Multiculturalism IS Racism A Blast From The Past From April 2015

Multiculturalism IS Racism A Blast From The Past From April 2015


Good Saturday morning. I apologize for not writing this in cave symbols, since I know that language is inherited in the blood and therefore can’t be changed as can’t any other part of the culture. Because it’s all in our genes. And that’s why I’m squatting here in my cave, working at starting a fire while my husband and the boys sit in a corner chipping flint implements.

Oh, how I wish that human beings had been designed with the ability to grow and adapt, to learn new techniques, evolve new beliefs, adjust their behavior, create new words to fit new meanings, and thereby change their culture to fit new tech and new times.

Then I might be sitting in a shiny office, (more or less clean. Hey, I’ve been recovering from surgery) typing on a keyboard in a language full of meanings that our stone age ancestors couldn’t even imagine.

Oh, wait. Maybe we can learn and adapt. Or else, I’d be looking for berries while the guys tried to club something to death with their bare fists.

No, I’m not actually out of my ever-loving mind, but I think our culture, our “intellectuals” and our cognoscenti are. Not just out of their minds, but over the hills and far away, staking out a position that Hitler would be proud of.

What prompted this were clashes between two Australian groups, Reclaim Australia and No Room For Racism.

On the face of it it sounds like the nice narrative we are fed every time something like this happens. I haven’t been following the international scene, and frankly it wouldn’t even surprise me if Europe headed for nativism and blood-related nationality. It is what is at the basis of their nation states (even if it’s often a lie. For instance I’d hazard that a lot of people in Portugal – yes, d*mn it, I’ll do the DNA testing. Let the house sell and let me have some money first – are as mixed as Americans. My kids call Portugal the reservoir tip at the end of Europe, which is unkind but somewhat accurate since that portion of land was part of the Celtic commonwealth, before being invaded by Carthaginians, Greeks, Romans, Germanic tribes, Moors (though their contribution in the North is minimal as the North was usually administered by overseers with little or no actual colonization) French crusaders, Viking raiders. Then there were British and Irish merchants due to ties going back before the Carthaginians who would set up trading posts, send their younger sons over, sometimes engage in a bit of raiding, etc. There are unkind proverbs about blue eyed Portuguese, but there are also a lot of them. (Two of my grandparents. A third was green eyed.) And in the end sometimes I think all of us are the result of some girl who tripped (on purpose or not) while evading a foreigner. All this to say that when my dad talks of the “The Portuguese Race” (and boy, does he) he’s mostly talking of a mythical entity. But it’s one they all believe in as hard as they can.)

I’ll even accept that given that most of the programs of blood-nationality parties are to put it mildly socialism (but with the goodies going to a different group) it is accurate to call them fascists.

And my sons at least assure me that the Golden Dawn is honest to Bog fascism. I bow to their knowledge. They read a lot more international news than I do and by virtue of being millennials have friends all over the world. (Ah, the internet.)

However, Australia is not in Europe. And going on the self definition of the groups – and only that. (Note to the idiots who are going to dig out quotes by some figure in Reclaim Australia saying that if you have a tan you should be killed – I’m only going on the group’s self-definition as stated in the article I read.)

So, the protests by Reclaim Australia were according to the article I read for: Around the country Reclaim Australia protesters held rallies to oppose “sharia law, halal tax and Islamisation”, where they waved Australian flags and carried signs saying “Yes Australia. No Sharia”.

Now you can think whatever you want of those goals, but I look at them and think “They want to keep a more adaptable and successful (in raw terms of giving people a better life) culture from being replaced with a medieval nightmare that makes women into slaves, gay people into corpses and denies people the ability to practice other religions/cultures without paying dearly for it, either with money or blood.” (And please, don’t tell me burkas are freeing, and gay people REALLY want to be thrown from buildings, and that the tax to be a person of the book but non-Muslim is REALLY freedom of religion. And don’t try the nonsense that this only happens in rare and isolated places, either. It happens EVERY TIME that Islam gets the upper hand or the numbers.)

While I don’t care if people practice/believe in Islam or not, I think that freedom should be restricted to what we in the west would consider a purely religious arena. Or to put it another way, you have the right to wear the burka, you don’t have the right to make other people wear it; you have the right to tell your gay son he’s going to hell, or even kick him out of the house, you don’t have the right to throw him off a building; you have the right to divorce your wife because she insists on having a job, you can’t honor kill her. Or in other words, you have the right to follow the rules of your religion, but you WILL respect our civil laws. Or, again in other words “Very well, you build your pyre, we build our gallows. When you’re done burning your widow, we’ll hang the people who burned her.”

I don’t know if that’s what Reclaim Australia wants, or if they’re the more extreme form of “no mosques in Australia.”

I don’t care.

I don’t care not because I don’t see a difference between those positions (I do. I’d oppose the latter on principle) but because the group opposing them is not the “pro-islamicization group” or even the “no discrimination against religions group.”

No, the group opposing them is No Room for Racism.

This means that the problem they have isn’t even the problem that’s actually being fought over.

In other words, this is like if you had a problem because your car blew a tire, and someone pulled over and started arguing what type of seats you should have.

It is also entirely predictable.

The left can’t argue the actual problems and their actual causes, so it defaults to insane accusations and running around screaming what are (at least to them, but also to a vast portion of mal-educated young) trigger words: racism! Sexism! White supremacism!

We’ve seen this in the fight for science fiction and the fight for gaming, in the discussions about immigration, and in fact in just about anything that is a point of contention in the present day. I could write the longest, most carefully reasoned essay on why our schools are failing to teach people to read, and someone will quote truncated phrases and call me racist or sexist or (and this is funny) white supremacist.

This is how they’ve convinced themselves the people who want the Hugos to be the award of the majority of fandom again are about pushing women out. (Funny way to do it when Brad’s slate contained about half women.) Sigh.

They should consider not only are those words losing their sting but they DO encourage the people they purport to oppose. TRUE white supremacists in the US and abroad have been considered beneath the touch of normal people. However, when you call everyone who disagrees with you “white supremacists” how are people to know who the real ones are? They will just assume you’re going nuts again. And from that to falling prey to true demagogues is a step.

Anyway, to return to the point of this post – yes, I have one – the problem is that a lot of people on the left have evolved this bizarre theory of race/culture.

I saw it in my kids homework, when they were requested to write about “your culture” but got the essay sent back when they wrote about SF/F geekdom because they wanted “your ancestral culture.”

In my kids particular case the situation quickly became tragic or funny depending on how you look at it, because I descended on them like the wrath of Sarah, demanding they explain themselves.

The explanation went something like this “Language and costumes are tied to your race. Trying to get an immigrant to learn a new language/integrate in the culture he immigrated to is aggression, since you’re supposed to keep your culture, because it’s part of your race. To want you to change is racist.”

(Note to those in SF/F this is much, much worse than the position staked out by VD, the banished one, which if I understand him correctly is that SOME characteristics are inherited and make you more/less competent for industrial civilization. Note also that I don’t even agree with his position, much less the more extreme one. Note also that for his position he is condemned as racist, but the other position makes you enlightened and possibly beautiful and full of the meanings.)

This is the point at which I broke out my broom and flew in circles around their office, pointing out their position was something Hitler would have been proud to embrace. What they are claiming in fact is that there is some ur-mythical-quality to races (and races in this case are defined in the European sense, like my dad blathering on about the “Portuguese race”) which imbues them with their own language and culture. If wanting to change that is racist, and if some of these “races” are better at life than others (understood in the whole system of Marxist reward and punishment) then what will prevent them from in the future deciding to eugenically improve the breed by eliminating the less competent? Or just, as they’re doing now, handicapping them by never teaching them the lingua franca of the age and the technological culture needed to survive?

I didn’t convince anyone, of course, because this is a “religious” belief. I.e. if they thought rationally about it, they’d know that culture isn’t race, because we don’t all speak/dress/eat as they did in Ur of the Chaldees or on that distant day when we lounged about on tree tops eating insects, rodents and berries. But they can’t think about it because in their own blinkered minds, that would make them “racist.”

That is, the admission that all groups of humans (as groups. Obviously every individual is different) can adopt whatever religion/culture they like and be as successful at it as any other group (if they try hard enough) would to them be racist.

While claiming that you’re stuck with whatever culture your ancestors had and that even if you immigrate you have to keep repeating the mistakes of your culture, which caused your country of origin to have problems that caused you to immigrate, THAT in these idiots (apologies to real idiots whom I’m maligning)’s “minds” is racism.

(In other news, Slavery is Freedom, Work is Leisure, and Big Brother loves you.)

And that is what caught me about the confrontations in Australia. Not that they’re clashing over muslims, no. That half of these people think race equals culture.

And that is the epistemological error that can put paid to Western Civilization unless it’s combated every time we meet it.

And we must combat it, or the end result of this will be sitting in a cave, chipping away at flint. And I for one suck at making fires without matches.

Fortunately I also suck at tolerating racism and genetic supremacists of every race. So I’ll continue fighting, long before it comes to that.

In the end, we win, they lose. At least if we don’t allow them to change the meaning of words.



128 thoughts on “Multiculturalism IS Racism A Blast From The Past From April 2015

        1. at the beginning of the week I wasn’t getting the guest post notifications at all, and YouTube ones stopped as well. {insert dog head tilt here}
          One might be a “Okay, what’d I do?” but YT and WP? WTF! they ain’t even connected

          1. You silly boyah! The ARE connected, thru the Bilderbergs and the Tri-Lateral Commission (and you have NO idea what They are “commissioned” to do) and by whom, either, but I DO and i arrrrrrgh

            1. So does that mean there’s a vast shadowy Trilateral Enlisted running around cleaning up all the crazy messes left behind by the collaboration of the Trialteral Commission and the Good Idea Fairy?

                  1. Triggering! How you know the Fairy is or identifies as a she? Huh?
                    You racist.
                    is it racist? I forget . . .
                    You *ist!!1!1!
                    *-insert your preferred whateverism there

                    1. It is well known that the Good Idea Fairy posting is allocated to long term senior noncoms as penance for how they treated/trained their 2nd Lt.s/Ensigns, and thus is whichever gender is handy when the posting comes up.

                      This also explains the multiplicity: The Fairy Posting Fairies just allocates more from the incoming pipeline as needed.

        1. I forgotted to link back. been watching MotoGP qualifying and reading it at the same time (on the same monitor, so yeah, reading s l o w l y)

  1. A very short post indeed. Really, the title is all that needed to be said. ~:D

    Bwahahaaaa Sarah!

  2. … [school]
    > The explanation went something like this “Language
    > and costumes are tied to your race.
    … [Australia]
    > And that is what caught me about the confrontations …
    > That half of these people think race equals culture.

    And that’s why people believe this: because they’re taught it in school. And most people, for some insane reason, actually *believe* what they’re taught, and defend it past absurdity, no matter how irrational it is.

    1. Yep. The resurgence of white nationalism is the result of this nonsense, because the kids look around, notice that some cultures are better than others, and then, having been taught that race=culture and not taught how to think for themselves, take the obvious next step.
      It’s almost like teaching kids stupid stuff backfires on you.

      1. Yep. It’s unintended consequences. They think of it as teaching the kids toa ccept everyone in the world, because you can’t demand people change. Instead kids think “well, if people can’t change and do horrible things, they should be eliminated/restricted.”

        1. Is “white nationalism” the same as, similar to, or quite different from “white supremacy”? I see “white supremacy” as “WE are better than you. Submit or depart (or die).” This is not the same as “Our culture produce{d,s} better results more often than others.” And then there is the “How about equality under the law? We’re tired of being screwed over by ‘affirmative’ actions.”

          1. And just to muddle things, there’s “white separatism,” which seems to be “Look, your culture and ours are so different it’s not worth trying to bridge the gap. You do business with your people, we’ll do business with ours. You live in your cities, we’ll live in ours, you leave us alone and we leave you alone.” Sort of like Louis Farrakhan’s black separatism but not as loud and without the religious element.

            1. That “White Separatism” being the logical end of being told that “Cultural assimilation = racism”, and the modern version of politically correct segregation as seen in things like “safe spaces”.
              And in the end, the Democrats return to “Segregation Forever”, but it’s the minorities demanding separate but equal.
              In this case, once can see why the white kids, fed all of their lives on collectivism, would also start calling for segregation.

              1. Separate and superior, in order to correct the injustices of past discrimination. In effect, the remedy for white racism is…black and brown racism. But you can’t actually say that, since racism is evil, so it has to be redefined so that only white people can be racist. You can’t point out that racism is a human thing and not confined to white people, because that’s hate speech, and violence, and fascist, and has to be opposed with rocks and cudgels. Stupid, stupid, stupid. Also squared, cubed, and amplified, but that’s another rant.

          2. Both are social diseases, although I view one as the more pernicious, disfiguring and death-inducing of the duo.

            1. And then there’s that RADICAL rectangle, the TRAPEZOID!!111! Oh, The HORROR!! The horror…

            2. I think the precise divisions are something like this.

              There’s the set who think that White is meaningful category. (Left and Alt-Right heavily intersect with that set.) That has a subset which believes that White is a meaningful category because Whites are better in some significant way. Within that subset are people who believe that this should be a basis for policy and those who believe it should not be. (The closest example I can think of to the latter is an incorrect interpretation of ESR’s position. I doubt he thinks white is important.)

              White Nationalist, White Supremacist, and White Separatist are essentially different schools of policy among those that believe policy should be made.

              A Japanese Nationalist is someone who believes in distinct qualities* of the Japanese category, and believes that these are cause for a policy of a Japanese nation. Plus usually a bunch of other things built on that foundation.

              A white nationalist may be in the sense of a Japanese or Korean nationalist, or may be more influenced by the sense of, say, Nation of Islam.

              A white supremacist might be considered to have wider or narrower ambitions than a white nationalist. Wider, if they wish to have policy implemented over all nations, instead of just one/a few. Narrower, if they are willing to tolerate a more mixed population.

              The separatists want enclaves and such. They are perhaps least ambitious.

              In addition to my bigotry against petty criminal substance abusers, the policy preferences driven by my American Nationalism make it pretty difficult to imagine negotiating a workable compromise with the WN, WSup, and WSep.

              *There’s a fair amount of truth in saying that Japanese and Korean are meaningful categories. Also, I get the impression that there is some bullshit.

        2. You may deem them unintended, I am increasingly convinced they are the desired result. The correlation is too consistent for any but simpletons to be unable to anticipate such results. Certes, these consequences are not unforeseeable, which is the basis for tort liability.

            1. What happens, is those forcing those they disagree with to leave soon find they cannot function in the manner they expect/want. See all those who say “All supporters of X can just stop buying my stuff!” and soon backtrack and even then find their business struggling.
              We get that all the time, and in odd places (Milady Sarah linked to one such on Insty, where an RV place told the majority of it’s customers to shop elsewhere) or the Reverse happens when the left decides to put something out of business (The left attacking Chick-fil-a drove them higher custom and they now make more money. The stores are still closed on Sunday, and the owners still do not support gay marriage).
              Tell people enough that you don’t need them, they will go away and leave you to your failures. Slowly we are getting alternatives, and as long as those alternatives keep an even keel, they should eventually take over.

                1. Oh, I know it, but sadly anything good here takes time to spread elsewhere, unlike our bad that tends to move at light speed. But it is getting easier and faster for the good stuff even with the road blocks tossed up.

              1. Tell people enough that you don’t need them, they will go away and leave you to your failures.

                Oh, so you’ve seen Hollywood’s box office numbers for this summer.

      2. In one of the towns near where I grew up the school district was horrible for churning out kids who with Neo-Nazi leanings. It was because, starting from the first year of middle school, all the way through high school, the kids were taught that Jews were a horribly oppressed people that had to be respected above all others, that the Holocaust was the worst thing that ever happened and anyone who thought otherwise was a terrible person. The WWII section of the history classes was the most toughly taught with the most time spent on it and during it the books they had to read all tied into the subject matter. The worst part, as I was told, was not all of the books were non-fiction and students would frequently complain about having to read about ‘fictional people’, the response to which was, real or imagined by an author, they had to feel sorry for them.

        After years of being told that they were basically Nazis for being miserable in class a bunch of the students protested by going ‘You know what, fine! We’re Nazis, happy now?’ And the teachers were, because it have them reason to double down on their lesson plans.

        Because you know, kids like to rebel against authority figures in the manner that’s most likely to get a result.

    2. But back then, we were all naked! We had to work up to flint-chipping before we could kill animals for fur to make clothing of.

  3. My kids call Portugal the reservoir tip at the end of Europe…

    Consider, as well, Poland, strategically placed betwixt and between with its a lovely plains for invading armies to romp across while on their way to other places … and often partitioned up and divided by those around them.

    The whole history of Europe would indicate that there has been mixing going for as long as we can document. And the history of Asia. And the history of Africa. And the histories of the North and South American Continents. And the history of Australia. Well, maybe not in Antarctic. People haven’t really settled long term in the Antarctic.

    1. A few years ago, one of my students asked “Has there ever been a century when Poland wasn’t invaded?” I thought back as far as I’m familiar with, and had to say, “Possibly in the Neolithic or Paleolithic, but even then I’m not sure.”

        1. I noticed the Mongols and the first Russian invasion came from the west. How did that happen? Too quick cartooning, w/o thinking. Oh. Well.

          1. Aye, Histeria! is not noted fro being a great cartoon. And I found it odd that Poland seemed to go unmentioned (perhaps I missed something?) in The Invasion Song.

        2. Notice they didn’t say that Germany *and* the Soviet Union invaded Poland at the start of WW2.

        1. Probably. There’s still the tourists, and the EU. *struggles to keep from giggling at the thought of the EU agreeing on anything long enough to invade someone.*

      1. ~16K years ago, if the ice sheet dating is correct. Although it wouldn’t surprise me if the few living close to the ice wall were invaded on a regular basis, too. That narrow strip was apparently the best way to get around the Carpathians on their northern side.

    2. Mention of Poland reminds me that, according to those who pay attention to such things, fully one-sixth of the world’s population harbors the genetic heritage of Genghis Khan. The implications ought be obvious.

      1. Man opens his mail from Ancestry DNA. Letter says, “Your paternal DNA indicates that you are a direct descendant of Genghis Khan.”
        Man says to his wife, “Looks like I’m on the SJWs shit list this week. I’m now responsible for everything that’s gone wrong in Europe and Asia.”

  4. I do know a few people who can do that twisting nicely. One group says no, this type of immigration we are now getting in Europe – lots of mostly young men walk to Europe and across Europe even this far, and can stay for a year or several even if they can’t get asylum because the process takes that long (not enough resources and can’t possibly speed it up because you have to be sure you won’t accidentally send somebody who was, for real, in danger in his own country back into his country and get big bad news that he got killed there – also, no way to really check most of their claims. Half of them lie, and have no papers, or have forged documents, and the countries they left from don’t have the records to check in the first place) is not working, we don’t have the resources to take care of ALL of the ones who want to come, not enough jobs, and at least half of them refuse to assimilate and we are getting ghettos of people who refuse to obey the laws of the land and are basically establishing their own little countries right in the middle of yours.

    (Can’t necessarily get them out even if they get rejected because you don’t know where they actually came from, and no country is willing to take them when it’s not certain it actually is the country they have citizenship in)

    And others yell RACISM!!!

    And when you point it out that nobody has said they can’t come due to their race but because all the other reasons said person will point out the ones supporting that position who actually are racist (and because some supporters are then it taints the whole idea, it seems), and all the good immigrants who, maybe in spite of having kept their culture almost intact are nice and helpful to locals and have, on occasion or two, maybe even risked their lives for them.

    Yep, there are good people among these newcomers, some very good indeed. There are also liars, terrorists, criminals and other bad people, some very bad. And lots between those two, people who aren’t that bad but aren’t pillars of virtue either.

    And the main thing is: there are too many of them coming in too fast. And you can’t even find out which are which. And even if it was just the good people – if too many of them insist on keeping their culture, all or a lot of it, and that we adjust instead of them… too many, too fast, will not work. Because there are no guarantees their kids will still all be good people. In fact, it’s pretty likely a lot of them won’t adjust well when they grow up in a cultural ghetto surrounded by a totally different main culture.

    And that just doesn’t seem to register. Or the fact that the problem here is CULTURE combined with NUMBERS, not race. Because the people involved, with different cultures, happen to look different too, I guess. And maybe they also do have that notion that certain ethnic origins should be irrevocably tied with certain cultures, and when not it’s in some way wrong because your ethnic origins for whatever reason demand that you also adopt the culture which happens to currently and in recent history have existed in the countries most of people with that ethnicity live in (or at least big parts of it).

    Can’t get through. I keep trying because sometimes there seem to be some occasional cracks in the facade, and maybe with time… but it’s frustrating.

  5. What makes me shake my head a little is that he same people who scream “Racist h8er!!!” when V.D. suggests that over a very, very long term, culture can select for qualities that can cause problems later on, are the same ones who lionized Jared Diamond. In _Guns, Germs, and Steel_ Diamond walks all the way to that point, then stops hard. Because he cannot say that the deeply ingrained cultural and behavioral traits that are wonderful for survival in the highlands of New Guinea are not so useful (and possibly counterproductive) in the modern western world.

    I can see how an isolated population in a harsh environment might, over centuries, select for certain survival traits and select out other traits. Does that make their culture immutable? No, but it would make adapting _quickly_ to a major change very difficult.

    Heck, look at Europe. Are we seeing in part the effects of four or more generations of independent, “you’re-not-the-boss-of-me” individuals leaving the Western European gene pool and moving to the US, Canada, and Australia? Just a crazy theory, and it doesn’t mean that Europeans won’t stand up on their hind legs and bite back if pushed, just that culturally they are more willing to tolerate certain things than USAians are.

    1. There is more to it, like of course WWI and the massive killing of the brave and smart.
      BUT seriously, the BIG problem with what VD is saying is applying it to the US, where we’re all so mixed it’s just plain stupid. And we always WERE mixed. There is no mythical “English-only” US.

      1. Oh yes. I visit his blog every few months just to see if there’s anything new or useful, then wander off. The US is far too mixed to generalize far beyond, “They are nuts, but mostly in a good way. Mostly. And their food’s kinda strange, sometimes.”

        1. Once upon a time there was New Netherlands, of which the city of New Amsterdam on Manhattan Island was a part. It covered a good section of the mid-Atlantic States, between the very short lived New Sweden on the Delaware River to the south and New England to the north. New Netherlands came to an end as a result of the Second and Third Anglo-Dutch Wars.

      2. Oh, yeah. New Sweden, New Netherlands, intermarriage with the Indians, settlers from the German states, Portugese sailors settling, Spanish and French colonials moving in or being annexed, slaves being imported from Africa and elsewhere, voluntary and not immigrants from Ireland, fugitives from many a power struggle – no “English-only” US ever existed, and few of the colonies were ever “English-only” for long.

        1. Need we go into our usual Hun diatribe about how racially or linguistically “pure” English is? Comparisons to the purity of Gaspode’s breed or Nobby Nobb’s family tree come to mind.

          1. Need we go into our usual Hun diatribe about how racially or linguistically “pure” English is?

            Not necessarily, but we are good at that. For a moment, before I realized that this ‘English only’ was in reference to bloodline claims, my mind went to the whole fight opposing making English the legal language of the US.

            For generations people of all ages have learned other languages. Some do better than others, and it is generally easier for the young. Still, people have and do manage it.

            An argument is seriously being made that it is too much to ask of people. Those who insist that it is improper to encourage people who come to live in the US to attempt to learn English, particularly those youngsters who are attending schools, are not helping those for whom they claim to care. In the name of compassion they are condemning them to a functional second class status. Consider: do any of the prestigious ivy league institutions of higher learning take students who are unable to function in English? Those helpful idiots would better spend their time helping by supporting community centers and other places where non-speakers can learn English.

            1. Oh, I agree people should learn English if they want to be US citizens. Printing ballots in Spanish and Chinese is crazy.
              OTOH the idea only anglo saxons understand a constitutional republic is a load of bovine feces. It is confusing a brief concatenation of history with an inevitable scientific reality.

              1. OTOH the idea only anglo saxons understand a constitutional republic is a load of bovine feces.

                I agree, my ancestry is far to mixed to accept that assertion.

    2. In Guns, Germs, and Steel, he rejected innate differences out of hand as racist in the opening. (Not because they are necessarily the hypothesis of exhaustion: you can only establish them by eliminating all other causes.)

      Later he started to hypothesize that whites are dumber than those islanders. Not even on the grounds of subjective evaluation, but because the islanders had less pressure for selecting against disease, which (somehow) made the selection for intelligence better.

      1. Speaking of PNG- I’ve known any number of PNG Citizens, and they are just like people anywhere else. Some people are smart, some people are dumb, and most are right in the middle.

    3. “…over a very, very long term, culture can select for qualities that can cause problems later on…”

      Theoretically, a culture -could- act as a selection pressure. The problem with that theory is that the time required is longer than any particular culture ever lasted. Humans now are not measurably different that humans 50,000 years ago.

        1. Absolutely, I don’t mean to take you to task.

          I did a paper on the subject in the 1970’s, Herbert Spencer figured prominently. Cultural Darwinism. Also E.O.Wilson’s Sociobiology figured prominently.

          Here’s the problem. There are ants out there with highly complex social behaviors. Bees as well have social bee-haviors. ~:D

          The likes of Mr. VD like to speculate that culture can exert a pressure on genetic selection, and presumably the reverse. Spencer had a whole cloud-castle built on it.

          The thing that argues against that notion is some of those ants have -exactly- the same social behaviors they did a million years ago. The nests look the same, down to things like tunnel diameter. There’s been a few ice ages and other big selection pressures on ants in a million years, but the -social behaviors- didn’t change.

          Humans differ wildly in culture, but physically we’re unchanged. The last really -big- thing that happened to us was agriculture. Its a technology that has been exerting pressure for 10K years. There’s no difference between pre-agriculture and post-agriculture humans, physically.

          Culturally, we’re all over the place. For the most part we’re all finally out of the stone age since around 1970, give or take.

          1. I dunno. The big deal of agriculture was domestication of grains, but there are still a bunch of people who can’t eat them without problems.

                1. heh, it (domestication) enabled/caused agriculture. You needed to feed the critters to keep them at hand, and growing the food to have on hand for that, you needed the help of the critters.

                    1. And beer gets you civilization, because you suddenly have a long-term calorie storage option, and you need ways to protect that storage…

              1. Only because with the modern world we can successfully have a surplus of food no matter the growing season. God Bless The Modern Era!

      1. Evolution can work a lot faster than that. For instance, ability to survive epidemic diseases has increased.

  6. This means that the problem they have isn’t even the problem that’s actually being fought over. …
    …The left can’t argue the actual problems and their actual causes, …

    So as to be informed I did a quick search and read a few articles, including items from Australian papers circa ’15.

    The picture of the No Room for Racism protester carrying a sign asserting that ‘Racism is the refuge of ignorance’ was interesting. I wonder if he had the slightest inkling how his mohawked haired punk-biker dressed self would be treated under Sharia law? Or how the young lady with him in the black lace form fitting top with the v-neck ever so very low you can quite clearly see she is not wearing a bra.

    But no, to be in opposition to Sharia law and Halal taxes must be because you hate people because of their racial differences. Do they know that among those who adhere to Islam are of representatives of many races, including those are classified as Caucasian?

      1. This is undoubtedly offensive to Indonesians, who inhabit what is, last I checked, the world’s largest Muslim country. I gather it is also deeply offensive to Iranians, descendants of the ancient Persians who do not care to be conjoined to those mongrel Arab dogs.

        The admixture of race, culture and religion should surely confuse the Anglo-Saxon Christians, Italian Christians and members of the A.M.E., each descendant od distinctly different cultures.

        1. When I was in Saudi Arabia I got involved in a side project an associate was pursuing with a local business, a print shop run by some Egyptians. I forget the circumstances under which the point arose, but I remember distinctly that the proprietors emphasized quite firmly that, while Muslims, they were definitely *not* ‘stinking Arabs’. Their culture had been civilized for 5,000 years, after all.

          1. Huh… I’ve met a Coptic Egyptian, who said quite firmly she was not Arab, but never heard of Moslem Egyptians saying that. I wonder how widespread that feeling is among Moslem Egyptians, considering that the official name of the country is Arab Republic of Egypt.

            1. no, a lot of them really insist they aren’t filthy Arabs. ‘Persians’ do, too.

              and yes, they do actually say filthy..

      2. Their only mental tool is a hammer…

        Oh, I suspect a few carry a sickle as well.

        Anyway, that hammer has been working quite well for them of late.

        A free speech rally scheduled in San Francisco was attacked for being all about ‘White Supremacy’. Once that counter publicity and attacks started it attracted the attention of the KKK, Nazis and other such organizations, who started giving their support to the rally. Which is understandable, as they too are being denied their free speech rights. The organizers, who did not want to be associated with these organizations, canceled their rally. The people who wanted to shut it all down won…

  7. My niece is mixed race anglo/thai and because I am responsible for her after school care until my sis gets off work, I interact with their public school teachers a lot. School has been keen for us to emphasis her Thai race and I keep telling them to fek off, she not going to learn to take pride in colour of her skin.

    I think it was grade two female teacher that was worst, she would not stop about Thai culture, I told teacher if you want my niece to learn about Thai race I am also going to start teaching her Rudyard Kipling poems. Teacher got the vapours and I was called into the principal’s office the next day where all three of us got into heated argument about race/ethnicity.

    All these labels people have stop them from thinking of themselves as human beings.

    1. Call it Snowflake Syndrome- if you can’t stand out because of your achievements, you can stand out by sheer taxonomy.
      This is one reason that we get gender alphabet soup.

      1. They want to take credit for what people who looked like them did, and want the folk they dislike to be blamed for things others that look like them did.

        1. And if the people who actually looked like them didn’t do anything creditable, they pretend that those who did creditable things looked like them. Thus “Afrocentric” texts about Ancient Egypt with illustrations showing West African Negroes in Pharaonic dress. Also Nazi texts showing the great men of ancient Greece and Rome as nordic blondes.

      2. because they end up in these little circles where they don’t stand out from each other and need new and different ways to make themselves individuals.

    2. Wow. I didn’t know you could still be called into the Principles Office after you escaped the attendance rolls at that school.

      Good to know – I will be more cautious devious.

    3. And precisely which Thai culture would that be? The mainstream Thai, or the Akha, the Hmong, the Karen, the . . .? And even among Mainstream Thai, the culture of Bangkok is distinct from that in Chiang Mai or on Phuket Island.

      1. Based on the usual in-depth understanding typically displayed by such advocates, my guess would be Restaurant Thai.

        When the Daughtorial Unit mistakenly took a Social Anthropology class under the assumption it would be rational, the culture clash nearly got her expelled from school. It was only when she hit on the strategy of explaining that, coming from the hard science track at the school, her cultural background caused her to expect facts and logical argument and thus ill-suited her for the anthropologist’s milieu that she was able to escape withdraw passing from the course.

    4. I am more than ever grateful that my kids’ school is so widely mixed in terms of races and cultures. The teachers there have a) been exposed to decades of kids coming from all manner of backgrounds, and b) have far too many varieties to (stupidly) focus on one child.

      There’s a Multicultural Festival each year for the younger grades, and that basically is composed of kids dressing up in national costumes (and yes, American and Australian make it in there, as do soccer-loving Brit outfits), having the usual roster of classes singing songs, and then everybody eats from heritage foods that people bring.

      The costumes are fun, the songs are obnoxious, but everybody loves the food part.

      1. What’s the American national costume? T-shirt and jeans? And heritage foods would have to be burger and fries.

        1. The kids that do that are usually just in T-shirt and jeans, yes. Basically any kid can go up to talk about what country their clothes represent. That’s what my son did his first year—I hadn’t even realized he got in line, and then they asked him which country he was representing.

          Heritage foods are whatever the parents care to bring, so I would suspect that the cupcakes were the ones classified as “American.” 🙂

          1. It reminds me of the “Countries of the World” theme last year at my son’s Cub Scout pack. Each den (by grade level) was to present a poster about, and a food from, the country of choice. My son was the pack’s only “Wolf” (grade 2) and he picked “Georgia”. No, not the one adjacent to the Black Sea, either. So we did the CSA, with an adapted version of an 1840s mac-&-cheese recipe and (thoroughly modern) barbecue “sliders”. The pack liked it well enough!

  8. And now in America we have major corporations (Apple, JP Morgan) patting themselves on the back for endorsing a leading hate group, the SPLC, which is in the business of painting targets on the backs of all who do not endorse their interpretation of “hatred.”

    Less virtue signalling, more virtue.

    1. Less virtue signalling, more virtue.

      Unfortunately, virtue signaling is all about the signal, never the virtue.

      1. “Unfortunately, virtue signaling is all about the signal, never the virtue.”

        And some of the “virtues” they are signalling, aren’t.

    2. “Less signalling . . .” I was reading about a proposed march from Charlottesville to DC in order to force President Trump out of office, and the planned “peaceful protests and occupation” of D. C. and other places. At the same time, I’m watching the Texas version of the Cajun Navy saving people from flooded homes and stranded cars, and seeing the Coast Guard plucking people from roofs. I know which side has a h-ll of a lot more virtue, in my book.

  9. For those with a Church background, ever notice how some testimonies tend to involve a whole lot of sanctified boasting? Kind of like locker room bragging, but in a sanctified context.
    The Left’s focus on the plight of the little brown peoples works in the same sort of way. While the frame may be overtly about repentance and change, the actual effect is boasting about the awesome power of their own white race.

  10. I really dislike the whole white separatist, apartheid bit. 22 years in the military going to all kinds of different places around the world, you get used to seeing a rainbow of colors and shapes (no, not THAT rainbow, sheesh.) Anyhow, retired to New Hampshire and the one thing that irks me occasionally is how boringly bland vanilla the state is. I swear each town only has their one black, one Asian, and one Hispanic-pacific islander-native American families just so the town can qualify for various odd federal programs.

  11. Ah, but the Left does approve of some forms of cultural assimilation.

    For instance, Cynthia Ann Parker, the “white Comanche”. She was adopted as a child by Comanches (who had murdered the rest of her family), and grew up in the tribe, becoming the mother of a famous chief. Many years later, she was identified as a kidnapped white, and tragically forced to rejoin white society.

    On the other hand, Leftists deplore the practice of taking Indian children from their blood families to be adopted by whites or raised in boarding schools – even when those blood families are violently abusive alcoholic habitual criminals.

    It seems to be entirely proper for someone with a small fraction of African ancestry to “identify” as black, but utterly wrong for someone with a small fraction of European ancestry to identify as white. So that kind of assimilation is a one-way street, too. (And to be sure, it was white racists who invented the “”one-drop rule”.)

Comments are closed.