Race versus culture

Abortion, euthanasia, genetic engineering, Just War theory and other such hot topics.

Moderators: AMod, iMod

Locked
User avatar
Arising_uk
Posts: 12314
Joined: Wed Oct 17, 2007 2:31 am

Re: Race versus culture

Post by Arising_uk »

Belinda wrote:...
I also agree that correlation is not causation. And I am wondering if this particular correlation of words and genetic origin is valid. ...
I really have no idea what you mean by 'genetic origin' in these matters? I understand why Seleucus wants such a link as he is a racialist who wants to promote the idea of physical appearance being the deciding factor in a culture as he has a dream of a pan-white racialist movement but you?

The only correlation between the study of genetics and language is that linguists have been using it to track population movements with the transmission of languages.
...
However here again we can correlate Anglo Saxon genetics with a cultural element. Goodness knows that in Britain there is a host of cultural elements that correlate with Anglo Saxon genetic heritage. Isn't it true that after a certain number of correlations have been confirmed we take those to signify fact? Seleucus's point seems to be not only my point that culture does coincide with genetic inheritance. But Seleucus goes out on a limb when he then claims that some cultures/ genetics are better than others. ..
Again, what do you mean by 'genetic inheritance' here? I don't think anyone would argue that ones 'race' or physical appearance plays a part in one's cultural identity but such as Seleucus want it to be the defining factor.

You can have as many correlations as you like and yes I agree that such things attract the attention but unless you find a causative factor they are just that, correlations.
User avatar
Seleucus
Posts: 662
Joined: Sat May 06, 2017 3:53 am

Re: Race versus culture

Post by Seleucus »

Londoner wrote: Wed Nov 22, 2017 10:49 am
Seleucus wrote: Wed Nov 22, 2017 4:36 am Except that European countries invested vastly more into their colonies than they extracted.
Extracted in what form?

The reason that you have colonies is to provide yourself with a larger, and sometimes closed, market for your finished goods and also to extract primary products.
No. The colonies, as always has been the case historically were trading outposts and in some cases outlets for excess population. The effort to maintain trade rights drew the Europeans into territorial conquests they had no use for, since administration is very expensive. The other major objective was a negative one, to prevent the other European powers from getting trade monopolies in a region.
If you had a normal economic relationship, then after a while that trading relationship would adjust; increased investment into the colony would turn it from a market for your exports to a competitor. But in a colonial relationship you can prevent that happening. That is how the money is made.
There simply was not any profit in colonies, the cost of administration, defense, education and so on enormously outweighed the dividends as Raffles tally shows. If you'd like me to look at some other tabulations go ahead and present those...
More thinking of the US as the West's greatest champion considering the humiliation Japan served Britain in the East...
That is because Britain was somewhat distracted by a war against a fellow western power, so in terms of your idea of history as an east v west struggle, it was a bit of an own-goal by the Aryan supermen.
Yes, that's why I said a round robin, China vs Japan vs Korea on the East and Germany vs France vs Russia vs US on the West. The top champion from each side advanced and met in the Pacific, the US clobbered Japan in three and a half years.
User avatar
Seleucus
Posts: 662
Joined: Sat May 06, 2017 3:53 am

Re: Race versus culture

Post by Seleucus »

Belinda wrote: Wed Nov 22, 2017 11:12 amignorant nationalism. Look at Poland , Trump, Germany, and horrible Brexit. The 'fight' right now is about democracy and human rights against the international oligarchy. Are you really unaware of the existence of the latter?
I agree. Nationalism is nothing new. It figured significantly in the efforts of the Byzantines and the Caliphate to maintain their vast dominions. Nationalism is the struggle for freedom of a peoples against the oppression of empire.
User avatar
Seleucus
Posts: 662
Joined: Sat May 06, 2017 3:53 am

Re: Race versus culture

Post by Seleucus »

Arising_uk wrote: Wed Nov 22, 2017 12:38 pmI understand why Seleucus wants such a link as he is a racialist who wants to promote the idea of physical appearance being the deciding factor in a culture as he has a dream of a pan-white racialist movement but you?
Other shibboleths might do almost as well, maybe eating with a fork? This is a lot more technical but amounts to just about the same thing: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Indo-European_sound_laws
The only correlation between the study of genetics and language is that linguists have been using it to track population movements with the transmission of languages.
That's all? So what stronger correlation could you possibly ask for than that dispersals of populations and distributions of languages go together?
I don't think anyone would argue that ones 'race' or physical appearance plays a part in one's cultural identity but such as Seleucus want it to be the defining factor.
Or, to identify your own people if you are a Westerner, an amazing culture even if it has flaws, you could use a marker like use of the fork or this shibboleth: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Indo-European_sound_laws

You can play goody two shoes till you've ruined your country, the simple fact is 3rd World people do not have conditioning that is required to do what it takes to make a modern state happen, we all love our identities and don't want to give them up, not in a million years -- almost literally, so if you let a gajillion Africans and Asians into your country, then pretty soon you're not gonna have a nice modern country anymore, you're gonna have a 3rd World garbage dump county. That's not racism, that's simple fact.
Again, what do you mean by 'genetic inheritance' here?
She's saying that there are Anglo-Saxon laws and housing styles and psychological structures found: and also Anglo-Saxon genetic markers. Because genetics and culture are tightly correlated.

Another interesting point to note is: Why did the English accept the culture of the Anglo-Saxon invaders, but the Iberians never accepted the culture of the Moslem invaders. A likely reason is difference, modern thinking is that the pre-Roman English were not Celts but Germanic people who had migrated in from around the area of what is today Belgium. Hence they had little trouble with their brother and sister Germanic peoples migrating into the island. This is an important point to note as far as why Germans and Greeks and Irish could all get along in America, but when Mexicans and Muslims started showing up suddenly integration came to a hault and conflict exploded.
You can have as many correlations as you like and yes I agree that such things attract the attention but unless you find a causative factor they are just that, correlations.
No. Smoke doesn't cause fire, it correlates, but obviously you wouldn't just toss something smoking into your house and say 'oh well, no risk of staring a fire, it's only smoking, there's no cause, just correlation....'
Last edited by Seleucus on Wed Nov 22, 2017 2:33 pm, edited 1 time in total.
Londoner
Posts: 783
Joined: Sun Sep 11, 2016 8:47 am

Re: Race versus culture

Post by Londoner »

Seleucus wrote: Wed Nov 22, 2017 2:04 pm
No. The colonies, as always has been the case historically were trading outposts and in some cases outlets for excess population. The effort to maintain trade rights drew the Europeans into territorial conquests they had no use for, since administration is very expensive. The other major objective was a negative one, to prevent the other European powers from getting trade monopolies in a region.
Britain did not colonise India or Africa in order to have somewhere to ship 'excess population'. Administration was not expensive because there was not much of it. But yes, there was competition for colonies because it secured both raw materials and markets, which is what I said when explaining why you were wrong about them not being profitable.
There simply was not any profit in colonies, the cost of administration, defense, education and so on enormously outweighed the dividends as Raffles tally shows. If you'd like me to look at some other tabulations go ahead and present those...
And they just failed to notice this? Until you, nobody knew how to read a set of accounts?

You need to grasp that the profit arises not from the difference between administration and taxation but TRADE.

Think about it. If it costs the colonial power more to administer these places than they are worth, how did they manage once they became independent? The administrative cost would still be there, so how come China is managing to struggle along without British subsidies?

While India was a colony of Britain, its share of world trade sank. Since independence it has regained the share of world trade it had before. Since you seem to imagine that India was only kept afloat by the unwitting generosity of Britain, that doesn't really figure, does it?
Yes, that's why I said a round robin, China vs Japan vs Korea on the East and Germany vs France vs Russia vs US on the West. The top champion from each side advanced and met in the Pacific, the US clobbered Japan in three and a half years.
'Top champion', 'clobbered'. How old are you?
User avatar
Seleucus
Posts: 662
Joined: Sat May 06, 2017 3:53 am

Re: Race versus culture

Post by Seleucus »

Londoner wrote: Wed Nov 22, 2017 2:29 pm
Seleucus wrote: Wed Nov 22, 2017 2:04 pm
No. The colonies, as always has been the case historically were trading outposts and in some cases outlets for excess population. The effort to maintain trade rights drew the Europeans into territorial conquests they had no use for, since administration is very expensive. The other major objective was a negative one, to prevent the other European powers from getting trade monopolies in a region.
Britain did not colonise India or Africa in order to have somewhere to ship 'excess population'. Administration was not expensive because there was not much of it. But yes, there was competition for colonies because it secured both raw materials and markets, which is what I said when explaining why you were wrong about them not being profitable.
Oh, so millions of Britons didn't settle in South Africa and Rhodisia? And Britons didn't build any schools and railroads?
There simply was not any profit in colonies, the cost of administration, defense, education and so on enormously outweighed the dividends as Raffles tally shows. If you'd like me to look at some other tabulations go ahead and present those...
And they just failed to notice this? Until you, nobody knew how to read a set of accounts?
It was well noticed which is why the Europeans were willing to let their colonies go after the 40s.
You need to grasp that the profit arises not from the difference between administration and taxation but TRADE.

Think about it. If it costs the colonial power more to administer these places than they are worth, how did they manage once they became independent? The administrative cost would still be there, so how come China is managing to struggle along without British subsidies?

While India was a colony of Britain, its share of world trade sank. Since independence it has regained the share of world trade it had before. Since you seem to imagine that India was only kept afloat by the unwitting generosity of Britain, that doesn't really figure, does it?
Seeing as India's per capita GDP is about a thousand dollars a year and Britons on average make that about every week I guess we can say India isn't actually doing so hot, are they? Have you ever spent time in India? Do actually appreciate what it means to say: Third World Country? Just send me the tabulations and spare me the erroneous reasoning if you think colonization ran a profit. pdf or links are fine...
Yes, that's why I said a round robin, China vs Japan vs Korea on the East and Germany vs France vs Russia vs US on the West. The top champion from each side advanced and met in the Pacific, the US clobbered Japan in three and a half years.
'Top champion', ...How old are you?
"Now forward, valiant cavaliers of Troy, to the rescue;
Wounded is our enemies' best champion; his end is approaching " - Book V
Londoner
Posts: 783
Joined: Sun Sep 11, 2016 8:47 am

Re: Race versus culture

Post by Londoner »

Seleucus wrote: Wed Nov 22, 2017 2:45 pm
Oh, so millions of Britons didn't settle in South Africa and Rhodisia? And Britons didn't build any schools and railroads?
You are the worst sufferer of confirmation bias that I have ever known. If some colonies had settlers - but some didn't - then this shows that the motivation for colonies in general cannot have been in order to shift 'surplus population'.

In all your arguments you get stuck on this. For example that if you see that one person has the same shaped eyes as another person, then that sets your view in concrete. It must mean they are the same 'race', no matter how many counter-examples people give pointing out the many other ways they are different.

And yes, Britain built some schools, but not many. And while British contractors made money building railways, the locals paid for them out of taxes. If railway building is some kind of charitable activity, only made possible by British generosity, how come other nations managed to build railways without needing to become British colonies?
It was well noticed which is why the Europeans were willing to let their colonies go after the 40s.
Why did they need to wait until the 1940s? Surely if the colonies were loss making they would have noticed that and some point during the previous centuries? If you are in a hole, the usual advice is to 'stop digging', but they continued to accumulate even more!

So, are you willing to entertain the possibility that you might be missing something?
Seeing as India's per capita GDP is about a thousand dollars a year and Britons on average make that about every week I guess we can say India isn't actually doing so hot, are they? Have you ever spent time in India? Do actually appreciate what it means to say: Third World Country? Just send me the tabulations and spare me the erroneous reasoning if you think colonization ran a profit. pdf or links are fine...
Indians are still poor on average, however now their earnings per capita are rising. During the colonial period it was stagnant.

Try A.Maddison; The World Economy (2 vols). But it won't help. You will skim it, see one sentence that you think confirms your view, and fail to see anything else.
User avatar
Seleucus
Posts: 662
Joined: Sat May 06, 2017 3:53 am

Re: Race versus culture

Post by Seleucus »

Londoner wrote: Wed Nov 22, 2017 4:21 pmTry A.Maddison; The World Economy (2 vols). But it won't help. You will skim it, see one sentence that you think confirms your view, and fail to see anything else.
Let us see...

https://www.stat.berkeley.edu/~aldous/1 ... conomy.pdf
User avatar
Seleucus
Posts: 662
Joined: Sat May 06, 2017 3:53 am

Re: Race versus culture

Post by Seleucus »

The first thing I'm seeing is Indian national production never declined during the whole period of the Raj as some claim, it grew continuously from 1600 on. I'm also seeing the drain on Indian gross domestic product into British is almost negligible, rarely much more than 1%; considering services rendered it was an extraordinary deal for the Indians. The tiny British civil service was infinitely less corrupt and ostentatious than the Moguls. The comparison of drain with the Dutch Indies which grew to almost 10% is probably totally misleading since the Dutch Cultivation System implemented in the 1830s meant production was exported into the Dutch economy and sold to finance defense, development and administration of the colony. An hour of reading such a vast collection of numbers obviously doesn't do justice, but what I've seen so far totally contradicts the claim that the European colonizers extracted more than they contributed. Furthermore, what is the price of peace, hygiene, linear thinking, fair and efficient courts, electricity, standardized systems of measurement, and so on?
Belinda
Posts: 8035
Joined: Fri Aug 26, 2016 10:13 am

Re: Race versus culture

Post by Belinda »

Seleucus wrote: Wed Nov 22, 2017 2:08 pm
Belinda wrote: Wed Nov 22, 2017 11:12 amignorant nationalism. Look at Poland , Trump, Germany, and horrible Brexit. The 'fight' right now is about democracy and human rights against the international oligarchy. Are you really unaware of the existence of the latter?
I agree. Nationalism is nothing new. It figured significantly in the efforts of the Byzantines and the Caliphate to maintain their vast dominions. Nationalism is the struggle for freedom of a peoples against the oppression of empire.
Nationalism is not enough to get rid of oligarchy. Communism is not enough to get rid of oligarchy. Nationalist sentiment is what you say, but it is also silly jingoism. Nationalist sentiment can be used to engage the support of oppresssed people.

Are you really unaware of the rise of the super-rich ?

Arising_uk, if 'race' is to be defined, for the time being, as genetic markers it's interesting to trace the movements of peoples with the same genetic markers from place to place. Linguistic traces not only correlate with genetic markers but also correlate with what all human beings have in common, i.e. need for certain well defined natural resources such as water courses for transport, minerals, fertile soil, clean springs, thence to trading opportunities , beliefs, and technologies. I'd say that all these together define human nature.
I am not in this conversation simply to quarrel with Seleucus.
User avatar
Arising_uk
Posts: 12314
Joined: Wed Oct 17, 2007 2:31 am

Re: Race versus culture

Post by Arising_uk »

Seleucus wrote:... More thinking of the US as the West's greatest champion considering the humiliation Japan served Britain in the East...
You talking about Singapore? How about that once the Brits came back from India they didn't lose a single battle against Jap.
Londoner
Posts: 783
Joined: Sun Sep 11, 2016 8:47 am

Re: Race versus culture

Post by Londoner »

Seleucus wrote: Wed Nov 22, 2017 5:08 pm The first thing I'm seeing is Indian national production never declined during the whole period of the Raj as some claim, it grew continuously from 1600 on. I'm also seeing the drain on Indian gross domestic product into British is almost negligible, rarely much more than 1%; considering services rendered it was an extraordinary deal for the Indians. The tiny British civil service was infinitely less corrupt and ostentatious than the Moguls. The comparison of drain with the Dutch Indies which grew to almost 10% is probably totally misleading since the Dutch Cultivation System implemented in the 1830s meant production was exported into the Dutch economy and sold to finance defense, development and administration of the colony. An hour of reading such a vast collection of numbers obviously doesn't do justice, but what I've seen so far totally contradicts the claim that the European colonizers extracted more than they contributed. Furthermore, what is the price of peace, hygiene, linear thinking, fair and efficient courts, electricity, standardized systems of measurement, and so on?
So now you are responding to 'as some claim' as opposed to what anybody actually said. I cannot be bothered trying to explain this stuff to you.

So we'll say: OK, colonialism was either a tremendous act of charity, or alternatively an accountancy error, not noticed by the colonizers for centuries.

And now that the kindly/stupid Europeans have gone, China and the rest of Asia are unable to build railways, educate themselves, defend themselves etc.
Belinda
Posts: 8035
Joined: Fri Aug 26, 2016 10:13 am

Re: Race versus culture

Post by Belinda »

Seleucus wrote:
Arising_uk wrote: ↑Wed Nov 22, 2017 12:38 pm
I understand why Seleucus wants such a link as he is a racialist who wants to promote the idea of physical appearance being the deciding factor in a culture as he has a dream of a pan-white racialist movement but you?
Other shibboleths might do almost as well, maybe eating with a fork? This is a lot more technical but amounts to just about the same thing
Archaeologists seek the material evidence of 'shibboleths' to aid in the identification of cultures. The linkage of culture and genetic markers doesn't indicate racism. Genetic markers aren't what racists cite to support racial superiority.

http://time.com/91081/what-science-says ... -genetics/

Long and complex essay but well written.
User avatar
Seleucus
Posts: 662
Joined: Sat May 06, 2017 3:53 am

Re: Race versus culture

Post by Seleucus »

Belinda wrote: Wed Nov 22, 2017 5:46 pm
Seleucus wrote: Wed Nov 22, 2017 2:08 pm
Belinda wrote: Wed Nov 22, 2017 11:12 amignorant nationalism. Look at Poland , Trump, Germany, and horrible Brexit. The 'fight' right now is about democracy and human rights against the international oligarchy. Are you really unaware of the existence of the latter?
I agree. Nationalism is nothing new. It figured significantly in the efforts of the Byzantines and the Caliphate to maintain their vast dominions. Nationalism is the struggle for freedom of a peoples against the oppression of empire.
Are you really unaware of the rise of the super-rich ?
Yes, super rich are the harbingers of empire. Same thing happened as the Athenian and Roman empires were born.
it's interesting to trace the movements of peoples with the same genetic markers from place to place. Linguistic traces not only correlate with genetic markers but also correlate with what all human beings have in common
Yes, it's very interesting, it tells us who we are. But some would try to cut us off from our origins... "obliterate our sense of direction" 4:47. Try to smear our heritage by saying things like, 'if your interested in Runes you mist be a nasty White supremacist'.
User avatar
Seleucus
Posts: 662
Joined: Sat May 06, 2017 3:53 am

Re: Race versus culture

Post by Seleucus »

Arising_uk wrote: Wed Nov 22, 2017 6:43 pm
Seleucus wrote:... More thinking of the US as the West's greatest champion considering the humiliation Japan served Britain in the East...
You talking about Singapore? How about that once the Brits came back from India they didn't lose a single battle against Jap.
Yes, yes. The British were great and valiant champions too.
Locked