Why do people confuse race with nationality

[rlsmooth775]

I know this Dominican guy who's darker than me has a mini Afro and says he's not black he's just Dominican.Why do black people from Spanish speaking countries not know their black. That would be like me saying I'm not black I'm American

[navy]

I know this Dominican guy who's darker than me has a mini Afro and says he's not black he's just Dominican.Why do black people from Spanish speaking countries not know their black. That would be like me saying I'm not black I'm American
Black has a negative connotation so Dominicans like to make the distinction.

[BasedTom]

why are americans so obsessed with race?

[navy]

why are americans so obsessed with race?
Everyone is not just Americans. Other countries are ten times as racist and they do it openly without the criticism that dominates the American culture.

[rlsmooth775]

why are americans so obsessed with race?

Cause that's how we identify each other

[Inactive]

Why do you seek to impose your racial identity on everyone who appears to have some African ancestry? Perhaps his ancestors came from various places, converged in the Dominican Republic, and left him with no specific ancestral identity aside from "Dominican"? Maybe he doesn't think in terms of the standard U.S Black/White/Hispanic/Asian racial paradigm?

[BasedTom]

Everyone is not just Americans. Other countries are ten times as racist and they do it openly without the criticism that dominates the American culture.
Or maybe they're just more honest about it?

American mass media only pours fuel to the flame and the race-baiting talking heads that you see on TV are making a killing out of this crap.

[Timmy D for MVP]

Black people from Latin countries likely identify with their nation far more than we do here in the US. Latin culture has been fully integrated far longer and in fact is truly a melting pot of the cultures that went into it.

[RidonKs]

because you haven't educated them on the subject yet

[JtotheIzzo]

in his mind 'black' means black American (descendent of slaves), he doesn't see himself from that culture, he sees himself as Dominican regardless of skin tone.

the differences we project are cultural more than 'skin-tonal' so while he is indeed a man of color he identifies with a different cultural background.

[NumberSix]

Why do you seek to impose your racial identity on everyone who appears to have some African ancestry? Perhaps his ancestors came from various places, converged in the Dominican Republic, and left him with no specific ancestral identity aside from "Dominican"? Maybe he doesn't think in terms of the standard U.S Black/White/Hispanic/Asian racial paradigm?
Hispanic is not a racial term.

[NumberSix]

in his mind 'black' means black American (descendent of slaves), he doesn't see himself from that culture, he sees himself as Dominican regardless of skin tone.

the differences we project are cultural more than 'skin-tonal' so while he is indeed a man of color he identifies with a different cultural background.
The MAJORITY of slaves went to Latin America. He's actually more likely to be descended from slaves than a guy in Mississippi is.

[Cali Syndicate]

why are americans so obsessed with race?

too much political correctness. Most other parts in the world, black people are just called black people. A lot of people in the US feel the need to identify blacks as African-American because they think it might be offensive otherwise. i used to be like that too lol, until i started calling black people as black people and realized nobody cared.

[knickballer]

Because he probably views himself as Latino instead and can be a mixture of different races(European, African, Native American, etc)..

[NumberSix]

Because he probably views himself as Latino instead and can be a mixture of different races(European, African, Native American, etc)..
"Latino" is a language/geographic classification. Not racial.


Latino = people from Latin American countries

Latin America = Countries in the Americas where languages derived from Latin (spanish, portuguese, etc) are predominantly spoken.

[Bandito]

in his mind 'black' means black American (descendent of slaves), he doesn't see himself from that culture, he sees himself as Dominican regardless of skin tone.

the differences we project are cultural more than 'skin-tonal' so while he is indeed a man of color he identifies with a different cultural background.
Black american means descendant of slaves? LMAO


Black people from the Caribbean are descendants of slaves too SMH

The reason he said that is because in America when you say black you mean black American and thats probably why he said he was Dominican.

[Nick Young]

The black people in Dominican republic and Haiti are descended from African slaves too though.

[kurple]

Still, saying he isn't black is pretty retarded.. he's black and dominican just like how some are black and american/british/etc.. nationality =/= race.
you do know that most "black" people aint black, more like brown?

[rlsmooth775]

The man I'm talking about looks just like your average dark skin African American only difference is he speaks Spanish.

[StephHamann]

you do know that most "black" people aint black, more like brown?

"white" people aint white, more like meaty?

[RidonKs]

yea the idea that calling somebody black is offensive is totally ludicrous. i've started using it casually around people and haven't encountered any offense taken but i've heard of cases like the one you describe where people (white or black) overreact to a pretty benign term.

i'm white. you're black. he's brown. she's yellow. they're red.

i dunno... i don't particularly see much problem in innocently categorizing people by colour as long as you understand those categories are very messy with significant overlap and a lot of disagreement on who falls where.

[Myth]

You do know "black" is the word used to describe those people?

What do you mean "those people"?

[AlphaWolf24]

Why do people being born take pride in something they had nothing to with?

example as Follows....

My Guamanian friend : Hey...did you know a Guamanian invented the very first wireless phone signal!!!...us Guamanian s are smart......

Me: No......some smart guy at some point had no life so he sat around and F'ed with computers all day....and he figured out how to use a wireless signal....

he has nothing to do with you....as you are a dumb rock.









feel me?

[RidonKs]

What do you mean "those people"?
he's a rabid anti-dentite

[NumberSix]

Yup. I see a lot of that kind of stuff on here. Pretty comical actually. :oldlol:
Why?

[MavsSuperFan]

why are americans so obsessed with race?
American's are less obsessed with race than many cultures.
In many cultures being the "wrong"/less favored race can prohibit the possibility of success to a much greater degree than in america.

[MavsSuperFan]

Black people from Latin countries likely identify with their nation far more than we do here in the US. Latin culture has been fully integrated far longer and in fact is truly a melting pot of the cultures that went into it.
I saw a documentary on Black people in Brazil and race and class in brazil, that totally counters what you have written here.

Despite blacks being about half the country, their leadership looks pretty damn white.


There are important differences in social position concerning "races". These differences encompass income, education, housing, etc. According to the 2007 PNAD, White workers wages were almost twice those of Blacks and “pardos”[citation needed]. Blacks and “pardos” earned on average 1.8 minimum wages, while Whites averaged 3.4 minimum wages[citation needed]. These differences cannot be exclusively attributed to differences in education: among workers with over 12 years of study, Whites earned on average R$15.90 per hour, while Blacks and “pardos” made R$11.40[citation needed].

Among the 1% wealthiest Brazilians, only 12% were Blacks or “pardos”, while Whites made 86.3% of the group. Among the 10% poorest 73.9% were Black or “pardos”, and 25.5% of whites[citation needed].

13.4% of White Brazilians were graduated, compared to 4% of Blacks and “pardos”[citation needed]. 24.2% of Whites were studying in a college or university, compared to 8.4% of Blacks and “pardos”[citation needed]. In 2007, 57.9% of White students between 18 and 24 years old were attending one[citation needed]. However, only 25.4% of Black and “pardo” students of the same age group studied at the same level[citation needed]. In 2000, the illiteracy rate among White people over 5 years old was 10.87%; among Blacks, 23,23%, and among “pardos”, 21,09%.


According to the 2007 Brazilian national resource, the white workers had an average monthly income almost twice that of blacks and pardos (browns). The blacks and browns earned on average 1.8 minimum wages, while the whites had a yield of 3.4 minimum wages. Among workers with over 12 years of study, the difference was also large. While the whites earned on average R$15.90 per hour, the blacks and browns received R$11.40, when they worked the same period. Among the 1% richest population of Brazil, only 12% were blacks and browns, while whites constituted 86.3% of the group. In the 10% poorest there were 73.9% of blacks and browns, and 25.5% of whites.

13.4% of white Brazilians were graduated, compared to 4% of blacks and browns. 24.2% of whites were studying in a College or University, compared to 8.4% of blacks and browns. In 2007, 57.9% of white students between 18 and 24 years old were attending a University or a College. However, only 25.4% of black and brown students of the same age group studied at the same level. Of just over 14 million illiterates in Brazil, nearly 9 million were black or pardo. The illiteracy rate among white people over 15 years old was 6.1%. Among blacks and browns of the same age group over 14%.[76]

Almost half of the Brazilian population (49.4%) is white. The browns form 42.3%, the black 7.4%, and the indigenous or "yellow", according to the IBGE, only 0.8%. The region with the highest proportion of browns is the north, with 68.3%. The population of the Northeast is composed of 8.5% of blacks, the largest proportion. In the South, 78.7% of the population is white.

Something also about how the poorest parts of Brazil the Favelas were black and brown predominately.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Presidents_of_Brazil
All with mostly euro DNA i would guess, based on pictures

[MavsSuperFan]

Why?
Because accomplishments done by people other than yourself, do not reflect on you. Thus its stupid to feel pride in something you did not accomplish

[NumberSix]

Because accomplishments done by people other than yourself, do not reflect on you. Thus its stupid to feel pride in something you did not accomplish
Sure, if your IQ is that, that you can't comprehend that which isn't directly in front of you.

There's nothing wrong with being proud that your culture created the environment that made such accomplishments possible.

There's a reason why westerners invent everything and communists and middle easterners invent nothing.

[MavsSuperFan]

Sure, if your IQ is that, that you can't comprehend that which isn't directly in front of you.

There's nothing wrong with being proud that your culture created the environment that made such accomplishments possible.
1. Did your culture though? or was it factors such as climate, agriculture, and foundational natural resources.

2. People around you being something impressive, doesnt mean that you are.

[NumberSix]

1. Did your culture though? or was it factors such as climate, agriculture, and foundational natural resources.

2. People around you being something impressive, doesnt mean that you are.
My mom accomplishing something impressive doesn't make me impressive, yet I'm still proud of her.

[MavsSuperFan]

Sure, if your IQ is that, that you can't comprehend that which isn't directly in front of you.

There's nothing wrong with being proud that your culture created the environment that made such accomplishments possible.

There's a reason why westerners invent everything and communists and middle easterners invent nothing.
The chinese have numerous inventions. Paper, printing press, the compass, gun powder, paper currency, cast iron, belt hooks, crossbows, ephedrine, field mills, stirrups, fishing reels, horse harness, kites, matches, etc
the arab world before being decimated by islam was scientifically superior to europe.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Fl1nJC3lvFs
The Intellectual Collapse of Islam

Summary of the video
-Arabs named the stars, because they had advanced astronomy and telescopes.
-the middle east fell back because of islam

[MavsSuperFan]

My mom accomplishing something impressive doesn't make me impressive, yet I'm still proud of her.
Alright, as long as you are distinguishing between pride as in admiration and pride as in you have accomplished something, we agree. You shouldnt feel the pride that accompanies accomplishment, because of the success of others is my point.

[NumberSix]

The chinese have numerous inventions. Paper, printing press, the compass, gun powder, paper currency, cast iron, belt hooks, crossbows, ephedrine, field mills, stirrups, fishing reels, horse harness, kites, matches, etc
the arab world before being decimated by islam was scientifically superior to europe.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Fl1nJC3lvFs
The Intellectual Collapse of Islam

Summary of the video
-Arabs named the stars, because they had advanced astronomy and telescopes.
-the middle east fell back because of islam
Ok, you're taking things too literally. Did you honestly think I literally believe westerns invented everything ever? Come now. Use your head.


I'm not even going to touch that ridiculous assertion of the pre Islamic Arab world being scientifically superior to Europe. I mean Jesus Christ dude. Read a history book at some point in your life.

[MavsSuperFan]

Ok, you're taking things too literally. Did you honestly think I literally believe westerns invented everything ever? Come now. Use your head.


I'm not even going to touch that ridiculous assertion of the pre Islamic Arab world being scientifically superior to Europe. I mean Jesus Christ dude. Read a history book at some point in your life.
To middle ages europe definitely, and i didnt mean pre islamic, i meant before Imam Al Ghazali become prominent


Ok, you're taking things too literally. Did you honestly think I literally believe westerns invented everything ever? Come now. Use your head.
hard to identify sarcasm without vocal intonations, also yes I did think based on reading some of your posts you believed that.

[NumberSix]

The chinese have numerous inventions. Paper, printing press, the compass, gun powder, paper currency, cast iron, belt hooks, crossbows, ephedrine, field mills, stirrups, fishing reels, horse harness, kites, matches, etc
the arab world before being decimated by islam was scientifically superior to europe.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Fl1nJC3lvFs
The Intellectual Collapse of Islam

Summary of the video
-Arabs named the stars, because they had advanced astronomy and telescopes.
-the middle east fell back because of islam
The telescope was invented in EUROPE 1000 AFTER the start of Islam.

Did you even attempt to fact check before posting?

[knickballer]

Because accomplishments done by people other than yourself, do not reflect on you. Thus its stupid to feel pride in something you did not accomplish


I always see people making this argument but then I find the same people being die hard fans of a certain team and are crazed about them. OMG we are 10x world champs, omg we have the best defense and they wear their team gears around but when it comes to something like taking pride in ethnicity they say it's stupid :oldlol:

[MavsSuperFan]

I always see people making this argument but then I find the same people being die hard fans of a certain team and are crazed about them. OMG we are 10x world champs, omg we have the best defense and they wear their team gears around but when it comes to something like taking pride in ethnicity they say it's stupid :oldlol:
I would never say we are the world champs. that annoys me too.

[NumberSix]

To middle ages europe definitely, and i didnt mean pre islamic, i meant before Imam Al Ghazali become prominent


hard to identify sarcasm without vocal intonations, also yes I did think based on reading some of your posts you believed that.
No you didn't.

No rational person could possibly think "everything" used in that way meant literally everything. Stop playing dumb. It's like somebody saying I've done that a million times and you literally think they are saying they have done that literally exactly one million times. Come on now. Let's not be ridiculous.

[MavsSuperFan]

The telescope was invented in EUROPE 1000 AFTER the start of Islam.

Did you even attempt to fact check before posting?
No of course not, post on ISH off of stuff in my head, i often recall things wrong
but the arab world was definitely more advanced that europe in the middle ages

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Astronomy_in_medieval_Islam

[QUOTE]Islamic astronomy comprises the astronomical developments made in the Islamic world, particularly during the Islamic Golden Age (8th

[navy]

No you didn't.

No rational person could possibly think "everything" used in that way meant literally everything. Stop playing dumb. It's like somebody saying I've done that a million times and you literally think they are saying they have done that literally exactly one million times. Come on now. Let's not be ridiculous.

Ironically, You do this all the time as well....

Arguing for the sake of arguing.

[MavsSuperFan]

No you didn't.

No rational person could possibly think "everything" used in that way meant literally everything. Stop playing dumb. It's like somebody saying I've done that a million times and you literally think they are saying they have done that literally exactly one million times. Come on now. Let's not be ridiculous.
I assumed you meant westerners invented everything important/progressed civilization, a view held by a lot of people.

[NumberSix]

No of course not, post on ISH off of stuff in my head, i often recall things wrong
but the arab world was definitely more advanced that europe in the middle ages

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Astronomy_in_medieval_Islam



other developments include algebra and algebraic numbers.

I read a lot of stuff, and from time to time recall it wrong, but I stand by that Islam was more advanced than medieval europe, read many books and seen many documentaries to support that.
:facepalm

Algebra had been around many centuries before Islam came along. The WORD algebra is an Arabic word.

Here's a little hint. There was once an Ancient Greek mathematician who has the nickname "the father of algebra".

[MavsSuperFan]

:facepalm

Algebra had been around many centuries before Islam came along. The WORD algebra is an Arabic word.

Here's a little hint. There was once an Ancient Greek mathematician who has the nickname "the father of algebra".
I meant that they made developments within mathematics
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mathematics_in_medieval_Islam

The study of algebra, which itself is an Arabic word meaning "reunion of broken parts",[5] flourished during the Islamic golden age. Al-Khwarizmi is, along with the Greek mathematician Diophantus, known as the father of algebra.[6] In his book The Compendious Book on Calculation by Completion and Balancing Al-Khwarizmi deals with ways to solve for the positive roots of first and second degree (linear and quadratic) polynomial equations.[7] He also introduces the method of reduction, and unlike Diophantus, gives general solutions for the equations he deals with.[6]

Al-Khwarizmi's algebra was rhetorical, which means that the equations were written out in full sentences. This was unlike the algebraic work of Diophantus, which was syncopated, where some symbolism is used. The transition to symbolic algebra, where only symbols are used, can be seen in the work of Ibn al-Banna' al-Marrakushi and Abū al-Ḥasan ibn ʿAlī al-Qalaṣādī.[8]
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_inventions_in_the_medieval_Islamic_world

A number of inventions were made in the medieval Islamic world, a geopolitical region that has at various times extended from Spain and Africa in the west to Afghanistan and the Indian subcontinent in the east.[1][page needed] The inventions listed here were developed during the medieval Islamic world, which covers a period from the early Caliphate to the later Ottoman, Safavid and Mughal empires.[2] In particular, the majority of inventions here date back to the Islamic Golden Age, which is traditionally dated from the 8th to the 13th centuries.[3][4] During this period, artists, engineers, scholars, poets, philosophers, geographers and traders in the Islamic world contributed to agriculture, the arts, economics, industry, islamic law, literature, navigation, philosophy, sciences, sociology, and technology, both by preserving earlier traditions and by adding inventions and innovations of their own.[5]

Im not as picky/pedantic with my language as you. You tend to obfuscate larger points, in this case that the islamic world was more advanced than europe during the middle ages. Maybe i got some details wrong, but I stand by the larger point.

Eg. your insistence that britain doesnt not equal great britain and that england and wales alone was referred to as britain. you had me convinced, until a scottish poster countered that point.

[NumberSix]

I meant that they made developments within mathematics
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mathematics_in_medieval_Islam

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_inventions_in_the_medieval_Islamic_world


Im not as picky/pedantic with my language as you. You tend to obfuscate larger points, in this case that the islamic world was more advanced than europe during the middle ages. Maybe i got some details wrong, but I stand by the larger point.

Eg. your insistence that britain doesnt not equal great britain and that england and wales alone was referred to as britain. you had me convinced, until a scottish poster countered that point.
Keyword. WAS.

Perhaps you should go back and re read that thread. It looks like you ducked at halfway through that conversation.

Now, you say "Europe" as if that's one thing.

[MavsSuperFan]

:facepalm

Algebra had been around many centuries before Islam came along. The WORD algebra is an Arabic word.

Here's a little hint. There was once an Ancient Greek mathematician who has the nickname "the father of algebra".
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_algebra
[QUOTE]As a branch of mathematics, algebra emerged at the end of 16th century, with the work of Fran

[MavsSuperFan]

Keyword. WAS.

Perhaps you should go back and re read that thread. It looks like you ducked at halfway through that conversation.

Now, you say "Europe" as if that's one thing.
I followed the convo, basically they asked you to show a non-latin/roman source that refered to England and wales as britain. I dont believe you did.

[NumberSix]

I followed the convo, basically they asked you to show a non-latin/roman source that refered to England and wales as britain. I dont believe you did.
You "feel"?

I'm not explaining all of this again. It's there for you to go read it if you want. If not, then don't. The full explanation is there.

[knickballer]

I would never say we are the world champs. that annoys me too.

Not that exactly. They are just die hard and very passionate fans that identify themselves by being a fan of a team. For some people their lives revolve around their sports teams and they use it as a great source of pride. But when it comes to nationality the same people will say that's stupid why do you take pride in someone else because he comes from the same country.

Do you get what I'm trying to say?

[MavsSuperFan]

You "feel"?

I'm not explaining all of this again. It's there for you to go read it if you want. If not, then don't. The full explanation is there.


You "feel"?
I didnt even write that, I dont know what that is referring to.

I saw your explaination, I will take the scottish guys word for it. You were wrong that england and wales are referred to as britian
you were wrong that britian and great britian are not used interchangbly

I was correct in referring to great britain as britian
and it refers to england, scotland, and wales.

only in roman times was england and wales referred to as Britannia

[BasedTom]

There is absolutely nothing shameful about being proud of your nation and culture's accomplishments, traditions, and history. It's honestly quite alarming seeing antifa members slash tires, attack people, and otherwise innocents for no crime other than displaying the german flag on their car. I blame allied occupation and media/political pressure on things like this, which do happen.

If you want to take the view that you are not a member of a greater whole, then there is nothing blatantly stopping you from pursuing individual success either.

[NumberSix]

I didnt even write that, I dont know what that is referring to.

I saw your explaination, I will take the scottish guys word for it. You were wrong that england and wales are referred to as britian
you were wrong that britian and great britian are not used interchangbly

I was correct in referring to great britain as britian
and it refers to england, scotland, and wales.

only in roman times was england and wales referred to as Britannia
You're not even talking about what was explained. The discussion obviously went completely over your head. Nobody ever told you that you can't use Britain and Great Britain interchangeably.

You are honestly not a very smart person. You are not even arguing the right thing right now. The discussion was about YOUR claim that if Scotland leaves the UK, that name "Great Britain" can not be used anymore, which I endlessly tried to explain to you is not the case.

[MavsSuperFan]

You're not even talking about what was explained. The discussion obviously went completely over your head. Nobody ever told you that you can't use Britain and Great Britain interchangeably.



Britain =/= Great Britain

:facepalm

No.


Think of it like this......


Britain = America
GREAT Britain = NORTH America

"America" and "North America" both contain the word "America" but they are different things. You're getting confused by similar names.

:confusedshrug:

america and north america are most certainly not interchangable

[NumberSix]

:confusedshrug:

america and north america are most certainly not interchangable
:facepalm

You're either frustratingly dumb, or you get some kick of kick out of playing dumb to troll people.

[MavsSuperFan]

You're not even talking about what was explained. The discussion obviously went completely over your head. Nobody ever told you that you can't use Britain and Great Britain interchangeably.

You are honestly not a very smart person. You are not even arguing the right thing right now. The discussion was about YOUR claim that if Scotland leaves the UK, that name "Great Britain" can not be used anymore, which I endlessly tried to explain to you is not the case.
britain or great britain refers to scotland, england and wales.
without scotland, it isnt great britain. england, wales and northern ireland wouldnt be great britain.




The Kingdom of England is comprised of England and Wales and the Kingdom of Scotland is just Scotland. These two kingdoms signed the act of Union in 1707.

The term britain can refer to either Great Britain or the United Kingdom. It was used on official documents for a while in place of the term United Kingdom.

The United Kingdom is Great Britain (Scotland, Wales, England and Northern Ireland)

Great Britain is Scotland, Wales and England.
Scottish person.

England and wales is not referred to as britain, no matter how much you insist it is. Its all moot since scotland stayed.

[MavsSuperFan]

:facepalm

You're either frustratingly dumb, or you get some kick of kick out of playing dumb to troll people.
The meaning of words change over time. American = a person resident in the USA, a USA national or citizen.

America = USA.

its foolish to hold on to old meanings of words.

Eg. liberal today doesnt mean what it meant in 1776
Eg. gay means homosexual.

When I traveled overseas, if I told someone I was american, every single person immediately made the association with the United states of america. no canadian says they are from america.

North america and america are not interchangeable.
America is a part of north america.

[MavsSuperFan]

Not that exactly. They are just die hard and very passionate fans that identify themselves by being a fan of a team. For some people their lives revolve around their sports teams and they use it as a great source of pride. But when it comes to nationality the same people will say that's stupid why do you take pride in someone else because he comes from the same country.

Do you get what I'm trying to say?
I understand, i make a distinction between being proud of a team's accomplishment, rather than being proud as if you have something to do with that accomplishment.

[Timmy D for MVP]

I saw a documentary on Black people in Brazil and race and class in brazil, that totally counters what you have written here.

You talked about this documentary (which if it is about race it will most certainly make a point to show severe separation) but then started talking about something completely different and didn't actually refute my claim.

[Just2McFly]

Why do people being born take pride in something they had nothing to with?

example as Follows....

My Guamanian friend : Hey...did you know a Guamanian invented the very first wireless phone signal!!!...us Guamanian s are smart......

Me: No......some smart guy at some point had no life so he sat around and F'ed with computers all day....and he figured out how to use a wireless signal....

he has nothing to do with you....as you are a dumb rock.









feel me?
I feel you on that one:lol :lol :lol

[NumberSix]

britain or great britain refers to scotland, england and wales.
without scotland, it isnt great britain. england, wales and northern ireland wouldnt be great britain.
:facepalm

There is no "without Scotland". As much as I've tried to explain to you, "Great Britain" is a geographic term.

Again, it's like trying to argue USA not being part of North America. It's not possible.



Scottish person.

England and wales is not referred to as britain, no matter how much you insist it is. Its all moot since scotland stayed.
What your thick skull is not able to understand is, IM NOT EVEN ARGUING THAT IT IS.:hammerhead:

That was only brought up as an example to try to get you to understand the difference between a geographic an a political term.

I'll try for the last time.

There is an island called Great Britain. There are 3 countries on the island. Those 3 countries plus another country on another island have a political union called "the United Kingdom". Whether they chose to be politically joined or not makes no difference. The piece of land is called Great Britain.

[Dresta]

1. Did your culture though? or was it factors such as climate, agriculture, and foundational natural resources.

2. People around you being something impressive, doesnt mean that you are.
Stop parroting popular science books. Reading a single feel-good pop science book is not enough to base an opinion on the progression of various civilisations. Especially a book written by a man with a clear agenda (one which he voices at the the start of the book) and a need to explain the entirety of human history in a way that justifies this agenda (showing that Western man has nothing to be proud of and that he is where he is by chance alone!).

What Diamond seems incapable of recognising is that none of us got where we are off the skin of our own backs, that we all are where we are because of chance, be that the chance Geographical locations of my very distant ancestors, or the particular culture they just happened to adopt and that just happened to be superior to surrounding cultures as a means of survival and proliferation. Just because this was determined by chance doesn't mean one side of the equation can be ignored, but Diamond needs to ignore it, because cultural superiority is obviously too close to racial superiority, and allows people to have some pride in themselves and where they come from, and Diamond isn't having that. But again, why is it wrong to have any pride in something you inherited? Cultural tradition or ancient family heirloom? Our parents are determined by chance too, and yet the default position of most children towards their parents is one of love - is this wrong too? Why bother loving your parents when you didn't choose them? Thus one can conclude that his book is thoroughly unscientific, holding a view not shared by most anthropologists, and dogmatically asserted to boot.

A little hint: these grand narratives of history books, where all of history is pinned down to a single explanatory cause, and it all explained by universal and determining laws, are full of shit, as these deny the actual nature of history itself. To claim these historical laws is to claim the actual study of history as a collection of individual events to be worthless, as all history can be explained already by x, y and z. Diamond's environmental bullshit, however, also ignores that environment only determines the situation of a person, and not the response, which is something instead determined by the individual peculiarities of the human being in question. His book is ignorant and simplistic tripe, gift-wrapped and packaged for the masses, and this has been more and more often the nature of most popular bestselling books nowadays - tell people what they want to hear, wrap it up in some pseudo-scientific claptrap, make a load of money of their imbecility.

In reality, there is no telling how different the world could be if only a single historical event turned out differently, and these events were often decided by fine margins too. But no doubt these marginal historical conflicts were determined solely by local geographical conditions, the number of domesticable plants and animals et cetera.

Diamond is a boring old turd. I remember being pretty pissed off at being assigned his idiot book as a 2nd year undergrad (economic development) when his book really has very little relevance to currently existing underdevelopment, where cultural factors and influences continue to play a huge role. But no doubt Diamond was a proponent of dependancy theory - the dick!

[StephHamann]

The meaning of words change over time. American = a person resident in the USA, a USA national or citizen.

America = USA.

its foolish to hold on to old meanings of words.

Eg. liberal today doesnt mean what it meant in 1776
Eg. gay means homosexual.

When I traveled overseas, if I told someone I was american, every single person immediately made the association with the United states of america. no canadian says they are from america.

North america and america are not interchangeable.
America is a part of north america.

Idiot the island is called Great Britain


You had to stop call them United Kingdom if Scotland leaves, but its still the island Great Britain :facepalm

[RidonKs]

Thus one can conclude that his book is thoroughly unscientific, holding a view not shared by most anthropologists, and dogmatically asserted to boot.
:lol

[Dresta]

:lol
It is about as scientific as Das Kapital, and much the same in the way it attempts to explain things through universal historical laws, it's just that his laws are the 'objective' and 'scientific' ones, whereas all the others are ideological (this is what Marx claims, it is also more or less what Diamond claims). It is one of the many similarities he has with Marx in fact, though the man is an intellectual lightweight in comparison (even though i think Marx was and still is massively overvalued as a thinker, he still wrote a lot of things a good deal better than Guns, Germs and Steel, much more thoughtful and original too - nothing in Diamond's book is original, it is just a repackaging of already acknowledged findings, moulded into an ideological interpretation of historical progression).

All systematisers are to be distrusted.

[NumberSix]

:lol
He's right though. It completely ignores the element of human nature.

[Booz Vivic]

I wouldn't classify myself as white and german. Just german.

[NumberSix]

It is about as scientific as Das Kapital, and much the same in the way it attempts to explain things through universal historical laws, it's just that his laws are the 'objective' and 'scientific' ones, whereas all the others are ideological (this is what Marx claims, it is also more or less what Diamond claims). It is one of the many similarities he has with Marx in fact, though the man is an intellectual lightweight in comparison (even though i think Marx was and still is massively overvalued as a thinker, he still wrote a lot of things a good deal better than Guns, Germs and Steel, much more thoughtful and original too - nothing in Diamond's book is original, it is just a repackaging of already acknowledged findings, moulded into an ideological interpretation of historical progression).

All systematisers are to be distrusted.
I don't know why people even pay any attention of Marx's writings. They're no different than alchemists who used to try to turn other shit into gold. It's been completely discredited. Yet, people still seem to think Marx's dumb ideas have any validity.

Honestly, religion is to blame. Charles Darwin's work being confirmed over time should have completely eradicated Marx's ideas off the face of the earth, but because religious people don't want to accept science, Marxism has stuck around.

Marxist morons seem to think that either human nature doesn't exist at all or that it can simply be bypassed. Humans act in pursuit of their own interests. It's what we are. There's no way around it. It's our nature.

[RidonKs]

I don't know why people even pay any attention of Marx's writings. They're no different than alchemists who used to try to turn other shit into gold. It's been completely discredited. Yet, people still seem to think Marx's dumb ideas have any validity.
:wtf: :facepalm

[NumberSix]

:wtf: :facepalm
Care to give any explanation? :confusedshrug:

[RidonKs]

Care to give any explanation? :confusedshrug:
you need to give an explanation!

you just dismissed in two sentences the entire body of work one of the most prolific writers in human history. which works of karl marx are you familiar with that have made you believe he has nothing to say worth hearing?

dresta is right to some extent of course. there were and still are a lot of dogmatic activists who take marx's word as divine or some shit. obviously the guy wasn't right about everything. he was writing over 150 years ago for gods sake, a lot has changed. but he was a tremendous analyst and had a lot to say about both the productive potential and the social pitfalls of unencumbered capitalism.

[NumberSix]

you need to give an explanation!

you just dismissed in two sentences the entire body of work one of the most prolific writers in human history. which works of karl marx are you familiar with that have made you believe he has nothing to say worth hearing?

dresta is right to some extent of course. there were and still are a lot of dogmatic activists who take marx's word as divine or some shit. obviously the guy wasn't right about everything. he was writing over 150 years ago for gods sake, a lot has changed. but he was a tremendous analyst and had a lot to say about both the productive potential and the social pitfalls of unencumbered capitalism.
I didn't say he was idiot. He was just wrong. He wasn't privy to much of the information that we now have. In his time, I'm sure some of the human behaviours he imagined seemed feasible, but with our greater understanding of human nature and the biological origins of much of it, we know what he didn't. His ideas just aren't a possibility.

And what exactly are the pitfalls of unencumbered "capitalism"?

[RidonKs]

I didn't say he was idiot. He was just wrong. He wasn't privy to much of the information that we now have.

And what exactly are the pitfalls of unencumbered "capitalism"?
lol read marx that's most of what he writes about. can i assume you haven't read anything by the author you're proclaiming was "just wrong"?

hell if you want to know what marx believed were the pitfalls of capitalism, just open up his wikipedia page.

[RidonKs]

but with our greater understanding of human nature and the biological origins of much of it, we know what he didn't.
woah you have an understanding of human nature and the biological origins of much of it that marx didn't? cuz i don't think i have such an understanding either, i guess i must be down on karl's level. what greater understanding are you talking about?

[Nick Young]

The worst for me is dumbass americans who say shit like "Im not white, Im Italian" or "Im not white, Im spanish"

[NumberSix]

lol read marx that's most of what he writes about. can i assume you haven't read anything by the author you're proclaiming was "just wrong"?

hell if you want to know what marx believed were the pitfalls of capitalism, just open up his wikipedia page.
Lol. I'm aware of what he claims are the pitfalls. That was my way of baiting you into saying them so then I can promptly rebut them.

[NumberSix]

woah you have an understanding of human nature and the biological origins of much of it that marx didn't? cuz i don't think i have such an understanding either, i guess i must be down on karl's level. what greater understanding are you talking about?
:wtf:

Where do I start?


Charles Darwin's "On The Origin of Species" was published 11 years after Marx's "Communist Manifesto".

Do I really have to write an essay on why I (in 2014) have a greater understanding of biology, and psychology than Marx did in the mid 1800's? Does the obvious really need to be explained?

The simple understanding of our competitive nature being hardwired into humans and fine tuned over 195,000 years of natural selection is something he had literally no concept of. It's not a matter of "social conditioning" or "being corrupted by a capitalist society". It's biology. It's what we are. It's nature.

Why am I even having to write this?

[RidonKs]

Charles Darwin's "On The Origin of Species" was published 11 years after Marx's "Communist Manifesto".
communist manifesto was published 35 years before marx died u ****... and it's a ****ing pamphlet. jesus christ

you believe we now have some definitive proof and deep understanding that competition drives our behaviour, that apparently nobody knew 150 years ago and i certainly don't know now. and as evidence for this, you cite "on the origin of species". it's all just too much.

[NumberSix]

communist manifesto was published 35 years before marx died u ****... and it's a ****ing pamphlet. jesus christ
:facepalm

The point being, the origin of human nature and the process of how it came to be was a new concept in his life time. A new concept that nobody had any idea if it was even true or not. In his lifetime, he had no idea that human behaviour was not merely a matter of cultural shaping, but largely biological. It's not a factor he could have accounted for.

I'm sure he thought that a change in culture could change humans from being motivated by self interest, but as we now know, that's not the case. Trying to convince masses of humans to not being motivated by self interest is like trying to convince masses of humans not to have sexual urges.

[NumberSix]

communist manifesto was published 35 years before marx died u ****... and it's a ****ing pamphlet. jesus christ

you believe we now have some definitive proof and deep understanding that competition drives our behaviour, that apparently nobody knew 150 years ago and i certainly don't know now. and as evidence for this, you cite "on the origin of species". it's all just too much.
No. It's not that people didn't know that competition drives human behaviour. It's just that they didn't no it's PERMANENT. It's not something that can be "corrected". It's not a result of cultural influences or subject to alteration by cultural influences.

[RidonKs]

i dunno we're talking about marx who you i suppose haven't even read and now you're just rambling about self interest and competition and modern advances in psychology and biology, you're offering blanket statements without proof, you're taking leaps in logic that are transparently silly, and to boot you're talking about the most biologically complicated and philosophically abstract fields of inquiry with an arrogance that suggests you believe you have nothing else to learn which is dangerous and the essence of dogmatism.

i would sincerely recommend you look into what marx actually wrote in his serious and technical work. i would also recommend you think a little longer and a little harder about how much evidence you really have for the idea that self-interest drives humanity. i'm not saying its entirely wrong by any means. but the emphasis you put on it is foolish and in my opinion leads you astray when discussing topics to which, apart from that emphasis, you otherwise make strong contributions.

[NumberSix]

i dunno we're talking about marx who you i suppose haven't even read and now you're just rambling about self interest and competition and modern advances in psychology and biology, you're offering blanket statements without proof, you're taking leaps in logic that are transparently silly, and to boot you're talking about the most biologically complicated and philosophically abstract fields of inquiry with an arrogance that suggests you believe you have nothing else to learn which is dangerous and the essence of dogmatism.

i would sincerely recommend you look into what marx actually wrote in his serious and technical work. i would also recommend you think a little longer and a little harder about how much evidence you really have for the idea that self-interest drives humanity. i'm not saying its entirely wrong by any means. but the emphasis you put on it is foolish and in my opinion leads you astray when discussing topics to which, apart from that emphasis, you otherwise make strong contributions.
The screams of a drowning leftist^ :roll:


Competition is the cornerstone of natural selection my friend. As a leftist, I know you will always deny science when it crushes your cultist beliefs, but facts are facts.

You know the proof that humans are inherently competitive? We still still exist. Your ancestors all competed for survival and reproduction and every single one of them and won. A 195,000 year unbroken chain of survival of the fittest. Lol. And you think the drive to compete isn't an absolutely core element of your nature? Maybe you're right. Maybe you're the link that breaks the chain.

[RidonKs]

sigh. when somebody isn't interested in having a real conversation, i guess that's when you know it's time to stop. good day sir.

[boozehound]

I know this Dominican guy who's darker than me has a mini Afro and says he's not black he's just Dominican.Why do black people from Spanish speaking countries not know their black. That would be like me saying I'm not black I'm American
because race isnt biologically real. Race is a cultural construction and varies greatly. Race in latin america (and there is a lot of variation within latin america as well) is not the same as race in the US.

[boozehound]

The screams of a drowning leftist^ :roll:


Competition is the cornerstone of natural selection my friend. As a leftist, I know you will always deny science when it crushes your cultist beliefs, but facts are facts.

You know the proof that humans are inherently competitive? We still still exist. Your ancestors all competed for survival and reproduction and every single one of them and won. A 195,000 year unbroken chain of survival of the fittest. Lol. And you think the drive to compete isn't an absolutely core element of your nature? Maybe you're right. Maybe you're the link that breaks the chain.
variation is the cornerstone of natural selection. You clearly have a very limited grasp of evolutionary biology.

[Nick Young]

variation is the cornerstone of natural selection. You clearly have a very limited grasp of evolutionary biology.
It is shameful that you are poisoning the youth of America with your backwards 1950s line of thinking.

[NumberSix]

sigh. when somebody isn't interested in having a real conversation, i guess that's when you know it's time to stop. good day sir.
Translation: white flag.

[NumberSix]

variation is the cornerstone of natural selection. You clearly have a very limited grasp of evolutionary biology.
:facepalm


And what is the significance of variation? Oh that's right. To not compete and everything lives forever.

Why are polar bears white? Because brown polar bears did the white ones a solid and all committed suicide.

[Inactive]

Sure, if your IQ is that, that you can't comprehend that which isn't directly in front of you.

There's nothing wrong with being proud that your culture created the environment that made such accomplishments possible.

My mom accomplishing something impressive doesn't make me impressive, yet I'm still proud of her.
What do you mean when you say you're proud of her? Do you mean that you admire her? Do you mean that you consider her, or her accomplishment proud, i.e highly honorable or creditable, stately, majestic, or magnificent, of lofty dignity or distinction? Do you mean that you feel pride because of her accomplishments?

Taking pride in something:
[QUOTE]
feeling pleasure or satisfaction over something regarded as highly honorable or creditable to oneself (often followed by of, an infinitive, or a clause).

having, proceeding from, or showing a high opinion of one's own dignity, importance, or superiority.

The sense of "have a high opinion of oneself," not found in Old French, might reflect the Anglo-Saxons' opinion of the Norman knights who called themselves "proud." Old Norse pru

[NumberSix]

What do you mean when you say you're proud of her? Do you mean that you admire her? Do you mean that you consider her, or her accomplishment proud, i.e highly honorable or creditable, stately, majestic, or magnificent, of lofty dignity or distinction? Do you mean that you feel pride because of her accomplishments?

Taking pride in something:

It's clear that they were mocking people for being proud, in this sense, of other people's accomplishments.

Some people think of themselves as elements with a set, whether it's a nation, ethnicity, or some other kind of group. They ascribe certain qualities to that set, and as elements of the set, those qualities are also applied to themselves. When someone else who they consider a part of the set accomplishes something, they feel proud of themselves. When someone else fails at something, they feel shame. It's obvious that the set does not exist in reality, and the elements are individual people, each with unique qualities.

Competition is not necessary for natural selection. The only way it would be, is if you defined competition as reproduction.

Some people think of natural selection itself as a competition, in a metaphorical sense, but it doesn't haven't anything to do with what we generally mean when we talk about competition. For example, trees continue to reproduce, while T-Rex has gone extinct. Do trees have a greater drive to compete than dinosaurs?
"Competing" doesn't necessarily mean conscious opposition. Every living thing wants to survive. Variations "competing" just means which is more fit to survive and reproduce.

[RidonKs]

"Competing" doesn't necessarily mean conscious opposition. Every living thing wants to survive. Variations "competing" just means which is more fit to survive and reproduce.
so you're using "competing" in two different ways then since up until the three sentences you wrote above, you have been using competition in the context of conscious opposition.

oh silly me here i go defining terms again what a waste of energy

[NumberSix]

so you're using "competing" in two different ways then since up until the three sentences you wrote above, you have been using competition in the context of conscious opposition.

oh silly me here i go defining terms again what a waste of energy
Silly me. Blindly assuming people would comprehend the word "necessarily". I should know better. I'm clearly dealing with people who need everything spelled out for them and carried along very slowly.

In regard to human economic motivation, yeah. That is a matter of conscious behavior. We're not talking about something like brown hair competing against white hair being better suited to a particular environment/climate.

It's almost as if, In language, applied to different context, words can have slightly varied meaning.

This really needed to be explained to you? Really?

Once again. As is typical of your ilk, arguing definitions of words even though you fully we'll understand what is being said instead of addressing actual ideas. You don't define words. You intentionally choose a word that has a variety of uses and apply a particular definition that you know I'm not using and ask me why I'm saying the thing you know fully well that I'm not saying.

I tell you my girlfriend is hot and you want to argue that because she's not even here I have no justification to claim how warm she is. When I tell you that in this context I'm obviously using hot to mean attractive you decide to play all dumb and act like You couldn't possibly have known that. Like that is some kind of wildly irrational expectation for me to assume you would understand what I'm saying.

[Inactive]

Silly me. Blindly assuming people would comprehend the word "necessarily". I should know better. I'm clearly dealing with people who need everything spelled out for them and carried along very slowly.

In regard to human economic motivation, yeah. That is a matter of conscious behavior. We're not talking about something like brown hair competing against white hair being better suited to a particular environment/climate.

It's almost as if, In language, applied to different context, words can have slightly varied meaning.

This really needed to be explained to you? Really?

Once again. As is typical of your ilk, arguing definitions of words even though you fully we'll understand what is being said instead of addressing actual ideas. You don't define words. You intentionally choose a word that has a variety of uses and apply a particular definition that you know I'm not using and ask me why I'm saying the thing you know fully well that I'm not saying.

I tell you my girlfriend is hot and you want to argue that because she's not even here I have no justification to claim how warm she is. When I tell you that in this context I'm obviously using hot to mean attractive you decide to play all dumb and act like You couldn't possibly have known that. Like that is some kind of wildly irrational expectation for me to assume you would understand what I'm saying.
"Trying to convince masses of humans to not being motivated by self interest is like trying to convince masses of humans not to have sexual urges."

" Competition is the cornerstone of natural selection my friend. As a leftist, I know you will always deny science when it crushes your cultist beliefs, but facts are facts. "

"You know the proof that humans are inherently competitive? We still still exist. Your ancestors all competed for survival and reproduction and every single one of them and won. A 195,000 year unbroken chain of survival of the fittest. Lol. And you think the drive to compete isn't an absolutely core element of your nature? Maybe you're right. Maybe you're the link that breaks the chain."

You claimed that it's human nature to behave in a self interested, competitive manner, in the emotional/psychological sense. Your argument in support of this claim was that our continued reproduction proves that we're inherently competitive, because "Competition is the cornerstone of natural selection".

If the "competition" which is necessitated by natural selection is not the same competition which you say humans must have, then your argument is a ridiculous non-sequitur. It's as ridiculous as saying "I'm hot. I know your leftist agenda forces you to insist that I'm ugly, so I took my temperature, and proved my hotness. You're a science denying idiot if you don't agree with the thermometer.".

[RidonKs]

Once again. As is typical of your ilk, arguing definitions of words even though you fully we'll understand what is being said instead of addressing actual ideas. You don't define words. You intentionally choose a word that has a variety of uses and apply a particular definition that you know I'm not using and ask me why I'm saying the thing you know fully well that I'm not saying.

like social justice or socialism or marxism or efficiency or progress or leftist or capitalism? the words YOU are using HAVE a variety of uses and you aren't acknowledging that fact. instead you're just assuming everybody already knows what you mean, which they don't. i'm exhibit a.

if we were talking about the best way to make a sandwich, the language we choose wouldn't matter so much. we all know what each other mean by words like bread and cheese and cut and spread.

but we're talking about human affairs in a very abstract way. you're making a bold assertion about THE DRIVING FORCE OF HUMANITY. these are difficult topics and require a rigorous process of defining our terms just like any other science requires... and the truth is we're never going to nail down a common definition for 'progress' the same way the physicist can tell us the definition of 'electron'. but that doesn't undermine the activity of rigorous semantics, it only suggests its limitations.

[NumberSix]

You claimed that it's human nature to behave in a self interested, competitive manner, in the emotional/psychological sense. Your argument in support of this claim was that our continued reproduction proves that we're inherently competitive, because "Competition is the cornerstone of natural selection".
You see what we are doing right now?

Instead of arguing the ACTUAL point of whether or not humans are motivated by self interest, we're arguing about what the word "competition" means.

I make the point that humans are inherent driven by their own interests, and what's the reaction? "Let's not even acknowledge that that point was made and let's all instead go down the rabbit hole endlessly debating the definition of competition".

[RidonKs]

You see what we are doing right now?

Instead of arguing the ACTUAL point of whether or not humans are motivated by self interest, we're arguing about what the word "competition" means.

I make the point that humans are inherent driven by their own interests, and what's the reaction? "Let's not even acknowledge that that point was made and let's all instead go down the rabbit hole endlessly debating the definition of competition".
what's funny is you probably don't even remember why we're talking about human beings and self interest. you want me to remind you? it's because you decided to offer your compelling insight on karl marx by indiscriminately dismissing everything the man ever said. you ignored repeated questions asking you whicha works of his you were familiar with. you instead provided us your 'evidence' of why karl marx can be easily dismissed, not because he was dumb but, in your words, "because he was wrong". that evidence consisted of a few non sequiturs about self interest and modern science and human nature and then a reference to social darwinism which i think you're confusing with evolutionary theory. you said because marx and engels published "the communist manifesto" 11 years before darwin published "on the origin of species", marx wasn't able to incorporate this new profound knowledge into his thinking and writing on politics and economics.

and now we're just jammering back and forth over nothing at all.

[RidonKs]

on the plus side, inactive who i've never seen before is making some great posts in this thread