Mondragón Cooperative Corporation, Basque country, Spain (emulated in the US at Cooperation Jackson in Mississippi (of all places!)) — 180 Proof

Okay, well I asked for it. Now I have to follow up and look into it. Thanks.

Is racism natural? — Lil

Fear of the unknown is natural. Racism is an irrational mental construct and product of an irrational surrender to this natural drive. Our intellect and intelligence are the shields against this irrational construct since we can understand that it is irrational and fight the urge to surrender to it.

The weak and weak-minded cannot live without surrendering their intellect to the laziest interpretation of our natural drives. Is racism natural? No, the fear of the unknown is. "Racism" is a construct invented by weak-minded people in order to explain that fear.

Is racism natural? No, the fear of the unknown is. "Racism" is a construct invented by weak-minded people in order to explain that fear. — Christoffer

Sounds about right.

Archeology contradicts the thesis that prehistoric people were peaceful.

I can't cut and paste the info about genetic indications of prehistoric war because it was in a book that's now gone to the used book store.

The point is: I'm looking at archeology and genetics, you're looking at prejudice that I think goes back to Hobbes. My justifications kick your justification's asses.

:100: I did a quick overview with my buddy Wiki (on both Mondragon and Jackson). The only thing I see that would make race less of an issue in those communities is the pureness of the democracy/ownership.

Anything less than true democracy allows "representation" and the insinuation of personal agendas, creeping in via layers of people. Some of those agendas use race as a wedge. Pure democracy puts everything on the table and there is less room for palace intrigue, conspiracy, politics and conniving, or the use of the tools (race) that further those shenanigans.

I'm still up in the air on the economics. Pure capitalism (i.e. no cost externalization) would likewise not give a shit about race. It would be all supply and demand and all about the money; who cares what you look like.

I like the coop idea, and I don't like the cut-throat of capitalism, but, while not a race issue, I fear the former would have less tolerance for loners, misanthropes and others who don't want to participate. The scariest thing in the world to me is the idea that the community is going to show up at my door and make me come to the shindig, smile, dance and hang out with them.

The point is: I'm looking at archeology and genetics, you're looking at prejudice that I think goes back to Hobbes. My justifications kick your justification's asses. — frank

You're looking at outdated interpretation of incomplete archeological evidence as far as I can tell. Can't even reach my justification's ass to kiss it. :rofl:

You're looking at outdated interpretation of incomplete archeological evidence as far as I can tell. — Kenosha Kid

Disingenuous.

Can't even reach my justification's ass to kiss it. — Kenosha Kid

Your justification is morbidly obese.

I think that native American tribes formed part of the understanding of how warfare spreads from tribe to tribe like a cancer, but, yeah, there's nothing racist about it, it's just a response to being attacked.

In terms of models, it's difficult to say because we colonised pretty much everywhere that didn't itself colonise. The US melting pot probably is the nearest we have, God help us.

Disingenuous. — frank

Demonstrated (read the links).

Your justification is morbidly obese. — frank

Your archeology will never get a girlfriend.

yeah, there's nothing racist about it, it's just a response to being attacked. — Kenosha Kid

That's the way I see it. Encroachment on "my" hunting grounds, tit for tat, blood feuds, etc. Some was just dick-measuring raids/warfare. It's a real bummer to my fantasy world. I can handle wolves, bears, snakes, spiders and all the other things you'd have to look out for. But I hate the idea of having to look out for people too. They are just too sneaky and you need your own tribe for adequate defense and situational awareness.

Demonstrated (read the links). — Kenosha Kid

If you could be bothered to read your own links, you see that you pointed to an article on chimpanzees. We aren't descended from chimpanzees. Nobody in the science of human origin looks to that species to understand our own.

Your archeology will never get a girlfriend. — Kenosha Kid

Your response to old fashioned ideas has autism.

Lets just get into what really racism is....Lets not complex it any more.Lets just get the the simplest form of racusm out and zoom in on it.
So in the simplest forms when someone say racism we yhink of a redneck white guy calling an african american guy 'niggaaa niggaaa' or something like that..more or less the idea is the same.Lets zoom in on it.Speaking of facts (not being racist) the dominant race in this time are the whites.Now we got two inportant words in this sentence 'dominan' and 'white'. It isnt an uncommon belief that many people found themselves racist beacause because 'evolutionarily we humans think dark colours as the signs of dangers or scarceness of light and thats where our ancestors got eaten... And light... The bright place is where good things happen.. So people often familiarize this with that.. Not gonna lie the frame is wayy bigger than that.Lets just dive into some real stuff. Human. Beings have been livin this world for thousands of years.But the racism is in here for only a couple hundred years.Being more precise... It has started from the age of exploration back in the 1400 and stuff. Questions rise.. Why isnt it the other ways around?This is where the main stuff comes up the so called 'dominants' or the whites are mainly from the land of Europe and Eurasia but just before the age of explortiion when they all signed a trety and stopped fighting among themselves they realize they opt for more resources than they need.Do they went out to the americas and africa and asia.Now lets go back to that old racist scenerio.. We all thought about an african ameriacn guy..but why not an asian guy who has just got some small field of csis ?(JK)...Well for that... Asians were the same as europians.. Fighting among themselves for territory and glory..but not for resources..as asia was the richest when it cam.e to the resources of the world.Now lets dive into wee bit of geology..what do we mean by resources? A nd why were they conce trated in asia and africa?Why did asians an d africans fought amongs themselves but africans just reamined humane and lived comperatively peacefully? Well for starters it was the middle ages and people didnt judge resources by ores or oils then yet.What did theyjudge it with? Fertility.You need food to strt a town.You need food to build a nation and eventually an army.But europe is comparatively closer to the northern winds from arctic and didnt had another europe to shield them from it as it did for africa or a siberia when it comes to asia.And it hugely disrupted the growing of foods,thus resources...even today people outside america and europe doesnt even have to think about creating a greenhouse to produce foods i the winter.So, it came down to this.People living in africa.Doesnt have to think about resources.Just sitti ng their in their village..cuz they didnt even had to go to industrialisation to keep up their resources with their population.Africa was vast rich land full of jungles,animals a n d resources.But why?For tartes they were closer to the equator of the earth. Matter of fact, the equator just goes through Africa itself.being the closest to equator means being the closest to sun,which means more sunlight for trees and plant to grow more greener and better,which means more nim.als and more bio-diversity..and which means more reaources..But there was one simple thing, people living in africa evolutionarily developed more melanin in their epidermis(skin,upper skin) thn the europians which meant..evolutionrily these richer dude began to look darker as melanin makes your skin go darker to fight UV rays related diseases(thanks to evolution baby!)So,how did those rich dude(Blacky blackies) found themselves opressed by the whole world?Now,think of two scenerios, parallel universes.two kids.one a son two a rich billionaire nd the second a parentless kid who grew up fighting in the steets.And now tell me.. Which one was smarter or lets sy more cunning?? The second kid.. Cuz he has seen more things than the rich kid who has just been in one environment living the Life never having to care about anything more than what a luxury he lives Take it or not (Not being racist day :16383) the europians when they encountered the africans.. The same tuing happened.Andolon believe it or not if you are a white guy and go ti afric even today an find yourself an isolated civilization..you will UNDOUBTEDLY outamart them or even become their king or smoething(not joking at all... I am an anthropologist I ve travelled)So as the age of exeplorations begun the europeans who were in short of resources than they opted for found people who were living in this resources aka luxury and hardly hve mived feom the place their ancestors have been living for the hundrede of years!As any sane man would do they took the chance and you know the rest as they outsmarted the simple people(comperatively simpler) in Asia or Africa they dominated them and situated colonies.And thus the age of racism begun. So now you know the history, why's and why nots of racism.Now lets come down to why racism is badWhern it comes to phylosphyEverything is ambiguous. We can just say a thing is bad cuz we feel its bad we have to establiah a statement right? Like being a rich dude from the mid 1700 youd just say you are racist cuz you are better than those african 'idiots' you have ships,money,exepensive drinks everything.. You are even more powerful than them..so thinking you are better than them couldnt be proven wrong then.Like we still mny say we are the greatest life form there is.. WE ARE HUMANS..WE HAVE BUILT THESE.. THESE..WE HVE ACCOMPLISHED THESE THESE....no one calls them racists right?But what if we diacovered that other dolphines have buildings underwater(just take it for instance) and they have eccomplished similar things just like human race and now after a couplle of years a dolphine is sitting next to you in the subway...What if you say huma race is the best then? Thennits racist.CUZ YOU ARE WRONG. Same hapoens n ow.Aafrican people arent still slaves, native americans are not illiterate...even just to say these things makes one a racist...Like if some one went to a seminar and said, 'Under the rule of (insert political party name) there in zero pernt of african americns who are illiterat,but when n.... ' the person couldnt even finish his speech than ks to the shoes and tomatoes already flying towards him.So this what racism is now and why its wrong..Many of you didnt think of it like this way. But as now we do... it would be eve n easier for many people about the depths of human thoughts and how these develop over time.Maybe I'll talk about those useless crap some other day.Thank you.
Sorry for the bad typos bruv..I accidentally cut injured three of my fingers in an accident.Hope you will understand

Our intellect and intelligence are the shields against this irrational construct since we can understand that it is irrational and fight the urge to surrender to it. — Christoffer

Actually, it is precisely our intellect and intelligence that is behind what we call racism. If the problem were simple irrationality it would be a it easier to solve it. But when people do their best to act as ‘rationally’ as possible and still end up behaving in ways that others call racist it should teach us that the cause of racism isnt irrationality, it is the limits that are imposed on intelligence in any given era.

Your archeology will never get a girlfriend. — Kenosha Kid


Your response to old fashioned ideas has autism. — frank

No. Your stats are just shit. https://www.fooledbyrandomness.com/pinker.pdf

Basically it comes across to me that there's a certain political aspect to the way early human groups are portrayed, like there's a need for a certain kind of person to find some natural justification for their own personality traits. — Kenosha Kid

Exactly. As evidenced by this thread. Five citations indicating a natural tendency toward morality-based coexistence vs. a whole slew of "I don't reckon that can be right because I've just got this gut feeling about it, I'm sure I read somewhere..."

And this is not a question that it is possible, to have a neutral, dispassionate default position on. We start to raise nearly 400,000 new children every day, they're either monsters who need taming or angels who need protecting from corruption (or, of course, some point in between). Whatever we pick we will be doing so in the light of evidence which is sketchy at best, either way.

@frank, I don't think the archaeological evidence proves anything, it may fail to disprove positions, it may open discussions about positions, it cannot under any circumstances prove those positions, the data provided is simply too small a sample with too high a possibility of selection bias ranging over extreme events of an unknown frequency. Ethnological data is much the same, but for different reasons (translation problems, biased exposure, cultural barriers...).

Actually, it is precisely our intellect and intelligence that is behind what we call racism. — Joshs

Yep.

I don't think the archaeological evidence proves anything, — Isaac

I said that due to genetic and archeological evidence, the possibility that violence was prevalent among early humans is a consideration that's on the table. I didn't say anything had been proven.

Your ability to read and comprehend other people's posts has body odor.

I said that due to genetic and archeological evidence, the possibility that violence was prevalent among early humans is a consideration that's on the table. I didn't say anything had been proven. — frank

No, you said.

Archeology contradicts the thesis that prehistoric people were peaceful. — frank

It doesn't.

Some say racism is learned. Some say racism is an innate defense mechanism.
It seems natural for us to prefer that which is like us. — Lil

The only thing that is natural is our desire to rationalize our flaws. If an individual is raised and surrounded by racist then the perception of 'natural' might be there; but frankly the question itself in this form is highly suspect. Because none say it is "an innate defense mechanism"; that is some racist propaganda if anything. Simply watch children interact and see that racism doesn't exist until created.

There is one sense in which "innate defense mechanism" might be plausible. The human mind likes to think of itself as important and valuable. When everything in it's world says otherwise it might cling to irrational reasons to ascribe value and importance to itself as an innate ego defense mechanism. If I'm better than XYZ then I must be valuable. Any other context looking for rational racism is just another iteration of the white genocide conspiracy BS that has been poisoning society for hundreds of years.

Archeology contradicts the thesis that prehistoric people were peaceful. — frank


It doesn't. — Isaac

Ok. That's fine. l did say earlier about "on the table."

If you could be bothered to read your own links, you see that you pointed to an article on chimpanzees. We aren't descended from chimpanzees. Nobody in the science of human origin looks to that species to understand our own. — frank

It's mainly about humans, as are the other two. Literally every man in the village has shagged your ability to read.

Literally every man in the village has shagged your ability to read. — Kenosha Kid

My ability to read is a nymphomaniac.

Encroachment on "my" hunting grounds, tit for tat, blood feuds, etc. Some was just dick-measuring raids/warfare. — James Riley

Encroachment was only an issue in hard times. I mentioned on another thread, when the Quebec government stepped in to protect the resources of the Cree people from white trappers who were trapping animals to extinction, the govt thought they had to establish boundaries for each Cree group because that's what Europeans do. Cree leaders were tasked with reporting any white trappers or Cree hunters from neighbouring areas and keep a tally of what was hunted. It didn't work for the Cree as they were used to hunting wherever they pleased, so they just made the numbers up and didn't report the "encroachments".

As far as I can tell, this is basically standard among immediate return groups: unless the shit hits the fan, go where you will in peace.

It's only difficult to wrap our heads around now because we've become absolute bastards since.

My ability to read is a nymphomaniac. — frank

Yeah it cannot derive pleasure from sex.

Yeah it cannot derive pleasure from sex. — Kenosha Kid

Nymphomaniaca don't derive pleasure from sex? That's weird.

As far as I can tell, this is basically standard among immediate return groups: unless the shit hits the fan, go where you will in peace. — Kenosha Kid

I know you guys are talking generalities and eschewing anecdote (as well you should) but whenever I dream about roaming the continent hunting, and minding my own business, I think of Kennewick Man (arrowhead, 9k ya) and other signs of crushed skulls and broken bones. Like that slaughter house they found in North Africa a few years ago. A whole village wiped out. 10k ya. And, while we were fucking the occasional Neandertal (or vice versa) I have a feeling (I know, that's not evidence) that we weren't all chummy with them.

Edit: found it: https://www.bbc.com/news/world-africa-35370374

Ok. That's fine. l did say earlier about "on the table." — frank

Yeah, I see that. Really so long as overt comments about proof and disproof are avoided, it's all on the table. So the question is why anyone would favour an 'original sin' narrative. Given we have the option to assume things like violence and racism are remediable, by removing the conditions that give rise to them, I can't think why anyone would prefer to think we're all brutal thugs who need constant taming. You can see why it's tempting to consider such positions as excuses (either for personal failings or for white colonialism), they seem to have so little else going for them.

There are two equally viable options. Hunter gatherers were largely peaceable and egalitarian, or hunter gatherers were violent brutes. Given that hunter gatherers are the very people we tended to violently slaughter to steal their land for our empires, is it really too far of a leap to posit guilt as a reason for preferring the latter?

Nymphomaniaca don't derive pleasure from sex? That's weird. — frank

I know, right? It's actually really sad. Every time I think about your ability to read it gets me down tbh.

Like that slaughter house they found in North Africa a few years ago. A whole village wiped out. — James Riley

In Libya? That was really recent though. I'm talking about tens and hundreds of thousands of years ago.

In Libya? That was really recent though. I'm talking about tens and hundreds of thousands of years ago. — Kenosha Kid

I had amended my post after finding it: https://www.bbc.com/news/world-africa-35370374

It was about 10k ya and involved hunter-gathers. Kennewick man was about 9k and same.

Given that hunter gatherers are the very people we tended to violently slaughter to steal their land for our empires, is it really too far of a leap to posit guilt as a reason for preferring the latter? — Isaac

Guilt and that sort of contempt that unacknowledged guilt fosters. But even beyond that, it's difficult to imagine humans as peaceable. It's the WYSIATI again: history is a list of wars punctuated by discoveries; the news is conflict punctuated by sexual assault stories. From a limited viewpoint, we do seem inherently cruel.

Reading anthropology and, before that, evolutionary biology really surprised me. I was a Pinker-esque optimist, still am quite an optimist, who pooh-poohed golden age laments. But everything does point to humans in their natural environments actually being admirably and enviably much groovier than we are.

I know, right? It's actually really sad. Every time I think about your ability to read it gets me down tbh. — Kenosha Kid

Let's agree that it's an open question. Otherwise I'll have to believe what everybody says about your ability to research a topic: that she's a crack whore.

Given we have the option to assume things like violence and racism are remediable, by removing the conditions that give rise to them, I can't think why anyone would prefer to think we're all brutal thugs who need constant taming — Isaac

This is covered in one of the articles Kenosha linked to. Advocates of prehistoric war aren't motivated by this sentiment. It's based in the evidence they've seen.