huge effect on many societies.
                            We are discussing a particular type of effect, namely long term success. Which, it didn't. It just killed a ton of people.
                            "As for my people, children are their oppressors, and women rule over them. O my people, they which lead thee cause thee to err, and destroy the way of thy paths." Isaiah 3:12

                            There is no such thing as innocence, only degrees of guilt.

                            Comment

                            Related Threads

                            Collapse

                            Topics Statistics Last Post
                            Started by little_monkey, Yesterday, 04:19 PM
                            16 responses
                            130 views
                            0 likes
                            Last Post One Bad Pig  
                            Started by whag, 03-26-2024, 04:38 PM
                            53 responses
                            332 views
                            0 likes
                            Last Post Mountain Man  
                            Started by rogue06, 03-26-2024, 11:45 AM
                            25 responses
                            112 views
                            0 likes
                            Last Post rogue06
                            by rogue06
                             
                            Started by Hypatia_Alexandria, 03-26-2024, 09:21 AM
                            33 responses
                            197 views
                            0 likes
                            Last Post Roy
                            by Roy
                             
                            Started by Hypatia_Alexandria, 03-26-2024, 08:34 AM
                            84 responses
                            361 views
                            0 likes
                            Last Post JimL
                            by JimL
                             
                            Working...
                            X