Author Topic: Ethnocentricism  (Read 5579 times)

0 Members and 2 Guests are viewing this topic.

vir

  • Manager
  • .
  • Posts: 2963
Ethnocentricism
« on: April 19, 2016, 09:30:16 AM »
Quote
Recent agent-based computer simulations suggest that ethnocentrism, often thought to rely on complex social cognition and learning, may have arisen through biological evolution. From a random start, ethnocentric strategies dominate other possible strategies (selfish, traitorous, and humanitarian) based on cooperation or non-cooperation with in-group and out-group agents. Here we show that ethnocentrism eventually overcomes its closest competitor, humanitarianism, by exploiting humanitarian cooperation across group boundaries as world population saturates.

http://jasss.soc.surrey.ac.uk/16/3/7.html

Summary: The Obvious -- populations where each member is motivated by loyalty tend to take over the world.

fschmidt

  • .
  • Posts: 194
Re: Ethnocentricism
« Reply #1 on: June 27, 2016, 11:51:49 AM »
This ignore what is by far the most successful strategy, namely non-racist tribalism.  This was practiced by the Israelites (not Judaism), the early Romans, early Islam, and early America.  Cultural tribalism beats ethnocentrism every time.

-A

  • Coordinator
  • .
  • Posts: 123
Re: Ethnocentricism
« Reply #2 on: June 28, 2016, 06:40:02 PM »
@ vir
I wonder how many of the subjects were White. I also always doubt computer simulations in scientific research when they are the basis of evidence.

@ fschmidt
So, what led to the fall of Rome? As for the Israelites, why were all of Christ's Apostles Jewish? Even the Assyrians kept within their ethny.

fschmidt

  • .
  • Posts: 194
Re: Ethnocentricism
« Reply #3 on: June 28, 2016, 09:38:55 PM »
The fall of Rome was caused my multiculturalism, not ethnic mixing.  The early Roman republic stuck to its gods and culture while allowing ethnic mixing.  But conquering Greece was the beginning of the end because (decayed) Greek culture was accepted in Rome.

The Israelites degenerated into the racist religion of Judaism.  But Judaism retained monotheism, and that is why Jesus's Apostles were jewish.

I don't know much about the Assyrians, but if you have evidence that they, or anyone else, were concerned about racial purity when they were a rising culture, I would be interested.

-A

  • Coordinator
  • .
  • Posts: 123
Re: Ethnocentricism
« Reply #4 on: June 29, 2016, 10:59:49 AM »
Quote
The fall of Rome was caused my multiculturalism, not ethnic mixing.  The early Roman republic stuck to its gods and culture while allowing ethnic mixing.

Where does culture come from? It comes from the ethology of an animal made into social construct. Multi-racialism always brings multi-culturalism.

Quote
The Israelites degenerated into the racist religion of Judaism.  But Judaism retained monotheism, and that is why Jesus's Apostles were jewish.

Did they degenerate when they took Israel back? Sure, anybody could be a part of their religion but, not anybody can be an Israeli. Even then, it would be rubbish to assume that a convert will understand the religion as well as a genetic Israeli. Just how Catholicism will ultimately be corrupted by non-Europeans to greater degrees than it is adjusted among Europeans. Furthermore, ever deal with a Jewish convert to Catholicism? It is nigh impossible.

Quote
I don't know much about the Assyrians, but if you have evidence that they, or anyone else, were concerned about racial purity when they were a rising culture, I would be interested.

My mistake here, I meant the Jewish Assyrians during the Neo Assyrian Empire. However, I stand by the fact that it was the Assyrians' multi-racialism that led to its downfall in multi-culturalism. Furthermore, their mono-racialist attitudes of modern day is what has kept them alive and functioning in what amounts to a war zone in modern day.

fschmidt

  • .
  • Posts: 194
Re: Ethnocentricism
« Reply #5 on: July 01, 2016, 11:57:52 AM »
Where does culture come from? It comes from the ethology of an animal made into social construct. Multi-racialism always brings multi-culturalism.

You have it backwards.  Culture comes from religion, and race comes from culture (as the evolutionary forces of a culture change the genetics of the group).

warkin

  • Coordinator
  • .
  • Posts: 340
Re: Ethnocentricism
« Reply #6 on: July 01, 2016, 05:40:53 PM »
And religion... just happens?

Culture, religion, and genetics are all interrelated and affect each other.  An ethnic group (having relatively homogenous genetics) is suited to a culture and religion (because genes largely determine psychology), and culture and religion guide (not determine) reproduction, which causes genetic change in a direction (selection).

Genes (segments in a genome that code for something, like a protein) are not legos, they do not exist on their own and can't be expressed on their own--they depend on the presence of other genes, which may be absent in a mix-n-match genome.

-A

  • Coordinator
  • .
  • Posts: 123
Re: Ethnocentricism
« Reply #7 on: July 01, 2016, 08:04:28 PM »
Quote
You have it backwards.  Culture comes from religion, and race comes from culture (as the evolutionary forces of a culture change the genetics of the group).

I seem to recall some time ago in the "You are Racist" topic, you were pro-Calvinist. This quote of yours is a very Protestant thing to say. Catholicism seeks to preserve and refine (even sacrilize and redeem) existing culture and Protestantism offers a kind of new culture. Centralized, distilled and based in the morals of the faith. This is a very modernist way of looking at how people assemble their civilizations. It is often based on the assumption that we never had any remote conception of race before the post-Babylonian societies of Homo sapiens. It is unlikely and unrealistic.


fschmidt

  • .
  • Posts: 194
Re: Ethnocentricism
« Reply #8 on: July 01, 2016, 09:42:09 PM »
And religion... just happens?

Religion can result from the efforts of one inspired man like Moses, Jesus, or Muhammad.  Moses, in particular, was dealing with real human trash since slaves tend to be cultural and genetic degenerates.  But Moses was able to mold these people into a successful nation through religion which improved their culture and genetics.

Yes culture, religion, and genetics are all interrelated and affect each other.  But the primary effects are as I said: religion -> culture -> genetics.

Genes are legos that are combined to create people.  A good culture actually benefits from some genetic mixing because positive genes that are added contribute to the group and negative genes tend to be weeded out by the positive selection process of the culture.

fschmidt

  • .
  • Posts: 194
Re: Ethnocentricism
« Reply #9 on: July 01, 2016, 09:57:03 PM »
I seem to recall some time ago in the "You are Racist" topic, you were pro-Calvinist. This quote of yours is a very Protestant thing to say. Catholicism seeks to preserve and refine (even sacrilize and redeem) existing culture and Protestantism offers a kind of new culture. Centralized, distilled and based in the morals of the faith. This is a very modernist way of looking at how people assemble their civilizations. It is often based on the assumption that we never had any remote conception of race before the post-Babylonian societies of Homo sapiens. It is unlikely and unrealistic.

Obviously "modern" is relative.  I consider the 1920s to be modern, but not the 1820s.  Catholicism is basically traditional in the same sense as Islam is.  Early Protestantism is what I would called "enlightened" which means that it encourages culture to improve.  Modern culture and modern Protestantism is something very different from early Protestantism, namely decadent and evil.  Whether you prefer the Catholic or early Protestant approach is a person preference, but it is serious mistake to equate early Protestantism with the current Western culture.

I really don't know much about the history of racial thinking, but I would very interested to read anything that has been written on this.  My guess would be that racial thinking never existed in rising cultures.

-A

  • Coordinator
  • .
  • Posts: 123
Re: Ethnocentricism
« Reply #10 on: July 01, 2016, 10:32:36 PM »
Quote
Genes are legos that are combined to create people.

Unfortunately, there will often be pieces missing from the box. Also, when you take specialized legos for one specific construct and mix them with the legos from another, the result is often dysfunctional and ugly. Only in the most recent kerfuffle of making all products the same for every consumer has this been altered. This has reduced the quality of the overall product. To interrupt the current of a particular animal's course is to reduce it and impede real growth.

Quote
religion -> culture -> genetics

Even if this is the case with any particular animal, this still improves the genetics which already existed. The course is set and introducing a new set of traits just because there is a superficial ethological adaptation will interrupt the healthy growth of the majority. The majority of growth of a culture is collaborative of all in that group. Their blood is ascended as the culture refines and this culture created is designed for this particular animal's ethology.

Quote
Obviously "modern" is relative.

Modernist. Incidentally, most influential in the 1920's.

Quote
Whether you prefer the Catholic or early Protestant approach is a person preference, but it is serious mistake to equate early Protestantism with the current Western culture

All of society has degraded from what it was in its early days. Travesty.

warkin

  • Coordinator
  • .
  • Posts: 340
Re: Ethnocentricism
« Reply #11 on: July 04, 2016, 01:07:41 PM »
Unfortunately, there will often be pieces missing from the box. Also, when you take specialized legos for one specific construct and mix them with the legos from another, the result is often dysfunctional and ugly.

Well said.  The genome is not the neat mechanistic series of interchangeable blocks that a reductionist view would see it as.

Another way to understand this is to recognize that reproductive incompatibilities are not discreet.  Some species can't interbreed.  Some species can interbreed, but only produce sterile offspring.  Members of the same ethnic group can interbreed successfully.  There's a gap in that continuum; something between reproductive success and reproductive failure.

vir

  • Manager
  • .
  • Posts: 2963
Re: Ethnocentricism
« Reply #12 on: July 12, 2016, 05:19:45 AM »
You have it backwards.  Culture comes from religion, and race comes from culture (as the evolutionary forces of a culture change the genetics of the group).

Biology determines interpretation of religion. Religion is not a static or universal thing; it is always interpreted by the individual and group according to biological ability and cultural inclinations. This is why Christianity in Europe is a staid institution and in other nations it approximates pure superstition.

Dissident Aggressor

  • .
  • Posts: 17
Re: Ethnocentricism
« Reply #13 on: July 19, 2016, 08:44:18 AM »
Kindly allow me, gentlemen, to address one assumption in the preceding which is at gross variance with the Bible and disastrously wrong when conclusions are drawn from it : that Christ was "a Jew," despite overwhelming evidence to the contrary. The hasty and incompetent (perhaps by design) re-write notwithstanding, Christ was clearly an Israelite of Samarian descent. (One might well recall here that "Jewish"pilgrims from Galilee going to and from Jerusalem took the long way around Samaria rather than endure being pelted by slingstones while passing through it). To wit :

1. One of a number of expressions Christ habitually used when disputing with the Pharisees, was "It is written in your law . . ."
This in itself is just odd enough to attract the notice of those paying close attention.  If he had been, as everywhere alleged, a "Jew," would he not have said "It is written in THE law" - or even better yet, "It is written in OUR (mutual, common) law" ?

A little investigative homework here establishes that this is neither a "misprint" nor a case of garbling by translators, for he is quoted identically in both the Gospels and the Talmud.   We have in this, then, an authentic clue of potential importance as to who he was.
   
Since this is not "a misprint," our next question is, "Well, how many 'Laws' were there, then ?" 
   
After we work through the matter of what "Torah" covered in various uses by various contemporary parties, we end up with, in context, "the Books of Moses" - the Pentateuch.  (I.e., the first five books of the Bible).  Our question then becomes, "How many Pentateuchs were there, then. ?"
   
The answer, after some more homework, is two.  The Hebrew Pentateuch (in its several variants) and the Samarian (Aramaic) Pentateuch, which differs from it in roughly six thousand details.
  
2. In the accounts we have of him, Christ is frequently embroiled in disputes with the Pharisees, who accuse him of all sorts of things.  Every time he is attacked by them on some charge or other, he immediately and vigorously refutes their allegation.  Every time except one.
   
This exception is found in John 8:48.  Here he is "accused" of being a Samarian and having a devil (familiar spirit).  The charge of having a devil he denies.   On the "charge" of being a Samarian he is significantly silent.
  
3.  One of his best-known sayings is that a prophet is not without honor except in his own country and among his own people. He says this in Samaria.  After saying it, he leaves for Galilee.  Where, as events turn out, he does many mighty works - works which he could not do among his own people because of their unbelief.
   
4.  The Story of The Woman Taken in Adultery is a small can of worms in itself.  It was not recorded in the older Greek traditions, and was, in fact, adopted from a Syrian tradition - and rather late in time.  Thus various Bible translations put it in different places.

Do a little more homework, and an interesting fact emerges.  The Samarians, around 30 AD, were as ferocious in "law-enforcement" as are today's Taliban.  A woman taken in adultery there was in genuine danger of being stoned to death.  According to the consensus of numerous notices in the Babylonian and Jerusalem Talmudim, however, the same charge at the Temple at Jerusalem would have provoked only ribald humor (if even that).
  
Did the Samarians have a Temple then ?   Various historians flatly contradict each other on this.  According to the Samarians themselves, they did.
   
(Be this as it may, it is interesting enough to note in passing that, in either place, such a woman's sole judge was her husband).
  
5. Although the Gospels were purportedly translated from Hebrew into Greek (and for that matter, may have been), they contain a surprising number of direct quotations which turn out to be in Aramaic - not Hebrew.
  
6. A disproportionate number of important figures in the early history of "Christianity" (both pro and con) turn out to have been either Samarians or from Samaria.  These include Simon Magus,  Justin Martyr, the followers of John the Baptist and any number of others.  Additionally, the Nag Hammadi corpus of Christian Gnostic writings are translations, via Greek, from Aramaic (Samarian) originals.
  
7. If Christ had been, as alleged, a "Jew" (i.e., his own worst enemy), by no stretch of the imagination would he have spent three days "fellowshipping" with the Woman at the Well and her Samarian relatives at Sychar (very near what had been the capital of Israel when it was an independent kingdom at odds with Judaea).  And this despite the transparently interpolated "Salvation is of the Jews" in the same account :  the Judaeans themselves at this point in time not only had no "salvation" to offer anyone, but were in dire need of it themselves (as their various attempts at revolt from the rule of the Herodian gangsters demonstrates.  In Biblical usage - if not in "theological" usage, Salvation equates with national political and religious independence).

Note in addition her question to him as to whether he was greater than "Our Father Jacob," who had given them the well. Any descendant of Jacob (re-named "Israel" after the wrestling match) was an Israelite. As, although reviled and calumnated by the Pharisees of Judaea, were the Samarians. 

8. "The Jews" are placed in contradistinction to Christ (and his flock) no less than 70 times in the Gospel of John alone.

Draw your conclusion.  Was Christ a "Jew," as alleged ?  Or does the record contain conclusive evidence (subsequently glossed-over and explained-away) that he was NOT one ? 

(The matter of whether or not -- in the Bible if not "theology" -- the Judaeans were Israelites requires separate consideration).

FWIW


JPW

  • .
  • Posts: 67
Re: Ethnocentricism
« Reply #14 on: July 19, 2016, 09:29:02 AM »
Unless the angel that God sent to initiate Jesus was a Jew, he wasn't Jew in the HBD sense.  Culturally and socially, he was a jew.  To the extent that there were two turtle doves sacrificed at the proper time to register his birth.