[Monti]

On 20 February, I published on PoFo (cf. political circus) an article named “Nation”, about the roots of nationalism, xenophobia and racism. I would like to complete this reflection by trying to answer this question: why did certain peoples reach a high level of civilisation at a time when others still had a way of life close to the one led by the ancestors of the first, centuries or millennia earlier.

These two categories of peoples met when Europeans began to spread around the world. Their technical knowledge brought them a military advantage that allowed them to colonise the territories of the “underdeveloped” nations and, often, to subject them to a kind of slavery.

From the throne of humanity, many Europeans let themselves be won over by a feeling of superiority which sometimes turned into racism. This racism served as an ideological cover for imperialist domination: there were fewer scruples in dominating and exploiting “inferiors” than “equals”.

Before answering the question of the first paragraph, a preliminary remark deserves the detour: a more developed civilisation does not necessarily mean a better civilisation. To classify civilisations in quality, multiple criteria are possible and none is absolute. Among them, this one seems very important to me: the level of happiness that is provided to the population. It is however not measurable, but nothing indicates that the most developed civilisations are the happiest.

Let us come to the explanation of the differentiated levels of development. A first explanation is “we developed faster because we are cleverer”. Many Europeans wanted to believe it. However, no scientific evidence has ever come to support this hypothesis. So, is there a more subtle alternative explanation?

My explanation is this: every society, whether primitive or civilised, exerts some pressure on its members. Its role is to ensure social cohesion. This pressure manifests itself in a series of prohibitions and obligations to which individuals are subject: rites, taboos, customs, beliefs, respect for the word of the elders and, of course, laws. These social mechanisms are more pressing in a primitive society than in a civilised one, because the less understood and the more threatening the environment is felt, the more the individual feels precarious, vulnerable and the more he relies on his group to protect him; the reciprocal expectations of the members are therefore more demanding. What makes modern legislation so complex is precisely that social needs are to be married with individual freedom.

One effect of social pressure is the reproduction of modes of thought and modes of production from generation to generation. “We learned from our ancestors how to hunt, how to dwell, how to dress…; you, our children, you will continue to apply what their genius has transmitted to us”. If social pressure decreases, individuals can initiate new practices that will ultimately prove beneficial for the group, if not in absolute terms, at least in terms of its ability to find accommodation and food... Too much obedience, too much respect for traditions padlock change and therefore evolution.

So, let’s consider two primitive tribes A and B identical in all respects, except that in A, the social pressure is a little less heavy than in B. They will evolve differently. It will probably need centuries or millennia for the difference in development to be considerable; on the scale of human history, it is short.

My explanation for differentiated attainment of civilisation is that social pressure varied from one primitive society to another. Too much pressure has prevented some societies from civilising at the same rate as others. Individuals who were not less intelligent but more submissive could not evolve autonomously. On the other hand, when civilisation came to them from outside, the aborigines of Australia, to take an example, in a few generations took a great leap forward. Today, some attend Australian universities whereas their great-grandparents lived in the Stone Age. Individual abilities are not in question.

And why was social pressure higher in B than in A? Certainly not because the members of A had foreseen that it would allow their descendants to become civilised a few centuries later. It is quite simply chance, chance as a contingent entanglement of a multitude of factors.

NB: The term “civilisation” is used in its usual meaning by historians. Civilisation came with writing. This invention made possible a radical transformation of society. Political power took the form of State, with professional army and administration. A consequence is the advent of cities and of social classes. With groups freed of agricultural labour, science, technology progressed.

[Rich]

From the throne of humanity, many Europeans let themselves be won over by a feeling of superiority which sometimes turned into racism.

This is the very heart of the Cultural Marxist lie. Humanity has practised genocidal racism since before there were humans. it has practised genocidal racism since before there were hominoids. But there is more. The two key things that made us human were genocidal racism and extreme in group competition.

Yes cooperation is also important. But cooperation and competition are rarely in isolation. Even in the womb, you don't really get much more cooperative than mother and foetus, but even in the womb there is hormonal competition between mother and foetus. So we see intensive cooperation and competitive between human groups and we see intensive cooperation and competition within human groups. It is this that has allowed the development of the extremely resource expensive human brain and has enabled the wonders of civilisation.

The liberal constantly frames history from a fantasy world, as if the rest of the world was living in some sort of peaceful Garden of Eden and equality where everyone treated everyone else with respect before Europeans arrived. What is remarkable about the European colonisers is not how much they diverged from the modern human rights ideal, but how much they adhered to it.

[late]

Evolve is the wrong word to use. If you can breed, you're the same species.

Perhaps my favorite book, about this, is Guns, Germs and Steel. You can distill that to one word: luck.

[late]

The liberal constantly frames history from a fantasy world..

You don't know history, or the rules historians have to use.

You don't do history, which suggests you are projecting..

[Tainari88]

This is the very heart of the Cultural Marxist lie. Humanity has practised genocidal racism since before there were humans. it has practised genocidal racism since before there were hominoids. But there is more. The two key things that made us human were genocidal racism and extreme in group competition.

Yes cooperation is also important. But cooperation and competition are rarely in isolation. Even in the womb, you don't really get much more cooperative than mother and foetus, but even in the womb there is hormonal competition between mother and foetus. So we see intensive cooperation and competitive between human groups and we see intensive cooperation and competition within human groups. It is this that has allowed the development of the extremely resource expensive human brain and has enabled the wonders of civilisation.

The liberal constantly frames history from a fantasy world, as if the rest of the world was living in some sort of peaceful Garden of Eden and equality where everyone treated everyone else with respect before Europeans arrived. What is remarkable about the European colonisers is not how much they diverged from the modern human rights ideal, but how much they adhered to it.

Rich the primates most similar to modern humans are BONOBOS in Africa. They are the ones with the highest cooperative rates.

One can be predatory like the far Right ones in WWII. But in the end what counts is how well a family cooperates and a community can cooperate to bring up its young and to be able to educate individuals. Scientifically you measure the amount of time and effort that all human societies have to invest in getting an infant to adulthood and productivity. The amount of time and effort to get there? The vast majority of that time is about cooperation.

Aggression and fighting is a fairly rare occurrence. Not as frequent by far as sharing and interacting socially.

The worst sort of torture for human beings and a human rights violation recognized all over the world in all prison systems is solitary confinement.

People are social in every aspect. So if we are social creatures we can choose to cooperate or not. What we are never successful at is living in a solitary world with no real interactions with each other.

People are interacting more and more with machines. The machine is not going to impregnate anyone, and it is not going to fulfill the human need for connection.

To think oppressing others is going to make your sense of human potential improve is false. Lol.

The more you try to control others and your inability to care about them on any real level? The less influence you will have. That is reality.

I remember from my university days an anthropologist by the name of Kenneth Good. He wrote a book about his life among the Yanomami indian tribe in South America. He married a young woman and had three kids with her. She moved to Gainsville and also lived in New Jersey. She found it impossible to adapt to such an existence. Her opinions on the problems with modern life are really interesting. Why? Because you always get the perspective of the 'modern' person but rarely get the perspective of a tribal person examining the lifestyle of the modern first world. That book is an eye opener. Because his wife from that Yanomami tribe sure did understand why she preferred living with her tribe and did not tolerate the existence of some New Jersey or Gainsville suburban wife lifestyle. Her happiness was with her tribe. Not with the USA suburbs.

People and individuals adapt to their environments and find meaning in speaking their own languages, knowing well their own cultures and living their own experiences. Humanity does derive meaning from their frameworks and their matrix. Their social milieus or matrix. To think that the only really important human experience is to be European, or to speak English or to be living with a middle class or above consumption level is to be incredibly closed and incredibly ignorant.

But racists usually are both. Ignorant and closed.

Bio on Kenneth Good.



https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kenneth_G ... ropologist)