4 ms·

>There is no connection between biology and politics save for what meanings currently active politically actors attempt to assert. This is outlandishly untrue!

• s1artibartfast 5y ago
  I think the point is not that biology is never relevant to politics, but politics isn't inherently based in race. Humans have a huge array of tribal identities and affiliations which cross racial lines. The idea that "natural" groupings are based on race is absurd. Even in the historical context, there are a peletora of examples where personal interest trumps biological alliances and diverse alliances are formed.
  • mhuffman 5y ago
    >I think the point is not that biology is never relevant to politics, but politics isn't inherently based in race. Humans have a huge array of tribal identities and affiliations which cross racial lines. No one said anything about race, but I guess you could consider it implicit historically. However, I could easily see a tribe of people with multiple races, but biologically connected by their genetic relationships. In fact, without looking it up, I would think around the Mediterranean that was common at some time in the past. >The idea that "natural" groupings are based on race is absurd. One, no one specified race. But two, before the rise of empires (and mega-empires) I would defy you to name a single example contrary to that. Before easy transportation, every one local in a society was related one way or another and likely separated from other groups enough for race to count. I don't know how, historically, you can get a more "natural" grouping than that! >Even in the historical context, there are a peletora of examples where personal interest trumps biological alliances and diverse alliances are formed. I would be curious if you can name even one historical example that did not start off with some sort of biological context. All large empires that you can name started off as tribes and eventually grew to incorporate others. Small ones would likely be even more biologically concentrated. Granting that some society can grow and start to incorporate other groupings as you suggest.
    • hnbad 5y ago
      > Before easy transportation, every one local in a society was related one way or another and likely separated from other groups enough for race to count. I don't know how, historically, you can get a more "natural" grouping than that! Sure but you weren't saying that. You were saying that these groupings were self-reinforcing. The natural grouping you're describing is based on location, not biology. The biology is a consequence of isolation. And in fact, as the article points out, the biology isn't so clear-cut because even at the subspecies level we have genetic evidence for interbreeding (most famously between "modern" humans and Neanderthals). This is what's called a motte-and-bailey. You're arguing tribalism is natural and based on biology, but when challenged you retreat to the undisputed claim that tribes existed and that tribes are biologically somewhat homogeneous, rather than defending your initial claim that tribes arise from biology. You'd have to demonstrate that tribes were historically mostly xenophobic, which just isn't the case. If that were true, we'd expect the exact opposite of what the article describes: clear, distinct branches with minimal interbreeding. > All large empires that you can name started off as tribes and eventually grew to incorporate others. Again, that's undisputed. For something to grow it needs to start off small by definition. One could argue about the definition of "tribe" (e.g. pre-empire Rome is generally referred to as a "city state" but the initial settlers were likely part of the Latin "tribe") but that's overly pedantic. You're trying to argue that politics is based on biological kinship and you're simply not supporting that claim in anything you say. You could have argued about the psychological differences in how we worry about people close to us versus people we don't know in far away places, but even that would only demonstrate tribalism at a social level, not that this tribalism is inherently tied to biological kinship.
      • mhuffman 5y ago
        Well, you misrepresented a lot of what I said, but I will focus on this: > You're trying to argue that politics is based on biological kinship and you're simply not supporting that claim in anything you say. No. What I am arguing is that in ANY group of people, politics emerges naturally. And as a second argument, "close kinship" is the most natural way that people have grouped historically and up to this very day. And throughout history there is no closer kinship than biological relationships to one another. That is it. I am not arguing that race is important for politics to emerge or that people can't group in any way they feel like (Brown fans, eg), or that biology begets politics or anything like that.