I don't think so. If say a big group conquers a previously relatvily unknown separate small group that happens to be another etnicity and stays to dominate them, the ideology would follow the conquest and domination, and not be the cause of it. The reason for conquering or dominating need not be difference in etnicity, but could simply be that they were separate political units.

And Isaac, even within one country or political unit all separation between groups need not be caused only by racism. People seem to tend to stick to their cultural and ethnic roots and band together with other people with the same background. Racism can play a reinforcing role therein, but surely it's not the only cause of separation?

Do you have evidence of state, church or economic discrimination – which in the US is in principle illegal by statute – against whites by nonwhites or are you just mouth-breathing unfounded, white grievance propaganda?

Caveat: Prejudice alone is not racism; however, racism is enforced prejudice. — 180 Proof

:100:

My "even if" argument is that, were there to actually be some "woe is me" whites getting put-upon, they should understand the natural phenomena called "push back". People have to expect the the longer they burn someone, the higher the price they (or their children, and their children's children) will have to pay when the burning finally stops. Sons may very well have to pay for the sins of their fathers. Especially if those fathers handed down some ill-gotten gains to their sons.

The lesson to be learned here is either 1. Stop burning, and the sooner the better; or 2. Never stop burning. Liberals = #1; conservatives = #2.

Sons may very well have to pay for the sins of their fathers. Especially if those fathers handed down some ill-gotten gains to their sons.

The lesson to be learned here is either 1. Stop burning, and the sooner the better; or 2. Never stop burning. Liberals = #1; conservatives = #2. — James Riley

:fire:

Never stop burning. Liberals = #1; conservatives = #2. — James Riley

At the risk of arguing for a "true Scotsman", equality is a conservative value.

At the risk of arguing for a "true Scotsman", equality is a conservative value. — Benkei

I don't know what a "true Scotsman" is. I've seen the reference twice today and have yet to look it up. Anyway, a conservative value is one that seeks to keep things the way the are. If equality is the way things are, then I reckon you're correct.

"Some are more equal than others" (i.e. "first among equals") is a very conservative value too.

I'm just saying I don't see a necessary juxtaposition between conservative values and anti-racism. There are plenty of principled conservatives in favour of equality and anti-racist. So it's more typically GOP I guess.

And let's not forget all the micro aggressions we (accidentally) perpetuate having grown up white in a Western, white society. Tends to not matter much what your political inclination is in that case.

I'm just saying I don't see a necessary juxtaposition between conservative values and anti-racism. There are plenty of principled conservatives in favour of equality and anti-racist. So it's more typically GOP I guess.

And let's not forget all the micro aggressions we (accidentally) perpetuate having grown up white in a Western, white society. Tends to not matter much what your political inclination is in that case. — Benkei

We all have a propensity to use "liberal" and "conservative" to denominate a person as opposed to a position. I just did it. But again, where racism and inequality exist, the conservative position would be to maintain it. To the extent a "principled conservative" favors equality and anti-racism, he would then be taking a liberal position. Or maybe he is really a liberal. But yes, having just read the definition of a True Scotsman, then the word "principled" as applied to a conservative in this instance, would indeed be the No True Scotsman fallacy.

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. — Joshs

It is definitely not intelligent to reach a racist conclusion. I said "weak-minded", which means that the person arriving at a racist conclusion is weak-minded, stupid, not using the intellect or rationality correctly. Plenty of people think they are rational and that they use rational deduction to reach conclusions but instead have biases and fallacies in their line of thinking. It's why we have biases and fallacies as concepts used in a deduction in order to arrive at logical conclusions that aren't influenced by our stupidity. There's no logic to racism, not even in the context the "fear of the unkown" originally formed from. Racism is an invented concept by individuals and society in order to cope with the "fear of the unknown", but through biased and fallacy-heavy reasoning aimed it at different looking people. It's the Dunning-Kruger process of intellect that formed it, not intelligence or intellect when used properly.

It is simply a statement of uncontroversial fact. — Lil

It is uncontroversial in the context of pure data which this is not. This is a lame attempt at skating through a subtext of implications. It is pleasant to watch racist positions have to attempt to sneak through the cracks where at one time it walked through the door. Ethically, I can't imagine much darker a goal than to take advantage of the lost by teaching them to hate their neighbors for one's own misguided need for narcissistic fulfillment.

Ethically, I can't imagine much darker a goal than to take advantage of the lost by teaching them to hate their neighbors — Cheshire

Notice you're using "darker" to mean bad.

Notice you're using "darker" to mean bad. — frank

Notice it's a metaphor in a context that doesn't imply relative melanin.

Notice it's a metaphor in a context that doesn't imply relative melanin. — Cheshire

No shit.

No shit. — frank

Play stupid games, win stupid prizes.

One datum looking for interpretation is, as I mentioned earlier, that we appear to have more female ancestors than male. — frank

1.Background selection on the Y chromosome can influence levels of NRY diversity in human populations.

2. Sample sizes are very small with high variables so the conclusion itself has to be treated tentatively.

3. We're talking about possibly as few as 60 breeding pairs of early humans skewing the matriarchal and patriarchal lines, it's not something which needs perpertuating throughout human history.

4. The effect is missing from East Asia. So at the very least we can't extend it to a 'human nature' effect.

5. Polygamy.

It's not so much a datum looking for interpretation as a datum with six or seven interpretations laid out for you to choose from. The question is, why choose the one which makes white enlightened westerners come out looking best?

I'm a little surprised that people bring up biases about what early humans were like. That stuff just isn't on my radar, though maybe it should be. To approach the question with a strong reaction against those views, which I read Kenosha as doing, isnt the best way to get to the truth. — frank

Speaking for myself, who also reacts strongly to these views, my main motivation is that hunter gatherer tribes are clinging on to their existence by their fingernails as it is. It takes every ounce of pressure that groups like Survival International can bring to bear just to halt the genocide. The last thing they need is the image of brutal savages being re-invigorated for no good reason.

The other reason is that I think, even if it's not your motivation, perpetuating theories of 'original sin', leads to social welfare issues like oppressive child-rearing practices and "they get what they deserve" kinds of attitude towards violent crime and delinquency.

It is definitely not intelligent to reach a racist conclusion. I said "weak-minded", which means that the person arriving at a racist conclusion is weak-minded, stupid, not using the intellect or rationality correctly. — Christoffer

Until about 150 years ago many, if not most, philosophers and scientists in Europe and the U.S. accepted as fact what we would now label as racist ideas. Was it because they were weak-minded, stupid and not rational? Or was it because ideas about many aspects of human nature evolve over long periods of time?

If say a big group conquers a previously relatvily unknown separate small group that happens to be another etnicity and stays to dominate them — ChatteringMonkey

It's the second part I'm having trouble reconciling. How is 'staying to dominate them' not racism? We still seem to have this picture of a large powerful ethnic group dominating a less powerful ethnic group, but we're wanting to not call that racism for some reason. It seems to tick all the boxes.

People seem to tend to stick to their cultural and ethnic roots and band together with other people with the same background. Racism can play a reinforcing role therein, but surely it's not the only cause of separation? — ChatteringMonkey

Maybe, but you introduced 'domination', not just separation.

I think maybe you may be just working with a different definition of racism to me and it causing crossed wires here.

The question is, why choose the one which makes white enlightened westerners come out looking best? — Isaac

All that data means is that prehistoric humans may have been extremely violent. If you have a hard time accepting that possibility, you need to look at how your own personal issues are effecting your outlook.

No shit. — frank

Play stupid games, win stupid prizes. — Cheshire

So you're not worth talking to. :up:

All that data means is that prehistoric humans may have been extremely violent. If you have a hard time accepting that possibility, you need to look at how your own personal issues are effecting your outlook. — frank

Who said anything about not accepting the possibility? I'm talking about one's choice when presented with a range of such possibilities. I could hardly be making such a point if I were simultaneously denying that such choice existed, could I?

So you're not worth talking to. — frank

Do you really not understand or is this just another lazy spitball?

If say a big group conquers a previously relatvily unknown separate small group that happens to be another etnicity and stays to dominate them
— ChatteringMonkey

It's the second part I'm having trouble reconciling. How is 'staying to dominate them' not racism? We still seem to have this picture of a large powerful ethnic group dominating a less powerful ethnic group, but we're wanting to not call that racism for some reason. It seems to tick all the boxes. — Isaac

But if that small group being dominated were ethnically the same as the big group you wouldn't call it racism would you, even though it is essentially the same thing?

That's why I wouldn't call it racism in this particular example, because the domination of a group, be it ethnically the same or different, needn't have anything to do with race or ethnicity... . It's only becomes racism, I would say, if an ideology is created based on ethnicity or race to consolidate or strengthen that domination.

People seem to tend to stick to their cultural and ethnic roots and band together with other people with the same background. Racism can play a reinforcing role therein, but surely it's not the only cause of separation?
— ChatteringMonkey

Maybe, but you introduced 'domination', not just separation. — Isaac

Yes I did, I think a lot follows from separation, from groups.

Politics typically organise around groups, and once politically active those groups tend to strive for the best political deal for their particular group... and then you can get one group getting the upper hand politically (especially if they are a majority) and maybe they end up dominating the other.

All of this, this whole process, needn't have anything to do with racism. Groups of the same ethnicity fight for political power all the time. That's why I wouldn't equate the two, I think it blends two distinct phenomena together.

We probably do use a different definition.

Who said anything about not accepting the possibility? I'm talking about one's choice when presented with a range of such possibilities. I could hardly be making such a point if I were simultaneously denying that such choice existed, could I? — Isaac

The way this discussion started was Kenosha saying anthropology has determined that early man was mostly peaceful. They do that by applying their favored principles.

My point was that archeological and genetic evidence says we have to consider that violence and proto-war may have been part of the prehistoric human world.

Do you're confirming my point

You are projecting. Regardless of what narrative you put to it, it's true.

It's only becomes racism, I would say, if an ideology is created based on ethnicity or race to consolidate or strengthen that domination. — ChatteringMonkey

I see. Then...

We probably do use a different definition. — ChatteringMonkey

I'm not going to open the whole systemic racism debate again, but that seems to be our difference.

My point was that archeological and genetic evidence says we have to consider that violence and proto-war may have been part of the prehistoric human world. — frank

What form does that consideration take? As far as I read it, @Kenosha Kid was suggesting that the balance was in favour of peace, after having considered the possibilities. Responses have been given to the articles and evidence you cited, so the possibility has not been ignored at all, it's been considered. It remains a possibility, but the balance of evidence is in favour of an existence at least as peaceable, if not more peaceable than the one we have in the West.

Again, remember that hunter gatherer tribes still exist. It's possible that you are a psychopath. We'd not have the ground to deny the possibility. Is it not simply human decency to charitably assume you're not until more compelling evidence arrives? Do not existing hunter gatherers deserve the same level of decency?

We probably do use a different definition.
— ChatteringMonkey

I'm not going to open the whole systemic racism debate again, but that seems to be our difference. — Isaac

Fair enough, there's no need to go there in this thread. But yes, a lot of what is included under the term systemic racism is I think caused by poverty and its effects. Which I do think is an issue that needs to be resolved to be clear, but I wouldn't call it racism per se. Some of it is.

My point was that archeological and genetic evidence says we have to consider that violence and proto-war may have been part of the prehistoric human world. — frank

I was never arguing that violence didn't occur, I even cited an article about violence along with the other two as an example. What I was arguing against was the characterisation of HG tribes as typically violent toward outsiders when in fact they were typically cooperative.

The archeological evidence to suggest otherwise simply doesn't exist afaik: it shows that sometimes violence occurred but, as per my quote above, these rare cases are elevated to the norm. The consensus within archeology is the same as within anthropology as far as I can tell.

And there's no genetic evidence at all that I know of. Linking the higher diversity of genes to violence between males is assuming the conclusion which we shouldn't do, especially since your conclusion is in prison for touching boys.

My guess is that it was similar to the way native Americans were: some tribes were peaceful to strangers, some tribes were extremely hostile to anyone else. None of them were racist, btw.