Nature or Nurture: What makes ethnic groups different?

Eriugena

Broken off from the Holocaust revisionism thread http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/show...19&postcount=90

Wicknight wrote:

That wasn't at all what I was saying. I am not even quite sure what you are saying. Do you mean by "distinctive characterisitcs" physical features or do you mean behaviours?

I am saying that different people's do have different traits, different customs, different ways of being and doing. As to why this is so, is a question that has been around since at least the 5th century BC when Herodotus discusses it. Nature or nurture? And how does these interact to determine the way people are.

Again I am not quite sure what you mean by this. In what way are they trivial. They are very common racist stereotypes, which I used to explain my definition of racism.

The concept of racism is an ideological construct and you use caricatures to illustrate it.

No, you actually aren't. Your DNA make up, and your genes that define you physical make up, are as different from your neighbour (unless he is a blood relation to you) as someone from Africa.

That is ideology not science.
***
New York Times
December 20, 2002
Gene Study Identifies 5 Main Human Populations
By NICHOLAS WADE

Scientists studying the DNA of 52 human groups from around the world have concluded that people belong to five principal groups corresponding to the major geographical regions of the world: Africa, Europe, Asia, Melanesia and the Americas.

The study, based on scans of the whole human genome, is the most thorough to look for patterns corresponding to major geographical regions. These regions broadly correspond with popular notions of race, the researchers said in interviews.
***

The physical attribute we normally associate with race, ie skin colour etc are just the most striking differences because we actually notice them, but statistically you are biologically as different from me (ie a white european) as you are from a person from Japan.

Science says differently as does common sense.

There is no biological basis for the idea of "race." To put it simply we are all equally differnent.

"Equally different" is a dogmatic tenet of the PC ideology.

Well I am not quite sure Jewish people do have inordinate power and influence in the western world (how many members of western governments are Jewish), as opposed to any other religious or social group.

It is an easily demonstrable fact that Jews have influence out of all proportion to their numbers in, for example the United States.

But if I was attempting to explain what he said, that their are powerful people in the western world who are Jewish, I wouldn't start by saying it is because they are Jewish and I certainly wouldn't say they seized power. :rolleyes:

Perhaps that is because you don't know what the situation is.

Again, I am not quite sure of the point you are trying to make here. Are you saying that Jewish people, in league with Communists, are trying to seize power away from Christian White people, as Zundel claims?

I am stating the fact that Jews have traditionally been over-represented in the leftists movements. Let's take the US for example - although this is equally true for the Soviet Union, especially in the first three decades.
***
It became increasingly apparent to most participants that virtually all of the speakers were Jewish New Yorkers. Speakers with thick New York accents would identify themselves as "the delegate from the Lower East Side" or "the comrade from Brownsville." Finally the national leadership called a recess to discuss what was becoming an embarassment. How could a supposedly national student organization be so totally dominated by New York Jews? Finally, they resolved to intervene and remedy the situation by asking the New York caucus to give "out of towners" a chance to speak. The covention was held in Wisconisn.
H. Klehr 'Communist Cadre: The Social Backgound of the American Communist Party Elite' Stanford, 1978: 40


"Although Communist leaders were normally taciturn about the extent
to which Party membership was Jewish, Jack Stachel complained in
The Communist for April 1929 that in Los Angeles 'practically 90 per
cent of the membership is Jewish.' In 1945, John Williamson, another
national leader of the American Communist Party, observed that, while
a seventh of Party membership was concentrated in Brooklyn, it
was not the working-class districts, but in Brownsville, Williamsburg,
Coney Island and Bensonhurst, which he characterized 'as primarily
Jewish American communities.'
Weyl, Nathaniel. The Jew in American Politics. Arlington House, New Rochelle, N.Y., 1968: 118-119.
***

If necessary, I can produce many more such quotes from, as you will notice, Jewish authors on this topic.

"over-represented"? Are you saying that there is something about being Jewish that makes someone predisposed to being more radical left-wing than someone who is not Jewish?

No. The question could be turned around. What is it about communism that has attracted such large numbers of Jews? Not forgetting of course that communism was conceived by a Jew.

I don't understand the question?

What do you understand about the phenomenon called Political Correctness?

mike65

Its a good idea to link the original thread...

Mike.

Eriugena

mike65 wrote:

Its a good idea to link the original thread...

Mike.

Done. Top of the first post.

Zombrex

Eriugena wrote:

That is ideology not science.

Its actually nothing to do with ideology, it is to do with statistics.

The science in the article you posted deals with finding specific genetic markers in a person DNA that can identify what region on earth their ancestors spend most of their time developing. Theses specific markers are common in people from the different regions. But I agree with the quotes at the bottom of the peace that say this is not a basis for the idea of "race", simply a method to tell the geographical regions of someones ancestory.

All humans on the earth developed for a small handful of humans (approx. 50,000 - 100,000) about 50 thousand years ago in Africa and the Middle East. Therefore we share approx 95%-99% of our gene structure with everyone else on the planet, as we are all biologicall related in some fashion if you go back far enough. The idea that you can group people together into "races" is not present in the genetic make up of people. Your 5% that is different from my 5%, is as different, statistically from me as it is from a person in Africa. An international study, headed by Standford University, found that 85 percent of human genetic diversity occurs within traditional ethnic groups, not between them.

Yes of course we share common traits, skin colour is the most obvious from a cultural point of view, that is not a basis for grouping some people together biologically. We have as many traits different as we do similar.

I am not a biologist so this is rambling stuff on my part. It is summed up pretty well by this quote from the American Anthropological Association. -

``But biologically the human species does not have categories. It just has variations as one travels around the world.''
...
`It is clear that human populations are not unambiguous, clearly demarcated, biologically distinct groups. The concept of `race' has no validity . . . in the human species.''

It is not possible to group humans together in categories in any meaning full scientific fashion. As I said before, we are all statistically equally different.

It is of course possible to group people together, but the basis of that grouping, how we define what we look for to categorise people is a cultural decision (again the example of skin colour), which is why "race" is a produce of cultural ideas of what is "different", rather than any true science.

Eriugena wrote:

"Equally different" is a dogmatic tenet of the PC ideology.

It wasn't meant in any hippy feel good PC way. It was just a way that I attempted to summarise the scientic ideas of genetics. We are not "equally similar" because, while we are all decended from common ancestores, geographical seperation has caused certain traits to develop in different regional groups. But humans cannot be easily statistically categorised in any meaningful fashion, so hence my statement we are all equally different, in that each persons genetic code is a different from everyone elses (barring blood relationships of course).

Eriugena wrote:

It is an easily demonstrable fact that Jews have influence out of all proportion to their numbers in, for example the United States.

I actually didn't know much about this topic till you mentioned it to me so I did a bit of research. The thing I discovered is that Jews are disproportionantly represented in almost every area of life. There were a disproportionantly number of Jews in the early facist movements in Europe and America.

This is summed up by the Harvad Prof. Richard Pipes

Still, it cannot be doubted that the proportion of Jews in the ranks of Russian revolutionaries significantly exceeded the proportion of Jews in the population at large.
...
But what sort of criterion is this by which to measure the role of an ethnic group in public life? If Jews were prominent in socialist ranks, they also stood out in capitalist circles:
...
They were also over-represented among physicists, chemists, mathematicians, medical doctors, chess players, university students, and the many other occupations that called for intellectual distinction.
...
Indeed, if the standard is to be the share in the population at large, then it must also be noted that Jews were disproportionately attracted also to fascism.
...
Conversely, they were under-represented among Russia's murderers and arsonists.

Make of that what you will. Reasons for the rather amazing adaptability and incrediably wide ranging achievement of Jews in pretty much every scientific and political realm of the last 200 years in American and Europe range from the cultural to the ecomonic. But it seems incorrect to say that Jews are drawn to socialism anymore than they are drawn to any new political ideology.

Eriugena wrote:

What do you understand about the phenomenon called Political Correctness?

Do you want all of my thoughts on the idea of Political Correctness, because that could take a while and would probably be better in another specific thread.

Eriugena

Wicknight wrote:

Its actually nothing to do with ideology, it is to do with statistics.

You know the saying 'lies, damned lies, and statistics'?

The science in the article you posted deals with finding specific genetic markers in a person DNA that can identify what region on earth their ancestors spend most of their time developing. Theses specific markers are common in people from the different regions. But I agree with the quotes at the bottom of the peace that say this is not a basis for the idea of "race", simply a method to tell the geographical regions of someones ancestory.

Look, the Irish are pretty much all inter-related in a way that cannot be said for the Irish and the Chinese. The English are closer to us than the Poles, the Poles are closer to us than the Egyptians and so on. Each of these groups have distinctive features which are partly down to nature and partly down to nurture. The PC ideology wants to down play and even eliminate the nature part of it, but this is so patently false and counter-intuitive that the PC merchants have to invent all sorts of smears to target anyone who does not accept their ideology. The same thing occurs in certain versions of Ameican feminism where sexual difference is elminated altogther to be replaced with talk about 'gender.' European feminism by and large does not discount sexual difference but holds to a more dialectical nature/nurture theory.

Yes of course we share common traits, skin colour is the most obvious from a cultural point of view, that is not a basis for grouping some people together biologically. We have as many traits different as we do similar.

And yet we all share a comon identity based on cultrue, and blood relationships based on ethnicity.

I am not a biologist so this is rambling stuff on my part. It is summed up pretty well by this quote from the American Anthropological Association. -

Citing them does not help your case; the AAA is a hotbed of ideology.

It is not possible to group humans together in categories in any meaning full scientific fashion.

But earlier you said it was, when you suggested that science has 'disproved' the view that people's are different.

As I said before, we are all statistically equally different.

Statistics is not science. Science is knowledge, stastistics just gives information abouta particular sample group; leaving aside the question of how you set up the survey in the first place.

It is of course possible to group people together, but the basis of that grouping, how we define what we look for to categorise people is a cultural decision (again the example of skin colour), which is why "race" is a produce of cultural ideas of what is "different", rather than any true science.

ou just declare that without any evdience or argument. That sounds like ideology to me.

****

I actually didn't know much about this topic till you mentioned it to me so I did a bit of research. The thing I discovered is that Jews are disproportionantly represented in almost every area of life. There were a disproportionantly number of Jews in the early facist movements in Europe and America.

Yes, and the forerunner of the ruling Likud party in Israel was a fascist movement.

Make of that what you will. Reasons for the rather amazing adaptability and incrediably wide ranging achievement of Jews in pretty much every scientific and political realm of the last 200 years in American and Europe range from the cultural to the ecomonic. But it seems incorrect to say that Jews are drawn to socialism anymore than they are drawn to any new political ideology.

You neglect the question of why Jews are drawn to socialism. In the literature on this topic you will find that atheist Jews tend to gravitate towards communism etc. For believeing Jews there is a doctrine called tikkun olam which means 'remaking the world.' Marxism with its utopian classless society is but a secularised form of a messianic tikkun olam. Marxism then reproduces the nature of Judaism albeit in a secularised atheistic form.

Do you want all of my thoughts on the idea of Political Correctness, because that could take a while and would probably be better in another specific thread.

Yes, you're probably right.

Zombrex

Eriugena wrote:

Look, the Irish are pretty much all inter-related in a way that cannot be said for the Irish and the Chinese. The English are closer to us than the Poles, the Poles are closer to us than the Egyptians and so on.

It depends on how you define closer? Not genetically, because we are all so closely related anyway that differences between us cannot be catergorised.

Perhaps I am not explain this very well

Imagine 3 people, with 3 (very simplified) genetic sequences (just the bits that are the 5-1% unqiue)

A B C
0101101111 0101011010 1010110101

A comes from England, B comes from Ireland and C comes from China

You will see that A & B share marker 2, which would effect a trait such as skin colour. This is a trait that person C does not have. Does that mean he is a different race? B and C share marker 7 does that mean they are the same race.

You see when you factor out all the cultural choices it is not possible to scientifical group people together into races.

This image illustrate it better.

Eriugena wrote:

The PC ideology wants to down play and even eliminate the nature part of it, but this is so patently false and counter-intuitive that the PC merchants have to invent all sorts of smears to target anyone who does not accept their ideology.

I am not really sure what you are talking about with reference to the PC merchants. This is all simple genetics.

Eriugena wrote:

But earlier you said it was, when you suggested that science has 'disproved' the view that people's are different. Statistics is not science. Science is knowledge, stastistics just gives information abouta particular sample group; leaving aside the question of how you set up the survey in the first place.
ou just declare that without any evdience or argument. That sounds like ideology to me.

Sorry, when I said statistics I did not mean sampling of groups, I meant looking at the entire genetic structure and ignoring the traits that we culturally associate with race (eg skin colour). If you look purely at the statistical nature of the human species with relation to their genome, there is no evidence for the idea of "race".

Eriugena wrote:

You neglect the question of why Jews are drawn to socialism.

Well that wasn't really the question that was asked. It was supposed that a disproportant number of Jews flock to socialism, as if there is something special in either Jews or Socialism that attract each other. But as has been show, Jews flock disporportantly to all forms of government, so there is no reason to think that there is anything special or unique about the connection between Socialism and Jews over say the connection between Jews and Facism or any other political structure.

Why people are attracted to Socialism is a topic for another thread.

bus77

A mixture of both

Eriugena wrote:

Broken off from the Holocaust revisionism thread http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/show...19&postcount=90
I am saying that different people's do have different traits, different customs, different ways of being and doing. As to why this is so, is a question that has been around since at least the 5th century BC when Herodotus discusses it. Nature or nurture? And how does these interact to determine the way people are.

I put a hell of a lot of thought into this awhile ago. Mostly around general trends. It's one hell of a huge subject, with so many factors. However, In a general sence I believe it's the long term nurture that decides the general manner of the people, and carries on in future generations (echoes) depending on the social events. I belieave the study of Irish history is an important tool to get a grasp on the concept. I started off with questions like, Why are we known for fair play? Used by Rome as priests and New York as cops. Tip O'Neill, Leader of the house of representatives in the States for years, the only man acceptable to both sides. Right up to Bertie Ahern in Europe. All though our history is a pattern of compromise and negotiation with each other. And capable negotiation between groups.
I think the main factor in this, was the social order itself(or more the lack of order, in our case).
The long term presence of democracy(the first known in europe), Brehon Law.
Decisions you could trust because you were right there. If you had a problem you could just shout it out. And the Brehon Law system. Mobile, highly trained Judge's. Law you trusted and respected so much that you thought about the law in your interactions with people or other clans before you did anything. Not because you had to show respect to anyone, or fear harsh punishment.(From man or God)
Because the law was the security, and it was allways on your side. This is a state without borders of any kind, mental or physical.(for a longer period, relative to other regions/peoples) We are 'generaly' more honest, with ourselves and others because we never had to plan or fear any sort of premeditated action from either groups or individuals.
Or respect/rely on leadership for protection, because leadership was in our hands. What you saw was what you got.

Now contrast this with the Jewish people. The Jews were originally slaves. I belive it was like a caste system, like the one that remains to a certain extent in India. The Jews were the Civil Servants of Egypt. They ran the state. They didnt have to think about leadership, or personal feedom, or rule of law, that was all taken care of. Only about doing their jobs. Not only that, but If you went against group/or state policy, it was'nt just idependant expression, it would be grounds for banishment from the caste. I believe it was this social environment that led to the development of a "think before you speak" thoughtfull attitude. And the intence fear that resulted from the removal from that protection that lead to more intence interdependence.

On a group level this produced/still produces to a certain extent, intence fear when removed from the protection/security of an (external)state. But also intence lonliness/lack of direction, when removed from group activity.

bus77

A mixture of both

Wicknight wrote:

Why people are attracted to Socialism is a topic for another thread.

I believe it is related. It is ofcourse, also related to two general trends/forces in tribalism/nature(I could go on all day about that )
But it is related in a cultural sence also. Around the russian region was a certain type of group/societal politics. Large open territory, fear of group politics that was similar to what the jews experianced thoughout their history. So on a cultural level, the concept of communism(ie.no groups) would be apealing to both.

SkepticOne

Eriugena wrote:

But earlier you said it was, when you suggested that science has 'disproved' the view that people's are different. Statistics is not science. Science is knowledge, stastistics just gives information abouta particular sample group; leaving aside the question of how you set up the survey in the first place.

I thought that in the field of statistics it is of huge importance how the sample group is got; whether it is a random sample or not, etc. since this determines the validity of the resulting numbers. You can't pick and choose what makes up a sample and then claim that the resulting statistics represents some truth about the population. The sample must be of a certain size and randomly chosen, otherwise the theory doesn't work out. A huge amount of statistical theory is concerned with these issues.

bus77

A mixture of both

And here's another part of the puzzle, while Rome was sending up priests to Ireland, a differnt sort of people were coming to England.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/schools/anglosaxons/index.shtml

It's a kids site but all that you need to see is the social order and laws.

The first thing these hard core, saxon/Unionist/white nationalist/zionist types want to know is, who are the slaves/Irish/Blacks/Gentiles, and where's the leader???

The Catholic church might have actualy saved us from going down the road of the Germanic tribes :eek: