As relatively slow as it is, genetic change will happen a lot sooner than the whole human race becoming enlightened. We've already had one age of enlightenment that died.Originally Posted by baddad
As relatively slow as it is, genetic change will happen a lot sooner than the whole human race becoming enlightened. We've already had one age of enlightenment that died.
I think that race has little to do with us and them thinking and itll always be around even if we are all from the same race , youd still have all the sub groups ( and I now this is a rather odd example but take football/soccer) you have the reds and the blues be it ManU amdn manCity or liverpool and everton They have always hated each others gus and always will and should you comnbine them to make on team youd still have fights first it would be what should we call the new team and then itwould be what they originally were and then i would be fights over which part /player on the team would be best.
simple fact is -as I see it- people need differances fights and in and out groups to survive competitivness etc they are not only primitive instincts but aspects of modern day socity too.
so yes Xenophobia is awful ( and I can speak from experiance somtimes scary and terrible) but even when I was being targeted there was always that thought well IM better than them I dont go aroundpointing fingers do I? again an examople of us and them thinking.
I think people ned to have enimies or rivals to survive wheather in a friendly way or in a real honest for goodess WE HATE YOU sense its always been there always will people are like that and some types are more ethically "wrong" than others its just the way life is and we cant fight all uis and them thinking but if we do I think enlightenmentis really the only way you are going to beat rasism .
My mission in life is to make YOU smile
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
"The time has come," the Walrus said,"To talk of many things:
Forum Rules- You know you want to read 'em
|Litnet Challange status = 5/260
|currently reading
I don't think that having a single people will solve conflict, it will, as Nightshade implied, merely be displaced and manifested in different forms.There will still be individual differences, as there are now within races, and those are the differences that count the most to me.
And while you may not like the idea of a single people rather than separate races/ethnic groups, I consider it a natural outcome of human evolution in the long run. Clinging to past and present cultural differences will not prepare mankind for a very complicated future. It will be a case of adapt to new conditions or perish, as it always is.
And culture contributes to individual differences. By suggesting that culture is somehow distinguishable from forms of individual differences you are merely reinforcing the sort of over-simplifications regarding what constitutes the individual (the idea that you can classify someone according to race, culture) which creates us and them thinking.
As to a phrase such as "clinging to past and present cultural differences will not prepare mankind for a very complicated future. It will be a case of adapt to new conditions or perish, as it always is." I find such thinking almost dangerous. It reminds me of the way that English settlers used the same logic and social darwinism to justify taking Aboriginal children from their homes and putting them in White families. To turn them into white people in Aboriginal skins was seen as beneficial, to breed them out was beneficial. Otherwise people thought that they would perish. Long story short, the scars run deep, and you'd be hard-pressed to find someone who can really justify the "stolen generation".
Don't part with your illusions. When they are gone you may still exist, but you have ceased to live.
(Mark Twain)
In a way we are back to the power of constructed systems of meaning. It could be argued that a similar effect is now being accomplished with the willing agreement of those who are being changed. This is what makes ideology so powerful. As I said in the language as power thread about Thailand:
“There are many very prominently advertised products such as skin bleaching creams that are aimed at and appeal to middle class Thais. More and more their lifestyle emulates that of the western consumer. The image of the West is certainly powerful enough to overcome and suppress the culturally accepted norms of many Thais.”
Something similar appears to be occurring in parts of China. So no one will need to remove children forcibly from their parents in order to ‘whiten’ them – it can be done more effectively and willingly through our systems of meaning.
Incidentally, in the 1900s, there was an outbreak of something similar to bird flu in Hong Kong. It was as deadly as the one promised us soon is supposed to be. British Colonial rulers, armed with a western medicine that knew about pathogens, realised that the virus needed to be contained and so applied quarantines, preventing those infected from returning to their families in Mainland China. It is customary for Chinese people to return to their families at such times. Chinese medicine at the time knew nothing of pathogens. As far as the HK Chinese were concerned, the evil colonialists simply did not understand their needs. The British imposed the quarantines by force and by doing so, saved the lives of no one knows how many Chinese people. Now there’s a dilemma when deciding our attitudes.
To me it is always a one on one situation. You have a problem with one person and you fret over it and work yourself up and then you silently begin to hate that person with a vengence( I am not talking about me, I cannot even conceive of that, it is what I have witnessed time and again)Then you tell someone that cares about you and they often automatically take on that attitude toward the person whether they know what really happened or not. And it happens on the other side as well. Then the hatred becomes full blown because the behaviour of the two sides almost wills there to be a confrontation so that the hatred can be cemented in mind and heart.
Then the next generation comes along and are usually forced to take a side-with the fam that loves and nurtures them or the other side of whom some might be friends.
And I have noticed the more a person loathes another the uglier, stupider and more worthless they seem to be. and so it goes. But it doesn' t h ave to be like that.
I think this is true (more what you say about Thailand than China though). People will generally feel a need to assimilate with whatever dominant culture exists in a society. So, as most of the world seems to be modelling itself around the West, the world is becoming more "white" I suppose. At the same time though, if you go to China, they respect people who speak Chinese a lot more than those that don't, so there is also pressure to become more Chinese in some ways. I suppose it goes without saying that it's a complex, dynamic process of change.
Yeah, I don't think that the sort of protectionist policies instigated by Australia with regard to Aboriginals, or America with regard to Native Americans (I don't know much American history but I think they had some similar ideas) were intended to harm anyone, or maim their culture (like it did to Aboriginals). It's more a product of the way that people think. Race is a construct produced by power relations
Ah well. I'm innately cheap and a God-awful driver. That makes me Asian.
Don't part with your illusions. When they are gone you may still exist, but you have ceased to live.
(Mark Twain)
Faye,
Do you think that age might be a construct too? Perhaps if I act really jejune and naive, I'll only be 20!
Perhaps I'll ask (I'd love to insert a name here, I really would) for advice....
lol, I'm eighteen. Twenty is OLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDFaye,
Do you think that age might be a construct too? Perhaps if I act really jejune and naive, I'll only be 20!
Perhaps I'll ask (I'd love to insert a name here, I really would
Seriously though, to some extent, I think that it is. One of my friends came here when she was thirteen as a refugee from Afghanistan and I don't think she really had much of a childhood. I mean, she did, but she's a helluva lot more 'mature' or mentally older and more responsible than most of the other people I know. People with more life experience tend to get wiser faster. The concept of age is a construct. You can hear about a nineteen year old getting married and having kids and it seems right for them because that's where they're at in their lives. But for another nineteen year old, you sit there thinking that they can barely even take care of themselves. It's very subjective.
Don't part with your illusions. When they are gone you may still exist, but you have ceased to live.
(Mark Twain)
To the original poster: Starrwriter (i think)
It is not clear to me where the generally agreed upon in anthropology studies ends and your theory starts, or is it all mixed in with eachother?
If you could post what your conjecturing past your basic knowledge of anthropology, and what is actually generally considered as true in your post, i would be interested.
All across the telegraph
His name it did resound,
But no charge held against him
Could they prove.
And there was no man around
Who could track or chain him down,
He was never known
To make a foolish move.
Heh, modern tribalism is about nuking "the axis of evil" and the acting like a saviour to the poor, misguided oil-countries.
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote