Quote:
Originally Posted by Mooseketeer
To compare two separate species such as a bovine and a human is to be quite intellectually disingenuous. 
I am a social Anthropologist ( and Archaeologist) and from my perspective our biological differences are not "astounding" at all. They are fairly minor. One race ( or ethnic group) being more athletic than another does not alter basic biology.
Biology goes a little deeper than muscle and ligament attachments or length and strength of limbs.
From an Anthropological point of view diversity of language, culture, mores and religion is not a negative but simply demonstration of the ingenuity and ability to adapt and to construct societies which suit your own set of circumstances.
As someone who has worked as a volunteer for Survival International for years , YES I do believe racial differences and diversity are a positive. I want this diversity preserved. What divides us is not our differences but our inabilty to accept them . And we have all the cognitive tools to do so. We chose not to.
I have travelled the world ( including Iran) , most places I did not know the language. It is only a barrier when we decide to make it so. I have had some wonderful very deep encounters with people I did not understand linguistically. Not travelling because you do not speak the language seems a real shame.
I'm off to Turkey next year and my Turkish is virtually non existent ( though of course I will certainly try to become a little more conversant beforehand). So what ?
I love our differences within one specie but I also appreciate that the fundamentals are the same between races. I have yet to meet someone who does not grieve when they lose a loved one or who does not feel love, hatred, fear, passion, laugh when something funny happens, etc...
A Human at the end of the day is a creature led by his emotions as well as his brain and somone with a deep sense of the "self" ( the only animal I can think of truly involved and obsessed with the notion of "self" and of life narrative) .
Life for human beings is one great big narrative , everything we do is primarily a way to express our sense of self and to narrate our journey on the planet, whether music, religion, the arts, architecture, having children, the language we form, it is about leaving a legacy for generations to come and a means of expression.
We are ALL self obsessed people whether living in a remote Tribe in the Amazon or an urbanite in Manhattan.
Our methods of expression are different and we have evolved different ways of narrating the human adventure but our core remains the same.
Yes Black runners are better . Yes within various Ethnic African groups certain people have special more developed physical abilities.
Does it mean we are two separate species ? I think it's a little more complicated than that. |
This is almost poetic, such beautiful words that have been used by many to captivate the imagination and hope of many. History always repeats itself, and you and your feelings have existed since the beginning of time. There have been travelers exploring the world for thousands of years, who have thoroughly enjoyed learning of the distinct human groups and relished in their experiences. Who wrote books of their journeys, or wrote fiction novels based on their journeys. You are not unique, and your message is not unique. And while I would agree that the diversity and history and uniqueness of the world cannot itself be seen as a bad thing within itself. The effect of diversity has been almost entirely bad. The numbers of deaths that can be directly related to diversity is probably well into the billions. European slavery wouldn't have existed if not for there being people of such a distinct race. All the wars, riots, genocides(that are still raging across the world even today) that are an effect of diversity within borders is a travesty.
What you want is for people to somehow stop acting like human-beings. You are not the first person to want this, and you are not the last. But people cannot stop acting like human-beings(and thusly animals), because humans are humans, all of them. You cannot have massive diversity on a large scale in a single territory, it will divide the territory and be a hotbed for violence and hate. It happens the same way in every country throughout all of time. It happens in this country, it is seen in the large-scale self-seggregation within this country(like white-flight, single-ethnic neighborhoods, etc). And all it takes is a spark to ignite this mutual distrust into violence(riots, murders, gangs, etc).
What I am merely saying is, lets use a little common sense in dealing with things like immigration. Humans are flawed, and all the teaching and cheerleading doesn't change the fact that humans do bad things. If you could simply teach the bad out of humans, there would be no murders, no rape, no assaults, no theft within the same population groups. People are inherently evil, and this evil must always be taught to be suppressed in each subsequent generation. You cannot completely eliminate the evils within humans, but you can limit them through environmental controls.
All I am saying is, there wouldn't be racism in America if there weren't multiple races in America. There wouldn't be racial gang wars in California without multiple races in California. There wouldn't be constant charges of racism by the likes of Al Sharpton, the NAACP, Obama, Republicans, Neo-Nazi's, etc, if there weren't multiple races in this country. If you could imagine what the United States would be like if slavery had never existed here, and if there simply were no black people in this country(similar to much of Europe), how could you possibly believe this country is better off because whites and blacks have lived here together? I am not saying blacks aren't valuable, but the damage that has been done by having a multi-racial society has been far greater than any benefits from it. Europe is having the same problems right now, they have recently been allowing large-scale immigration into their countries, and it has done nothing but hurt them.
In Europe they are letting in these refugees from the middle-east. The Europeans feel it is right and good to bring these poor muslims in and help them into a better life. But what has it done to their own countries? What has it done to the people in their countries? Basically they have chosen to help others by hurting themselves. They are providing them housing and food. The native Europeans are paying for this through their hard work, while most immigrants are unemployed. The immigrants have high crime, they riot because of intolerance, they give death threats to anyone who opposes more immigration or creates anti-muslim news(such as the muhammed cartoon in Denmark), they burn down schools, rape the native-women who they believe dress as whores.
I just don't understand how people can think with their emotions and not with their senses, how they truly believe this world could ever be perfect with humans living here. They don't seem to want to face the realities of life, and realize that you can't save everyone, you can't really help everyone. Most of the time by trying to help others you are really doing more damage than good.
Quote:
You may not have enjoyed multiculturism or not have had access to it but do not second guess other people as to their take on it.
The last thing I would want is a bland monochrome world where we eat the same, dress the same, listen to the same music and worst of all think the same.
It would be the intellectual equivalent of "stepford wives". Our brains might as well be switched off.
Cultural diversity is to me an essential part of the human experience. Retaining a sense of cultural identity does not mean being closed to other cultures.
|
Multi-culturalism is a bad policy. It has been bad policy in every country it has ever existed in. This country might have been built on immigration, but it was absolutely never built on multi-culturalism. Assimilation was always the primary word in America, because this was the melting pot(with English as the language, and judeo-Christian values being the foundation of this country).
As for intellectual equivalents. I think you are sort of disparaging reality. I don't think anyone would necessarily say that all diversity is bad. Obviously people enjoy diversity in the foods they eat, their entertainment, etc. But the problem isn't the very existence of any diversity, the problem is if the diversity is within a single territory and how much diversity that exists. Obviously going to visit China or Africa is an interesting and stimulating endeavor. But living in Africa or China is not a good idea(look at South africa, Zimbabwe, etc). And having too much diversity in a single territory is bad. This is easily seen in all the genocides that have occured across Africa, the middle-east, and even Europe.
Countries with diversity are no more creative, industrious, or technological innovative than a non-diverse country. Japan is one of the most homogeneous countries in the world, they aren't exactly intellectually backwards. China allows almost zero immigration and have a hostile policy towards diversity, that won't prevent them from becoming the most powerful country in the world in the relatively short future. America was basically always a white nation, with other racial contributions being primarily in labor, not in technology or innovation. The lack of race doesn't mean people are intellectually deficient. And we can share ideas and technology with the Chinese without a single Chinese person living here. It is called trade, and we have been doing it for thousands of years.
In reality, I am not opposed to all immigration, and I am not opposed to all interaction of different people. But only that these interactions must not be artificially propped out through an intrusive governmental structure, which causes problems.
Whites and blacks overall do not get along. It is as simple as that. So instead of letting these groups naturally find equalibrium with each other. We have policies that try to force these two groups to get along. We have forced integration/deseggregation. We have the subsidizing of housing, we have controls on lending practices. Which is all used to try to breakdown the racial barriers between groups. But, using force and economic coercion to try to make people get-along is pretty silly. And this has caused even more anger than otherwise would have existed.
If diversity is enriching, people will seek it out. If people really enjoyed diversity, it would just happen naturally. You wouldn't need the government to enforce it through expensive lawsuits.
You should read this about tribalism. It might give you some insight into the limitations of humanity.
Tribalism - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
"According to a study by Robin Dunbar at the University of Liverpool, primate brain size is determined by social group size. Dunbar's conclusion was that the human brain can only really understand a maximum of 150 individuals as fully developed, complex people (see Dunbar's number). Malcolm Gladwell expanded on this conclusion sociologically in his book, The Tipping Point. According to these studies, then, "tribalism" is in some sense an inescapable fact of human neurology, simply because the human brain is not adapted to working with large populations. Beyond 150, the human brain must resort to some combination of hierarchical schemes, stereotypes, and other simplified models in order to understand so many people."
"Many tribes refer to themselves with their language's word for "people," while referring to other, neighboring tribes with various epithets. For example, the term "Inuit" translates as "people," but they were known to the Ojibwe by a name translating roughly as "eaters of raw meat." This fact is often cited as evidence that tribal peoples saw only the members of their own tribe as "people," and denigrated all others as something less. In fact, this is a tenuous conclusion to draw from the evidence. Many languages refined their identification as "the true people," or "the real people," dehumanizing the other people or simply considering them inferior. In this, it is merely evidence of ethnocentrism, a universal cultural characteristic found in all societies."
Basically, tribalism is the natural state of man. It is how men have evolved and lived for tens or hundreds of thousands of years. You are not going to fix it by simply waving your magic wand and declaring that tribalism is no longer acceptable. People are still people. And I tend to rather a policy that addresses limitations and creates realistic expectations from those limitations, rather than the stance of the dreamer, who tends to want to ignore that any such limitations exist.
The happiest countries in the world are always small countries. Big countries are never happy. Happiness is not related to money or relative power. In fact the happiest group of people are not the rich, they are the middle-class, and this is true everywhere. A person doesn't necessarily get happier throughout their lives. Happiness isn't related to intelligence. Happiness comes from the relationships you have with the other people in your life. It comes from close family and friends. Why? Because deep down beneath everything, we are tribal. And this is why too much diversity within a single territory is so dangerous, and cannot exist peacefully.
This is also important to read.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dunbar%27s_number
And this.
http://www.cracked.com/article_14990...keysphere.html
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
