3 ms·
> He makes up a story about why Europeans are dominant, not dominant now, in this time, but forever. He never claims the dominance will last forever. He just p
by prepend 3y ago
> He makes up a story about why Europeans are dominant, not dominant now, in this time, but forever.
He never claims the dominance will last forever. He just presents theories as to why Europeans are dominant now (or were 40 years ago when the book as published at least).
It’s not racist to try to explain why Europe conquered New Guinea and not the other way around. It’s racist to say that’s a good thing or destined or will last forever, but Diamond never argues that. I think you have some headcanon there.
- worik 3y ago> It’s not racist to try to explain why Europe conquered New Guinea and not the other way around. What is racist is to say it happened for a reason, not blind luck
- FrustratedMonky 3y agoIsn't that opposite. If all humans are equal, and one group wins, then it was either external factors or luck. But if it is not luck or external reasons, then isn't that racist, because now you are saying Europeans are somehow genetically different (better), or have a better culture, and that is what caused their success? I think you are mixing possible reasons. There are non-racist reasons.
- prepend 3y agoBut it did happen for a reason and it’s luck. There’s lots of random chance involved (New Guineans could have started in England) but because of those chance positions there are reasons things happened. How is that racist?
- teapot7 3y agoHe's saying that it happened for reasons completely unconnected with race. Whether you believe his claims are correct or not, how do you manage to read them as racist?