Invading other forums. Is there ever a good reason?

Ultimate Weapon · Post by **Ultimate Weapon** » Mon Apr 18, 2005 5:33 am

Professor Smooth wrote:
Ultimate Weapon wrote:
Why should they be forced to take the risk? See my edited post above. WHat is to stop the outsider from switching cultures and language. What is to stop him from raising his children under his language and his ways? Unfortunalty yes nationality is tied to culture and language. That is a reality!
I'm not saying they should be forced to do anything. I'm simply saying that it's still a racist practice. I'm not saying that it's done for any malicious reason. I'll even go so far as to say it's not wrong (in this circumstance). But it IS racist. THAT is a reality.

(another reality is that I need sleep. I'll happily continue this discussion afterwards.)

Would you consider a descent group, one which can trace it's lineage and demonstrate a relationship to a common ancestor, racist for not allowing outsiders to breed within the tribe?

Post by **Kaylee** » Mon Apr 18, 2005 10:05 am

Yep, me again.

I would like to know why you consistently bring up the concept of tribes and chiefs, etc? Except for a few remote locations in Africa and South America such things do not exist. Why don't we look at what represents by a vast proportion the majority of people in the world and be consider that. And by vast majority I mean about 5,999,990,000 of the world's 6,000,000,000 people (and even then I'm giving the benefit of the doubt).

Unless you actually mean an entire state or feel the argument can apply to an entire state and for whatever reason want to use tribalistic terminology.

You've also changed tactic from preserving genetic heritage to preserving cultural heritage, which is a different argument.

Preserving cultural heritage is to do with how outsiders are integrated into a society and what social constraints and taboos are in place regarding that integration. It does not necessarily follow that outsiders will destroy a culture- America has had a distinct culture all of its own (an exceedingly multifaceted one) for some time and that will probably continue.

Britain has a distinct culture, albeit also including several more fractured subgroups due to our differing social concepts of integration.

You're trying to mix it up with the idea that a particular blood line must always be associated with a particular culture, or that culture is irreparably damaged which is, moreso than most things, an entirely subjective statement imo. It is not a 'fact', it is an opinion.

So in essence I would like to hear more information on-

o What these tribes are which can trace their bloodlines and cultures so exactly with definitive proof.
o Where it is proven cause and effect that outsiders will destroy an existing society.
o Some conclusive counter to what I consider to be relatively obvious fact that people from different 'tribes' (as ~0.00001% of the worlds population seems to be our target audience) have crossed over, changed sides, interbred etc and it has not led to the collapse of their culture.

As a seperate although related aside I think you'll find the idea of preserving as set-in-stone these cultures rather difficult, as they change quite readily to suit their environments and situations. Precisely what is this fixed, unchanging 'ethnoculture' (which I googled, it brought up a lot of fascist websites and far too few academic citations for my tastes) that we are discussing preserving?

Post by **Best First** » Mon Apr 18, 2005 10:06 am

at the Aztecs? They are a former shell of their mighty empire. This is not a racist view but a fact that the mixed descendants of spaniards and indians are not the same people of the Aztec empire, and will never be again. This is the destruction that I have a problem with.

Uh-huh. And how does the breeding have any bearing on these descdendenats ability to achieve their own mighty empire? Why would they want to recreate the Aztec empire, or be the 'same people'? Why is culture changing classed as 'destruction'? It coudl just as easilt be classed as creation. And at what point do you freeze a culture and say 'this is it'? Your 'arguements' contain no logic and your ethnoculturalism notion is a joke at best and a wolf in sheeps clothing at worst.

To single out racial mixing as the key reason for rise and fall of empires is historically naive and as a notion can clearly provide foundations for a racist ideology.

What you are arguing has no basis in science or history - you are coming across as a fundamentalist nutbag.

Your rhetoric about culture and preserving it falls flat on its face because the underlying assumption that the original culture is somehow superior or more worthy or preservation than what replaces it is logically flawed. What you are arguing is curiously similar to harking back to a 'golden age', a central tenant ofmost fascist ideologies.

And you have done nothing to prove that the Nazism wasn't a racist ideology or that the Nazi States crimes agains't humanity do not deserve teh reputation they have. There is also plenty of evidence in indite Hitler by the way - maybe you should avoid historical revisionism if your want yoru arguements to have more credibility.

Essentially i think yoru entire posts/arguements have the same integrity as 'I don't have a problem with gay people, i just don't want it shoved in my face'.

Metal Vendetta · Post by **Metal Vendetta** » Mon Apr 18, 2005 11:40 am

Maybe it's just me, but living in one of the largest cities in the world for just five years, I've found myself working, living and socialising with people of all ethnic backgrounds, nationalities, religions, colours...Americans, Australians, Indians, the French, Germans, Scots, the Welsh, Malaysians, Kiwis, Canadians, Pakistanis, South Africans, Dutchies, Greeks, Poles, Italians, West Indians, Spaniards, Brazilians, Nigerians, Jews (both from the UK and abroad), Muslims (likewise), more Germans, Swedes and even bloody Christians

I'm well used to being the token English guy at parties and gatherings, and I've picked up swearing and rude phrases from around the world in a variety of languages and dialects.

Now if I vowed to only mix with people from my own ethnoculture, or whatever you want to call it, I'd have a hell of a time of it. Around 60% of the people in my office are from a different culture or country, and of those that are white and English, almost all of them have different religious beliefs to me. Of the three people that I live with, all three are from different countries. My girlfriend is from New Zealand. You can see how ridiculous the idea of "preserving" only my kind of culture is, since I'm about the only one who even knows what it is. But even though white English atheists seem to be in real short supply around here, I don't feel threatened that I'm going to lose my identity, conversely I feel that by learning from lots of different cultures and countries I'm improving my knowledge and experience, and at the same time giving other people a view of where I'm coming from.

I don't understand how cultural exclusion - like you are trying to defend, UW - can ever work, without blood and tears and a whole lot of trouble.

Impactor returns 2.0 · Post by **Impactor returns 2.0** » Mon Apr 18, 2005 12:32 pm

are English ppl not an evoloution of many cultures anyhows?

Going really far back, are we not part Roman,Saxon,Norman,Celt?

In modern day england are we now not part of all the different cultures MV just listed.

Again we evolve. Evoloution is good it makes us stronger?

I dont think anything has changed in the merging of cultures, only that we still have biggoted people.

Post by **Kaylee** » Mon Apr 18, 2005 12:37 pm

Precisely. I look and sound about as 'English' as the next guy- I'm the stereotypical build, skin colour and have an Oxford English accent.

However I inherit genes from Ireland, Scotland and 'England' which will include Celts, Angles, Saxons, Vikings, Romans and goodness knows how many other nations. If you go back far enough there are almost certainly elements of half of Europe.

Nobody could say with a straight face that I belong to any genetic tribe or race.

Professor Smooth · Post by **Professor Smooth** » Mon Apr 18, 2005 2:25 pm

Ultimate Weapon wrote:
Would you consider a descent group, one which can trace it's lineage and demonstrate a relationship to a common ancestor, racist for not allowing outsiders to breed within the tribe?

Would I consider a group that refused to allow breeding with others based entirely on race racist? This may surprise you, but that answer is: YES!!!

Ultimate Weapon · Post by **Ultimate Weapon** » Mon Apr 18, 2005 3:38 pm

Professor Smooth wrote:
Ultimate Weapon wrote:
Would you consider a descent group, one which can trace it's lineage and demonstrate a relationship to a common ancestor, racist for not allowing outsiders to breed within the tribe?
Would I consider a group that refused to allow breeding with others based entirely on race racist? This may surprise you, but that answer is: YES!!!

It's based on descent not race! *facepalms*

Professor Smooth · Post by **Professor Smooth** » Mon Apr 18, 2005 3:50 pm

Ultimate Weapon wrote:
It's based on descent not race! *facepalms*

Alright, it's based on "ethnocuture." Which, as far as I can tell, is simply a word you've made up with to replace the word "race."

Ultimate Weapon · Post by **Ultimate Weapon** » Mon Apr 18, 2005 3:55 pm

Best First wrote: Uh-huh. And how does the breeding have any bearing on these descdendenats ability to achieve their own mighty empire?

Nothing at all.

Why would they want to recreate the Aztec empire, or be the 'same people'?

Because they have a right to their cultural heritage.

Why is culture changing classed as 'destruction'?

It's not, it's called enculturation, or assimilation.

It coudl just as easilt be classed as creation. And at what point do you freeze a culture and say 'this is it'?

Freeze a culture? I'm a afraid I do not understand your meaning. Culture is carried on till the last man dies, or becomes assimilated.

What you are arguing has no basis in science or history - you are coming across as a fundamentalist nutbag.

I have been apply science. It's called anthropology

Your rhetoric about culture and preserving it falls flat on its face because the underlying assumption that the original culture is somehow superior or more worthy or preservation than what replaces it is logically flawed. What you are arguing is curiously similar to harking back to a 'golden age', a central tenant ofmost fascist ideologies.

That is ethnocentrism, one culture thinking it is superior to another, in judegment and moral value.

And you have done nothing to prove that the Nazism wasn't a racist ideology or that the Nazi States crimes agains't humanity do not deserve teh reputation they have. There is also plenty of evidence in indite Hitler by the way - maybe you should avoid historical revisionism if your want yoru arguements to have more credibility.

Show me the evidence! I have yet to find any. But that is beside the point, because we know Hitler knew about the camps. Yes the crimes against humanity have been shoved down our throats by the media that the German suffering and pain is totally ignored and kept secret by the media , and government. I'm talking about the allied atrocities during 1945-1950.

Essentially i think yoru entire posts/arguements have the same integrity as 'I don't have a problem with gay people, i just don't want it shoved in my face'.

Wow what next are you going call me a homophobe?

Professor Smooth · Post by **Professor Smooth** » Mon Apr 18, 2005 4:13 pm

I don't know about the rest of you, but I don't see much of a difference between ethnocentrism and racism.

Ultimate Weapon · Post by **Ultimate Weapon** » Mon Apr 18, 2005 4:18 pm

Karl Lynch wrote:Yep, me again.

I would like to know why you consistently bring up the concept of tribes and chiefs, etc?

Well i did ace my cultural anthropology class.

Except for a few remote locations in Africa and South America such things do not exist.

The Inuits of the north pole have a special culture and heritage, that they would die without it.

Why don't we look at what represents by a vast proportion the majority of people in the world and be consider that. And by vast majority I mean about 5,999,990,000 of the world's 6,000,000,000 people (and even then I'm giving the benefit of the doubt).

Unless you actually mean an entire state or feel the argument can apply to an entire state and for whatever reason want to use tribalistic terminology.

China is a state. And by being a Chinese nationalist you would probably speak Chinese, and do customs like the Chinese etc...

You've also changed tactic from preserving genetic heritage to preserving cultural heritage, which is a different argument.

They can be one and the same.

Preserving cultural heritage is to do with how outsiders are integrated into a society and what social constraints and taboos are in place regarding that integration. It does not necessarily follow that outsiders will destroy a culture- America has had a distinct culture all of its own (an exceedingly multifaceted one) for some time and that will probably continue.

Most Natives had to abandon their ways of life and culture, language, and assimliate into American society. Extinction does occur with people and culture, that does not happen to the whole of humanity.

Britain has a distinct culture, albeit also including several more fractured subgroups due to our differing social concepts of integration.

You're trying to mix it up with the idea that a particular blood line must always be associated with a particular culture, or that culture is irreparably damaged which is, moreso than most things, an entirely subjective statement imo. It is not a 'fact', it is an opinion.

Not necessarily, but it can be the case. Such as the royal families of ancient Egypt. The only bred within their specific bloodlines, to preserve royal heritage, and blood.

So in essence I would like to hear more information on-

o What these tribes are which can trace their bloodlines and cultures so exactly with definitive proof.

That is a descent group, of which there can be descent on the mother's or father's side.

o Where it is proven cause and effect that outsiders will destroy an existing society.

Egypt was sacked by the "sea people." So yes outsiders can destroy civilizations. Usually the conquerors will not adapt the conquered culture, but it can happen.

o Some conclusive counter to what I consider to be relatively obvious fact that people from different 'tribes' (as ~0.00001% of the worlds population seems to be our target audience) have crossed over, changed sides, interbred etc and it has not led to the collapse of their culture.

Yes culture can be shared, just as a linguist can speak many languages. Does that mean that every scenario will be the same? Or that every member of the tribe will be able to remember every custom?

As a seperate although related aside I think you'll find the idea of preserving as set-in-stone these cultures rather difficult, as they change quite readily to suit their environments and situations. Precisely what is this fixed, unchanging 'ethnoculture' (which I googled, it brought up a lot of fascist websites and far too few academic citations for my tastes) that we are discussing preserving?

Ethnic heritage, and pride I suppose. Are you against say Mexicans for having Aztec pride? Or blacks for having black power?

Ultimate Weapon · Post by **Ultimate Weapon** » Mon Apr 18, 2005 4:37 pm

Professor Smooth wrote:I don't know about the rest of you, but I don't see much of a difference between ethnocentrism and racism.

You would not by entirely incorrect in your line of thinking. But ethnocentrists do not have to be of another race to think they are superior.

Edit>> hey guys since you seem keen on learning about ethnocultural strife etc.. Check out this link!

http://www.ethnonet-africa.org/pubs/p95oha.htm

No one today is purely one thing. Labels like Indian, or Woman, or Muslim, or American are not more than starting-points, which is followed into actual experience for only a moment are quickly left behind. Imperialism consolidated the mixture of cultures and identities on a global scale. But it worst and most parodoxical gift was to allow people to believe that they were only mainly, exclusively, White, or Black, or Western, or Oriental. Yet just as human beings make their own history, they also make their cultures and ethnic identities. (1994:336).

Impactor returns 2.0 · Post by **Impactor returns 2.0** » Mon Apr 18, 2005 5:09 pm

I dont see the point - 1 million years from now, we will probably just be reffered to as 'human' end off.

Its pointless really.

Ultimate Weapon · Post by **Ultimate Weapon** » Mon Apr 18, 2005 5:48 pm

Impactor returns 2.0 wrote:I dont see the point - 1 million years from now, we will probably just be reffered to as 'human' end off.

What makes you think we will have bodies?

Post by **Best First** » Mon Apr 18, 2005 6:35 pm

Ultimate Weapon wrote:
Best First wrote: Uh-huh. And how does the breeding have any bearing on these descdendenats ability to achieve their own mighty empire?
Nothing at all.

so no reason notto interbreed then?

Why would they want to recreate the Aztec empire, or be the 'same people'?
Because they have a right to their cultural heritage.

Right. Why would they want to recreate the Aztec empire, or be the 'same people'? How do they gain from this?

Why is culture changing classed as 'destruction'?
It's not, it's called enculturation, or assimilation.

so why did you call it destruction?

Additionally assimilation assumes a subsuming of one culture by another - this does not neccessarily have to be the case.

It coudl just as easilt be classed as creation. And at what point do you freeze a culture and say 'this is it'?
Freeze a culture? I'm a afraid I do not understand your meaning. Culture is carried on till the last man dies, or becomes assimilated.

So whats the difference between the culture changing with the 'tribe' or changing due to external contact?

What you are arguing has no basis in science or history - you are coming across as a fundamentalist nutbag.
I have been apply science. It's called anthropology

Anthropology does not assume that there are benefits to inbreeding as far as i recall. Nor does it apply a value to a culture for the sake of itself. Probably because that would be illogical.

Your rhetoric about culture and preserving it falls flat on its face because the underlying assumption that the original culture is somehow superior or more worthy or preservation than what replaces it is logically flawed. What you are arguing is curiously similar to harking back to a 'golden age', a central tenant ofmost fascist ideologies.

That is ethnocentrism, one culture thinking it is superior to another, in judegment and moral value. [/quote]

Well spotted. You seem to be an advocate of it.

And you have done nothing to prove that the Nazism wasn't a racist ideology or that the Nazi States crimes agains't humanity do not deserve teh reputation they have. There is also plenty of evidence in indite Hitler by the way - maybe you should avoid historical revisionism if your want yoru arguements to have more credibility.

Show me the evidence! I have yet to find any.[/quote]

Whats the point? You have essentialy accused main stream historians (who would be my evience, of lying in an attempt to disgrace the Nazi's.

But that is beside the point, because we know Hitler knew about the camps.

and yet you previoulsy try to divest him of responsibility - consistancy tends to be a good idea when arguing mate...

Yes the crimes against humanity have been shoved down our throats by the media

Yes, i read about it on the front page every day. Oh dear we seem to be in conspiracy land again...

that the German suffering and pain is totally ignored and kept secret by the media , and government.

kept secret!? By who?

I'm talking about the allied atrocities during 1945-1950.

i don't see where? You still seem to be implying some kind of conspiracy - if you just dealt with teh facts ratherthan having historonics about how the nzai's are (corectly) portrayed yomight gain more credibility.

Essentially i think yoru entire posts/arguements have the same integrity as 'I don't have a problem with gay people, i just don't want it shoved in my face'.
Wow what next are you going call me a homophobe?

[/quote]

missed the point entirely.

Post by **Kaylee** » Mon Apr 18, 2005 7:46 pm

Ultimate Weapon wrote:
Karl Lynch wrote:Yep, me again.

I would like to know why you consistently bring up the concept of tribes and chiefs, etc?
Well i did ace my cultural anthropology class.

Which means nothing regarding the actual question? Why do you bring up tribalistic terminology when it applies to a fraction of the worlds population?

Except for a few remote locations in Africa and South America such things do not exist.
The Inuits of the north pole have a special culture and heritage, that they would die without it.

Fair enough. And the inuits. Probably a couple of thousand other people scattered across the globe too. You're still trying to make sweeping statements about all based on semantics that refers to a miniscule population/

Why don't we look at what represents by a vast proportion the majority of people in the world and be consider that. And by vast majority I mean about 5,999,990,000 of the world's 6,000,000,000 people (and even then I'm giving the benefit of the doubt).

Unless you actually mean an entire state or feel the argument can apply to an entire state and for whatever reason want to use tribalistic terminology.
China is a state. And by being a Chinese nationalist you would probably speak Chinese, and do customs like the Chinese etc...

So in fact you're using tribalistic language when you in fact mean it to have reference to a state or feel it can be applied to such a thing? Despite the fact that this concept of an unchanging culture which needs preserving is purely a subjective concept and the idea of genetic race is a nonsense.

You've also changed tactic from preserving genetic heritage to preserving cultural heritage, which is a different argument.
They can be one and the same.

But if you recall we pretty much exhaustively showed that genetic heritage is a nonsense for virtually all people on earth.

Preserving cultural heritage is to do with how outsiders are integrated into a society and what social constraints and taboos are in place regarding that integration. It does not necessarily follow that outsiders will destroy a culture- America has had a distinct culture all of its own (an exceedingly multifaceted one) for some time and that will probably continue.
Most Natives had to abandon their ways of life and culture, language, and assimliate into American society. Extinction does occur with people and culture, that does not happen to the whole of humanity.

It does not necessarily follow was the key phrase- see below.

Britain has a distinct culture, albeit also including several more fractured subgroups due to our differing social concepts of integration.

You're trying to mix it up with the idea that a particular blood line must always be associated with a particular culture, or that culture is irreparably damaged which is, moreso than most things, an entirely subjective statement imo. It is not a 'fact', it is an opinion.
Not necessarily, but it can be the case. Such as the royal families of ancient Egypt. The only bred within their specific bloodlines, to preserve royal heritage, and blood.

That's the entire point, it doesn't have to be and when it does the outcome is usually something undesireable.

So in essence I would like to hear more information on-

o What these tribes are which can trace their bloodlines and cultures so exactly with definitive proof.
That is a descent group, of which there can be descent on the mother's or father's side.

I asked you which tribes can trace their bloodlines as exactly as you specified with proof that backs it up.

o Where it is proven cause and effect that outsiders will destroy an existing society.
Egypt was sacked by the "sea people." So yes outsiders can destroy civilizations. Usually the conquerors will not adapt the conquered culture, but it can happen.

I asked for proof that it will happen, not a circumstance where it did.

o Some conclusive counter to what I consider to be relatively obvious fact that people from different 'tribes' (as ~0.00001% of the worlds population seems to be our target audience) have crossed over, changed sides, interbred etc and it has not led to the collapse of their culture.
Yes culture can be shared, just as a linguist can speak many languages. Does that mean that every scenario will be the same? Or that every member of the tribe will be able to remember every custom?

You're trying to confound the issue imo. You have stated that culture should have a right to enforce seperatism to protect themselves and I have observed that integration does not always lead to cultural collapse which was the thrust of your argument. I see no relevance with this simili.

As a seperate although related aside I think you'll find the idea of preserving as set-in-stone these cultures rather difficult, as they change quite readily to suit their environments and situations. Precisely what is this fixed, unchanging 'ethnoculture' (which I googled, it brought up a lot of fascist websites and far too few academic citations for my tastes) that we are discussing preserving?
Ethnic heritage, and pride I suppose. Are you against say Mexicans for having Aztec pride? Or blacks for having black power?

You're going to have to show me how what it means to be Aztec or Black is something that does not change and must repel all attempts at mixing with other races before that becomes an accurate comparison, surely?

Ultimate Weapon · Post by **Ultimate Weapon** » Mon Apr 18, 2005 7:50 pm

Best First wrote: so no reason notto interbreed then?

No.

Why would they want to recreate the Aztec empire, or be the 'same people'?

I don't believe there are enough full bloods to successfully recreate that Empire, so it would be a futile attempt. And I don't know, maybe for fun.

Why is culture changing classed as 'destruction'?

Because the original language and customs used by the original descendants of a given territory were either thrown out, lost or died off with the elders.

so why did you call it destruction?

Because they were destroyed, enculturated, and assimilated.

Additionally assimilation assumes a subsuming of one culture by another - this does not neccessarily have to be the case.

In operfect world yes. But last I checked language and culture do face extinction. As well as a people of any given ethnicity.

So whats the difference between the culture changing with the 'tribe' or changing due to external contact?

That is the product of diffusion.

"Cultural diffusion can happen in many ways. Migrating populations will carry their culture with them. Ideas can be carried by trans-cultural visitors, such as merchants, explorers, soldiers, diplomats, slaves, hired artisans. Trans-cultural marriages between two neighboring or interspersed cultures will also do the trick. Among literate societies, diffusion can happen through letters or books (and, in modern times, through other media as well)."

Anthropology does not assume that there are benefits to inbreeding as far as i recall. Nor does it apply a value to a culture for the sake of itself. Probably because that would be illogical.

Again you assume that I'am trying to justify superiority through same race breeding. I'am merely making a case for those that wish to remain part of a lineage to be left alone. And every culture has value, and must be protected. Just like human rights.

Well spotted. You seem to be an advocate of it.

Not at all. And if you read the article I posted above you can see the problems that arise from this viewpoint. That does not mean that cultures who wish to remain separate because the are superior. They meerly wish to live by their own traditions that have guided them since before western civilzation. Which is becoming an increasingly difficult task in the face of globalization, and world trade.

Whats the point? You have essentialy accused main stream historians (who would be my evience, of lying in an attempt to disgrace the Nazi's.

Well I could show you the exaggeration of Nazi atrocities as well. Again I'm not justify either side, just saying that history has been exaggerated.

and yet you previoulsy try to divest him of responsibility - consistancy tends to be a good idea when arguing mate...[/quote

I was merely stating the historical facts that yes there was no real hard evidence, or any that could be found for the holocaust. That is well known. So we base are theories largely on assumptions that yeah Hitler probably knew but it's not on paper.

kept secret!? By who?
For one the historical scholarly archives in the US have become more politized and slanted as to the real truth.

i don't see where? You still seem to be implying some kind of conspiracy - if you just dealt with teh facts ratherthan having historonics about how the nzai's are (corectly) portrayed yomight gain more credibility.
Yes the Nazi's are wrong but so are the Allies! This is no conspiracy but a fact that has been documented through POW diaries and US soldiers guarding the DEF camps. The orders were given to limit food to the prisoners.

"In a plan devised by U.S. secretary of the treasury Henry C. Morgenthau Jr., the Allies "pastoralized" Germany. They slashed production of oil, tractors, steel and other products that had been essential to the war effort. They cut fertilizer production by 82 per cent. They undervalued German exports (which they controlled), depriving Germans of cash needed to buy food. And a large percentage of young male workers were kept in forced-labour camps for years. During the six months following the end of the war, Germany's industrial production fell by 75 per cent.

The loss of so much fertile land and the drop in fertilizer supplies caused agricultural production to fall by 65 per cent. Sixty million people began to starve in their huge prison."

missed the point entirely.

Well it's a rather poor point, as it suggests that I may harbor ill feelings toward homosexuals! Why would you want me to feel that way?

Impactor returns 2.0 · Post by **Impactor returns 2.0** » Mon Apr 18, 2005 8:02 pm

your comparing the Nazis and the Allies?

Im sorry but I make it a point to know WW2 like the back of my hand.

the Nazi ideal compared to the Allied ones cannot be compared.

Yes the Allies are responsible for war attrocities, for instance Dresden, but you cannot compare anything to the mass execution of the Jewish ppl.

Im sorry but I dont follow what your trying to say, can we summerise as to not lose the point please?

Are you saying that we shouldnt allow say England to be such a mixed culture because intime we breed out the '''orginal''' culture you refer to?

Post by **Kaylee** » Mon Apr 18, 2005 8:05 pm

Imo we have an example of a viewpoint that seems reasonably valid on a very very small scall in very particular circumstances but cannot practically be translated up to anything like what the majority of people would call real life, and a very good sighting of a dog that just won't let go of his percieved bone.

Ultimate Weapon · Post by **Ultimate Weapon** » Mon Apr 18, 2005 8:20 pm

Karl Lynch wrote:Which means nothing regarding the actual question? Why do you bring up tribalistic terminology when it applies to a fraction of the worlds population?

Tribes =people. We are all people and belong to a world culture. The study of humans is not to exclude others because they are parts of a tribal system, or clan.

Fair enough. And the inuits. Probably a couple of thousand other people scattered across the globe too. You're still trying to make sweeping statements about all based on semantics that refers to a miniscule population/

Does that make them any more or less insignificant to the broad scope of humanity?

Unless you actually mean an entire state or feel the argument can apply to an entire state and for whatever reason want to use tribalistic terminology.

Cultural anthropology applies to every human, regardless of the power system they reside under.

So in fact you're using tribalistic language when you in fact mean it to have reference to a state or feel it can be applied to such a thing? Despite the fact that this concept of an unchanging culture which needs preserving is purely a subjective concept and the idea of genetic race is a nonsense.

Genetics do determine the dominant characteristics of a particular genome. Genetic variation is a complicated study.

But if you recall we pretty much exhaustively showed that genetic heritage is a nonsense for virtually all people on earth.

Not for those who trace their lineage to a common ancestor.

That's the entire point, it doesn't have to be and when it does the outcome is usually something undesireable.

I asked you which tribes can trace their bloodlines as exactly as you specified with proof that backs it up.

I gave you the answer. There is no one specific tribe! Descent groups can happen anywhere.

"For example, in North America and other monogamous societies with bilateral descent patterns, people usually see themselves as being members of two related nuclear families the one in which they are a child and the one in which they are a parent ."

http://anthro.palomar.edu/kinship/kinship_4.htm

You're trying to confound the issue imo. You have stated that culture should have a right to enforce seperatism to protect themselves and I have observed that integration does not always lead to cultural collapse which was the thrust of your argument. I see no relevance with this simili.

Because other factors determine the events. Such as food and land. This is usually passed down with the new generation, and ensures a successful economic lifestyle for the group. Usually in a unilineal descent group. These unilineal descent groups often function successfully as long-term joint property owners and economic production teams.

You're going to have to show me how what it means to be Aztec or Black is something that does not change and must repel all attempts at mixing with other races before that becomes an accurate comparison, surely?

I don't know.

Post by **Kaylee** » Mon Apr 18, 2005 8:39 pm

Ultimate Weapon wrote:
Karl Lynch wrote:Which means nothing regarding the actual question? Why do you bring up tribalistic terminology when it applies to a fraction of the worlds population?

Tribes =people. We are all people and belong to a world culture. The study of humans is not to exclude others because they are parts of a tribal system, or clan.

I'm trying to establish exactly what's been dealt with here. So we are talking about people in general. Perhaps we can discuss matters such as countries and National policy, perhaps with reference to the Nazis, then.

Fair enough. And the inuits. Probably a couple of thousand other people scattered across the globe too. You're still trying to make sweeping statements about all based on semantics that refers to a miniscule population/

Does that make them any more or less insignificant to the broad scope of humanity?

Well, yes. If you have 2 people over here and 500,000 over there I think it is probably a fair observation to say that the doings of the 2 are probably more insignificant than the doings of the 500,000.

Unless you actually mean an entire state or feel the argument can apply to an entire state and for whatever reason want to use tribalistic terminology.

Cultural anthropology applies to every human, regardless of the power system they reside under.

ib]This is what I was trying to get my head around, the use of exceedingly small isolated groups such as inuits in reference to discussion of policies of national segregation for much larger communities such as Nazi Germany.[/i]

So in fact you're using tribalistic language when you in fact mean it to have reference to a state or feel it can be applied to such a thing? Despite the fact that this concept of an unchanging culture which needs preserving is purely a subjective concept and the idea of genetic race is a nonsense.

Genetics do determine the dominant characteristics of a particular genome. Genetic variation is a complicated study.

That is nothing to do with what I said. I observed that a genetic race is a nonsense. If it is not you should have no difficulty in telling me what race I belong to, given the exceedingly mixed bag of genes from various corners of the earth I represent.

But if you recall we pretty much exhaustively showed that genetic heritage is a nonsense for virtually all people on earth.

Not for those who trace their lineage to a common ancestor.

Who can and how far back does this ancestor have to be and how can you conclusively prove that is an unbroken line without complicated genetic testing, which for a large population should be considered as impractical as it sounds?

That's the entire point, it doesn't have to be and when it does the outcome is usually something undesireable.

I asked you which tribes can trace their bloodlines as exactly as you specified with proof that backs it up.

I gave you the answer. There is no one specific tribe! Descent groups can happen anywhere.

"For example, in North America and other monogamous societies with bilateral descent patterns, people usually see themselves as being members of two related nuclear families the one in which they are a child and the one in which they are a parent ."

http://anthro.palomar.edu/kinship/kinship_4.htm

That does not answer my question. I asked you WHICH TRIBES CAN and for you to offer some PROOF that their genetic purity is true. I'm requesting hard examples, not a detailed description of the concept.

You're trying to confound the issue imo. You have stated that culture should have a right to enforce seperatism to protect themselves and I have observed that integration does not always lead to cultural collapse which was the thrust of your argument. I see no relevance with this simili.

Because other factors determine the events. Such as food and land. This is usually passed down with the new generation, and ensures a successful economic lifestyle for the group. Usually in a unilineal descent group. These unilineal descent groups often function successfully as long-term joint property owners and economic production teams.

So you're taking it as given that genetic purity has an entirely arguable level of influence. Doesn't that undermine the values you are defending?

You're going to have to show me how what it means to be Aztec or Black is something that does not change and must repel all attempts at mixing with other races before that becomes an accurate comparison, surely?

I don't know.

You're attempting to demonstrate that being involved in Black Power is a correct analogy to wanting to keep culturally pure. Hence you will have to demonstrate how being involved in Black Power leads to concerted attempt to repel mixing with other races.

Ultimate Weapon · Post by **Ultimate Weapon** » Mon Apr 18, 2005 9:16 pm

Impactor returns 2.0 wrote:your comparing the Nazis and the Allies?

Im sorry but I make it a point to know WW2 like the back of my hand.

the Nazi ideal compared to the Allied ones cannot be compared.

Yes the Allies are responsible for war attrocities, for instance Dresden, but you cannot compare anything to the mass execution of the Jewish ppl.

Im sorry but I dont follow what your trying to say, can we summerise as to not lose the point please?

This is wildly off topic but here you go, some homework for you.

http://www.serendipity.li/hr.html#c&m

http://www.serendipity.li/hr/bacque01.htm

http://www.serendipity.li/hr/revcrimes.html

http://www.serendipity.li/hr/cm01.htm

http://www.rense.com/general46/germ.htm

http://www.rense.com/general19/diary.htm

http://home.arcor.de/kriegsgefangene/us ... ictis.html

http://www.serendipity.li/hr/german_pow.htm

http://www.fpp.co.uk/bookchapters/Morgenthau.html

FYI the only link I have not read is the last one I posted.

Are you saying that we shouldnt allow say England to be such a mixed culture because intime we breed out the '''orginal''' culture you refer to?

If it wanted to remain and keep it's culture and heritage without other cultures, yes. But I don't think that is possible, as has been stated.

Impactor returns 2.0 · Post by **Impactor returns 2.0** » Mon Apr 18, 2005 9:34 pm

I am aware of all the above attrocities by the allies during WW2, they are isloated cases, due to how officers or service men took the situation at hand.
the actual concept of being a nazi supercedes it 1000 fold.

Also might I add, that most of the links you have added there are 'theorys' and concepts that can be applied to almost any war time situation.

Also not to mention the death of 10 million Jews, lets just be clear here, Hitler was trying to remove a race from the earth.
It doesnt matter how you look at it, there is no comparison even in the slightest. I am not naive to know that some allies got angry and executed and maimed some Germen soilders, but there is no comparison to the ideolagy that was/is the Nazi and the way the SS carried out the war crimes that history credits them for.

There is a fundemental difference.
1. Germen soilders are mistreated by Allies because the Allies dont like them
2. The Nazi party wanted to eradicate a race/race's from the earth.

If you cannot see the difference im frankly worried. it requires no explenation.

back to my other question, im finding it hard to keep up with this discussion, I was wondering if you could make a statement of your belife? so that I might catch up as its getting hard to understand now.

Ultimate Weapon · Post by **Ultimate Weapon** » Mon Apr 18, 2005 9:39 pm

Impactor returns 2.0 wrote:I am aware of all the above attrocities by the allies during WW2, they are isloated cases, due to how officers or service men took the situation at hand.
the actual concept of being a nazi supercedes it 1000 fold.

Also not to mention the death of 10 million Jews, lets just be clear here, Hitler was trying to remove a race from the earth.
It doesnt matter how you look at it, there is no comparison even in the slightest. I am not naive to know that some allies got angry and executed and maimed some Germen soilders, but there is no comparison to the ideolagy that was/is the Nazi and the way the SS carried out the war crimes that history credits them for.

Wow so you actually support the Morgenthau plan? Germany fairly and unconditionally surrendered to thye allied forces. They should not have been allowed to starve! Two wrongs do not make a right! That is a very poor reason to allow Germans to suffer and starve to death! And where does your 10 million jews figure come form? 6 million has always been the mythical number given.

back to my other question, im finding it hard to keep up with this discussion, I was wondering if you could make a statement of your belife? so that I might catch up as its getting hard to understand now.

Culture adapts and modifies to any given scenario, it sees as right.

Post by **Kaylee** » Mon Apr 18, 2005 9:41 pm

the mythical number given.

That is exceedingly worrying.

Impactor returns 2.0 · Post by **Impactor returns 2.0** » Mon Apr 18, 2005 9:46 pm

Wow so you actually support the Morgenthau plan? Germany fairly and unconditionally surrendered to thye allied forces. They should not have been allowed to starve! Two wrongs do not make a right! That is a very poor reason to allow Germans to suffer and starve to death! And where does your 10 million jews figure come form? 6 million has always been the mythical number given.

10 million is the figure

Its not about two wrong making a right, thats avery simplistic view of a world war situation.

the bottom line is the fundemntal differences between why X number of Jews were executed and X number of Germens were allowed to starve.
its the concept of the system of belife that makes a difference.
what you are arguing is symantics of no point.

Bottom line is Hitler would have had anyone who didnt fit into his new world executed, he was playing god.

WHere as the allies are guilty of bad treatment.

dont compare X's and think thats the answer.

Culture adapts and modifies to any given scenario, it sees as right.

Well I think cultures just change due to time. I dont belive anyone blanket statement can be applied to billons of indvidual people, with independent thoughts. trying to 2nd guess thier nature with a blanket idea is impossible.

Impactor returns 2.0 · Post by **Impactor returns 2.0** » Mon Apr 18, 2005 9:56 pm

Its part of my culture to main and torture anyone called Ultimate Weapon and thier family, Its my right to preserve this culture.

Im thinking this isnt fair - no?

Ultimate Weapon · Post by **Ultimate Weapon** » Mon Apr 18, 2005 9:58 pm

Karl Lynch wrote: I'm trying to establish exactly what's been dealt with here. So we are talking about people in general. Perhaps we can discuss matters such as countries and National policy, perhaps with reference to the Nazis, then.

Like any regime propaganda is used to fuel the masses into a frenzy they believe is true. Nazi germany is a poor example of truth, just like American zealots in their war agianst the "Japs".

Well, yes. If you have 2 people over here and 500,000 over there I think it is probably a fair observation to say that the doings of the 2 are probably more insignificant than the doings of the 500,000.

The many outweigh the need of the few or the one. I understand that. But it does not make them obsolete, or cause for enculturation.

Unless you actually mean an entire state or feel the argument can apply to an entire state and for whatever reason want to use tribalistic terminology.

This is what I was trying to get my head around, the use of exceedingly small isolated groups such as inuits in reference to discussion of policies of national segregation for much larger communities such as Nazi Germany.[/i]

Germany can be considered a tribe in the larger sense. With battling sub cultures trying to gain the voice of the whole.

That is nothing to do with what I said. I observed that a genetic race is a nonsense. If it is not you should have no difficulty in telling me what race I belong to, given the exceedingly mixed bag of genes from various corners of the earth I represent.

Ok.

Who can and how far back does this ancestor have to be and how can you conclusively prove that is an unbroken line without complicated genetic testing, which for a large population should be considered as impractical as it sounds?

In most cases the ancestor is a mythical creature of folklore legend. But again the ancestor can be within a generation or lifetime of the parents. Or it can be unilineal.

That does not answer my question. I asked you WHICH TRIBES CAN and for you to offer some PROOF that their genetic purity is true. I'm requesting hard examples, not a detailed description of the concept.

Those that practice unilinealism. Which could be anybody. I don't have specific names.

So you're taking it as given that genetic purity has an entirely arguable level of influence. Doesn't that undermine the values you are defending?

No it just supports what we know already. It does not however interpret what is yet to be discovered! And yes from what we know it is a major factor in relations as regards to custom. But again that does not mean an American Japanese is bound by Japanese culture. Not at all.

You're attempting to demonstrate that being involved in Black Power is a correct analogy to wanting to keep culturally pure. Hence you will have to demonstrate how being involved in Black Power leads to concerted attempt to repel mixing with other races.

1. We want freedom. We want power to determine the destiny of our Black Community.
2. We want full employment for our people.
3. We want an end to the robbery by the white man of our Black Community.
4. We want decent housing, fit for shelter of human beings.
5. We want education for our people that exposes the true nature of this decadent American society. We want education that teaches us our true history and our role in the present-day society.
6. We want all black men to be exempt from military service.
7. We want an immediate end to police brutality and murder of black people.
8. We want freedom for all black men held in federal, state, county and city prisons and jails.
9. We want all black people when brought to trial to be tried in court by a jury of their peer group or people from their black communities, as defined by the Constitution of the United States.
10. We want land, bread, housing, education, clothing, justice and peace.

Thats about as close as I'm willling to venture into the area of ethnic minorities. Since I'am not one it would be foolish to do otherwise, unless using a scientific method. But from this I can clearly gain a sense of pride and power by recognizing yourself for what you are. Again I have no idea how to answer your question regarding the black view of race mixing.

Impactor returns 2.0 · Post by **Impactor returns 2.0** » Mon Apr 18, 2005 10:00 pm

ill concede the numder was closer to 6 million jewish ppl were killed.
As my friend just pointed out, this figure doesnt include, homosexuals, disabled ppl etc who were also targeted for being 'different'