Bad Science: Harper's article, "Mighty White of You"

I think blacks who are free from civilisation are savages, and whites who are free from civilisation are barbarians. The two terms are often confused, but those who believe race exists can see the difference presumably. Think of Conan the Barbarian on the one hand and an African cannibal tribe chief on the other. It is probably harder to say about other races, whether they barbarian or savage in their uncivilised state.
 
Norsemaiden said:
I think blacks who are free from civilisation are savages, and whites who are free from civilisation are barbarians. The two terms are often confused, but those who believe race exists can see the difference presumably. Think of Conan the Barbarian on the one hand and an African cannibal tribe chief on the other. It is probably harder to say about other races, whether they barbarian or savage in their uncivilised state.

I still fail to see this. Man is man, put him in any social situation and he often acts exactly the same, regardless of colour. I cannot see how "race" comes into it.
 
There has never been a black civilisation and there never will. Most of the world's civilisations have been initiated by whites(I don't care whether you believe it or not - you can ask about it and I'll tell you the evidence if you really want to know). Blacks are the wildest of people and they do not find it possible to maintain a civilisation. Sure, within a civilisation you will find some blacks who fit in, but you won't get an all black civilisation the way you can get an all Chinese civilisation or all Indian.

Civilisation is domesticating and it weakens the people, so it is not anything to uphold as an ideal way of life anyway.
 
Norsemaiden said:
There has never been a black civilisation and there never will. Most of the world's civilisations have been initiated by whites(I don't care whether you believe it or not - you can ask about it and I'll tell you the evidence if you really want to know). Blacks are the wildest of people and they do not find it possible to maintain a civilisation. Sure, within a civilisation you will find some blacks who fit in, but you won't get an all black civilisation the way you can get an all Chinese civilisation or all Indian.

Civilisation is domesticating and it weakens the people, so it is not anything to uphold as an ideal way of life anyway.

*re-opened - For as long as the thread stays relevant*
 
Norsemaiden said:
There has never been a black civilisation and there never will. Most of the world's civilisations have been initiated by whites(I don't care whether you believe it or not - you can ask about it and I'll tell you the evidence if you really want to know). Blacks are the wildest of people and they do not find it possible to maintain a civilisation. Sure, within a civilisation you will find some blacks who fit in, but you won't get an all black civilisation the way you can get an all Chinese civilisation or all Indian.

Civilisation is domesticating and it weakens the people, so it is not anything to uphold as an ideal way of life anyway.

Ive edited out some of your more inflammatory remarks. Again, Norsemaiden, comparing a race to wild rabbits, and then stating those that are civilized, are civilized due to their white slave blood, is not a good idea (these were all comments made in her original, now edited post). Please, stop making these comments! Think before you post such things; there are other ways of stating these ideas than calling people wild rabbits. And, I think both FInal Product and I, are at the last straw with you and some of these outwardly racist conspiracies you bring up with every post. So, final warning.

I am leaving the thread open, because a number of German philosophers: from Hegel to Schopenhauer, all said the same thing, but in a more refined manner than Norsemaiden. They claimed (Kant too) that Africans lacked the powers of Reason--a very harsh claim.

In fact, the famed black academic Henry Louis Gates Jr, wrote a book and filmed a PBS T.V. program, searching for a learned African civilization to prove these German philosopher's wrong. What he found, was that Timbuktu in Mali had a flourishing academic community, and it was a flourishing civlization. Norsemaiden's claims may actualy have some credence, due to the fractured tribal nature of most African countries, has perhaps, or did, stall the process of civilization. But, I think this is clearly a product of culture, not of intelligence. I know a handful of Africans that are incredibly intelligent and civilized people who bemoan the direction and nature of politics and society in their homelands.
 
speed said:
Ive edited out some of your more inflammatory remarks. Again, Norsemaiden, comparing a race to wild rabbits, and then stating those that are civilized, are civilized due to their white slave blood, is not a good idea (these were all comments made in her original, now edited post). Please, stop making these comments! Think before you post such things; there are other ways of stating these ideas than calling people wild rabbits. And, I think both FInal Product and I, are at the last straw with you and some of these outwardly racist conspiracies you bring up with every post. So, final warning.

I am leaving the thread open, because a number of German philosophers: from Hegel to Schopenhauer, all said the same thing, but in a more refined manner than Norsemaiden.

In fact, the famed black academic Henry Louis Gates Jr, wrote a book and filmed a PBS T.V. program, searching for a learned African civilization to prove these German philosopher's wrong. What he found, was that Timbuktu in Mali had a flourishing academic community, and it was a flourishing civlization. Norsemaiden's claims may actualy have some credence, due to the fractured tribal nature of most African countries, has perhaps, or did, stall the process of civilization. But, I think this is clearly a product of culture, not of intelligence. I know a handful of Africans that are incredibly intelligent and civilized people who bemoan the direction and nature of politics and society in their homelands.

Perhaps not civilisation in the way we generally concieve it, but I see no reason to believe "our" civilisation to be a superior mode for humans to live/interact within.
 
And one more thing Norsemaiden:

White civilization if you will--and by that I mean Scandinavian, Celtic, and Germanic civilization--really didnt get started until the late middle ages. The Germans, Celts and Scandinavians were all rather savage people, tied to tribal loyalties, with few if any cities nor scientific discoveries. It took contact with the Romans to start this civilizing process, and even then, it took them more than a thousand years.

Furthermore, civilization was started by Semitic peoples not whites--although there are remains of civilization in Western India, and the Minoans are of unknown ancestry.

Thus, perhaps it will take a long amount of time for the Africans? They really havent been in contact with a civilized country for some time; really since the 1500's and the Arabs/muslims in Eastern and Western Africa.
 
Final_Product said:
Perhaps not civilisation in the way we generally concieve it, but I see no reason to believe "our" civilisation to be a superior mode for humans to live/interact within.

I agree. Our civilization is incredibly destructive and wasteful. It aims too high without restrictions. We--European--have defeated ourselves due to our insatiable curiousity and disregard for any higher values. THis perhaps, is one of the major issues between us, and them--the Arab/Muslim community.
 
speed said:
I agree. Our civilization is incredibly destructive and wasteful. It aims too high without restrictions. We--European--have defeated ourselves due to our insatiable curiousity and disregard for any higher values. THis perhaps, is one of the major issues between us, and them--the Arab/Muslim community.

In coming together in "western civilisation" we have perhaps misses the CIVIL part of the equation.
 
speed said:
And one more thing Norsemaiden:

White civilization if you will--and by that I mean Scandinavian, Celtic, and Germanic civilization--really didnt get started until the late middle ages. The Germans, Celts and Scandinavians were all rather savage people, tied to tribal loyalties, with few if any cities nor scientific discoveries. It took contact with the Romans to start this civilizing process, and even then, it took them more than a thousand years.

Furthermore, civilization was started by Semitic peoples not whites--although there are remains of civilization in Western India, and the Minoans are of unknown ancestry.

Thus, perhaps it will take a long amount of time for the Africans? They really havent been in contact with a civilized country for some time; really since the 1500's and the Arabs/muslims in Eastern and Western Africa.

I can't put any evidence for whites originating civilisations because it causes so much trauma. However I will just say that I prefer barbarism from civilisation. Only a eugenic civilisation could be any good. I feel that my comments have been taken the wrong way, as if I was pro-civilisation and pro- domestication. I think of wild rabbits as being BETTER than the domesticated rabbits, which are weaker and which die when let out into nature. Wild rabbits will not allow themselves to be domesticated. People who live outside of civilisation are better off that way.
 
On topic and relevant to everything others have posted so far, here is a quotation from Richard Dawkins in his best seller "The Blind Watchmaker".

"Chimpanzees and we share more than 99 per cent of our genes. If, in various forgotten islands around the world, survivors of all intermediates back to the chimp/human common ancestor were discovered, who can doubt that our laws and our moral conventions would be profoundly affected, especially as there would presumably be some interbreeding along the spectrum? Either the whole spectrum would have to be granted full human rights (Votes for chimps), or there would have to be an elaborate apartheid-like system of discriminatory laws, with courts deciding whether particular individuals were legally 'chimps' or legally 'humans'; and people would fret about their daughter's desire to marry one of 'them'. I suppose the world is already too well explored for us to hope that this chastening fantasy will ever come true. But anybody who thinks that there is something obvious and self evident about human 'rights' should reflect that it is just sheer luck that these embarrassing intermediates happen not to have survived."

Well fan my brow!
 
Norsemaiden said:
Only a eugenic civilisation could be any good.

I agree. Otherwise, defectives pile up and good people serve idiots. Well, I didn't mean to describe our world now with that sentence, but I guess it happened.

My only caveat here is that I distrust bureaucratic eugenics. Natural selection must be preserved. Capitalism/communism (monetarism) are anti-natural-selection. We must find a higher value than money or perish as a species.
 
infoterror said:
I agree. Otherwise, defectives pile up and good people serve idiots. Well, I didn't mean to describe our world now with that sentence, but I guess it happened.

My only caveat here is that I distrust bureaucratic eugenics. Natural selection must be preserved. Capitalism/communism (monetarism) are anti-natural-selection. We must find a higher value than money or perish as a species.

When people suggest eugenics, I normally think the worst. I am warming to the idea somewhat, however.
 
LORD_RED_DRAGON said:
i think that the only way eugenics could be really good is if it involved sterilization INSTEAD OF killing people

Eugenics is more selective breeding, not the killing off of everyone. It would be a more gradual process.
 
LORD_RED_DRAGON said:
the only time i hear people talk about Eugenics outside of this philosopher's forum is people talking about killing the people that aren't worhty of breeding

You probably heard about it from someone who wanted to make out eugenics is evil. It always seems to be the anti-eugenic people who say eugenics is about killing people because they think that will stop anyone from advocating it and being labelled evil. Really it is about selective breeding like Final Product said. Actually those who are not required to breed could try to look on the positive side of it, after all there are millions of people who SHOULD breed but who hate the idea.