Hrothgar
Forum Replies Created
-
Posts
-
ALB wrote:Hrothgar wrote:I assume you are referring to Marine Colliery
Why this assumption? I think that despite his self-proclaimed superior intelligence he is confusing Cwm and Cwm Beddau.
I know you can't resist the temptation to personally abuse people that you are in disagreement with. It's a quality that shames you but I am happy for it to continue. Please do make sure you take the opportunity to reply to each of my posts with your best attempt at some insult or snide remark. It shows you in your true light.Now, it may be that I have mixed-up one colliery with another. Or it may not be. But that's hardly the point, is it. I am waiting for your colleague to back-up his remarks, which he has not yet done.Also, I have never claimed superior intelligence to anybody on here, so you'll have to tell me what you mean by "self-proclaimed superior intelligence".
Young Master Smeet wrote:Just to quote from Encyclopaedia Britannica:Quote:Although most people continue to think of races as physically distinct populations, scientific advances in the 20th century demonstrated that human physical variations do not fit a “racial” model. Instead, human physical variations tend to overlap. There are no genes that can identify distinct groups that accord with the conventional race categories. In fact, DNA analyses have proved that all humans have much more in common, genetically, than they have differences. The genetic difference between any two humans is less than 1 percent. Moreover, geographically widely separated populations vary from one another in only about 6 to 8 percent of their genes. Because of the overlapping of traits that bear no relationship to one another (such as skin colour and hair texture) and the inability of scientists to cluster peoples into discrete racial packages, modern researchers have concluded that the concept of race has no biological validity.This statement is incorrect. I have already explained why in this thread, but see also the below study as a referenced example.http://www.biomedcentral.com/1471-2164/8/68It's important to bear in mind that the Encyclopaedia Britannica is a general reference work rather than an authoritative text for any particular specialism.
LBird wrote:In my experience of self-employed professionals, they have a strong social tendency to develop cloth-ears.As Hrothgar displays with his genetic purity, here we have an example of concrete determinism.Perhaps Socialist Punk can tell us if 'Hrothgar' is a derivative of the Anglo-Saxon for 'Hessian-horns'.We have already been treated to your prejudices about people with special needs, plus your colleague's rather ugly prejudices about people with mental illness, so it's gratifying to note that you have prejudices about "self-employed professionals" too. Truly, I am among the enlightened.Is there any category of people we have missed, or have all the easy targets been covered now? For instance, and just for completeness, you might want to share with us your views on soldiers, let's say, or students. Don't hold back.
steve colborn wrote:What race would you put those from ancient Babylonia, Persia, Egypt etc in? All socially advanced civilisations just not from the Far East Asian stock nor European.Today, they are mixed.
steve colborn wrote:As for intelligence levels, did a Kalahari bushman need knowlede of computing, mathematics, history of european thought, to exist in his or her native environment? Or was it, how to construct a "sip well", patterns of migration of animals, where to find supplies of berries, roots etc? Is it not the case, that if you were to attempt to live in the environs these people inhabited, it would be "your" intelligence level, that would be found wanting!Not really – intelligence testing can be conducted in a culturally-neutral manner.
steve colborn wrote:It is your "presumption" that intelligence levels are only measurable by westernised methodology, that is in error.Could you highlight where I have made this presumption? I don't recall it.
steve colborn wrote:Finally, it is not because I am a "humanitarian", (whatever the hell that actually means) that I find your posts, vile, odious and repugnant, it is because, I have yet to read any proof of your racist theory!I have not advanced any theories, so there is no proof necessary. In any case, not everything has to be proved (nor have I yet been informed of your probative standards), but I have referred to evidence that supports my views.
steve colborn wrote:What would you get if an abandoned "white" child had been raised by, for instance, the above mentioned Kalahari Indians? Well, we all know you would get an intellectually advanced, tea drinking, superior minded member of the european branch of the caucasoid race family. In actual fact, the child would grow and only be differentiated from other "tribe" members by the colour of his skin. That, in a nutshell is what you are on about really, is'nt it, skin colour?No, and I have already explained why this is not merely a matter of skin colour. However, putting your sarcasm aside, I am sure you're right in what you imply, that the child in your hypothetical example would grow up acculturated as a member of the San, but that does nothing to disprove or invalidate race as a concept.
Brian wrote:Hmm, not quite, he's also plugging: 1. The discredited eugenics arguments;I'm arguing for the improvement and betterment of my species. Horrible isn't it?
Brian wrote:2. Enforced segregation;I'm not arguing for this.
Brian wrote:3. Apartheid;We already have this. Have you been outside recently?
Brian wrote:4. I.Q. testing.I'm not specifically arguing 'for' or 'against' IQ testing. I know it has limitations.
Brian wrote:However, my own ancestry, like most people is mixed, with African-American on my father's side and my mother coming from Norman stock.Norman stock, eh? At least I know why you don't like my views, yet you obviously recognise there is such a thing as race.
Brian wrote:Interestingly, my great grandfather was brought into this country, along with 19 other African-Americans by the mine owner George Davies to teach the 'welsh' miners a new method on extracting coal from the Ocean Colliery. Also the history of the local colliery, Cwm, Beddau, records a total of at least 15 different peoples or if you prefer 'tribes' having worked and settled there.I can't find any record of a 'George Davies' owning that mine, either outright or as a director. Nor can I find any reference to the story you give here, although I only had time for a quick search. Not that I think you'd just make it up, so maybe you could post a link on here? We can then see why the 20 African-Americans (presumably from Appalachia) were sent over here and what they did and whether it is of any significance to this discussion.Maybe you could also provide a link to the history of the local colliery (I assume you are referring to Marine Colliery) that tells us about these "15 different peoples" who lived and worked in Cwm? Just so that we can see the numbers and decide whether you're describing a mixed-racial paradise or just ad hoc families and individuals.
Brian wrote:I'm a socialist which when added to the above mix (pun) discredits many of his arguments. Indeed, how come my ancestry has allowed me to survive, and become a socialist in such an hostile environment?What are you a mix of? It must be at least two racial groups, right? So once again you admit, tactily, that races exists.I didn't say that black people would not or cannot grasp socialism, I just think that if societies become racially-mixed then this is less likely to result in socialism than if we remain racially-homogenised.
Brian wrote:Finally, I do not consider myself welsh, british, european, black, brown or white but a citizen of the world and a member of the human race.The term 'citizen of the world' is just lazy shorthand for people who don't know what citizenship is. In the society you envisage, there would be no need for any concept of citizenship. Indeed, socialism would be completely antithetical to any such idea. You may reject citizenship as a concept now, but you cannot be a citizen in form only so the term 'citizen of the world' is nothing more than empty verbal masturbation.
Brian wrote:Why should I allow a social construct like 'race' restrict my development and movement when I have a world to win?This last sentence sounds rhetorically attractive, but it is meaningless. It is in the nature of life that people are restricted in their development and movement. This is due to all kinds of factors, many of which would remain in socialism. The point should be how to win a real world, not this daydreaming and fantasy.
SocialistPunk wrote:Hi HrothgarI can see why people on this thread are losing their cool with you. But I will not be goaded into "losing it", by your long distorting posts.Losing their cool were they? Or were they just engaging in the same tactics that are popular across the internet among people with 'humanitarian views', which is shouting and abusing anybody who doesn't share their 'nice' perspective on the world? Anyway, do please specify where and when I have distorted anything here. I note you haven't troubled yourself, but I have been specific in my accusations of distortion, so please do me the same courtesy. It's important to me because I am growing rather tired of these facile accusations that I am doing this, that and the other which never seem to be supported by anything except bluster and hot air. So perhaps you'd oblige us?
SocialistPunk wrote:Are their any genes that determine a persons "race"? The answer is, no.This is correct, but the premise itself is fallacious. Understood correctly, genes don't 'determine' things. It's understandable that you would make this mistake as it reflects a popular misconception, but it's a fallacy all the same. Thus, the following assertion that you make is flawed as well.
SocialistPunk wrote:"Race" is not a scientific reality, it is a social construct, just like culture, or politics. I have maintained that stance throughout such discussions, past and present.For the reason given above, your syllogism is flawed. I'll touch on precisely why, later, but for now – and for the sake of argument – let's take your assertions at face value, put aside the shaky foundations of your logic, and ask: What do you mean by the phrase, 'scientific reality'? Are you saying that race is not a scientific concept or are you saying that race might be a scientific concept but it is not likely to be of any significant value to a scientific understanding of human beings? Which is it?When you say that race is a 'social construct', I suspect you are just using that phrase lazily to dismiss the concept of race. People use phrases like that because they think it makes them sound clever and gives an air of authority to whatever nonsense they happen to be spouting. I am not saying that is the case with you – well, at least not entirely anyway – but it is very easy to fall into the trap of repeating what amount to modish platitutdes. "Hey, race is just, like, a social construct, ya know? Yeah man!"The notion of a 'social construct' can mean many different things. In this context, it could mean that race is entirely invented and has no biologic bearing whatsoever – which is possible, but unlikely – or it could mean that there is a biologic basis for race but the typologies are socially-defined, largely as a reflection of socio-geographic traditions. The latter, I would suggest, is the more realistic position. But in any event, the two propositions are fundamentally different. It seems to me you and your colleagues do accept there are at least de minimis racial types based on skin colour. So you do accept race as a biologic concept, albeit in a very restricted sense. That being the case, you contradict yourself if you assert that race is only a social construct and nothing else. The real issue is the significance of the concept, not its existence. I think the reason you fall into the fallacy of arguing over the existence of something that you have already conceded exists is because it suits you ideologically and politically to maintain that race does not exist at all. That's a wholly counter-factual and unscientific position, and it even contradicts your own utterances and in that sense amounts to doublethink, but if it fits your prejudices, then it's fine, no? This also explains why you become angry – "lose your cool" – with people like me who point out the obvious.There is also the secondary (and less important) fallacy that you fall into in thinking that because a major difference among human beings is (as you allege) merely a matter of skin colour, this makes it unimportant. You don't seem to realise that the skin colour difference may well have evolved for – among other reasons – to signify deeper and more significant differences.
SocialistPunk wrote:What we have is a social construct used as part of cultural identity, a concept that is highly subjective. Socialists don't really care about the concept of "race" itself. We care about the divisional tactics used by the elite in their pursuit of keeping the working class in line, of which "race" is one hell of an effective tool.I don't doubt that race is used in hierarchical societies to divide the working class against each other, but I return to my point in a previous post. This, in itself, does not disprove or invalidate race. In fact, in some ways it serves to reinforce the notion that race is a manifest of a deeper impulse in human beings. These propaganda techniques you allude to would lack effectiveness if they were merely social constructs. That is not to say I think we should accept things simply because they are in our nature – the so-called 'naturalistic fallacy' – but our natural impulses, however unpleasant, cannot be lightly discarded. It may be that people prefer to live among others who they believe are like them, and it may be that this reflects a deeper genetic imperative to breed within and among a group that is intermediate between closest kin and 'outsiders'.
SocialistPunk wrote:The clash arises today, when some insist that "race" has a scientific basis. It gives divisional politics an air of much needed credibility. But if in the near future, scientists overwhelmingly declare "race" to be a scientific fact, I would not mind one bit, nor would most on this thread.You'll need to explain what you mean by 'divisional politics' and why it's so different from other politics. I understand the point about race (and other social cleaves) being used to divide the working class and so obscure any consciousness about a common class interest, but all politics is 'divisional'. People take sides, even among their 'own kind'. It's probable that initially national groups were formed so as to more easily control populations, but this observation, even if true, tells us nothing of why people could be divided this way.Human beings are just tribal and divide by nature. I don't use the term 'by nature' in a lazy way. I realise that it can be a last resort for unthinking people who will say "Well, it's just our nature", and so takes on a mysticism of its own, but that is not the sense in which I mean it. I think there are good evolutionary reasons why we divide and seek to label 'outsiders'. That is not to say it is a good or a bad thing. Initially, the 'outsiders' might be labelled this way socially, or due to geographic factors, or something else, and the basis for the labelling may be silly, but in time differences emerge that may be of some value or importance to the people so divided. I notice we have always done this, and I see nothing trite in acknowledging that and speculating as to the reasons. As I see it, the human racial types are evidence of human micro-evolution in which, over countless millenia and via various wave migratory patterns, different human groups have evolved characteristics that are adaptive for their respective environments. What is wrong with recognising this?
SocialistPunk wrote:I have three simple questions:1) Are their any specific genes that determine a persons "race"?No. As explained both above and in a previous post, the premise of genes 'determining' things is fallacious. I addressed this early on when I made reference to Lewontin's fallacy. The genomic basis of race is the distinctive patterning of hundreds of thousands of genes.
SocialistPunk wrote:2) How many "races" are there?I don't know, but to speculate, I would suggest there are four basic groups (or 'meta-groups'): Caucasoid, Mongoloid, Negroid and Australoid. Within those, there are further sub-groups. For instance, Europeans (i.e. whites) are a sub-group of Caucasoid.
SocialistPunk wrote:3) Why is the socialist position on "race", as a social construct, harmful to the case for global socialism?I'm not suggesting it's harmful to the case for socialism in any objective way, and – to give you credit – the case is actually very well put by the SPGB. In that respect, it's refreshing that you are able to make an honest case using clear language, which is more than can be said for the other fake "socialist" groups. What I am suggesting is that, first, if humanity is to go down a mixed-racial route of development and, in effect, devolve its racial types, this could be both socially- and developmentally- damaging. Whites and Far East Asians are civilisationally superior, reflecting a higher mean average intelligence than other races. So I worry for humanity. Second, while I don't think mixed-racial ideology damages your case in an objective sense, I do think it might make it harder for socialism to happen, for the following reasons (among others):– mixed-racial societies tend to be less stable and exhibit less solidarity among their working populations, and since coalitions and alliances need to emerge within countries and other geographic spaces, this (ironically) makes it harder for a genuine class consciousness to coalesce on a trans-national basis;- immigrants are easily exploitable in the countries they arrive in and also tend to be more entrepreneurial or business-minded, and both factors dissipate the labour power of indigenous working class groups;- if whites mix with other races, this will lower the average intelligence level in European societies, making it much harder for socialist ideas to gain acceptance;- if racial types reflect a tribal impulse, then the devolution of races will require an authoritarian style of government and repressive measures against "terrorists" (i.e. Racial Nationalists and other dissidents), which may make it harder to encourage the spread of esoteric political ideas, including socialism.
SocialistPunk wrote:The first highlighted sentence speaks the truth. There is no scientific evidence to say that "race" is determined genetically.But that's not what I said. In fact, in the very quote you have posted, I explicitly state the very opposite.
SocialistPunk wrote:The most we can say is that geographical ancestry can be demonstrated, but geographical ancestry does not determine so called "race".Yes it does. In fact, to an extent, geographic ancestry is race. That is how distinct groups evolved and while I maintain that tribalism is a human impulse, I am not denying that geography is also a critical contributing factor without which the differences might be fewer and lesser. I see nothing controversial in that point, whereas I would view as odd any argument that concedes there are differences based (in part) on geography but then denies those differences in the same breath! That is your position and it's ridiculous in that it is blatantly illogical and self-contradictory. It's an example of the classic double-think that is required when you must allow ideology to intrude on reasoning. I look different to an East Asian because our respective groups have lived, and sexually-selected, thousands of miles apart. It doesn't take a great leap of imagination to hypothesise that phenotypical and genotypical differences between the two groups are going to evolve, perhaps slight in statistical terms, but nonetheless of social significance. That's to say nothing of the inevitable cultural differences.In your worldview, I am 'racist' because I think it might be better if the two groups maintained their identities. That's fine. I don't mind being called a racist on those terms. But you and others like you take it further and maintain that I am somehow a bad or evil person for thinking along these lines. Why? I'll tell you why – because you have an agenda, for which you are unable to argue honestly and scientifically, and that's why you need to resort to distortion and abuse.
SocialistPunk wrote:What I have discovered, after further reading on this subject, is that most genetic scientists think the concept of "race" is unscientific and unhelpful.Then let's see the supporting material and references to back-up your impressions. Again, I have little doubt what you say reflects a truthful impression. Scientists are susceptible to politicisation and anthropology is far from an exact science, especially in recent times. Even so, to say that something is 'unscientific' or 'unhelpful' doesn't tell us much unless we can see the context within which the remarks were made and who made the remarks.
SocialistPunk wrote:The most interesting aspect of the first sentence above, is not that Hrothgar admits his ideas are scientifically unsound, but that they are unsound because of the way todays scientists push the research to satisfy a social/political agenda.Please feel free to re-read my actual words in full which you have helpfully quoted [not just the emboldened parts you want to highlight]. I stated that the scientific work in the area is directed to a social or political agenda, which I think is obvious, but I also stated words to the effect that the underlying scientific basis for racial patterning in the genome remains, a point I have made in this thread repeatedly and which you have done nothing to rebut.When I said you would probably 'win' a debate based on the reference material, I was perhaps being generous (this has been a very mean-spirited discussion, largely due to the behaviour of your side), but I do think it likely that you would be able to come up with research that suggests that while there is racial patterning in the genome, race as a concept has greater social than scientific significance. So a 'win' on points, but it's a straw man point as it doesn't remove the reality or significance of tribal differentiation among human beings. In fact, if anything, it reinforces the argument, but on the strict scientific points, any advances you could make in this debate would have to begin with a concession on your part as to the biological reality of race. It says that in the quote above. Distort me all you want, but I have not conceded the central point to you.
SocialistPunk wrote:This is very telling. Supporters of "race" have no problem accepting the old view of "racial" categories that were based on limited scientific understanding and loaded with social and political prejudice. We all have a tendency to dismiss the stuff we disagree with and look for the stuff, however loaded, that supports our opinion.Of course, the emboldened part is generally true, but I have yet to see you demonstrate the truth of this observation in relation to my views or views that are similar to mine. Simply stating that something is old and not true is not enough to demonstrate its incorrectness, untruthfulness or falsity. When you coin the phrase, 'old view', in relation to racial categories, you are playing a sly semantic trick, perhaps unconsciously. At a psychological level, people have a tendency to think 'old' is bad and 'new' is good. This is especially so in relation to discussions on science, where there is a tendency to assume that 'new' science must be better than 'old' science. In fact, the terms 'newness' and 'oldness' have nothing to do with falsification, and so are entirely semantic and irrelevant in scientific discussions. An 'old' scientific finding or argument can be much superior to anything new. The vice versa scenario can also be true of course.
SocialistPunk wrote:We still see it now with the climate change skeptics.Do we? I doubt that, but climate is a whole different topic of debate. My position on that subject is idiosyncratic. While I have my own principled doubts and skepticism, I am strongly inclined to support precautionary policies for pragmatic reasons – but I am reluctant to dismiss the views of climate skeptics. Science is a tool not an ideology unto itself. Scientific findings can be argued one way or the other and are not conclusions in their own right.
SocialistPunk wrote:The second highlighted sentence is a little odd. I seem to be all at once the "victor" and at the same time wrong, because despite the lack of scientific proof, "race" is apparently a fact.Here you purport that there is a contradiction in my arguments, but the contradiction only arises due to your own distortions. You are, essentially, arguing with yourself. No more need be said.
SocialistPunk wrote:On this thread and on a previous thread on "race", the socialist view is that "race" is a social and political construct, that is forever fluid and open to social prejudice.So what we have, is Hrothgars idea that "race" is determined ancestrally and socially. Given that geneticists can trace ancestry back many, many generations, it would be difficult to pin down any solid "racial" identity that way. However when we add the social and political aspect of "race", pinning down "racial" ancestors becomes easy, depending on what we want from them.In most cases, a coherent racial identity is traceable over at least several generations. This is especially so in the United Kingdom, a coutry in which most white Britons are indigenous, but it would apply almost everywhere that ancestry is traceable, whether on a genetic or a documentary basis, or both. I do not doubt that some people apply impracticable standards to racial identity – for instance, the one drop rule, which I do not support – and verifiable 'racial purity' is not possible in most cases, but that kind of purity is not a precondition for the existence of distinct racial groups. The observable fact is that racial pheno- and genotypes exist and people tend to congregate within racial groups.
SocialistPunk wrote:Rather than being despite capitalism's best efforts, it is more a case of, because of capitalism's best efforts, that people huddle together in divisive groups of various different identities, political, financial, religious, "racial". The fact that people still break with those confines, proves that so called human tribal instincts do not work for everyone.It could be that the mixed-racial ideology now officially promoted in most Western societies does make people more racist and, whether or not that is an intention or function of the propaganda, it may be that in fact this addresses a natural behaviour found among human beings. If this serves the interests of capitalism, then that could be seen as unfortunate, but even if true, that in itself does not disprove or invalidate a biological basis for the human behaviour.
alanjjohnstone wrote:This article raises some of the issues brought up on this thread.http://dissidentvoice.org/2013/10/invention-imagination-race-and-nation/And a very good article it is too. Thank you for linking to it.
alanjjohnstone wrote:“My answer to that is racial secessionism…You could start by not trying to attach random, abstract labels to what I am saying.” Oh, you do that yourself without any help from me. Always a new label from yourself and when very early in this debate i accurately labelled you, oh , how upset you became and the indignant appeals to your own personal originality…You haven't accurately labelled me anywhere in this debate.
alanjjohnstone wrote:yet every message from you confirms the stale old racist ideology presented as something novel. Jack London, the writer, was much the same as yourself, unable to accept the changing world when it came to white supremacy disappearing. He, too, clung to the past, pretending it was the future.Funnily enough, I am something of a fan of Jack London, having read his novels and Barltrop's biography of him. But I am not a 'Jack London socialist', as Barltrop puts it. I am not a racial supremacist, as Jack London was, but nor am I ambiguous on the racial question, as – for instance – Engels was pointedly.
alanjjohnstone wrote:"Unlike you, I am not being bossy or prescriptive about what people can or cannot do and should or should not do." Let live and let be, eh? Now, why is it I don't believe you in the slightest. Perhaps it is because you insist upon placing your racial theories in the forefront of your thinking process rather than than trying to achieve a world of mutual co-operation.It's not necessarily that I see any primacy of one tradition over the other. I have adopted a syncretic position, because I believe co-operation and culture go hand-in-hand.
alanjjohnstone wrote:Free access to goods and services denies to any group or individuals the political leverage with which to dominate others which has been a feature of all private-property or class based systems through through the control of and restrictions to the means of life. This will ensure that a socialist society is run on the basis of democratic consensus, and yes, if you wish to seclude yourself from those who you claim differ from you in some vague way, you will be fully entitled to. Who, after all, can force you to live the way you do not wish to. It is not the WSM who advocates control and authority, after all….but yourself. We are the ones who say looks, appearances, cultures, fashions, lifestyles are matters of little concern right now, our pressing needs is socialism to end unnecessary suffering of all peoples, all ages, all sexes.Well, strictly speaking you do advocate some forms of authority or control. Or at least, you accept that some form of authority or leadership would need to exist even in a socialist society. Perhaps especially in a socialist society. Your ideas would be silly if you didn't. Of course, I realise you don't believe in leaders (i.e. social class), and neither do I as it happens. I, likewise, envisage some form of authority and control in future societies, even if there are not political structures that resemble nation-states. Neither of us can say for sure what form social control will take in socialism or whatever broad form of co-operativism exists, but it will be needed. That said, my belief is that people naturally coalesce into tribal groups, something that can work just as easily in self-directed societies as in a hierarchical society, and indeed this is the way human beings have lived for most of our species' existence.
alanjjohnstone wrote:We don't pick and choose who we seek to liberate, we aim to free everybody – " the emancipation of all mankind, without distinction of race or sex." as we declared in 1904 and continue to aver.So do I. Where have I said otherwise? But it's easy to say these 'nice' things. Putting forward concrete ideas that reflect the way human beings really think and act is more difficult. I prefer to acknowledge the essentialist racial nature of humankind and find a solution that accommodates it.
alanjjohnstone wrote:“Unlike you, I am not being bossy or prescriptive about what people can or cannot do and should or should not do.” This is your Big Fat Lie. No socialist has decided you must marry an Indian, No socialist has decreed your best friend has to be West Indian. No socialist has instructed you to love your next door neighbour. No socialist has insisted that you must invite people who do not like you to your birthday parties. No socialist has imposed that the only music you can listen to is opera in the original Italian. No socialist is forcing you to eat from a menu of pizza, kebabs or Tandoorie. No socialist is forcing you to do anything. The only person imposing restrictions upon you, is you, yourself. And it is only you who have chosen that these restrictions will also be extended to apply to all others, as well. It is you who desire to limit your own freedom and at the same time deprive others of their freedoms. http://www.listenlittleman.com/ "You're not free, little man, and you haven't the faintest idea what freedom is. You wouldn't know how to live in freedom."A lie is it? Well, let's just examine that claim. You give this long list of things that you say no socialist has said or claimed or done. Yet, I have not claimed that any socialist has said, claimed or done any of those things. So your ranting is irrelevant.You then state: "no socialist is forcing you to do anything", but again, I have not accused socialists of 'forcing' me to do anything. So you are accusing me of lying about something that I have not even said. What I have stated is that you are being bossy and prescriptive. Your insults and verbal tirades speak for themselves in that regard. Would you like me to go over the evidence? I'd prefer not to, as I don't have the time really, and frankly, I think you've embarrassed yourself enough already.What I have also stated is that the type of ideas that you are defending here (which I maintain are fetishist and nothing to do with socialism) inevitably lead to authoritarian societies. That doesn't mean I think you are authoritarian. I accept you at face value. I am merely suggesting that the ideas you defend have certain consequences that you might not have thought-through fully. Please refer to any internet news site for the necessary evidence. I also happen to think that a socialist society (which, by the way, I hope comes about) would disaggregate into discrete cultural groups, and given that I believe culture escheats to race, I maintain that racial typology is near-inevitable. These assertions have found some limited support on here, albeit highly-qualified in the sense that your colleague refused to accept a link between culture and race, or it may be that he just refuses to admit there is a link. I do accept that this aspect of my views is largely speculative. So, in summary I think your accusation that I lied is unfair, but in any case, I certainly wouldn't make such an accusation against you as I would see it as a bit low-brow and no substitute for proper argument.
alanjjohnstone wrote:"In a socialist society communities could exist autonomously" I believe the word you actually see is autarky. Socialism is about a world co-operating , realising its interdependence. DJP asks how you would ensure a racially pure community. I have given my answer – you would strengthen the state with co-ercive measures to enforce restrictions. Just as national "anarchists" and so-called libertarians do, you can camoflage a dictatorship with fancy words all you want. You would evoke laws to forbid black neighbours, brown class-mates and your ultimate sanction will be violence. You will end up with Jim Crow laws. Dance all you wish but people are not the narrow minded racists you endeavour to colour them as. Mixed-race people are the fastest growing ethnic minority group in the UK and, with all mixed categories counted as one sole group, are predicted to be the largest minority group by 2020.http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mixed_(United_Kingdom_ethnicity_category)Ah, so you do think racial groups exist after all? I see that we've caught you contradicting yourself, like your friends. Did you forget the apostrophes? Not to worry. I'm sure you'll have an explanation. Anyway, mixed-race families are still a small minority and I think that is likely to remain the case for a long time to come. I do agree with you, however, that demographic trends do not favour the white population. My answer to that is racial secessionism.The term I am looking for is not autarky. That's a misrepresentation. I know you dislike it when people misrepresent your socialism. You'll have noticed that I have not fallen into that discourtesy. I have taken the time and trouble to read the SPGB's material and I understand socialism. It would be nice if you could extend a similar courtesy to me. You could start by not trying to attach random, abstract labels to what I am saying. I know it's tempting for you, but it can only reveal your own ignorance.Many different kinds of communities can exist without a state. It's my assertion that the next stage of human development is likely to be anarchistic in a very broad sense, and I think we have common ground on that point. Second, I use the term 'autonomous' purposefully. I am not referring to the idea of people living in mountain retreats and such like. I am referring to the notion of self-directed communities in which people are part of, perhaps, a global system but organise themselves according to cultural identity and are as self-sustaining as possible. One of your colleagues has already admitted that some kind of cultural differentiation is a probable outcome of socialism. I agree, but I hold that culture is escheatable to race, hence in a co-operative society without states, people will tend to organise themselves according to broad racial typologies. I see nothing sinister about that. What I do find sinister is that you want to stamp this out and impose your own notions of mixed-racialism: i.e. a society without a meaningful identity, and you react hysterically to anyone who might dare to offer an alternative vision. You speak of a 'human identity', but that is so broad as to be meaningless. Certainly I identify as a human being, and that's very important, but I don't see that as my everyday identity or frame of reference, nor can it practicably be so. That said, I am sure that people like you will want to live in a cosmopolitan environment, and that's fine. Unlike you, I am not being bossy or prescriptive about what people can or cannot do and should or should not do. The world is a very big place, and so long as those like myself who wish to live in a more coherent community are left alone to do so, then there need be no quarrel. That is what I envisage. I am reasonably confident (though not certain) that in the event humanity moves to a more co-operative economic system, then the majority of people will wish for something similar.
DJP wrote:a racist scumbag wrote:In a socialist society, communities could exist autonomously and this, I believe, would be the perfect environment for preserving strong racial identities. Indeed I believe the preservation of strong identities of a racial kind would almost be a necessity. I have developed my own system or theory that explains how this might work.Well come on then lets hear it. How are you going to prevent people from mixing, mating and otherwise associating with others who are not in the same "racially pure" group? Let us hear how your racist utopia would work.
The entirety of human existence is a story of competing tribal groups, most of it without strong central authorities. Do keep up with the insults though. It shows that you are a deep thinker.
alanjjohnstone wrote:As i said, it no longer matters to me if he is correct or not about racial differences. I don’t actually care since it is all relatively academic since we live in a real world where "European" (used as euphemism for white), African and Asian “tribes" do mingle. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Interracial_marriage Unless, of course, he wants government policy determined upon that criteria then it is no longer just his personal inclinations on who he wishes to associate with. What is it to be? If they are black, send them all back (to where exactly). Ghettoisation and the creation of apartheid-style bantustans in major cities. Fences and walls erected to keep us apart and separated. Segregated work-places, schools and hospitals. Laws on where we can live, who we can talk to. Just as we are slowly ending the policeman in our bedroom, it is a return to who you can sleep with, who you can marry. A return to the anti-miscegenation laws of the KKK South and lynchings for transgressors . Will it be the enforced sterilisation of the off-spring of such inter-race relationships to maintain the racially pure "tribe"? Compulsory abortions?You say that you live in the real world, and I have no doubt you do. Yet, you overlook that the apartheid you speak of above already exists in abundance. It may not take on the form it did in the past, but it is there, in soft form. As a socialist, you believe in the power of will. Well, witness the will of the majority who have maintained a resistance against your mixed-racial ideology, albeit reflexively rather than consciously. That frustrates the hell out of you doesn't it? That people might still have some tiny vestige of independent thought. The temptation is to put it down to stupefication – false consciousness – and I can understand why, but my central point here is that this lingering tribalism has a much deeper causality. It is a human impulse and the only way to eradicate it would be via the kind of totalitarian measures that are inimical to socialism. Now, it would be nice to take a trip down Memory Lane and discuss all the far-Right shenanigans, but that's not my interest or concern. I am not 'right-wing' and I am not responsible for the activities of the political Right. I believe that capitalism is all-but dead. The system is unravelling before our eyes. I think your left-wing fetishist-reformist love for deracination can only help the capitalists as it makes Western societies easier to govern and control, but still, it's now just a matter of time before the edifice collapses. So my concern is with what will replace capitalism, not with discursive historical discussions. In a socialist society, communities could exist autonomously and this, I believe, would be the perfect environment for preserving strong racial identities. Indeed I believe the preservation of strong identities of a racial kind would almost be a necessity. I have developed my own system or theory that explains how this might work. It does bear similarities to National Anarchism, which you referred to earlier in the thread, but the similarities are superficial only as the basic economic system would be co-operative rather than market-based.
gnome wrote:Young Master Smeet wrote:I present, btw, the ancestor paradox as a major scientific refutation: there are more people alive than pairs of ancestors to produce them, within relatively recent history (about 20 or 30 generations) we all share common ancestors.Exactly and its all been said before. See here, for example:http://www.worldsocialism.org/spgb/forum/general-discussion/government-launches-immigrants-go-home-campaign?page=2#comment-7813
Exactly what? You really are struggling with this aren't you – the above is not a refutation. It may well be that homo sapiens share a common ancestry or common ancestors (the two are not quite the same, but I'll leave that particularity aside for the moment). Personally, I favour the commonality theory as it seems the most probable explanation for our evolution, but that is the whole point: we have evolved, and during that process of evolution, the tree has sprouted branches. So to point out that, most probably, we have a genetic commonality does not disprove my arguments.
ALB wrote:I wonder if he's a redhead:http://www.eupedia.com/genetics/origins_of_red_hair.shtmlOther races can have the recessive red hair gene. Right, so what is your point?
ALB wrote:If so, maybe he should join this group so he can associate with people sharing some of the same genes as him (easier to tell at first glance than blood group):http://www.scotsman.com/news/odd/redheads-rally-for-ginger-pride-in-edinburgh-1-3040091Oh, I forgot, on his theory, he would already have naturally gravitated towards them.Given that I live in the same part of the world as they do, yes I might well have naturally "gravitated" towards them. That's how distinctive races and cultures develop.
