Are all societies equal or are there superior races?

jonniebgood1

Arising out of a discussion in the news and media forum is the title question:

Are all societies equal or are there superior races?


This arises out of the treatment of the murder victim Michaela McAreavey by Mauritian media outlet, the Sunday Times.
My opinion on the question is that all people are equal to start with. Through life we have different cultural influences, educations and parental/ guardian guidence. It is only when these things are considered along with a persons opportunities and choices can we start to come to judge said person. I find the labelling of all Mauritians as being somehow responsible for the actions of a tiny publication in their country to be abhorrent. Also the like of our politicians making political capitol out of the incident is also hard to take. I can off hand think of a large number of issues they should be dealing with rather than their grandstanding on this issue.

So what do people think of question in title?

I also made an obervation that made me think first-
"It is possible to identify differences in classes of one race without identifying one race as being superior to another." This was in response to another poster who stated regarding Mauritian people

There are clear divisions of class / equality within races, so why not from race to race as well?

Some societies / countries / races are superior to others, it's a simple truth.

Dubhlinner

Are you talking about things like blacks being superior to whites because they're less prone to skin caner. Or indians being inferior to whites for being more prone to vitamin D deficiency?

superior on its own is a bit subjective like

Permabear

This post has been deleted.

Scioch

I think certain cultures and societies produce people with perhaps a higher moral standard and more willingness to act out of empathy for others rather than self interest.

In regards race though I dont think it plays that much of a part but I wouldnt be comfortable saying it plays no part. I was reading recently about the dawn of mankind and how the same species separated for a length of time became early humans and Neanderthals. Different environments and circumstances and events led to quite different creatures regard ability and mental capacity from what I gather.

Given that the races of mankind were separated and evolved independently of each other long enough to have quite different physical characteristics surely its not wrong to question if certain behavioural characteristics are also different as a result of that and more common in certain races than others. But given the impact and influence environment and circumstance has on the development of the mind those things would change rather fast when taken out of that environment. Question then is have those environments and traditions changed to such a degree to render those one different morals or behaviours irrelevant. Some cultures are still quite distinct and that surely plays a role in upholding that behavioural difference. But at this stage the difference is purely cultural and not inherent in any race.

As far as superiority goes though, when we see someone with a lack of empathy to another we may feel superior, likewise that person looking at us may see us as weak or easily influenced and feel superior. So feeling superior will be simply dependant on who's doing the viewing.

But I'd say given that we are defined by our own personal experiences and environment more so than anything that pre-dates us that those things will determine behaviour more so than anything else. So societies may feel superior but who's to say what a society should be ? Why is one way superior to the next ?

The Corinthian

jonniebgood1 wrote: »

Are all societies equal or are there superior races?

There's a bit of a problem when one tries to apply absolute definitions to relative concepts and this has been a tendency in the social sciences; whereby we try to label and pigeon-hole class, race, culture and even economics.

The problem is that we may broadly define traits for any of these, but there's ultimately no black and white (if you'll excuse the pun) when you actually look beyond these broad definitions. For example, how do you define class? Typically, it's been defined as a combination of financial, educational and hereditary (breeding) factors. Being rich does not make you upper class, neither does being able to trace your lineage back to nobility alone. And do you define upper class in absolute terms (in which case there is essentially little or no upper class in Ireland) or relative terms (within a population)?

Or race? What race is someone from Andalusia in Spain? Aryan? European? Yet, you wouldn't have to go far to meet someone there with an Arab surname, despite being Roman Catholic and very much European culturally.

Or how can one define superior, in a cultural framework? One might consider another culture barbaric, but that's because we judge them using our own cultural values - they likely see us in the same way. A good example of this was the Mohammed cartoons debacle, which Europe defended as an example of our cultural commitment to free speech, yet at the same time we have no problem with our own sacred cows that cannot be questioned, such as the Holocaust; free speech goes out the door.

Why? Because we impose limits to our free speech for the greater good, but then again so do Islamic countries - why are our limits better than theirs?

Possibly the only way we might really be able to judge is from an anthropological viewpoint. This would argue that the more complex, technologically advanced and successful a civilization is, the more 'superior' it is. From this one may extrapolate, through correlation, that certain races (in a very broad sense) associated with superior civilizations might be superior.

From this one may argue that European, Asian and Semitic cultures (representing the Caucasoid and Mongoloid racial groups) are the most superior, with sub-Saharan African and Australian Aborigine cultures (representing the Negroid racial group) falling into the 'inferior' category, given the lack of anthropological progress over the last 15,000 years.

But correlation does not imply causation, and the above also relies far to heavily on the adoption of agriculture (without it we'd still be hunter gatherers, and the wheel would still not have been invented). And agriculture simply could have failed to succeed for numerous environmental reasons (land not suitable for crops, weather patterns, little impetus due to high supply of game to hunt, etc).

Or just luck. The appearance of a Caesar, Mohammed , Napoleon, Yu, Charlemagne or Genghis Khan can change the fortunes of a society almost overnight - and of the societies surrounding them. Celtic culture was essentially wiped out in continental Europe, despite it being comparable to Roman Culture, thanks to Julius Caesar, and Germanic culture might have gone the same way had it not been for the Roman defeat at the battle of the Teutoburg Forest.

Or would Chinese culture have flourished had it not been for the success of the Qin's wars that unified early China? Or Arabic culture were it not for the adoption and military success of Islam?

These are the problems with trying to define races or cultures as 'superior'. Other than choosing a definition of what 'superior' even means, there are far too many variables that can mess up any attempt at a meaningful analysis.

Perhaps in the end, as I think Nietzsche may have once suggested, a people are only as great as their leaders. If so, the Irish are not doing so well.

Finnbar01

I would not say one race could be superior to another. Rather I would go with one culture can be superior to another.

dlofnep

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZrKrGkgeww4

Wibbs

dlofnep wrote: »

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZrKrGkgeww4

I dunno D there's quite a bit of interpretation going on in that vid. EG his point 3, "we are all Africans". On the surface it works, but dig a little deeper. Non Africans share up to 4% genetic heritage from Neandertals. East Asians share that and also have ancestry from other archaic humans in their neck of the woods on top of that(near 10% IIRC). And that's just what we've sniffed out so far. Africans themselves appear to have some deep genetic heritage from African archaic humans, which non Africans don't possess. As a member of the European population I've likely no Asian nor African archaic sequences, but do have Neandertal. Now given that every population one earth has these archaic sequences of one sort or another that shows 1) there was enough hows yer father goin on for it to survive down to today and 2) we do have subtle differences depending on population. The whole thing hinges on what these differences mean if anything?

Differences exist today and are demonstrable. Watched an interesting programme recently by an Olympic medal winning sprinter(whose name sadly escapes). He was an American chap of Afro Carribean origin. He was looking into the notion that selection pressures caused by slavery gave such populations a genetic advantage in such disciplines. It seems they did(and disadvantages are they're at a far higher risk of type 2 diabetes). Now the narrator insists this perception of such athletic ability is selective bias, but the stats don't agree.

OK that was an artificial selection pressure, but there are examples where it's not. IE the folks from the highlands of Kenya who produce world class distance runners, because of local adaptations to altitude. Inuit peoples have much higher concentrations of cappilaries in their faces and hands as a local adaptation to the cold(that only took around 10,000 years to develop). They also appear to have greater levels of concentration. Australian Aborigines, while on the one hand have among the smallest brain volumes of modern humans(around 1100 cc compared to 1300 cc) and it seems much lower scores on intelligence tests*, on the other hand have a superior visual memory.

While we are quite related, there are population isolates, big and small, either geographically or culturally which do seem to give rise to different average traits. So if you were to try predict say a child growing to be a physicist and your choices were an ashkenazi Jew or an Australian Aborigine, put your money on the Jewish kid. This is not to say that an Aborigine kid couldn't become a physicist, but it's statistically much less likely.

So I would say that some populations on average may be more likely to be superior in some areas(and of course not in others).

His point 4 "skin colour is no indication of ancestry" is so so. While "black" is a very very loose definition other definitions like "white" are more secure. The latter being an indo European population. While Africans are the most diverse in genotype, Indo-Europeans are the most diverse in phenotype. Which raises interesting questions as to why. Europeans can be tanned through to Dracula pale, have hair colour ranging from jet black to nearly white blonde and even red, tight culrs through to laser straight, eye colour from nearly black through to nearly silver, with all sorts of shades(inc purple) in between. Something in the environment selected for such diversity, when it didn't in African folks. That's more an aside, but outside of populations like the US where mixing has happened quite a bit, a pale blue eyed blonde person is not going to show up in Botswana. On locale and genetics I read an interesting one(must find the link if its online) that found peoples DNA can be geographically tied down remarkably close to wear they live(something surprising like a couple of 100 Km's). The narrator is making his assumptions of humans being "mutt blends" of different populations based almost entirely on his local US model. This does not translate nearly so well to the wider non immigrant nation world. It barely translates at all.

*this can throw up some interesting results. They're particularly lacking in language tests, yet Australia has the largest amount of unrelated languages on the planet.

The Corinthian

Wibbs wrote: »

I dunno D there's quite a bit of interpretation going on in that vid. EG his point 3, "we are all Africans". On the surface it works, but dig a little deeper. Non Africans share up to 4% genetic heritage from Neandertals.

I agree with you, but one of the points made is that you'd probably have difficulty finding a pure African, Asian or European; go back ten or twenty generations and 99.999% of us will likely find at least one of each.

Differences exist today and are demonstrable. Watched an interesting programme recently by an Olympic medal winning sprinter(whose name sadly escapes). He was an American chap of Afro Carribean origin. He was looking into the notion that selection pressures caused by slavery gave such populations a genetic advantage in such disciplines. It seems they did(and disadvantages are they're at a far higher risk of type 2 diabetes). Now the narrator insists this perception of such athletic ability is selective bias, but the stats don't agree.

Correlation does not imply causation though. For example, in the US sports scholarships are very important to lower income groups, of whom African-Americans make up a large part of. This too can generate your stats.

Of course, I'm not dismissing what you're saying either - in reality I'm just saying that it's open to question. For example, very few African-Americans take up swimming as a sport; there are both genetic and social arguments for this and it is likely that it is down to a mixture of both.

And some cases are clearly genetic; such as the Kenyan and Inuit examples you gave.

The narrator is making his assumptions of humans being "mutt blends" of different populations based almost entirely on his local US model. This does not translate nearly so well to the wider non immigrant nation world. It barely translates at all.

Definitely translates in Europe, at least within the Caucasoid racial grouping; unless you go somewhere like Iceland, most of us are various mixture of Germanic, Slavic, Latin and Celtic sub-racial groups - with a little Asiatic and African thrown into the mix around the edges.

Chuck Stone

Superior at what?

Wibbs

The Corinthian wrote: »

I agree with you, but one of the points made is that you'd probably have difficulty finding a pure African, Asian or European; go back ten or twenty generations and 99.999% of us will likely find at least one of each.

The thing is I disagree with this. Populations can be remarkably "local", even when we know there was an influx of new genetics into an area. Take the English. Anglo Saxon? Nope. Very few DNA traces remain, except in small areas on the east coast and even then barely over 10%. Only on the Y chromosome too, zero on the X. The Romans were there for what over three centuries and very very little evidence of Italian DNA(though some interesting stuff re immune system response that damn near mapped the furthest extent of the Roman empire came up a few years back).

Correlation does not imply causation though. For example, in the US sports scholarships are very important to lower income groups, of whom African-Americans make up a large part of. This too can generate your stats.

Of course, I'm not dismissing what you're saying either - in reality I'm just saying that it's open to question. For example, very few African-Americans take up swimming as a sport; there are both genetic and social arguments for this and it is likely that it is down to a mixture of both.

Oh certainly TC there's gonna be cultural/social impacts too. Though saying type 2 diabetes is at a much higher rate among African American folks due to genetics is not considered out of order to suggest, it seems it is out of order to suggest that athletic prowess in certain disciplines may also have a genetic basis.

Definitely translates in Europe, at least within the Caucasoid racial grouping; unless you go somewhere like Iceland, most of us are various mixture of Germanic, Slavic, Latin and Celtic sub-racial groups - with a little Asiatic and African thrown into the mix around the edges.

I wish I could find a link to that paper that described how local your average European actually was. I'm searching for it. Basically for your average European their genetic "location" was remarkably in tune with their geographical, even with the tooing and froing over the centuries. Non recent external DNA was very rare. I suspect if you repeated the same thing throughout the world in non immigrant countries you'd find similar.

Like I was saying that video is US based. Much of the talk of how we're all related and a mix also comes from the US. Hell the first time the African Eve model was suggested it turned out they'd only collected genetic data from the US. It's not that long ago(less than a decade) that to suggest the pure out of Africa model was way too simplistic was considered beyond the Pale in US colleges and research centres. Indeed some multiregionalist researchers even had accusations of racism leveled at them for suggesting otherwise(I've no idea why as it wouldn't make any of us any less or more human than anyone else). Because of US history and very real racism going on and the holdover from that, I tend to cast a gimlet eye on the more populist stuff that comes from there.

Scioch

Chuck Stone wrote: »

Superior at what?

Superior at being a society or a race of a species. Superior in terms of what differentiates them from one another.

Chuck Stone

LordSmeg wrote: »

Superior at being a society or a race of a species. Superior in terms of what differentiates them from one another.

Doesn't really answer the question. Amazonian tribes are superior at living with nature than the average westerner. The average westerner is superior at manipulating his environment.

How is one superior to the other? Does it get down to what we as a species value as desirable traits?

Wibbs

Chuck Stone wrote: »

Doesn't really answer the question. Amazonian tribes are superior at living with nature than the average westerner. The average westerner is superior at manipulating his environment.

Well at least his or her society is. Individual westerners aren't so good at environmental manipulation, whereas an Amazonian individual could survive on his or her own. Interestingly many Amazonian peoples are only tribal hunter types quite recently. A few centuries ago much of that area was farmland(they've even found the enriched soil and field boundaries from the practice). Quite the adaptable bunch o lads.

How is one superior to the other? Does it get down to what we as a species value as desirable traits?

Indeed. It depends on the environment and how stable it is. While it's streets ahead of some cultures the west is more vulnerable to collapse as all complex societies are. It's a regular enough pattern in history. Great empires/cultures are born, grow and peak and one of the things that makes them vulnerable to collapse is complexity. We've never had a more complex society before.

One advantage we have is that we're not as centralised and monolithic as previous ones. People sometimes muse what if Rome never fell. I'm glad it did. IMH it's what made European cultural progess inevitable to the point where it's pretty much the wolrdwide standard today*. If it hadn't Europe would have been more like China. An empire rather than a country, centralised and monolithic with little external competition to drive innovation and to exploit it. While Chinese culture and innovation runs seriously deep, it came in fits and starts and many times came to nought, to leave others to take up the baton(usually Europeans). When China opened up in the 19th century it was to all intents and purposes a medieval culture. Similar happened with the monolithic Islamic empire and culture. Fantastic examples of progess and innovation, but again got left behind. Look at printing. China gets it first(didn't invent it though) and for two centuries only prints small runs of religious texts. Islam got printing second and yet the first Quran was printed in Venice, followed by silence until the end of the 18th century and that was in Russia. Europe gets printing and within a generation the first true information revolution takes place.

So with caveats I would say the European cultural/society model is the superior one, because of it being a fractured conglomeration of cultures that have been vying with each other for over a 1000 years(and before) leading to rapid progress, rather than stable stagnation.

I would say overall a society that can manipulate the environment is superior in many ways to one that can't. It means they can have a more complex lifestyle and invention for a start, though that brings it's own issues as we see in history and today.



*No? If an alien was to land tomorrow they'd see the "European" model as the one most widespread. In politics, dress, much of culture, industry. Land in downtown Bejing and look at the people, look at the design, the cars, the electronics, the archietcture. All European in nature with local interpretations.

Scioch

Chuck Stone wrote: »

Doesn't really answer the question. Amazonian tribes are superior at living with nature than the average westerner. The average westerner is superior at manipulating his environment.

How is one superior to the other? Does it get down to what we as a species value as desirable traits?

Yeah it boils down to the value people will put on traits based on the benefit they have to us and others in society and how they can be seen as an advantage over other societies.

There isnt enough difference regards race as behaviours (which are dependant on environment) dictate these things more than physical traits, but in terms of societies and cultures the difference is noticeable and a society which provides a better standard of life on the whole for those who live in it can be seen to be superior. imo.

So when you ask "superior at what" the answer is superior at being a society in terms of what a society does for the needs of a human being or superior as a race in terms of the contribution that the unique traits that race has in relation to society at large. Its superiority in the context of the human race and how it operates will be based on the level at which the needs and wants of human beings and the species can be met.