Slashdot Mirror
The Twists of History and DNA
An anonymous reader writes "The New York Times has a piece today talking about the possible connection between genetic evolution and history." From the article: "Trying to explain cultural traits is, of course, a sensitive issue. The descriptions of national character common in the works of 19th-century historians were based on little more than prejudice. Together with unfounded notions of racial superiority they lent support to disastrous policies. But like phrenology, a wrong idea that held a basic truth (the brain's functions are indeed localized), the concept of national character could turn out to be not entirely baseless, at least when applied to societies shaped by specific evolutionary pressures."
I hate how, when an article comes up about a sensitive issue, 3/4 of the summary text is dedicated to doubletalk.
"[..]unfounded notions of racial superiority[..]" --- yet the linked article states that they may in fact not be so unfounded. If a group can be as a whole different, there's no reason that a group can't be as a whole superior.
Shove this PC bullshit up your ass, you anonymous coward.
-- A.T.
No, it wasn't cuz they had too much testosterone, it's because they were always fighting because they heard everyone else was bigger than them! This is known as the 'bigger dick' theory of history. All wars were started cuz one country's leader though some other country's leader had a bigger dick.
It's poetry with a beat behind it! And guns! They're like beatniks with automatic weapons.
Saying that there are no such thing as human races is an untenable abuse of language. The right term, perhaps, would be "there are only minor changes between the races" or rather "there is almost universal interbreeding between the races." No ammount of genetics will ever change the fact that children look like their parents, and genetically different groups have identifiable physical differences.
No. In fact the term "race" is not a valid term. It is called sub-species, and as I laid out in the previous post there are in fact three sup-species among humans that are not Homo sapiens sapiens but Homo sapiens somethingelsius. But these are isolated cases. Thus, science doesn't recognize the term "race", and even if it did, it wouldn't be what you and Mrs. Robinson mean with "race".
I can give you a gene to study, and you cannot tell me what "race" this gene's carrier is (I'll give you 1000 samples in order to weed out guesses and make a statistically accurate falsification of your lies). That is the ultimate test of "race".
Sheesh. If sub-group A (let's call them Republicans) has more children than sub-group B (let's call them Democrats), then the tribe that contains both sub-groups will, generation after generation, tend to be more like sub-group A.
No. This is simply not so, because warriors (in the original example) don't mate with warriors; they mate with females, who are carriers of the whole population's gene pool.
In the case of democrats and republicans... alright. Republicans get more kids, and these kids must then make their offspring with another republican, otherwise your thesis falls. Considering that humans tend to be just a teeny weeny little more complex than you suggest, it will easily be demonstrated that these kids will look for other traits in their dates than their parent's political preference, and many of them will also revolt against their parents and do the opposite. Not to mention that societal conditions constantly change; it might have been cool to be a republican in the Reagan era, but look what retarded inbred bastard runs the country now... (likewise, there are no Samurai in Japan today, and no feudal vassals in Europe, no plantation owners doing slave trade in Virginia).