Originally posted by Darth Jello
you people are confusing physical and cultural evolution. civilization and barberism are two very relative terms. you guys are really skirting the rim of racist pseudosciences like eugenics and phsyiognomy.
Not at all my point is genes have little to do with cultural evolution and all races have contributed to cultural development at some time. No races genetic adaptation to its environment affects its culture.
Glad I could help you. 😉
As for pseudo science I've explained the 3 kinds of genetic mutation - frameshift, addition and and deletion a few times in this thread.
Originally posted by Darth Jello
you people are confusing physical and cultural evolution. civilization and barberism are two very relative terms. you guys are really skirting the rim of racist pseudosciences like eugenics and phsyiognomy.
That, in some ways, is what I been trying to say, only I fear I did it in a much more wordy and pretentious fashion. Pleased you noted that the definition what qualifies as a civilised and "barbarian" are relative - modern historians are becoming increasingly loath to shoe horn cultures into one catagory or the other, as it doesn't really convey the truth.
Not at all my point is genes have little to do with cultural evolution and all races have contributed to cultural development at some time. No races genetic adaptation to its environment affects its culture.
Exactly, cultural and social evolution is not dependant on genes, but other, relative factors - no white gene exists that locks people into a "barabian"state.
Originally posted by Imperial_Samura
Now I will admit I am fairly agog at the level my phrase has been dumbed down, and the incorrectness of it. Lacking the trappings of state is vastly different from "being to dumb to form organised political systems", these people were far from dumb. They had politics, and were usually governed by a monarchy like hierarchy
Thinks to self.."By Krom..grant me revenge.."
You ever seen the Movie Conan the Barbarian? That's the kind culture one could liken the early Germanic Tribes to. Seriously..that's about as organised and as advanced these people were.
As far as your other question regarding the Romans/Greeks, I never thought they were considered "white" As many of them had very tanned and even brownish complexions.
I believe they are thought to be descended from various Arabic/African tribes..however, I'll have to do a bit of research on that, seeing as how I am not a historian.
Originally posted by Imperial_Samura
That, in some ways, is what I been trying to say, only I fear I did it in a much more wordy and pretentious fashion. Pleased you noted that the definition what qualifies as a civilised and "barbarian" are relative - modern historians are becoming increasingly loath to shoe horn cultures
into one catagory or the other, as it doesn't really convey the truth.
I don't know. I think there's a lot of biased historical information displayed in the history books.
Particularly against those cultures that are "non-white" Many times, you'll find History books describing early "non-white" cultures as primitive..and then they'll describe the early german nomadic tribes as "culturally advanced." This is a ridiculous if not inaccurate assumption to say the least. It seems a bit like a racial double standard to me, particularly when you compare the histories between early "white" and "non-white" cultures.
"Well I was think more so of the tribes that invaded the Roman Empire between 4th and 6th centuries. I believe they were made up of mostly the Jutes and the Brits. "
Errr, you have a seriously mixed up view there- there was no tribe of 'Brits' that invaded the Roman Empire between the 4th and 6th centuries... actually, that's wrong on many, many levels. There were Angles, Saxons, Danes and Jutes invading the Romano-British in Britain, but no-one from Britain was invading anywhere.
Anyway, civilisation is mostly a result of environment. No matter how intelligent or capable you are, you only advance as far as the environment allows. Eurasia, as a land mass, is very lucky in that regard. Genetics has nothing to do with it.
Originally posted by Ushgarak
Errr, you have a seriously mixed up view there- there was no tribe of 'Brits' that invaded the Roman Empire between the 4th and 6th centuries... actually, that's wrong on many, many levels. There were Angles, Saxons, Danes and Jutes invading the Romano-British in Britain, but no-one from Britain was invading anywhere.
The term was used as slang. Modern day "Brits" are descendents of the Angles, Saxons, jutes, and other germanic tribes that did indeed invade Rome..between the 4th and 6th centuries. Point is a bit moot, anyway. They were all Barbaric/primitive tribes none the less.
Originally posted by Ushgarak
Anyway, civilisation is mostly a result of environment. No matter how intelligent or capable you are, you only advance as far as the environment allows. Eurasia, as a land mass, is very lucky in that regard. Genetics has nothing to do with it.
The interesting part about that argument is that its generally only used by those descended from these early "white" tribes. It's never really applied to those races that have "non - white" lineage.
Anyway..I think that most historians would agree that the early Germanic tribes were quite primitive, and were considered very primitive, particularly when comparing them to the cultural standards of the Egyptians, Persians, Nubians, and many of the established cultures that reigned before them
"The interesting part about that argument is that its generally only used by those descended from these early "white" tribes. It's never really applied to those races that have "non - white" lineage. "
What on Earth makes you think that? I absolutely apply it to all races equally. The only reason that Eurasia ever gained an advantage over the rest of the world was environment. There was no in-built genetic superiority of any race over any other that provided advantage- the only people who ever believed so were doing so from a standpoint of racial superiority. Seeing primitive aboriginals in Australia gave racists a perfect excuse to claim superioity, but the truth was nothing to do with their genetic make-up, simply that they lived in Australia, which was not conducive to developing advanced civilisation; swap white man and aboriginal australian in past environment and the situation would have been reversed.
I would have thought the exact reverse of what you said is the truth- that the only people who ever rejected that argument are the ones of white descent.
As for the civilised virtues of the German tribes- historians debate that furiously.
Originally posted by KidRock
I know you missed the point..nobody expects you to get it 😉Read a book and there is your evidence.
He missed the point because there wasn't one. At least not a recognizable one. It helps to state your point. Sorry, but though we would like it we cant read minds.
Also, which book might that be. Just read a book doesn't point us in any direction does it. I mean I don't think the Bernstein Bears provides any evidence or information on where the first humans originated and what their skin color pigmentation might have been.
We've been down this road before.
For better or worse, there ARE variations between Humans, that in terms of, say, skin colour, cannot be denied.
The term used to refer to these differences is race. Sorry, but that IS the word used.
Some people think that using the word 'race' is in itself offensive. This is very strange- it's a very sterile scientific term. Once the basic problems of racism have been addressed, any negative connotation to the word would fade, which is certainly simpler than the alternative, which would be having to think up a whole new word that meant the same thing,
Originally posted by whobdamandog
I don't know. I think there's a lot of biased historical information displayed in the history books.Particularly against those cultures that are "non-white" Many times, you'll find History books describing early "non-white" cultures as primitive..and then they'll describe the early german nomadic tribes as "culturally advanced." This is a ridiculous if not inaccurate assumption to say the least. It seems a bit like a racial double standard to me, particularly when you compare the histories between early "white" and "non-white" culures.
Biased? Certainly in past history books, and even sometimes today sadly, as it's very hard to write about things that occurred hundreds or thousands of years ago, without being influenced by the authors life, their context. It's also problematic as so much modern Ancient history is based on ancient literature - a big danger, as I said earlier, due to the nationalistic pride of the ancient historians in questions. Though history has/is changing, and historians are required to be far more objective, far less believing, to try and leave outdated concepts at the door - thus historiography was born, the study of, basically, history and it's creators (historians) and why they do what they do, in order to form more accurate histories.
And the bias against non-white has certainly existed. I remember reading about an archaeological controversy that took place towards the end of the 1800's (or early 1900's). A team discovered some temples in Africa, very good construction, so good in fact the archaeologists and many historians were amazed they existed in Africa. Of course they weren't marble and huge, but they clearly revealed some level of skill. Dating put their construction some 400 years or so earlier, and the "experts" cried preposterous, clearly some ancient Mediterranean, seafaring people (Romans, Greeks, Etruscans, Carthaginians whatever) had come to Africa and built them, which was completely incorrect (and was eventually shown to be ridiculous). This is the perfect example of past Euro-centric history at work, the concept of white superiority in terms of civilisation, as they couldn't believe that Africans had at any time possessed the ability to create such structures. This was a product of the times, and has been mostly abandoned today, and you will find no historian that is considered reputable or mainstream advocating such theories any longer - those historians that do are looked upon in my the same way as the ones who claim the holocaust never happened, or that Stone Henge was built by some super white race simply because what they propose is absurd.
Now, I assume you are talking about ancient African cultures, as other non-white cultures such as the Egyptians, Sumerians, Persians and the like get plenty of respect.
Comparisons certainly still exist, and this emphasizes the point of relativity, an important grain of salt to be taken by modern historians - compared to say, Rome, most cultures appeared RELATIVELY primitive - and compared to many European tribes many African tribes of the same time appeared RELATIVELY primitive - depending on how they were being compared. Africa was a far less suitable place for the kind of civilisations that emerged in Europe, Africans remained tribal for far longer and many retained family based hunter/gatherer like lifestyles - simply because this is what was best for them in the area they inhabited. Likewise, there wasn't any of the larger civilisations about (like Rome or Greece) that they had to compete with, or learn from (like the ancient German tribes did.) Geographical necessity forced the Germanic tribes, and the African tribes down two different paths of development - both equally valid, except when compared to one another, due to the fact so many will look down on the one that isn't as flashy, or didn't leave huge monuments, which is wrong, as both have cultures and history which are equally as important.
Originally posted by Arabian Knight
What about the general culture that goes along with each race?And how is race artificial?
Cultural, and geographical pressures over time (geologic time) do cause varations among once same species. Based on where one group of people live (high altitude. cold climate or low altitude hot climate) can effect they shape and size of their bodies. People along the equator are generally tall and thin. This type of body structure allows the body to relesase heat quickly so a person is better suited for a hot environment. People in cold climates are generally shorter and sturdier because this dbody structure helps to contain heat. I believe this is called the Bergmann and Allen rule.
So the culture and geographic pressure of a race do create genetic differences variation over time. If that specific "race" is isolated long enough from their cousins with whom they share a common ancestor than a new a race and maybe eventually a new species will be created through evolution
I don't know if race is artificial becuase there are definitely phenotypic differences among the people of the Earth but it is consistently used as a social construct to pit us against one another.
Originally posted by Imperial_Samura
Biased? Certainly in past history books, and even sometimes today sadly, as it's very hard to write about things that occurred hundreds or thousands of years ago, without being influenced by the authors life, their context. It's also problematic as so much modern Ancient history is based on ancient literature - a big danger, as I said earlier, due to the nationalistic pride of the ancient historians in questions. Though history has/is changing, and historians are required to be far more objective, far less believing, to try and leave outdated concepts at the door - thus historiography was born, the study of, basically, history and it's creators (historians) and why they do what they do, in order to form more accurate histories.And the bias against non-white has certainly existed. I remember reading about an archaeological controversy that took place towards the end of the 1800's (or early 1900's). A team discovered some temples in Africa, very good construction, so good in fact the archaeologists and many historians were amazed they existed in Africa. Of course they weren't marble and huge, but they clearly revealed some level of skill. Dating put their construction some 400 years or so earlier, and the "experts" cried preposterous, clearly some ancient Mediterranean, seafaring people (Romans, Greeks, Etruscans, Carthaginians whatever) had come to Africa and built them, which was completely incorrect (and was eventually shown to be ridiculous). This is the perfect example of past Euro-centric history at work, the concept of white superiority in terms of civilisation, as they couldn't believe that Africans had at any time possessed the ability to create such structures. This was a product of the times, and has been mostly abandoned today, and you will find no historian that is considered reputable or mainstream advocating such theories any longer - those historians that do are looked upon in my the same way as the ones who claim the holocaust never happened, or that Stone Henge was built by some super white race simply because what they propose is absurd.
Now, I assume you are talking about ancient African cultures, as other non-white cultures such as the Egyptians, Sumerians, Persians and the like get plenty of respect.
Comparisons certainly still exist, and this emphasizes the point of relativity, an important grain of salt to be taken by modern historians - compared to say, Rome, most cultures appeared RELATIVELY primitive - and compared to many European tribes many African tribes of the same time appeared RELATIVELY primitive - depending on how they were being compared. Africa was a far less suitable place for the kind of civilisations that emerged in Europe, Africans remained tribal for far longer and many retained family based hunter/gatherer like lifestyles - simply because this is what was best for them in the area they inhabited. Likewise, there wasn't any of the larger civilisations about (like Rome or Greece) that they had to compete with, or learn from (like the ancient German tribes did.) Geographical necessity forced the Germanic tribes, and the African tribes down two different paths of development - both equally valid, except when compared to one another, due to the fact so many will look down on the one that isn't as flashy, or didn't leave huge monuments, which is wrong, as both have cultures and history which are equally as important.
good post. Salude.
Originally posted by Grand Moff Gav
No your wrong wave this fact in a neo-nazi's face and he'll say it proves White people are more evolved than black people!And it's not my view!!!!!!!!!
And if you ask a black man he will say what evoloution then will pull his trousers down and ask the white man to do the same then he looks around and asks what evoloution.
And its not my view 😄