Arising_uk wrote: ↑
Mon Nov 20, 2017 10:01 pm
Seleucus wrote:As we have discussed, yes, the Chinese phenotype is an essential element of Chinese identity, specifically I mean flat faces, short legs, stumpy feet, stubby noses, straight black hair and slanty eyes. ...
And yet the Chinese have at least five distinct ethnic groups?
Not sure where you got that number from? The official Chinese count is Han plus 55 minority ethnic groups. Last time I checked, Koreans, Mongols, Kazakh, Uyghur and so on don't consider themselves Chinese...
Read this again: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hua%E2%80 ... istinction
The peoples who crossed the Hua-Yi divide and accomplished identity shift no longer exist, the Jie for instance. We can say the same in the West of peoples like the Illyrians or the Alans. No one today calls himself an Illyrian, the language, culture and spiritual tradition only exists in ancient references, today their ancestors are Italians, Greeks, Albanians and so on. This supports Spengler, or Barth, that ethnic identities either continue or end, not essentially change.
Either way, snipping away at little bits isn't going to counter my thesis which is that ethnic identities have incredible resilience and continuity over enormous spans of time. It's probably your habit to click the quote function and reply to each sentence as it triggers you rather than synthesizing a global position?
But language has no links to genetics or biology? If it did then babies would not be able to learn a language like a native if adopted by a different 'race'.
But who ever said it did?
And what has this to do with your view of race?
Go ahead and tell me what my view of race is?
Can you unpack a little more clearly what you're meaning to say here? Maybe some cites or quotes?
"Race purity is a grotesque world in view of the fact that for centuries all stocks and species have been mixed, and that warlike—that is, healthy—generations with a future before them have from time immemorial always welcomed a stranger into the family if he had “race,” to whatever race it was he belonged. Those who talk too much about race no longer have it in them. What is needed is not a pure race, but a strong one, which has a nation within it. This manifests itself above all in self-evident elemental fecundity, in an abundance of children, which historical life can consume without ever exhausting the supply."
"It would be founded on a grand culture-creating, race-shaping myth, propagated through art and religion, that enthralls and mobilizes a whole people. It would be less concerned about the race we were or the race we are than about the race we can become."
"Comradeship breeds races ...".
Which is interpreted in the following way by Richard Herbert: "Spengler vehemently rejecting the purity-based racial theories prevalent within the NSDAP. But, what is the nature of this strong rejection? At its root, what we see in Spengler is a sharp contrast between his characterization of (a) the raceless man’s engaging in discourse on race and (b) the man of race’s non-discursive lived experience of race. The former discursive behavior, we see Spengler treat as degenerate and weak—the latter non-discursive behavior, as vital and strong." link
For us, the last major race creating event occurred with the Indo-European dispersal. A new race might very well form? In the meantime, what people like Jewish Zuckerberg and his diaspora Chinese wife, and their daughter, represent isn't a coming super-race but Herbert's "raceless man": deterritorialized internationalists: global imperialists set on oppressing the eternal yearning for freedom and autonomy of the varied and unique peoples of the world.