patrick.net

Internally I'm racist to a large extent, but I also think this mindset is not productive.

https://cbssacramento.files.wordpress.com/2012/08/the-kings-team-144534172.jpg

It's OK to be racist if it's just looking at the world as you see it, but going on to be prejudiced, bigoted, and/or chauvinistic about it is where this racism tends to go.

It's very easy to take this racism to some very ugly places, to belittle and 'other' other people instead of improving the world by tolerating and appreciating our differences, and ascribing to racial differences what actually might be real socio-economic handicaps racial groups experience here, in the distant past, the recent past, and to today.

We're all in this together, especially here in the US, where we're all a nation of immigrants, since we largely slaughtered the people who were here first.

Looky here, more memes in action.

Three levels of thought, analytical which determines differences and similarities, associative which associates one thing with another, reactionary which is what animals do.

Racism is one of the latter two.

Bellingham Bill says

since we largely slaughtered the people who were here first

that's classic PC self-blame, and is not actually true for the most part. looking at race again, we note that the american indians are the genetically most homogenous group in the world since they are all descended from a rather small number which came over the bering strait 20,000 years ago.

what killed them for the most part was their homogeneity and lack of resistance to smallpox in particular. actual slaughter accounted for far fewer of their deaths than a simple germ.

sure, they were badly treated, but read the accounts of the time and you'll see that the spanish conquests were massively aided by slews of people just dropping dead.

we can look at this as sort of a diversity morality tale in itself: because the indians had low genetic diversity, they could not withstand smallpox. it gets worse: the children of indian women who had spanish husbands (or rapists) tended to survive better because of their resistance to smallpox. this happened so much that the male Y chromosome in lots of latin america was completely wiped out by the spanish Y chromosome. in mexico, the maternal line is mostly native, and the paternal line is almost all spanish. you can prove these things quite easily these days.

so why the very consistent self-blame in all things by the PC crowd? instead of a more nuanced truth, it's always "we slaughtered them". there must be some kind of pleasure in self-blame, but i don't get why exactly. theories?

Bellingham Bill says

ascribing to racial differences what actually might be real socio-economic handicaps racial groups experience

i'm with you on that point. the irish in particular were considered to be a separate and inferior race by the english, and incapable of accomplishment on their own (they conveniently ignored the fact that irish monks were very literate long before the english).

yet now the per-capita income and living standard in ireland has passed that of england. it's as if mexico surpassed the US.

because the indians had low genetic diversity, they could not withstand smallpox

this is the problem being a racist shithead, you get the cause/effect stuff wrong.

smallpox took out millions of old-world people, too.

http://www.infoplease.com/cig/dangerous-diseases-epidemics/smallpox-12000-years-terror.html

so why the very consistent self-blame in all things by the PC crowd?

I assigned no blame in my statement of fact, above.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1860_Wiyot_massacre

to bind otherwise mutually hostile people together.

people aren't born to be hostile to other races. That's taught.

Bellingham Bill says

because the indians had low genetic diversity, they could not withstand smallpox

this is the problem being a racist shithead, you get the cause/effect stuff wrong.

smallpox took out millions of old-world people, too.

http://www.infoplease.com/cig/dangerous-diseases-epidemics/smallpox-12000-years-terror.html

so why the very consistent self-blame in all things by the PC crowd?

I assigned no blame in my statement of fact, above.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1860_Wiyot_massacre

one reason white people had much higher immunity to smallpox at the time of the conquest of the americas was largely because they had already been through it (and the plague -- immunity to the plague is actually related to immunity to smallpox) and it had wiped out a lot of europeans who lacked that immunity.

so my arguments stands: white people did not eliminate the native americans for the most part. smallpox did that for them.

i didn't say there were no massacres and no discrimination, only that the principal cause was smallpox, and that PC people greatly enjoy self-blame and so generally ignore smallpox.

Within just a few generations, the continents of the Americas were virtually emptied of their native inhabitants – some academics estimate that approximately 20 million people may have died in the years following the European invasion – up to 95% of the population of the Americas.

No medieval force, no matter how bloodthirsty, could have achieved such enormous levels of genocide. Instead, Europeans were aided by a deadly secret weapon they weren't even aware they were carrying: Smallpox.

http://www.pbs.org/gunsgermssteel/variables/smallpox.html

Are the Ainu the only race officially designated ASSHOLES?

Bellingham Bill says

people aren't born to be hostile to other races. That's taught.

that's just, like, your opinion, man. (credit to the dude) it's one more PC trope accepted as true just because it's more pleasant to believe it's true.

actually, there is evidence of innate hostility between races.

http://www.medicaldaily.com/racism-innate-human-brain-makes-unconscious-decisions-based-ethnicity-240970
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/science/science-news/10770563/Babies-show-racial-bias-study-finds.html

yes, this is unpleasant, and it should be resisted, but that doesn't mean it isn't true.

without acknowledging the truth, we are crippled in attempting to build something better. it's like closing your eyes and trying to find a path.

i didn't say there were no massacres and no discrimination, only that the principal cause was smallpox, and that PC people greatly enjoy self-blame and so generally ignore smallpox.

Also the native Indians massacred each other as well, as did pretty much every ancient civilization to some extent. Sacrifices, tribal wars etc. Ironically mostly Caucasians invented vaccines and cures for many plagues and have been passing those on happily as well.

and that PC people greatly enjoy self-blame and so generally ignore smallpox.

smallpox deaths, aside from the allegedly intentional transmission of smallpox virus to indian populations, are orthogonal to the following genocide committed on the indigenous peoples of the US.

We are a nation of immigrants, necessarily taking the land from the indigenous population that legally owned it all prior to our 17th century colonization. The indians ceded some land peacefully, e.g. Manna-Hata island to the Dutch, though of course especially back then to prove legal title to land you had to trace it to the man who stole it.

Being a nation of immigrants, we have had to evolve our social condition from a mix of inputs, from all over the world, for the past several centuries.

This has strengthened us as a culture, not weakened us.

Of course, immigrants can bring bad with the good, as Trump likes to point out to his equally racist supporters.

I was looking for a graph of hispanic population increase, but I like this one better:

Maybe Eugenenice was the right idea?

without acknowledging the truth, we are crippled in attempting to build something better

That's your frame of reference. My frame of reference is that you're a racist and that these obsessions of yours are a total waste, and help us in no way in understanding ourselves or planning for the future.

Methinks race is more like the breeds of dogs. Now dogs are an extreme-but you can still breed a male Chihuahua to a bigger dog and get puppies. The same with horses- draft horses were bred for work and strength-plow the fields, pull carts, logs etc. Lighter saddle horses were bred for riding and other tasks and then you had special breeds for pulling carraiges etc. Smooth gaited horses for carrying you along smoothly across long distances to get somewhere. Temperament was also important, with many breeders culling foul tempered foals-unless of course if they were pit ponies or consigned to some worthless task.

I am guessing, in the days of yore, humans evolved to their circumstances and geography. That we can interbreed and successfully produce babies, shows we are not that far removed.

I was in Jordan and really surprised at the number of white Jordanians-red heads and blue eyes. But given their history-it should be of no surprise. But their culture is what makes them different-that white jordanian is going to be very different than the white Midwestern fat dude-even though they may be the same race. The Muslim chechnyans are probably closer to Saudi wahabbists then their Russian brothers. germans are probably quite different than the French -race might and does have a difference-but methinks culture will have a bigger difference.

Now as with dogs, raise a Rottweiler in the most loving environment, it will still has its base tempermanet, but I wonder hwo much of a base tempermanet does each "race" have in ahuman and then does it vary by sub-race-for example is irish different from Scottish or Russian or german or Swedish? In the same way would blacks from Congo be different than south Africa, Tanzania or a black raised here in say Louisiana?

japan and germany are successful precisely because of their lack of diversity

This is one of those things that would seem to be self-evident. Diversity, which is a cousin to the word divisive, is by its very nature a negative influence because it emphasizes differences, which while they may be true, hardly lend themselves to harmonious relationships. I remember in the early 90's when our company jumped on board with the diversity business. We had a department of diversity which began the process of sending all the employees to diversity training. I never had to go because I guess they thought it would be a waste of time. I remember how every month when the diversity calendar (I'm not kidding) came around, how we'd laugh at it--every day was some hitherfore unknown day of importance to some unknown race or tribe somewhere.

Europeans were aided by a deadly secret weapon they weren't even aware they were carrying: Smallpox.

There also originated in those ancient times a Biblical custom of which the population could not have been aware of its practical benefit. It was noted during the plagues that the Jewish populations had noticably lower mortality rates than those of gentiles, adding further to the hatred of Jews as they believed they must in some way be complicit in the high death rates of non-Jews. The Jew's religion commanded them to pray before every meal, and since a Jew could not approach God with unclean hands, he symbolically purified himself by washing his hands in vessels filled strictly for that purpose--of course in the process, he was unknowingly washing away the contaminents that were being spread far and wide in the general population. And thus washing one's hands before a meal has become ubiquitous in this day of awareness of germs. I expect a lot of wisdom is contained in that admonition to avoid fornication as well, but that's not going to be accepted in this day and time either.

It's kind of ironic that Germany and Japan, being so wonderful because of relative homogeneity, also are both countries that had plans of subjugating or killing all of the *inferior races*, not so very long ago.

Was that a feature or a bug ? ( Did it prove they really are superior ? Or that they really aren't ? I say the latter. Sometimes everyone thinking the same way is very very bad )

I think high on the agenda if we were planning for our future is figuring out how humanity is not going to destroy itself. And I'm pretty sure that concluding that we really are the superior race ( whomever "we" represents ) is not a key to doing this. On a related note, it's interesting that the Arabs, that Patrick spends a lot of time railing against and obsessing about, have a lot in common with him, when it comes to ideas about race, and the superiority of their group.

1. The "race" mentioned in the article is very different from what the vernacular concept of race is. There is statistical distribution of alleles (alternative possible DNA bases at a specific location on the chromosome) exhibited by difference races. That is a far cry from saying what most people's concept of "race" is real. For example, each "race" has different bell curves on IQ; however, it would be absurd to say a person is White just because his IQ is 100, or Asian if his IQ is 110, or Black if his IQ is 85. On top of that different chromosome sites in the same individual may correlated statistically with different "race" groups.

2. "Eugenics" is what every man and woman does in picking and choosing mate(s): better/healthier looks, smarter, higher income, etc. etc. Government-run "Eugenics" however is a whole different ball of game: because government bureaucrats would have a very strong incentive to cheat and give reproductive advantages to themselves and their friends. It's just like market/exchange/trade is a good thing, but government-run market with price fixing is a terrible corruption of market process; science is a good thing, but government-run big-science is what gives you new theology like AGW.

3. It's interesting to note that the biggest historical break-through in standards of living and productivity came about because the more intelligent, hard-working and capable of delayed gratification got to reproduce more, and had their offsprings gradually pushing down the relative social standing and displacing the less competent. This is exactly the opposite process of what the modern welfare state does: incetivising the bottom of the gene pool to reproduce more and hope they could replace the reduced fertility among the more competent that are too heavily taxed and regulated.