Franz Boas (1858-1942) was the father of American anthropology. He made anthropology into a true science. Before Boas anthropology was a pseudoscience of adventurers and scientific racists.
Ideas he gave us:
- Culture as the customs, beliefs and ways of a given people – as opposed to the older meaning of high art and so on.
- Culture as the main subject of anthropology, of the study of man, as opposed to man’s physical nature.
- Cultural relativism: no one culture is better than any other.
- Culture, race and language as largely independent of one another.
He founded the anthropology department at Columbia University. His students went on to start anthropology departments at other universities.
Some of his students:
- Zora Neale Hurston
- Margaret Mead
- Ruth Benedict
- Ashley Montagu
- Alfred L. Kroeber
- Edward Sapir
- Melville Herskovits
- Gilberto Freyre
Mead, Montagu and Benedict wrote books that spread his ideas to the general American public.
He and his students – and Hitler’s racist terror – saved anthropology from the pseudoscientific racism that people like Madison Grant were pushing it towards.
Boas was a German Jew by birth. While he never hid the fact, he did not think of himself that way: he did not believe in religion. Nevertheless the rising anti-Semitism in Germany gave him little future there as a scientist.
He went to Canada. There in the 1880s he lived among the Eskimos (Inuits) of Baffin Island and the Kwakiutl Indians (Kwakwaka’wakw) of British Columbia.
Ever since he was a boy he wanted to know what it was like to be an Eskimo. He got his chance when he was sent to map the coast of Baffin Island. He lived among them, hunted with them, learned their language and, in short, became as Eskimo as possible in one year.
He was a geographer by profession, yet the maps they drew in the snow were as good as his. Their language, far from being simple, was one he could never quite master. They were hardly backward.
In time he came to New York where he worked at the Natural History Museum (1896-1905) and became a professor at Columbia (1899-1942).
In his day New York had huge numbers of poor Jews from eastern Europe. More came every day. He feared they would remain poor and foreign forever.
The American government shared his concerns and paid him to measure their heads. Zora Neale Hurston and Margaret Mead came along to help.
Jews, Italians and others of the Mediterranean were thought to be born with heads of the wrong shape for high intelligence – quite unlike most white people in America and northern Europe. This was used as scientific proof that Italians and Jews were lesser beings who had to be stopped from coming to America.
But Boas found that the longer a Jewish woman had lived in America when she gave birth, the more the shape of her child’s head was like that of White Americans. Head shape had little to do with race. Boas overthrew the main claim of scientific racism.
– Abagond, 2011.
See also:
- Franz Boas
- Zora Neale Hurston
- Madison Grant
- science and race
- Covarrubias
- Sapir-Whorf Hypothesis
No, nothing good came out of nazism. Its abominable crimes have been used to justify de-legitimization of entire branches of scientific and political discourse.
LikeLike
Why is he “Droppin’ it like it’z hot?”
LikeLike
Abagond–
Utterly propagandistic junk. Franz Boas was a Frankfort School German transplant cultural Marxist, who did make American cultural (but not far more scientific physical or later biological/genetic) anthropology into the first thoroughly PC, leftist and highly politicized social science in America.
His disciples such as Margret Mead heavily engaged in lefty lying, as has been well demonstrated.
His anti race realism and heavily relativistic cultural anthropology was always ideologically and not scientifically driven.
His was indeed an ideological pseudoscience, unlike psychologist and other race realists.
LikeLike
Complete fraud. Here’s a link for you Abagond….
yingma.org Chinese Girl in the Ghetto ….
Repugnant behavior. Typical behavior.
LikeLike
@ Doug 1
“Race realism” is not real.
LikeLike
King,
Don’t bother. Doug1, BD, and such hate Boas because he basically revolutionized American anthropology in one fell swoop, folklore too. His understanding that people and their environment (and not just nature, but nurture as well) interact in important ways, and these leave observable effects in the world completely undermines the essentialism rampant among scientific racism of the times, and the pseudo-science of today’s HBD crowd.
Sadly though, instead of actual criticism, they can only offer dark mutterings of “Lefty” “Liberal” “Marxism” “PC” and other concepts they fear, but don’t really know much about except as boogiemen to their reactionary dogma =P
It’s like shining a light on someone living under a rock. They don’t bother to notice that they’re living under a rock, but just tell you to turn off the f**king light, haha.
LikeLike
@Doug1
Dude, did a commie f**k ur wife?
LikeLike
Zek,
HBD?
LikeLike
Doug1 said:
”Utterly propagandistic junk. Franz Boas was a Frankfort School German transplant cultural Marxist, who did make American cultural (but not far more scientific physical or later biological/genetic) anthropology into the first thoroughly PC, leftist and highly politicized social science in America.
His disciples such as Margret Mead heavily engaged in lefty lying, as has been well demonstrated.
His anti race realism and heavily relativistic cultural anthropology was always ideologically and not scientifically driven.
His was indeed an ideological pseudoscience, unlike psychologist and other race realists.”
Hahahahahahahahaha! Man up dude! You sound bitter!
LikeLike
Hey Now
Human Biodiversity
LikeLike
“Race realism” is not real.
It is if you are drunk most of the time. Liquor is a dastardly thing!
LikeLike
Those commies again, darn!
LikeLike
Hmmm….I wonder whatever became of “RR”, the Race Realist who supposedly is, as he claimed to be, a “Negro American”? Methinks he hasn’t wandered off very far….
LikeLike
@ Parfum Bleu
He’s on Zek’s blog, spouting his usual incorrect nonsense about Blacks and Natural Athleticism. I think he was banned from Abagond though…
LikeLike
Franklin,
Ehh, I kinda kicked RR to the curb. I can only spend so much of my life responding to comments that go in circles.
LikeLike
I banned RR. After giving him a second chance he returned to his stalker-like behaviour.
LikeLike
Ehh, I kinda kicked RR to the curb. I can only spend so much of my life responding to comments that go in circles.
You have to admit he is hilarious. A good rousting is in order the next time he comes to your blog!
LikeLike
Like him or not, Boas IS one of the key figures in anthropology. It simply wouldn’t be the same without him
He was the first one who claimed that there’s no such a thing as “biological race”… And as far as I can tell, there are still people who are having a difficult time accepting this fact.
On the other hand, he was definitely a child of his time, so to speak; his ideas would be seen as questionable today.
His most famous students were Margaret Mead and Ruth Benedict, whose work is seen as HIGHLY questionable today. Still, their work- particularly Mead’s, is still more popular than Boas’ work.
LikeLike
Mira, what would you say are the most controversial aspects of his legacy?
LikeLike
The fact that he believed certain groups (races?) WERE problematic (in behavior, etc.). He claimed it wasn’t biological, but cultural. Still, I don’t think his rhetoric would be seen as true equality speech today.
LikeLike
Interesting. Thanks, Mira.
LikeLike
Abagond, your intellectual framework is completely false…
Gould is a fraud. Lewontin, a fraud, the Boasians, all frauds, ideologues whose lies are slowly but surely being exposed. The truth is there, whether you deny it or not.
LikeLike
Herneith,
Well, yeah he’s hilarious! But honestly, how many times can you hear the same joke before it gets old? I’d rather just browse Netflix.
Mira,
Boas would be controversial mostly because of his terminology, I think, than for his actual ideas. (Unless you were to present them before some HBD folks.) But his legacy is pretty strong in American anthropology. Despite claims to the contrary, he was also a lot more scientific than his peers, mostly because he went and did actual research among the groups his peers were merely theorizing about. Arm-chair experts can never beat someone who’s been in the field.
Mead is definitely more popular. Not so much Benedict. But I dislike Mead, personally. Her work was based on conjecture mostly, and WAY too trusting. For instance, Coming of Age in Samoa was so hilarious disproven that it’s a running joke in most intro classes. It was a nice idea that sexual promiscuity was rampant among these groups, but sadly it was just a great game played at her expense. (Although there are island cultures which are sexually promiscuous, the ones she studied were not among them.)
But anyhoo, as much as some may deny it, Boas is here to stay. And if it bothers some people so much, they can take heart that other, far more racist scientists still get taught in anthro textbooks despite their ideas being so antithetical to ethics or reality.
LikeLike
Zek,
Boas would be controversial mostly because of his terminology, I think, than for his actual ideas.
I agree, but from what I can see (and correct me if I’m wrong), Americans tend to focus on terminology a lot, sometimes to the point of ignoring the context altogether.
I do believe Boas’ heart (and mind!) were on the right place, but I do think he was a child of his time in some aspects (just like he was ahead of his time in so many others). That doesn’t change his importance and his work. However, I think it’s worth noting, since Abagond seemed to present him in such a positive light which he didn’t give to some other historical figures (also children of their own time). The only exception I can think of is Tolkien.
Like I said, that doesn’t change the importance of Boas’ work. What I find shocking is the fact there are so many people (particularly in the US) who still believe that races are a biological fact. I can only imagine how it was back in Boas’ days.
As for Mead, I do find her story fascinating, because it teaches us a lot about the Western culture. In this way, Coming of Age in Samoa – and everything about this book, its impact on the west. etc. – proves to be an important work. In a way, it’s one of the first anthropological works that focuses on the Western society and I don’t think this episode in anthropology should be forgotten. The only thing I’d love to know is whether Mead did it on purpose or did she really believe in all of it.
I don’t know what to say about Benedict. In a way, she did more harm than Mead. I mean, her work on Japan and the way she presented Japanese culture, in that tense moment of time (WWII). I’m not saying she is to blame for the nuclear bomb, but I admit to dislike her work more than Mead’s.
LikeLike
Well, the existence of human races is still under some consideration, Africa might be home to several races in their own right, but the black race is a rejected hypothesis, the white race does not exist, the red race is a mere figment of the imagination, the perpetrators of the Tasmanian genocide exterminated members of their own race and there is no racial difference between Franz Boas and Ghengiz Khan.
LikeLike
Teddy, and all others here that like to parrot the same thoughtless slogans. What if race is real? Is the idea that scary? And if so, why is it so scary to you guys?
Boas wasnt a scientist on the subject of race. He neither proved nor disproved anything regarding the subject. He was full of rhetoric and name calling, but short on providing proof. He had a political axe to grind and tried to make the evidence fit his theories rather than the other way around. It wasnt even bad science at all, it was political theorizing masked as science.
LikeLike
What if unicorns are real? Are you really that frightened of them? I mean, a white horse with a big horn in the middle of it’s friggin head? What if, eh? How much time should we all spend looking for them, just in case?
No… I’m afraid it is you who is parrot the same thoughtless theories of race from out of the dark corners of the 19th Century. In any case, it’s not a question of being afraid of race realism, it’s a question of outgrowing the tired old unicorn because it doesn’t exist.
LikeLike
Clash:
Stating that the people who disagree with you are mindless fools or have political motives is an ad hominem argument, a logical fallacy. It proves nothing.
Also: Boas was almost the complete opposite of what you are saying. No doubt he was affected by his political views, as are we all, but he was huge in helping to move anthropology from the pseudoscience that it was in the 1800s (theories first, facts second) to a true science (facts first, theory second).
LikeLike
King, is there any evidence you would accept that race is a reality? Skeletal? Genetic? Phenotypic? Biological?
Is there any evidence you would find unobjectionable or irrefutable?
LikeLike
Abagon
First you admit boas was “affected by” his political views. Then you insist he that he moved to a true science with facts first, theories (and political views) second.
You have already admitted he wasnt fully objective. The only argument now is about the degree of his subjectivity. I believe a lot, you believe a little.
Btw, if you do a search on “boas fraud”, you will find that he very unobjectively fudged the data on skull changes amongst immigrants children. The man had an agenda, whether you want to accept that or not.
I also suggest you read the book “the fateful hoaxing of margaret mead”.
LikeLike
@ Clash
Of course there is, I just haven’t come across any that meets that high mark, so far.
LikeLike
King,
Name what that evidence would be. Im sure you arent that dull. Use your vivid imagination.
LikeLike
Hey Clash, how are things over at stormfront?
LikeLike
Herneith,
I dont know. If you are so interested, why dont you go look?
LikeLike
Don’t be so sure… after all, I am Black. 🙂
What race is each of these men?
Northern European (Scandinavian)
Southern European (Italiano)
LikeLike
King,
You tell me. According to you, there is no such thing as race. Remember?
LikeLike
If I believe that there is no such thing as race, then how can I answer the question of what race they are? Is this the extent of your logical abilities?
LikeLike
King,
Whats the point of the question then king? You want me to take a stab at a persons race, yet you dont believe in the concept. Clearly, regardless of my answer, you will reject it because you wont believe its accurate……..because you dont believe races exist.
So again, if no answer from me will ever satisfy you, what is the point of the question?
LikeLike
I didn’t say that you could easily convince me. I also didn’t say that it was impossible to convince me. I’m just trying to understand the parameters of your misconceptions.
Are you unwilling to answer the question, then?
LikeLike
Clash should take note before he submits a long copy-n-paste, that he’s not the first to bring up the “race is real” meme on this site.
LikeLike
Not hardly.
LikeLike
King,
Note: without genetic testing, or skeletal testing it is impossible to be 100% accurate. In addition, people of mixed race are straw men.
Having said that, I would say the first guy is majority-genetically caucasian. The second guy may be a mixture of caucasian and asian, or he could be majority-caucasian, it is difficult to tell, just as it is with people from central asia……..
Central asians are a mixture of caucasian and asian. Take a look at people from kazakhstan and uzbekistan for examples.
Of course you couldnt be intellectually honest enough to use a picture of brad pitt, eddie murphy, and jett li.
with each of those three, they are clearly mostly genetically caucasian, african, and asian.
Tricks and borderline examples dont really lend any credibility to your argument king.
LikeLike
Yikes… are you really using the term “Caucasian” to describe a race?
LikeLike
So, anyway, the Scandinavian guy is mostly Caucasian, and the Italian guy is uh… a mixture of Caucasian and Asian?
Interesting… so Rome was Oriental… not Occidental. That’s an interesting turn.
LikeLike
king,
Told you you wouldnt be satisfied. Nothing will change your rigid mind. You ideology is fixed and unbending.
Zzzzzzzzzzzzzzz.
LikeLike
King,
Whats your point? To prove you are inflexible and a poor “comedian”. Ok, I get it. But honestly, I was expecting a bit more substance.
What should I have expected from a website that has “stomping stereotypes” as a link right above “things white people say”? The hypocrisy is painfully blatant.
LikeLike
Clash, this is what we call a conversation. What did you expect, that you’d make one lazy, poorly defined comment, and i’d immediately agree with you?
Why do you think that the Italian is Eurasian? Traditionally, Russians, other Slavic peoples, Fins, etc, would be more closely associated with Asian peoples than Romans would.
LikeLike
Take it easy Clash… try actually answering some questions… and this time, try to make better sense.
LikeLike
king,
I didnt say the guy was eurasian. Just because the link said “italiano” doesnt mean the guy in the pic is italian.
Got more pics for me? Or do you just prefer to be a poor sport and skirt the issue?
So tell me king, why are u so obsessed with saying race is a “social construct”. Is it because your soft “sciences” ex-hippie professor told you its so? Or are you afraid of something?
Do you think you can make humans less tribal if you keep repeating your religious mantra? Are you out to save the world? Is it a messiah complex? What makes you insist that there are no races?
LikeLike
Seems that Clash is assuming a lot and making arguments against those assumptions. Reading his latest comments, it’s almost as if he has a whole list of (cliched) “on the assult retorts” he’s dying to use and is sounding off on them, with the hopes that one can be applied to this discussion.
LikeLike
Bulanik,
It means that those that deny race love to use straw man arguments. Instead of posting a picture of someone that is majority sub saharan african, they will do intellectually dishonest things like posting a picture of a person that is one quarter malay, one quarter indian, one quarter caucasian, and one quarter african and then say “if you cannot easily identify this persons race from visual inspection, that “means” race doest exist”.
It shows how desperate they are to maintain their holllow “arguments”.
from what I can tell, usually the motivation is based on the false proposition that if we admit race exists, that will lead to more racism. However if we can just keep denying it, the world will become a utopia of brotherly love. Marxists believed in similar things….that is, a false vision of utopia grounded upon deceit and coercion. Their misrule rought the deaths of over thirty million people…….hardly “utopia”.
LikeLike
bulanik,
If a person is mixed race, then they are mixed, its actually not that complicated.
Yes, if a person is a quarter african, and three quarters non-african, yet insist they are wholly african, that is dishonest. Its lying. Ever take an ethics class? Again, dont try to confuse the straightforward, it will destroy your credibility.
If a person is mixed, yet doesnt “embrace” a certain part of their heritage, that is a personal choice. However, if they deny that they genetically have that heritage, that is deceitful and dishonest.
So, for example, if I am one quarter native american (asian) and three quarters arab (caucasian), it is my free will to only embrace whatever ethnicity I want. However, if I am asked if I am part arab and part indian, and I deny either part, I am a liar and a fraud. Is this really that complicated for ya?
LikeLike
No worries bulanik. My pleasure. Have a groovy weekend.
LikeLike
Bulanik,
you state that many millions of sub saharan africans are assumed to be mixed, but in reality they are not.
So, if they are not “mixed” what are they?
LikeLike
Am I the only one having trouble understanding clash’s arguments?
LikeLike
King,
why is it that every time I post something u cant refute, you act dumb?
Or is it not an act?
LikeLike
You haven’t een posted anything yet. You just keep making assumptions about what everyone else thinks.
LikeLike
King,
My “assumption” is you dont believe there is such a thing as race, population groupings or genetic distance between humans. So are those assumptions incorrect?
LikeLike
You didn’t ask enough questions to come to that.
You do realize that we all understand that different groups of people look different and have different cultures (and therefore different customs and habits) right? The question you should be asking is “What do you guys mean when you say that race is a social construct?”
LikeLike
I believe you simply want to play word games because your position isnt credible.
You will parrot the pseudo scientific “race is a social construct” party line (an idea that is not your own), but it doesnt matter. If you and people that have been conditioned like you dont like the term race, then all you are doing is being an ideological fascist. You insist, “we cannot use the term race” and expect everyone else to fall in line with your command.
Whatever u call it, “race”, “population grouping”, “genetic clades”, or whatever, it exists. Genetic distances between groups of humans actually very, very closely fit with the traditional three groupings of races of people as either african, caucasian, or asian…..actually, geneticist cavalli sforza uses a fourth group, australian aborigines.
Dont be such a control freak. If some people want to refer to races, but you prefer to use the terms clades, or groupings, that is their choice, not yours.
Stop trying to be the thought police for everyone else.
LikeLike
This is exactly what I mean
You already assume that you know everybody else’s motivations and rationale.
Unlike you… who is the originator and sole pioneer of “Race Realism.”
Instead of assuming that it’s a simple case of you being honest, and the majority of people being biased, ignorant, and brainwashed, you might begin by trying to at least understand what the other side is saying and why.
Don’t be ridiculous. We refer to “races” here all the time. It the archaic academic definitions of race that we take issue with. If someone asks me, “What is your race?” I’d just answer, “Black.” No big deal.
But nice try Quixote.
LikeLike
king,
So what is your point? if you agree that there is such a thing as genetic distance, and different population groupings, why are you so monomaniacally against the term race?
Be honest. Look ma, no assumptions.
I am just looking for your answer……
LikeLike
@King; brain flatulence does that to one’s ability to make a coherent argument.
You will parrot the pseudo scientific “race is a social construct” party line (an idea that is not your own), but it doesnt matter.
And I suppose all the ‘real’ scientific theories(HBD), are germane to you? You came up with all of them, eh?
Stop trying to be the thought police for everyone else.
Listen up, people can believe what they want to, an anonymous person on the internet ain’t going to sway their opinion dramatically. If they are swayed in such a manner, then they had problems before they even clapped eyes on a computer. It seems like you are the ‘controlling’ one here. People can post what they want subject to that particular commenting rules. In fact, I find posts such as yours comical, entertaining and well worthy of a satire.
King says; “It the archaic academic definitions of race that we take issue with.”
Clash says; “why are you so monomaniacally against the term race?”
Come on now clash, can’t you read and comprehend?
LikeLike
@ Herneith lol! & Cosign.
@ Clash
I agree with different population groupings, but now might be a good time for you to make your case for “genetic distance.”
See?
LikeLike
King,
Go read a bit…..
Not from some psuedo scientific social “scientist” like boas, mead, bell hooks, levi-strauss, montague, adorno, tim wise, or noel ignatiev.
If u want to read about genetic distance, read the history and geography of human genes by cavalli sforza. I want your report in seven days.
I would buy a used copy if I were you tho, leftist ideological fascists tend to want to destroy or outlaw opinions they disagree with, labelling them “harmful”, “dangerous”, or “divisive”. You would probably want to burn the book after reading it. So much for “diversity” when it comes to opinions and ideas.
Its funny, folks on this board seem to push for “brotherly love” and “universalism”, at least on the surface, but a large number of the posts relate to criticizing, villifying, or condemning white gentiles. If inclusion is so important, why dont I see more posts condemning tribalism and in group/ out group behaviors in mexicans and other hispanics, asians, and blacks? If inclusion and equality are so important to u folks, why not include all peoples equally in your condemnation and praise proportions?
The answer, in my view, relates to tribalism. You are just too blind to see it, or to stubborn to admit it.
LikeLike
Herneith,
Do you mean “archaic” definitions like asian, caucasian, and african?
If u think those are “archaic”, I think u should seek psychological counseling because you’re delusional.
LikeLike
@ Clash
Not necessary, I already know two or three times more about “genetic distance” than you do. I’m asking because I want to know YOUR understanding of it.
What seems apparent to me, is that you don’t really understand much about these theories yourself. You have yet to make any detailed explanation of anything that you have said to date. I could just as easily say to go and read Gould or Lewontin or Boas, and a host of others.
What I am asking you is if you have enough intelligence to synthesize and summarize what you have read and heard previously. Can you formulate a short and cogent argument? Otherwise this is going to turn into a book of the month club and take years to conclude. If you are incapable of forming your own argument, then by all means, go back to the HBD hive, and return with a more capable drone, who can.
LikeLike
King,
Since you are so knowledgeable about genetic distance, you know that the genetic distance between say an englishman and a dane is 21, correct?
And, you also know that the genetic distance between an englishman and a typical west african is around 1500, right?
And, because you are a “master” of all in the world, practically a phd in genetics, you know that the genetic distance between a west african and a nilo-saharan is less than 200, right?
And you know that the genetic distance between a korean and a mongol tungus is 170, right? and that the genetic distance between a korean and a west african is 1807. You know all this right?
And you have the gall to imply there is no such thing as genetic relatedness between groups of people? What a fraud.
The credibility alarm just blew up!
But ok, you simply believe cavalli sforza is an “unscientific geneticist” idiot, and social commentators like gould and lewontin are godlike creatures with no axe to grind or ideological baggage. Yeah, yeah.
Ok, ok, if you want to get your genetic data from bell hooks, richard “the fallacy” lewontin, or a cracker jack box, if that floats yer boat, feel free.
If you want to pretend you couldnt spot a caucasian in a tokyo crowd, feel free. If you want to act like black guys wouldnt know whose out of place in their neighborhood based on phenotype (whitey), ok. Live in denial. After all, that is the close relative of the word “denier” as in race denier. DENIAL.
But, try to be honest some day when u grow up.
You, like most people, are tribal and tend to side with your own (those that look like you). The blatherings of you and others on this board are a testament to tribal thinking. This is a near universal trait. If you think its ok for you to side with those that are genetically closer to you, what makes you think you are not a hypocrite for condemning other groups (like white gentiles) when they do the same?
LikeLike
Clash said:
Whites are not alone in doing evil, but the scale of their misdeeds is unmatched in history. Any honest, moral person, regardless of “tribe”, would condemn the evil whites have done and would not put it on the same footing with the misdeeds of blacks or Mexicans.
LikeLike
Abagond,
That is your opinion based on looking though the lenses of in group and out group sentiments. Of course you would say such a thing.
the fact is that the biggest victims on earth of white people have been, are you ready? Other white people! I know, to you they dont matter. They dont count. Its evil “whitey”. In group/out group, yet again.
The biggest war in america…the civil war, white vs white.
World war one? White vs white, over ten million dead.
World war two? White vs white for the most part with over fifty five million dead.
Look at the hundreds of wars in european history, many of them genocidal with white gentile wiping out other white gentiles. Countless dead.
No, the biggest victims of white gentiles throughout history are not your people (blacks), they are not asians, native americans, or mexicans. The biggest victims have been eachother. I know that in this day and age of “victimization” being a badge of “honor”, that is a let down to you, but history shows my words are the truth.
And just because other groups came upon the technology for warfare late in the game doesnt mean they were less dangerous. Native americans, maori, and other groups went to town against their historical enemies once they had access to guns.
Read about attila the hun and genghis khan and tamerlane. They slaughtered caucasians for literally hundreds of years and practically erased the caucasian gene pool in central asia. All because they were dominant in warfare. I know, this isnt “as important” to you.
And, by the way, must you always lump all white people together when bringing up topics like colonialism and slavery?
The poles, norwegians, swedes, russians, danes, irish, hungarians, romanians, czechs, ukrainians, and many other white people had almost no part in slavery or colonialism of non white countries. So why not say “colonial powers” or “the minority of whites that held slaves”?
Remember, over 90% of whites in the u.s. didnt own any slaves.
You should be more careful and not paint with such a broad brush. After all, we wouldnt want people to see you as a deceitful slanderer.
LikeLike
@ Clash:
Sorry, but it was not simply a matter of technology, of “anyone would have done the same thing”. China was more advanced than Europe all the way up until the 1700s. In fact, gunpowder, printing, paper and the compass, the inventions commonly credited for the rise of the West, were all Chinese inventions. China had explorers in East Africa before the West did. While the Chinese are no angels, they did not make millions of blacks into slaves, they did not wipe out the people on three continents and take their land, the world did not suffer through hundreds of years of Chinese violence and plunder.
While I believe a certain amount of “tribalism” is natural, whites have taken it to sick and twisted levels.
LikeLike
First, before rattling off numbers ad nauseam, I’d like you to site your sources.
“The genetic distance between say an Englishman and a Dane is 21” according to the following source(s) ___________. That will keep the debate honest and accountable to established fact.
You obviously aren’t utilizing the Standard Fixation Index. Also, it would be helpful if you were more clear in your definitions. An individual Englishman and a Dane may each very well show significant diversity between randomly selected alleles within their own ethnic sub-populations. Englishmen are themselves a mixture of Saxon, Norman, Franks, and Gaelic backgrounds, depending upon the individual and where his family comes from. There was often intermarriage between member of different sub-populations, and thus differences in measured genetic outcomes and comparisons.
The idea that there is one “Englishman” genetic heritage is erroneous. The idea that there is a single Danish genetic heritage is closer to the true, but still technically inaccurate. There are still differing genetics between northern Danes and southern Danish ancestral groups.
Perhaps you can be more specific? At the very least, site your sources so that they can be verified.
LikeLike
Abagond,
“wiped out” people on three continents? Really? Last time I checked, there were native americans in north, central, and south america. Wiped out in my book means gone completely. So what do u mean?
Again, you still apparently fail to grasp that it was six nations out of over eighteen that were responsible for the historical wrongs you mention. Great britain, the netherlands, belgium, france, spain and portugal. And, if you have any clue about european history, the average joe on the street even in those six countries had no say in the whole affair……just like most of us dont want to be in iraq or afghanistan, the powers that be dont give a hoot.
Why cant you make the distinction?
LikeLike
King,
You are a true bore. Get the book, I already gave you the name and the author.
Do you think endless debate, talking in circles, and your delusions are supposed to be convincing?
Zzzz.
So again, what is your point about race? It doesnt really exist and all groups on earth are the same?
If thats yer point, quick, you need to start up an argument with abagond. He seems to think that all whites collectively hold a monopoly on “bad behavior”, and the millions killed by mao (over thirty million), the two million killed by pol pot, the untold number wiped out by the aztecs, genghis khan, attila the hun and others isnt nearly as important as what the evil, monolithic whites did.
Please tell him that since we are all the same and races dont exist (your words), that means all of humanity shares the “blame” for historical wrongs, whether the were from attila, genghis, britain, or the aztecs because we are all the same people. Remember, theres no differences between people after all.
LikeLike
Abagond,
I used to be pretty childish like yourself. I used to hate the british for what they did in ireland. At one point I actually wanted to join the ira. I had this huge chip on my shoulder about it. It developed while I was in college. With the cult of victimization that is so prevalent on western university campuses, its no big surprise that my obsession developed there.
I carried this grudge for years. Then I had a roommate from liverpool. I think he was one of the nicest, most genuinely good people I have ever met.
I began to realise that despising people and painting all british people as baddies, or “suspect baddies” was ridiculous. He truly changed my outlook. I can see that most british people have nothing to do with the past. The victimizers are dead, and so are the victims.
And most british people have nothing to do with the present day occupation in northern ireland. Hell even if I met a british person that is an descendent of oliver cromwell (who killed half of the irish population according to petty), I wouldnt blame them. They werent around when it happened.
Now, I am not saying that people shouldnt stand by and protect their own (be tribal) in the here and now. Tribalism is the norm. If a british person of today favors their own above the irish (even “discriminating” against the irish), thats to be expected. No big deal. If the tables were turned, the irish would likely do the same. I expect all groups to look out for their own, it is biologically adaptive.
Maybe some day you can outgrow the clear chip on your shoulder, stop worrying about long dead victims and victimizers, and worry about the here and now. This ongoing tally you hold so close to your heart of “who did the worstest” is an immature and pointless victimization pissing contest.
When bleeding heart whites are in the minority in the u.s., and the majority of the population is asian and hispanic, your obsession with the past will be ignored. Your people will be left to fend on their own…..no “specialpriviledges” because of the past, no set asides, no nothing. Guilt wont work on them.p
LikeLike
Or in other words, you can’t really discuss the materials you read, make a case for yourself, or answer any of my questions. Your idea of a discussion is having your opponent read a book that you are impressed with, and hope that this will suffice to do your convincing for you.
The answer to your question is that races do exist casually, culturally, socially, and often visually. The differences are a social reality that often coincide with relatively minor physical variations, but the differences are neither ontological nor hierarchical.
That won’t be necessary… since your statement is based on a total misapprehension of what Abagond is saying and plays into an assumed contradiction of reasoning that does not really exist in his actual statements.
LikeLike
@ Clash:
It is not about score keeping about some dead past. It is about the racism that grew out of those times and is still alive and well. It is about the racism that most whites in America continue to benefit from and yet deny or try play down, as you do above.
LikeLike
abagond,
Grow up. “racism” is a liberal construct. There is no such thing. There is only tribalism, which is an extension of kin selection. Every group does this, jews, mexicans, arabs, hutu, yoruba, ibo, zulu, irish, peruvians, japanese, chinese, larger groupings like “white people”, asians, africans, and clearly black americans, as this board proves. Stop whining about what everyone naturally does and implying that only one group is “guilty” of it.
LikeLike
the fact is that the biggest victims on earth of white people have been, are you ready? Other white people!
That only goes to show that white folk aren’t that smart after all.
Stop whining about what everyone naturally does and implying that only one group is “guilty” of it
Is that an order? In that one sentence, you have just proved everything he posits.
LikeLike
clash715 wrote: “Stop whining about what everyone naturally does…”
Take your own unsolicited advice. All you’ve done is whine since you wandered over here.
LikeLike
king,
You wrote “the answer to your question is that races do exist.”
Thank you. Now go fight with every marxist left wing extremist about your viewpoint.
You will find it is like arguing with a three year old about why they cant have a toy. They are rigid, illogical, and emotionally driven.
They fear so called “inequality” will result from admitting to reality. These people are the same ideological fascists that left ten million dead in the soviet union, thirty million dead in china, and two million dead in cambodia. Their idea of “equality or the bullet” leaves millions dead, millions of destroyed lives, and economies in shambles.
Forced equality has been a miserable failure based on brainwashing, coercion and violence. Marx was a lazy scumball who lived off of the backs of workers (in the factory of engles father).
Refusing to admit to reality just gives these extremists more encouragement. Dont take another social science course for the rest if your life, it will just rot your brain.
LikeLike
Herneith,
It also show that white gentiles have been more destructive to eachother than to nonwhites.
It totally refutes the liberal extremist notion that white gentiles are this united monolith that have always “ganged up” on nonwhites, and always looked out for eachother. History shows that notion is simply a lie.
LikeLike
Let’s play a game! Let’s all go down “Crash’s List of Recycled White Nationalist/Supremacist Talking Points!”:
– “There’s going to be a race war once noble white people are gone, so darkies beware!”
– “Multiculturalism has failed!”
– “Racism doesn’t exist!”
– “Only I see actuality, not those who disagree with me!”
– The discrediting of Karl Marx through personal attacks
– Confusing the (mis)label of “Liberalism” with an actual counterpoint
– Played the “It’s Hard Being White!” Race Card
– Conflated two different things, at an attempt to downplay a historical bad tendency that whites have done worse than the entire world combined
Damn, dude! You’re right on point! Now while you’ve consistently ignored contradictory facts like WN’s/WS’s, all that’s really left for you to do is shout “Race Mixing is Bad!” and “That damn ZOG is at it again!”
LikeLike
Some upto date historical analysis on the subject of “race” for clash715 to ponder…
A Human Diversity Checklist: We can summarize modern knowledge of human diversity in ten points…
Click to access RaceAHistory.pdf
You might want to print this out and keep it nearby for future reference…!!!
LikeLike
Oops….!!!
A Human Diversity Checklist: We can summarize modern knowledge of human diversity in ten points…
http://raceandscience.channel4.com/media/pdfs/LetsMoveOnFromRace.pdf..
LikeLike
Ok…again..
Click to access LetsMoveOnFromRace.pdf
LikeLike
“Race” is a greatly oversimplified concept. Homo sapiens is a polytypic
species–people in different parts of the world look slightly different–but
concepts of race are based on a few obvious features like skin color and hair
form. If some other criterion were used–e.g. blood type–we would end up
with a different set of “races”. West Africans and Ethiopians are lumped
together as “black”–yet Ethiopians have facial features more like Europeans.
Similarly, Italians and Sweds do not look exactly alike. “Racial” differences are
largely due to differences in local climate–for example, people with darker
skins are less prone to get skin cancer, and therefore do better nearer the
equator where there is more sunlight. People with lighter skins have an easier
time synthesizing vitamen D and do better in temperate climates. “Behavioral”
differences are due to culture. A human being at birth is a “blank slate”;
you can write anything on it you want.
LikeLike
And what is written there may change from generation to generation,
often by local (i.e. tribal) politics. India, for example, used to pride
itself as being founded on the principles of love and nonviolence. But
now, it and its neighbor Pakistan, have armed themselves with nuclear
weapons, the VERY WORST of all weapons of mass destruction. In doing
so, they are imitating the arms race between the United States and some
of its allies on the one hand and Russia on the other. The world seems to
have forgotten what even a relatively small nuclear bomb can do. The bomb
dropped on Hiroshima was a relatively small one, but the city was completely
leveled and 140,000 people were killed.
LikeLike