Ethnocentric Politics, Science, and nationalist propaganda against everyones favorite scientist...
Offline
The Iraqis' fierce resistance to foreigners (us) invading their country was predictable on any number of grounds. But perhaps the most interesting is the most fundamental: the theory of "ethnic nepotism." This explains the tendency of humans to favor members of their own racial group by postulating that all animals evolve toward being more altruistic toward kin in order to propagate more copies of their common genes.
Which doesn't mean that kin groups always cooperate—they also compete among themselves, in a sort of sibling rivalry writ large. But nepotistic solidarity still matters.
Even the notoriously fractious Afghan Pashtuns think in terms of: "I against my brother. My brother and I against my cousin. My cousin and we against the world." (Note that, by maintaining a smaller footprint in Afghanistan and letting the Afghans go back to being Afghans, we've provoked much less nationalist backlash there.)
You may not have ever heard of ethnic nepotism before. That's largely because the most media savvy-explicators of Darwinism—such as Richard Dawkins, recently voted Britain's top public intellectual by Prospect magazine—are terrified that their entire field might be tarred as "racist" if the concept is given a fair public discussion.
http://www.vdare.com/sailer/nepotism.htm
Now, I am not too clear on a lot of the topics being discussed, (mainly the terminology) but it seems as if they wish to twist the words of dawkins, and genetic sciences to justify a nationalist ethno-centric agenda.
Anyone else?
Belief needs questioning and criticism, not respect.
- Login to post comments
This is a very new, and virtually untouched topic. If I remember correctly, a European scientist noticed this in the Congo back in the 1980s. I didn't look it up, so don't shoot me if I remember incorrectly.
As with most accurate assessmenets of evolutionary traits, this one is so mangled by Republo-creationists that it's unrecognizable.
I have no doubt that if this topic hit FAUX News, it would end up being "Darwin was a fat fuck and a racist!"
Yes, we're hard wired with "us and them" conditioning. I'm not as well versed in the evolutionary side of it, but sociologically speaking, there is, and always has been, ethnic bias. It's been documented extremely well, and the only constant is that people who think they're not biased almost always are, and -- here's the big caveat -- it's not always what Americans would call "racism." Bias happens based on many criteria, race included. Bias can also be positive, or negative. In other words, I might give someone more than everyone else, or I might take something from someone I don't like. This is a subtle difference, but in sociology, this kind of thing matters a lot. My bias might be as simple as preferring blondes over brunettes among women of my own ethnicity. Is that "Hair-color-ism?" Call it what you like, but it's not the magnitude of what we consider racism. Neither is not selecting mates outside your ethnicity. Sexual preference is a weird, and very, very powerful thing.
But seriously, let's think about something for a minute. We're asking, "If your country is invaded, and people bomb the shit out of you, and they are white, and you are black, do you hate them?"
And you're going to say, "Yes, I hate them."
And then you'll be accused of racism??
Feh.
As usual, people with agendas like to use power words to keep scientists from telling people the way the world really is, because then the agendas might have to change, and someone wouldn't be able to have their cake and eat it, too.
Atheism isn't a lot like religion at all. Unless by "religion" you mean "not religion". --Ciarin
http://hambydammit.wordpress.com/
Books about atheism
"As usual, people with agendas like to use power words to keep scientists from telling people the way the world really is, because then the agendas might have to change, and someone wouldn't be able to have their cake and eat it, too."
I think that is pretty much the basis of what i have concluded.
Belief needs questioning and criticism, not respect.
Racial groups are not kin. Genetic differences within a race are far greater than genetic differences across races. What you're advocating is just a bunch of racist bullshit.