Race theory

A child at school does poorly in school work. The cause of which can be three.

  1. The child is not interested
  2. The child is stupid
  3. The child is lazy

note. lazy is distinct from not interested in that you can be interested but can not be bothered.

Now, if we apply the above to a group of people, with certain achievement.

We can conclude from our examination that the people is either of the three to have arrived at their level of development.

If we apply our understanding to the real world, we see a striking truth. The people of the amazons, aboriginals of Australia, SE asians, southern africa have all remained in their primitive state.

But does that mean they are not interested in technology? No, we see in the case of North American indians that they are very much interested in trade with the Europeans, the question arise, if they have similar interest, why did they not develop like their European counterpart?

The distinction between the Europeans and Indians of America is of race. So the race though desires greatness, does not achieve greatness, is that because they are racially stupid or lazy?

Another thing, on the question of race. The African Americans ought to stop blaming White Americans for the slave trade, if we study the slave trade carefully, we realise it the the African Chiefs who sold their own people! They instead of organising resistant to racially alien whites, for protecting their people. They betrayed their own race and sold them over to the whites. They are the true culprites and still they have not been held to account. The shame tactics Africa uses these days to win aid is just pathetic, the blacks in Africa ought to work hard for their own people. I mean I do not and I never will sponser an African child until every single African grown up support an African child. Why ought I support another alien people whom are the blood of the traitors in them?

There’s no way to deny that Europeans somehow managed work out about 90% of all the problems that we have currently worked out. However, if you boil that down, then you find that you have the Romans and Greeks that started the ball rolling on most achievements. Now, I sense no particular genius in the contemporary Italian people, so I’m guessing that other reasons are the real cause.

I think that the Romans had an idea climate in which to get things done. The land is varied and is forgiving, thus you have leisure time and that helps. Also, they had the cultural “guts” or depravity to make slaves of others and that allows for one to have their wishes followed through on immediately.

That’s why people living in cold or very hot places never achieve much. They are too caught up in the task of living and dying to accomplish much. I ask, what have the Finnish done? They are about as white as it gets. Meanwhile, Asians have invented a lot of things especially a long time ago. I bet they outscore the Finnish.

The ability to sit around and think, along certain lines, may be the important aspects of developing technology.

The connection between geography and technology has been tackled by Diamond.

In his thesis the availability of resources that can be domesticated and the extent to which they are nutritious and able to support growth contributes to which tribe will develop technology first.

Of course this seems to ignore the historical significance of migration and of common ancestry and studies populations as isolated entities that simply appeared in their geographical areas without having migrated there or shared in past intermediary environments.

In my view the harshness of an environment is a fundamental motive for progress.
Pain and suffering appear to be not only inexorable characteristics of life in general but decisive participants in evolution and development.
It is popular, in our equalitarian, political-correct world, to downplay all differences between people, except cosmetic ones – and those because they cannot be so easily denied or ignored – and to only consider external differentiations as being linked to environmental conditions.
We, in particular, prefer explaining ourselves as being the product of immediate environmental conditions, completely ignoring past historical environmental effects upon our being and potential. We do this to maintain the illusion of self-determination and to render all of nature’s cruelty and “unfairness” as “correctable and reversible.
Nature becomes the enemy we must tame and harness to our ideals, thusly redefining ourselves and our place in the universe.
In this way everything from race to gender becomes strictly artificial, superficial elements of our being, which can be overcome through reason. In recent times the very notion of physical divergence, as well, is being threatened as being detrimental to human harmonious coexistence, and so we involve ourselves in correcting nature and her vicious ways. In time we mean to eliminate all hints of divergence or differentiation. The very idea of individuality is now interpreted under the guidance of socialization.

We easily accept the notion that environment is to be found behind skin pigmentation, for instance, but we ignore the environments challenges and conditions as being decisive in creating an intellectual alteration along with a physical one.
Given the time periods involved in human history and the current inter-mingling, it is evident that any divergence must be slight and, now, quickly diminishing and so easily painted over and ignored or labeled primitive or terrifying. (See Iraq)

Nevertheless we cannot completely disregard the effects of environment in civilization and human creativity. No matter how slight the alterations might have been or how small the consequences must have been upon human mental development and creativity, they were enough to create a technological gap which has resulted in dominance and subjugation.

The necessity for leisure in contemplation and experimentation presupposes a rapid technological development that would free the mind from its original function and enable it to explore its possibilities. This development, in turn, presupposes a harsh and unforgiving environment to bring about the mind’s full function in survival.

Need is what drives the mind.
The degree of need determining its expenditure of energy.

As such the current dominance of a particular tribe over another can be traced back to starting weakness which necessitated population migrations and the habitation within less hospitable environments. This nurtured creativity and ingenuity, which sparked a mental development and resulted in technological progress, and which created the possibility for leisure time.
Granted, the correct conditions must be present for this development to take hold and succeed.

Yet, when and if it does, the resulting consequences, no matter how slight, must have been more than merely cosmetic.

In the case of the Hellenic phenomenon, the causes can be found in that geographical areas infertility and roughness. The populations there were forced to improvise and become resourceful.
One way they did so was in turning to the sea which, inevitably lead them to distant shores, not only physically but mentally, as well.
Their seafaring ways, as a way to compensate for their less than adequate environment, brought them in contact with a variety of alien lands and peoples and resulted in a human intellectual phenomenon, unparalleled in history.

  1. The teacher teaches badly.

Or, the child does not learn as effectively as his peers. What about the highly-intellegent child who has a learning disability that hampers his ability to learn.

He has a high capacity to learn, but a less-than-perfect ability to learn. :confused: :wink:

Satyr

the environment is important in the struggle for existence. but not creativity. you are not suggesting people in africa look for food 24 hours a day do you?

Sâmkhya

who is the teacher in our world?

BMW-Guy

if less than perfect ability then still an intellectual defect.

  1. The subject isn’t worth learning…

Strange, the student is now feverishly learning a subject that wasn’t worth learning. I wonder why?

OR a child’s mind works differnently than most children’s and therefore has a hard time jumping through educational loops.

There are also children who don’t do well in school becaus they are advanced and don’t feel challenged and because of that aren’t motivated to do anything.

Substandard educational environment.

Because they are told to learn it and need to learn it to get certain grades which are constantly being labelled as all-important to ‘success later in life’…

I got dreadful grades at times (I once got 27% in a Spanish test, though no-one scored above 40% in that particular exam) and mediocre A-levels scores (last exams prior to leaving highschool) but that wasn’t due to a lack of intelligence, it was due to a lack of interest. Now that was, of course, my fault more than anything but to be honest I found the classes to be designed to try to ensure that everyone got a C or above, rather than ensuring that the A grade students were interested long enough to be motivated for the final exams, which in most courses counted for 75% of the final grade.

I understand why this is, budgets and quotas and graphs and blue forms have to be sent to the local authorities who send them to Whitehall and get a bollocking if they haven’t met the government’s stated predictions because the government will get a kicking from the press for not meeting their aims because the press have to pretend to be ‘informing’ the public about politics when all they are really concerned with is whipping up a shitstorm because that is the easiest way to sell papers…

How about Avogadro, Fermi, Fibonacci, Galileo Galilei, MArconi, Torricelli, Volta, Columbus (who, by the way, discovered you), Marco Polo, Amerigo Vespucci (whose name you have), Berlusconi, Dante, Boccaccio, Giordano Bruno, Umberto Eco, Macchiavelli, Luigi Pirandelli, Federico Fellini, Scorsese, Boticelli, Michelangelo, Caravaggio, Leonardo da Vinci, Rafael, Modigliani, Tintoretto, Titian, Donatello, Caruso, Oavarotti, Alessandro del Piero, Buffon, Roberto Baggio, and so on.

Alex Del Piero? You’ve got to be kidding…

You missed out France Rella, who is an emerging critic of poststructuralism who, like, totally rocks my world…

–and what about Monica Belluci? She’s totally hot.

What I said still stands, however, I never thought to include the genius of the soccer player. Thanks.

And if we are including footballers then Pirlo has to rank above Del Piero anyway…

My original point was not anti-Italian, rather I was suggesting that the Roman era which produced so much must have been something to do with the times rather than the genetics of the people. Italians have not kept up their inventiveness and that’s a fact.

Meanwhile, the ultra-white Finns have never done anything that I can think of. So, genetics does not seem to equal genius. However, there must be something about the places where white people live that helps to fuel the human fire, because it can’t be denied that white people have invented a lot of life saving technology.

I’d go for climate myself…

What I understand from this is that according to you, extremes in climate tend to mellow out impulses to accomplish great feats, while a more temperate climate encourages inventiveness and creativity.

Indeed, the finest example in this direction could be the eschimos, who in their secular existence have managed no more than to stay alive.

But, on a larger spectrum, one cannot avoid the Egiptians. Confronted with pretty much the same base problems as the eschimos (extreme temperatures, harsh conditions and an unfriendly relief), they have managed to achieve something that even to this day leaves us in awe.

I admit, I too believe that climate influences character and gives a certain specificity, but does is it really instrumental in a nation’s fulfillment ?..

Is it just me or does the subcomponent “ballers” have a totally different connotation than sports for anyone else?