On the Origin of White Power

[ksen]

http://blogs.scientificamerican.com/primate-diaries/2014/05/21/on-the-origin-of-white-power/

Nicholas Wade is not a racist. In his new book, A Troublesome Inheritance, the former science writer for the New York Times states this explicitly. “It is not automatically racist to consider racial categories as a possible explanatory factor.” He then explains why white people are better because of their genes. In fairness, Wade does not say Caucasians are better per se, merely better adapted (because of their genes) to the modern economic institutions that Western society has created, and which now dominate the world’s economy and culture. In contrast, Africans are better adapted to hot-headed tribalism while East Asians are better adapted to authoritarian political structures. “Looking at the three principal races, one can see that each has followed a different evolutionary path as it adapted to its local circumstances.” It’s not prejudice; it’s science.

I think the best science articles are the ones that start with "[Scientist X] is not a racist."

 

[J842P]

It all sounds like a load of "just-so" stories - facile explanations for things that certainly more complex. I would be surprised to find that there are no genetic (really allelic) differences between the groups we term "races." I would be orders of magnitude more surprised if these differences lined up with the authors claims, i.e. with modern prejudices.

 

[rousseau]

So white people are better adapted to the modern economic system that white people largely created? Sounds like a tenuous theory to me. Probably more like the fastest growing societies were by chance comprised largely of white people, giving them a head start in social dominance. Once you create a strata where whites tend to have money, and black people tend to be poor, a wide range of socio-economic and environmental factors keep it that way.

That's not to say there might not be innate differences between different races, but trying to categorize every member of a race in some way is just as useful as categorizing all mentally ill people together, or all people of a gender together. You might find some useful generalization, but it's no guarantee to the individual, so while it might contribute to the sum of human knowledge, it's not particularly useful knowledge to apply on a person to person basis.

If you want to talk about the socio-economic effects on the cultural attitudes of different races that's probably a more useful discussion. When it comes to life outcomes I've always seen that up-bringing, family genetics, and old money are the biggest predictor of financial success.

 

[AdamWho]

This is not a new idea. However because of the politicization of atheism/skepticism, you will find that any discussion of evolutionary psychology will be met with that meaningless Steven J Gould quote of "just-so stories" and suggestions that you are a racist or into eugenics.

White people are generally from the north where conditions are not as easy for living unless you develop technology. Technology, science, warfare, and business are why the "golden road" of culture is in the west and will likely stay in the west for a long time.

 

[Jokodo]

This is not a new idea. However because of the politicization of atheism/skepticism, you will find that any discussion of evolutionary psychology will be met with that meaningless Steven J Gould quote of "just-so stories" and suggestions that you are a racist or into eugenics.

White people are generally from the north where conditions are not as easy for living unless you develop technology.<snip>

I guess that's the reason that, for >11,000 of the 12,000 years since the adaptation of agriculture, the most technologically advanced regions of the planet were situated in the subtropical and the warmer parts of the temperate regions of Eurasia...

The reason such pronouncement are met with disdain is first and foremost that they clash with reality, more than any real or alleged "politicization of atheism/skepticism".

 

[repoman]

I want to find out if the past Ice Age had different effects on different groups tendencies to carry body fat and to be listless during winter lack of light.

That has a better chance of being solved. However for body fat, we are starting to see all people can get huge on the wrong diet and being sedentary.

 

[repoman]

I have always had an impression that Native Americans are stuck on a slow gear mentally or physiologically. Or maybe they are just laid back. They often speak English very haltingly.

However, one smart and quick speaking person I know of is Sherman Alexie.

 

[Valjean]

I thought White Power was an artifact of Guns, germs and steel.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Guns,_Germs,_and_Steel

 

[Bronzeage]

http://blogs.scientificamerican.com/primate-diaries/2014/05/21/on-the-origin-of-white-power/

Nicholas Wade is not a racist. In his new book, A Troublesome Inheritance, the former science writer for the New York Times states this explicitly. “It is not automatically racist to consider racial categories as a possible explanatory factor.” He then explains why white people are better because of their genes. In fairness, Wade does not say Caucasians are better per se, merely better adapted (because of their genes) to the modern economic institutions that Western society has created, and which now dominate the world’s economy and culture. In contrast, Africans are better adapted to hot-headed tribalism while East Asians are better adapted to authoritarian political structures. “Looking at the three principal races, one can see that each has followed a different evolutionary path as it adapted to its local circumstances.” It’s not prejudice; it’s science.

I think the best science articles are the ones that start with "[Scientist X] is not a racist."

There is not much difference between this kind of science and Creationism.

 

[repoman]

I agree with the Guns, Germs and Steel (GGS)hypothesis. But was there ever a further genetic selection for humans that work well in an increasingly complex, technological and authoritarian society.

I think that the ability to ALWAYS be able and even willing to respond like a whipped dog and move fast to do labor for your social betters may have been selected for - I am sure that I have that gene in me.

Aboriginal Australians never had to work in huge rice fields under a deadline, or similar aspects in the Middle East or Europe.

Basically, some human populations may have been more domesticated than others, docile horses instead of stubborn mules.

I truly doubt that intelligence has even close to the regional variability as does temperament.

There were Chinese people 2,000 plus years ago making terra-cotta armies for a ruler. The tight tolerance of temperament required to do this is stunning.

 

[doubtingt]

One could likely make an equally "plausible" speculation that if white dominance is a product of evolution, then it is not about an evolved greater intellect but an evolved greater selfishness, greed, unempathic willingness to torture and enslave others and take all their fruits of their labor, etc.. Concentrated wealth is a necessary ingredient in a portion of a population having the luxury to sit around and ponder issues that don't directly meet imminent survival needs, and such pondering is key to technological developments. Thus, any traits that enable concentration of wealth (such as those related to using force against others to steal their wealth or their labor) would enable intellectual and tech development.

 

[repoman]

I think that Asians and Chinese in particular had all the requirements to have gone global that the Europeans had. Maybe they actually had a more stable society that didn't need to go far and wide for more supplies.

 

[rousseau]

I think that Asians and Chinese in particular had all the requirements to have gone global that the Europeans had. Maybe they actually had a more stable society that didn't need to go far and wide for more supplies.

Probably something to do with Chinese isolationist tendencies, and the European desire for more power.

 

[dystopian]

I agree with the Guns, Germs and Steel (GGS)hypothesis.

From what I recall, that mostly tried to explain the Great Divergence by arguing that geography forced Europeans to go become explorers and conquerers; but this ignores the fact the great divide was already happening before the age of exploration.

I seem to have read somewhere that the GDP per capita in the Low Countries first exceeded that of China around 1400 (It may have been 1500; but the wealth of the region started explosively growing around 1400, so it doesn't really matter to the point). During the 14th century, there were a series of disasters not the least of which was the Black Death. The population of Europe was greatly reduced; but as a result wages increased and the cost of land (which was previously overworked) decreased. This in turn resulted in decreased power for the nobles and feudal system; and increased power for urban centers. It's no coincidence that the richest area in Europe at the time was also its most urban *and* one of its most decentralized. I would argue that it is these events and their immediate results that sparked the Great Divergence, and not geography or political divisions; those allowed the divergence to continue, but didn't cause it. It was all thanks to a series of social developments that could, had the conditions been right, happen anywhere.

 

[AdamWho]

This is not a new idea. However because of the politicization of atheism/skepticism, you will find that any discussion of evolutionary psychology will be met with that meaningless Steven J Gould quote of "just-so stories" and suggestions that you are a racist or into eugenics.

White people are generally from the north where conditions are not as easy for living unless you develop technology.<snip>

I guess that's the reason that, for >11,000 of the 12,000 years since the adaptation of agriculture, the most technologically advanced regions of the planet were situated in the subtropical and the warmer parts of the temperate regions of Eurasia...

The reason such pronouncement are met with disdain is first and foremost that they clash with reality, more than any real or alleged "politicization of atheism/skepticism".

We are not talking about power 5000 years ago, we are talking about power now.

Guns, Germs and Steel covers much of these ideas.

The fact that Mesopotamia, the Indus valley valley, or the Nile delta were prosperous is because they had rivers and didn't need to work as hard for their living. They developed the technologies and political systems that best fit their circumstances. However, circumstances have changed greatly and they were left behind.

The "golden road" of culture exists in the western world now and with it, all the benefits of power and prestige.

 

[4321lynx]

I think that Asians and Chinese in particular had all the requirements to have gone global that the Europeans had. Maybe they actually had a more stable society that didn't need to go far and wide for more supplies.

Probably something to do with Chinese isolationist tendencies, and the European desire for more power.

About Chinese exploration and its cessation see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Treasure_voyages

 

[dystopian]

The fact that Mesopotamia, the Indus valley valley, or the Nile delta were prosperous is because they had rivers and didn't need to work as hard for their living. They developed the technologies and political systems that best fit their circumstances. However, circumstances have changed greatly and they were left behind.

Uhm, how is this different from the west though? The regions that grew prosperous in Europe were *also* those that had rivers and fertile land and thus the people there didn't "need to work as hard" for their living. Those same regions still tend to be the most prosperous in Europe today.

In fact, none of the civilizations you mentioned were 'left' behind in the way you're implying. Spain is an example of a country that got left behind through changing circumstances; it had built itself a large empire and then rested on its laurels, becoming technologically and socially stagnant compared to the rest of Europe, which soon caught up and then passed Spain by. The civilizations you mentioned however, weren't surpassed by other powers of their day and 'left behind', they were destroyed through a variety of factors, and their cities were mere ruins by the time other civilizations rose to their level and surpassed them. If the west was destroyed tomorrow by a series of coincidental asteroid strikes, plunging the world into a new dark age, and a thousand years later a new asian civilization rises to the level we are today, that isn't an example of us being 'left behind.'

 

[Iggy]

I have always had an impression that Native Americans are stuck on a slow gear mentally or physiologically. Or maybe they are just laid back. They often speak English very haltingly.

However, one smart and quick speaking person I know of is Sherman Alexie.

What a completely moronic statement! What else can one say to the above....you happen to know only one Indian who to you is erudite and quick witted so your conclusion is they are mentally or psychologically slow in general! Could it be your insufficient sample size? It is more likely your compulsion to measure head size and believe white folks an have edge here!

 

[Iggy]

This is not a new idea. However because of the politicization of atheism/skepticism, you will find that any discussion of evolutionary psychology will be met with that meaningless Steven J Gould quote of "just-so stories" and suggestions that you are a racist or into eugenics.

White people are generally from the north where conditions are not as easy for living unless you develop technology. Technology, science, warfare, and business are why the "golden road" of culture is in the west and will likely stay in the west for a long time.

They are "just so stories" because that is what they are and inevitably racism and pseudo science tumble into place because they go together.

I see your nym is Adam? I will guess it is because of anglo origins. Well, a few thousand years before the name of any Englishman ( or what came to be the Englishman)appears in the historical records for example; Indians had already asked and answered in similar ways all the philosophical questions we know from the Greeks that have become the canon of western culture. The Chinese did not do too bad either. Who knows what the Mayans had? From the little that survive deliberate destruction by the spanish. they were well ahead of Europeans in their time. Just take a hike in the Yucatan.

White people did not invent the stirrup. It came possibly from the steppes. It give us modern warfare. I also see "The Art of war" and "the 36 strategies" still being awarded the title of the most profound works of strategy ever. They are not of European origin. Were one to inquire as to whether Africans contemplated war they would find they have and the oldest known a complete system of martial arts in temple writings in Egypt

These nations came and went not because they had "less than the golden culture. They did because that is what happens. If in 1000 years we come back who knows what would be here. For some reason, human cultures seem to self destruct after a while. Look about us, some six thousand cultures have come and gone. Some six thousand remains and who is to say which of them can leapfrog above others. Do not beguile yourself with the myth of a golden culture. It has legs of stone!

 

[Iggy]

This is not a new idea. However because of the politicization of atheism/skepticism, you will find that any discussion of evolutionary psychology will be met with that meaningless Steven J Gould quote of "just-so stories" and suggestions that you are a racist or into eugenics.

White people are generally from the north where conditions are not as easy for living unless you develop technology.<snip>

I guess that's the reason that, for >11,000 of the 12,000 years since the adaptation of agriculture, the most technologically advanced regions of the planet were situated in the subtropical and the warmer parts of the temperate regions of Eurasia...

The reason such pronouncement are met with disdain is first and foremost that they clash with reality, more than any real or alleged "politicization of atheism/skepticism".

We are not talking about power 5000 years ago, we are talking about power now.

Guns, Germs and Steel covers much of these ideas.

The fact that Mesopotamia, the Indus valley valley, or the Nile delta were prosperous is because they had rivers and didn't need to work as hard for their living. They developed the technologies and political systems that best fit their circumstances. However, circumstances have changed greatly and they were left behind.

The "golden road" of culture exists in the western world now and with it, all the benefits of power and prestige.

I think you are viewing these cultures as isolated cultures. I am sure the were lots of borrowing going on. One can Mesopotamia give lots to the Egyptians and what came to be the Jews. These cultures did not die. They live in all of us As The Romans ( a more visible progenitor) since we borrowed from them to become what we are. And why would they not have to work hard? One always have to work hard to overcome scarcity and it exists everywhere in varying degrees.