3 ms·

Here's the deal: You've made the case that the reason that Mark Shuttleworth can't be African is because of his color. But African-ness is not a skin color, i

by wheels 19y ago

Here's the deal: You've made the case that the reason that Mark Shuttleworth can't be African is because of his color. But African-ness is not a skin color, it's an issue of identity. For instance, I consider myself "American", though I neither live in America nor am I Native American. You then backed that up with a terrible analogy about different kinds of animals. You then extended that to say that because he's white, he can't serve as a roll-model for other people from the same place that he's from. Is there a difference between black and white communities in South Africa? Of course. Might one of those be at an advantage in the business community? Naturally, given the recent emergence from apartheid in the last couple of decades. Is that genetic? No. Fucking. Way. Implying that it is is the essence of racism. If you look at world history you notice quite quickly that cultures wax and wane in their world political / economic influence. It's only been a few hundred years since northern europe was a complete backwater and classical arab culture was the center of learnedness around that part of the world. The middle east is a mess these days. What changed? Did white people steal the "rule the world" gene? Of course not. Appropriately, "Ubuntu", is the African concept of unity of all peoples and races. It is no accident that Mark chose that name for the project. For you to come along and claim that he has no right to his identity because he's what you think is the wrong color for an African is pretty wonky.

mynameishere 19y ago
If you want to generalize about a topic, you have to simplify your model, though. Shuttleworth--is he a representative African? Let's count some differences: 1) He's in Africa's richest country. 2) His parents weren't peasants or slaves or absent (as far as I know). 3) He's not Bantu, not Zulu, not a Bushman. He's of English stock. Whatever importance you might attach to these or other variables, the guy is not a representative African, and his circumstances can't be used to make claims about the whole. Is that genetic? No. Fucking. Way. Implying that it is is the essence of racism. Eh. Lots of things are genetic, including the composition of the brain. It isn't necessary to obsess over the particulars, but to make a categorical denial of obvious facts is the essence of brainwashing.
- Tichy 19y ago
  You could carry that further and say "African = loser by definition, so anybody who is successful can not be representative of Africa". It wouldn't be very useful, though. What point exactly are you trying to make? You might want to read "Guns, Germs and Steel" for another perspective on human history.
  - mynameishere 19y ago
    Diamond's book seems to have replaced "The mismeasurement of man" as the go-to screed for "refuting" genetic differences between people. As a response, I would suggest "The Blank Slate" by Stephen Pinker. The trouble, as always, is reductionism: One side saying, "This is the one-and-only reason."
    - aswanson 19y ago
      Page 6: The trouble, as always, is reductionism: One side saying, "This is the one-and-only reason." Page 1: it has been the long and disastrous habit to look at every variable, any variable, except the obvious ones: The differences between people. !logically_coherent
      - mynameishere 19y ago
        No. I merely pointed out that the "differences between people" is the one factor that people refuse to examine.
        aswanson 19y ago
        But is it not your thesis that this difference is the explanatory variable, in and of itself?
        mynameishere 19y ago
        Err, no. Every aspect of human behavior undoubtedly has 1000s of contributory factors. That's basically why the soft sciences are soft--avoiding errors in explainations is impossible because everything cannot be accounted for. But, you know, when you say, "Genetic differences count for nothing," when they are well-known to count for a tremendous amount, you're assuring a tremendous error.
rkts 19y ago
Is God imaginary? No way! Implying that is the essence of atheism. Giving something a nasty name isn't enough to prove that it's wrong. You have to actually refute it. > Did white people steal the "rule the world" gene? Of course not. Do you remember Biology 101? Populations change over time. Why are other species capable of evolving, but humans not? I'm not saying that genetics are the explanation for this change, but again, if you're going to deny the possibility you have to actually provide some evidence.
- wheels 19y ago
  We're getting pretty far from the original statement, but you've got some decent questions, so I'll go for it. In your atheism example, you're correct. And the term racism is emotive; it's something that most people don't want to be even if the common definition describes their view. Assuming some races to be genetically inferior is what many would term racism. But what if it's true? So, that brings me to the second part of your question. There are a lot of angles to look at this from, so I'll just pick the couple that are most important to me. Let's start with history of dominant world civilizations. I'll pick an easy example: The Arab world. It was dominant intellectually, militarily and culturally in the European dark ages. Italian culture had fallen from dominance to backwardness in about the same time frame. If we're to assume that the critical factor was genetic, and that Europeans had a genetic change in that period that affected the whole of Europe, which in its rise had very little genetic cross-polination, you would need nigh-on miraculous perfection in genetic propagation for the whole of the population of Northern Europe to receive that gene in a couple hundred years. Simultaneously, you would need the whole of the Arab population to devolve. If the thesis were that some families have a higher disposition to intelligence, that becomes very defensible. On the scale of populations of entire continents consisting of millions of individuals spread out over thousands of kilometers in largely distinct gene pools, it's virtually impossible. You might be able to salvage an argument for there being just enough evolution in certain ruling families for it to tip the scales, but that's not very convincing to me, and doesn't leave you with the "differences between people" result either. To be clear, I'm not saying that some ethnic groups may not have be genetically predisposed to certain physical or mental capabilities, but that those differences are not significant enough to explain the political tides of human history. The less scientific part of my argument comes from experience. What are the most important factors in being successful in business? Drive? Connections? Understanding of markets? There are a lot of things, but most of them are en-cultured values. I've traveled through Africa, stayed with families, and met a lot of rather intelligent people. Many of them were still poor. The difference between me and them wasn't that they had The Dumb African Gene, but that I was born into a upper-middle-class family in the United States, and they were born into blue-collar families in Zimbabwe. My extended family also has some adopted members that are black. They most likely came from poor parents. They turned out about like the rest of us, went to the same colleges, grad schools, got good jobs and so on. Could they have had genetically weaker genes than the rest of us? Maybe, but that didn't seem to be terribly important to their level of societal integration. It's pretty seductive to be able to think of the world's socio-economic problems in terms of genetic disposition; it makes us feel like our politics and policies don't play a decisive role and that our civilization is secured forever in its greatness. For me at least, history and experience do not concur.

by wheels 19y ago

mynameishere 19y ago

If you want to generalize about a topic, you have to simplify your model, though. Shuttleworth--is he a representative African? Let's count some differences: 1) He's in Africa's richest country. 2) His parents weren't peasants or slaves or absent (as far as I know). 3) He's not Bantu, not Zulu, not a Bushman. He's of English stock. Whatever importance you might attach to these or other variables, the guy is not a representative African, and his circumstances can't be used to make claims about the whole. Is that genetic? No. Fucking. Way. Implying that it is is the essence of racism. Eh. Lots of things are genetic, including the composition of the brain. It isn't necessary to obsess over the particulars, but to make a categorical denial of obvious facts is the essence of brainwashing.

Tichy 19y ago
You could carry that further and say "African = loser by definition, so anybody who is successful can not be representative of Africa". It wouldn't be very useful, though. What point exactly are you trying to make? You might want to read "Guns, Germs and Steel" for another perspective on human history.
- mynameishere 19y ago
  Diamond's book seems to have replaced "The mismeasurement of man" as the go-to screed for "refuting" genetic differences between people. As a response, I would suggest "The Blank Slate" by Stephen Pinker. The trouble, as always, is reductionism: One side saying, "This is the one-and-only reason."
  - aswanson 19y ago
    Page 6: The trouble, as always, is reductionism: One side saying, "This is the one-and-only reason." Page 1: it has been the long and disastrous habit to look at every variable, any variable, except the obvious ones: The differences between people. !logically_coherent
    - mynameishere 19y ago
      No. I merely pointed out that the "differences between people" is the one factor that people refuse to examine.
      - aswanson 19y ago
        But is it not your thesis that this difference is the explanatory variable, in and of itself?
        mynameishere 19y ago
        Err, no. Every aspect of human behavior undoubtedly has 1000s of contributory factors. That's basically why the soft sciences are soft--avoiding errors in explainations is impossible because everything cannot be accounted for. But, you know, when you say, "Genetic differences count for nothing," when they are well-known to count for a tremendous amount, you're assuring a tremendous error.

rkts 19y ago

Is God imaginary? No way! Implying that is the essence of atheism. Giving something a nasty name isn't enough to prove that it's wrong. You have to actually refute it. > Did white people steal the "rule the world" gene? Of course not. Do you remember Biology 101? Populations change over time. Why are other species capable of evolving, but humans not? I'm not saying that genetics are the explanation for this change, but again, if you're going to deny the possibility you have to actually provide some evidence.

wheels 19y ago
We're getting pretty far from the original statement, but you've got some decent questions, so I'll go for it. In your atheism example, you're correct. And the term racism is emotive; it's something that most people don't want to be even if the common definition describes their view. Assuming some races to be genetically inferior is what many would term racism. But what if it's true? So, that brings me to the second part of your question. There are a lot of angles to look at this from, so I'll just pick the couple that are most important to me. Let's start with history of dominant world civilizations. I'll pick an easy example: The Arab world. It was dominant intellectually, militarily and culturally in the European dark ages. Italian culture had fallen from dominance to backwardness in about the same time frame. If we're to assume that the critical factor was genetic, and that Europeans had a genetic change in that period that affected the whole of Europe, which in its rise had very little genetic cross-polination, you would need nigh-on miraculous perfection in genetic propagation for the whole of the population of Northern Europe to receive that gene in a couple hundred years. Simultaneously, you would need the whole of the Arab population to devolve. If the thesis were that some families have a higher disposition to intelligence, that becomes very defensible. On the scale of populations of entire continents consisting of millions of individuals spread out over thousands of kilometers in largely distinct gene pools, it's virtually impossible. You might be able to salvage an argument for there being just enough evolution in certain ruling families for it to tip the scales, but that's not very convincing to me, and doesn't leave you with the "differences between people" result either. To be clear, I'm not saying that some ethnic groups may not have be genetically predisposed to certain physical or mental capabilities, but that those differences are not significant enough to explain the political tides of human history. The less scientific part of my argument comes from experience. What are the most important factors in being successful in business? Drive? Connections? Understanding of markets? There are a lot of things, but most of them are en-cultured values. I've traveled through Africa, stayed with families, and met a lot of rather intelligent people. Many of them were still poor. The difference between me and them wasn't that they had The Dumb African Gene, but that I was born into a upper-middle-class family in the United States, and they were born into blue-collar families in Zimbabwe. My extended family also has some adopted members that are black. They most likely came from poor parents. They turned out about like the rest of us, went to the same colleges, grad schools, got good jobs and so on. Could they have had genetically weaker genes than the rest of us? Maybe, but that didn't seem to be terribly important to their level of societal integration. It's pretty seductive to be able to think of the world's socio-economic problems in terms of genetic disposition; it makes us feel like our politics and policies don't play a decisive role and that our civilization is secured forever in its greatness. For me at least, history and experience do not concur.