Posted on 04/14/2021 3:55:30 PM PDT by CondoleezzaProtege
“Racial prejudice is as old as mankind”
What evidence is there of that?
Science is great. Scientists, not so much.
Ppl don’t like ppl who look different from them, which includes skin color. It was a good instinct for survival thousands of years ago. Hence, it’s as old as mankind. Changing inherent behavior will take time, if it’s even possible.
Where did you learn such a notion? You were carefully taught.
A consensus of Scientists even less...
Traditionally, people have used skin color as short-hand for culture, and culture as short-hand for character.
The most important thing people learn is to see individual people as individual people.
Most people have learned that, so it is strange to see racism resurrected in our day as a means of driving a wedge between masses of people and Christianity, and against the very notions of individual liberty. It is a way of getting people to refuse to see themselves as individual moral agents, and in so doing make them more easily manageable by the people who seek to rule them.
Well said.
I have great doubts about the ‘focus’ on Germany and the Kaiser Wilhelm Society & Institute as well as the almost obligatory swipe at the United States. France had (has?) its own ‘race’ / anti-Semitic problems (The Dreyfus Affair) and so has much of Europe over the ages! When ‘Blacks’ were rare birds, you get Othello, larger populations ...?
Elsewhere in the wide world? The caste system in Hindu India, the Tutsi-Hutu conflict that predated European colonization. The Japanese and their minority Ainu. It is NOT A PRETTY PICTURE but it is western civilization and its striving for ‘Liberty, Equality and Fraternity’ that encapsulates the best intentions!
Western Civilization and its ‘Blind Justice’ hand maiden is the antithesis of mobs, riot and ruin!
In addition, J. Craig Venter's statement has been shown to be false:
‘You can’t tell from looking at the human genome who is who other than who is male or female’, J. Craig Venter
You can actually tell quite a bit about the ancestry of the person involved. Statistically, different ancestry groups have significant differences in their genomes. Those differences lead to different traits that can be measured.
All of this is covered very well in "Human Diversity" The Biology of Gender, Race, and Class, by Charles Murray.
Murray doesn't make any claim about one race or group being superior to any other.
But there are clear, measurable differences in the genome which are expressed as clear measurable differences in statistical abilities of the groups.
Murray does show the enormous body of evidence from scientists working to uncover the secrets of the human genome.
He shows, quite clearly, the basic premise of Critical Race Theory (In a properly run society, people of all human groupings will have similar life outcomes) is false.
It is obviously false, because people of different groupings all have statistically significant differences in genetics, resulting in statistically significant differences in abilities.
Most people alive have known this is true from common observation, for millennia, for all of human existence. It is only the modern conceit of leftists that claim there is no significant genetic differences between groups of people. They are wrong.
The differences are not huge. They do not have to be huge. They only have to be enough to matter in preferences and abilities at statistical levels of importance.
What evidence is there of that?
Definitely no archeological evidence that I know of.
Perhaps a better version of the idea in natural human behavior would be prejudice against “those who are not us”.
As in those who are not of our clan, of our tribe, are not of our culture, are not of our religion.
This would be the natural distrust of people you do not know which is, I believe a genetically passed on survival trait.
A stranger shows up in your hunting grounds. Is he there to take a few of your deer or is he there to take your women and kill your children?
In Paleolithic times there may have been a survival benefit to prejudice. A band of people who assumed that a strange band of people were hostile and were proactive (killing the others) was more likely to survive and have descendants, while a band of people who assumed the other band was friendly was more likely to end up as barbecue. Those days are long gone and people should be judged as individuals, not as members of a group, but it may be that we have to learn to be tolerant of others because in the remote past people were more likely to survive if they were prejudiced.
I’m speaking in generalities. You need to lighten up, Francis.
Exactly! It’s an inherent behavior that we have to overcome. It might take longer in some ppl but we definitely have to keep plugging away at it. We’re all human beings no matter our skin color, FFS.
Keep in mind this article was written 20 years ago.
Re your plaint. It sounds authoritative, but it’s pseudo-science, ie social science.
I can’t comment on the book you cite by Murray.
Please clarify.
Ppl don’t like ppl who look different from them, which includes skin color. It was a good instinct for survival thousands of years ago. Hence, it’s as old as mankind. Changing inherent behavior will take time, if it’s even possible.
..............................................
You must have read Rudyard Kipling’s poem ‘The Stranger’!
A stranger shows up in your hunting grounds. Is he there to take a few of your deer or is he there to take your women and kill your children?
.....................................................
This observation is no doubt what motivated Rudyard Kipling to compose the poem ‘The Stranger’.
“Not sure which plaint you are saying is pseudo-science.
Please clarify.”
Your post 11.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.