In his post, Asylum in Denmark, Janus implied, in response to one of my comments, that I was a white supremacist. I posted a rebuttal, not because I was offended by his observation, I care not a jot for the epithets ascribed to me by others, but because I disagree with it. Of course I expanded on my theories and clearly I must have caused a level of indignation because Janus decided to remove that comment almost immediately. Unfortunately I had not saved it and so, I am now going to try to reproduce it, or at least the gist of it, though clearly it will vary somewhat.
I am not a white supremacist for the simple reason that I am by no means convinced that the white/Anglo Saxon race is supreme on this earth. I have a huge amount of respect for the people of India as I do for other Asian races and could easily be persuaded that that they are greatly superior to us whities. Not only have the people of India shown themselves over generations to be immensely intelligent, creative, artistic and hardworking they have created highly sophisticated civilizations and religions through which they have shown themselves to be largely peace-loving tolerant and adaptable. It helps that India produces some of the most beautiful women in the world.
http://www.imdb.com/name/nm0706787/ as an example.
All races (I use that word in a layman’s terms) have various attributes that have been acquired over generations to help them adapt to and survive the environment in which they live. But it is blindingly obvious that the Negro races (there is more genetic diversity in Africa then the rest of the world put together, hence I use the plural) are among the worst suited to prosper in the modern western society in which they so clearly aspire to live. Wherever one goes in the world, Negros are always near the bottom of the social ladder. From Europe and North America where the laws have been changed to assist them, to Africa where they dominate the political scene, they are clearly unable to advance their social status, relative to their European or Asian counterparts, bar the rare exception, without the help of other people and nations (i.e. other races).
Primitive North Europeans had to adapt to enable them to survive the harsh, barren winters, not a challenge that has ever been faced by sub-Saharan Africans. The most obvious physical adaption to the northern climate is the colour of the skin which became paler to allow Europeans to absorb as much sunlight as possible to enable them to synthesise vitamin D. But there was also the need for Europeans to gather and store food, manufacture clothing, and build adequate shelter. Those are not requirements for life in vast savannahs of tropical Africa, where there is plenty of sunshine, food and warmth.
But if you were to drop two naked people into the Namib Desert, one a San Bushman and the other a lily-white European, it would not take very long to determine, even to the most prejudiced observer, who would be better suited to survive that environment.
The fact of the matter is, Europeans and other non- African (sub-Sahara) cultures have developed their societies, over countless generations, whereby they have manipulated the environment to suit themselves. Those societies have gone way beyond subsistence farming. They have learned to delegate means of production and with it, to trade. They are able live, work and thrive in close-knit communities, developing roads and sewers etc. to ensure sustainability.
In 1890, the indigenous people of Central and Southern Africa were still essentially hunter-gatherers, with very little in the way of cropping or pastoralism let alone industry. Even then, some of the more important crops they grew had only recently been imported by the early European explorers, maize being the most significant. Their agricultural efforts were at best subsistence level. In 1890, there was no call for town planners, professors of mathematics or mechanical engineers. They were governed by feudal chiefs and terrorised by invaders, in the case of the Mashona, it was the Matabele who stole their cattle, slaughtered their men and captured the women for breeding purposes. There were no written laws or legal traditions of any long standing, and witchcraft was the closest they ever got to science and the tom-tom the nearest thing they had to a newspaper.
Some years ago, I was watching a friend of mine chucking a ball to his two dogs. One of them was a Labrador, the other a Rhodesian Ridgeback, a dog bred to protect its owners. Each time he threw the ball, both dogs would rush after it, the Labrador deliberately seeking to pick it up as quickly as possible and bring it back to its owner, while the Ridgeback frolicked along in a somewhat confused manner without the remotest idea of what to do. Not once did it attempt to pick up the ball, let alone bring it back. Later that evening, a stranger came to the gate. Both dogs ran forward, the Ridgeback to bark and growl furiously, while all the Lab wanted to do was lick the stranger’s hand.
Which of those was the superior animal? Ridgebacks and Labrados would have no problems breeding, but in doing so their unique attributes would be diluted and would eventually disappear.
And why have Pit-bulls been banned from the UK, if upbringing is all that stands between savagery and civilization?
There is a glaringly obvious parallel to be drawn between races of humans and breeds of dogs. Humans have developed behavioural traits, over the generations that have helped them adapt to the environment in which they live. As a society of people became more sophisticated, intellectual abilities became more important than physical ones. Laws were created to protect the weak, while those less clever found it increasingly difficult to prosper, until relatively recently at least.
On the other hand, in less sophisticated societies, physical prowess and aggression were distinct advantages, which not only allowed men to survive, but enabled them to breed more copiously than their weaker rival, thus passing on those same attributes. In primitive societies, weak men do not breed. In sophisticated societies, fools have less opportunity to do so, though to judge from the front benches of Parliament, one might question that assumption.
While human selection is more natural, though clearly our matrimonial rituals do introduce a large element of artificial selection, dog breeds have been created almost entirely through artificial selection. But the result is the same. A greyhound that runs faster than its rival is selected for breeding with not just one, but multiple bitches in the way that human who is more powerful than his rival is able to take a wife, or two, or three.
Despite what anybody says, and liberal demagoguery goes to ridiculous lengths to state otherwise, there are racial differences that go beyond physical appearance. I do not care if some PC celebrity biologist claims that there is no such thing as race, that which we call race does exist. The people of India have a capacity for long hard work that is just not present in the people of Africa. That is not nurture, that is nature. And you do not have to go to India or Africa to witness it. You can see it in many of the UK’s cities.
Recently Christopher called me a hypocrite because I chose to live in this part of the world despite my jaded opinion of the native people here. He was wrong to say so. There is nothing hypocritical at all about it, but that is not really a point that I wish to pursue. I live here because I love this country, despite its many problems. I understand the indigenous people and I have a much better idea of how they think and operate than those who have never lived here do and I have better idea of them than I do of people who come from other parts of the world.
I am not a racist in the sense that I suspect Janus believes me to be. I do not have an overwhelming hatred for all other races. I regard different races as I regard different breeds of dog. Each has its own characteristics. You can call me any name you like for holding those thoughts, but they are entirely rational and they are not cruel or unkind unless deliberately intended as such. I work and interact with a lot of native Zimbabweans at every level, from very senior persons to those who perform the most menial of tasks. I would be very surprised if anybody could find anyone of them who would describe me as a racist in the common meaning of that word. There are black people with whom I was at school and with whom I am still friends who would understand and almost certainly share my view that different races have inherently different racial characteristics, but not one of them would describe me as being ‘a nasty racist bigot’, because I behave nothing like one. As I said, I work well with many African people. We chat and laugh and socialise at a work level. But, very few black people would invite me to their home and very few would be invited to mine. Neither of us would expect it and neither of us are offended by it, nor would we want it. We are aware of our different tastes and customs.
A Western observer watching the way I interact with local people might describe my behaviour as patronising, but if my jokes comments or conversation are a little less sophisticated than they might be were I sitting in a London drawing room, the people I am engaging with are not likely to realise that. If I thought they were, I would raise my game. I genuinely, if somewhat pompously, believe that as Kipling said, it is important to be able ‘to walk with Kings, nor lose the common touch’. I strive to do that. I do not wish to offend or be disliked by my behaviour. (I stand by my claim that this site is not a London drawing room or even a Harare veranda. It is a site where I believe nobody has a right to be offended.)
I chastised Janus, comparatively mildly by my standards at least, for obsessing about the fact that racial tensions and prejudices exist without his giving any effort to genuinely investigating why they exist and how they can best be dealt with. Nobody is every going to legislate those issues away. It would be much better to address them honestly. Only then can they be dealt with. People need to be asked and need to be able to answer completely honestly, without any fear of reprisal, why it is they feel any form of racial prejudice. Only when there are honest answers can we find effective solutions.
It is important to treat people in a manner that is appropriate to their culture, nature and ability. But to do that, you need to understand them. Most members of any given race have very little knowledge of what it is like to be a member of another. They should not presume that their desires and abilities are the same.
22 thoughts on “Ode to Janus”
Er….I rest my case.
… janus “….Er….I rest my case….”
Janus, You’ve entirely missed the point, or (more likely) you refuse to confront it.
…SipuI am not a racist in the sense that I suspect Janus believes me to be. I do not have an overwhelming hatred for all other races. I regard different races as I regard different breeds of dog….
Sipu, The above is a truth which the leftists are just not going to accept it’s too uncomfortable and goes against the Christian belief that God created us in his own image (The effrontery of it !) . We are just animals of an advanced(?) type, but most of us lack the ability to see ourselves as such and this lack of understanding might be our undoing.
Jack Goody wrote a brief but interesting book comparing Africa’s economic and cultural development to that of European and Asian societies. Africa clearly had great leaders, kingdoms and empires. Africa had its great cities and was well-integrated into global trade networks prior to colonisation. In some ways, parts of Africa had more advantages than filthy, crowded Europe. Africa had two things that neither Europe nor Asia had: vast tracts of marginal lands and enough trade-goods that were easily obtained.
With the notable exception of Ethiopia, this precluded the need to be overly creative for the sake of survival in many places. Japan, arguably home to the world’s most sophisticated civilisation, has little usable land and most of that is marked by some of the thinnest soil imaginable. Japan has had a large, but managed population for over a thousand years. (Unlike many other societies, the Japanese recognised the limitations of what their land could support and limited themselves to two children, three in extreme circumstances. There was a relatively brief population explosion following the Meiji Restoration in 1868 but in recent decades birth-rates have returned to historical, modest levels) They had to be sophisticated to survive. Similarly, the Koreans, Chinese and Indians had to cope with relatively large populations in limited areas of arable land.Some have posited that the Confucian social hierarchy and the Hindu caste system developed out of a need to provide a viable social structure for vast populations. Much of Europe was in much the same position — large populations, limited land.
These conditions created the basis of vast urban centres and a highly specialised merchant economy. Africans could easily sell ebony, ivory, gold, salt, wood, Africans, copper, etc. They had industries, of course. African cloths and metal working, especially in the West, were excellent and until the Industrial Revolution really took hold in Europe, unmatched by European products. African women would by silk cloth from European merchants who brought it from China, unwound it and incorporated the silk thread into their traditional cloth. Other than guns, trade between Europe and Africa was limited and many Europeans had to content themselves to simply being middle-men in the intra-African carry-trade. European naval technology gave them a comparative advantage despite having to be reliant on African merchants and traders who knew exactly what advantages they had. Until the mid-19th century Africans were the dominant partners in European-African relations. When Africans lost these advantages they were at a complete loss. They had leadership, but it generally lacked the compunction of Eurasian governments. In their centuries of trade, they had grown reliant on certain industries. Some of which, especially the slave trade, destroyed entire states. Even those that benefited from it collapsed economically after the British banned the Atlantic slave trade.
And, Sipu, I intended to send these links to you sooner but have somehow managed to forget.
Jazz, what a clever chap you are.
Oh how I agree with the above.
As someone who has lived outside their own culture since 1976 one becomes adept at channeling one’s interaction for ones audience. I find that most Americans are undereducated, even so called graduates. Only IVY league appears to guarantee any kind of mental acuity. By the time you get to the blacks in the South, that is another matter completely
Firm, polite simple language, no flowery asides keep it short and sharpish otherwise you are doomed to misunderstanding. Of course they do not expect to be invited as guests any more than you will ever be to them!
It was very interesting to note in Memphis that during the race riots the NAACP who all came from Chicago to organise and lead the black population were not black themselves. All were cafe au lait, all had white blood in varying degrees, All were educated, literate, well spoken, disdainful of their black charges, arrogant and so very superior. It gave me a great deal of entertainment watching these people operating. Had whites done the same and taken that attitude, blood would have been flowing in the streets, not just rioting! They also kept themselves to themselves, not mixing with either the local blacks or whites.
I always attributed their differences to the blacks from their mixed blood, that they had characteristics from both races. Akin to sipu’s dog analogy. A current example being Obama.
I too have never understood why such differences in race are neither acknowledged or discussed honestly in society. Any acknowledgement being met with howls of ‘waycist’ and ‘hate crime’ etc etc Shutting down a topic does not make it go away, just makes it fester and become more ingrained only to burst like a pustulent boil another day..
Janus I am not sure that you even have a case.
CO: Of course, Americans celebrate stupidity and ignorance. Ivy League educations are over-rated, however. They rely on their names, not the quality of the actual education. In fact, they’ve turned their BA/BS programmes into cash-making enterprises with the same lack of shame as mediocre state universities. In order to invest in their higher programmes they take in a number of unqualified students, especially from China, the Gulf and South Asia in order to charge them achingly high rates. The more time I spend in the US, the more European I become.
Christopher, Congratulations, you’ve written a long post without expressing a single opinion, or addressing the point. Too uncomfortable for you ?
CO, what ‘case’ is that? I observed that out African friend shared attitudes equivalent to the white settlers of yesteryear. I see no evidence to refute that. I chose not to give oxygen to his primitive rants.
Jazz, did you understand what Christopher wrote – just asking?
Janus, Yes I did and it did more to obscure the point than to address it. But then I’ve noticed that academics are good at that. You on the other hand don’t even get as far as obscuring the point. You either ignore or delete it.
For instance “…Japan, arguably home to the world’s most sophisticated civilisation, …” Well I don’t deny that the Japanese have a pretty advanced civilization and unlike us they’ve had more sense than to allow it become overrun by aliens. Nevertheless they didn’t invent things like the steam engine,the spinning jenny, the flying shuttle, stainless steel, and they didn’t discover penicillin, in fact practically none of the things that make Japan an advanced society were developed there. Not something that you can say about N Europe.
Sipus’s post is about race and racial characteristics and whether we should confront our differences or just assume that everyone is equal. Christopher doesn’t get close.
Jazz, I see you didn’t. What a shame you label those you don’t understand as academics. You just underline your lack of understanding.
That is not personal, of course.
Janus, I understand that you are a narrow minded fool and lets face it if you weren’t we’d be discussing this on your blog and not someone else’s.
Jazz, flying your true colours. Well done.
Janus: I consider the source before considering the response. If people don’t even bother reading what I wrote or the links I post then I cannot help them. It’s even more amusing when they quickly resort to ad hominem attacks. No need to be concerned.
Christopher, I don’t think anyone here needs your help.
Was it something I said?
I took a lot of flack for my ‘gloom and Doom’ blog. Please, looking at all the comments below, did I really deserve it?
Oh, Gaz, let it go.
Let it go! What is that supposed to mean? I think that my point is valid but if your complete sense of self righteousness does not allow you to see that, maybe you should be the one to let it go.
The people who have come here mostly left MyT because of the insulting behaviour. What happens here? A disagreement immediately turns into insulting language. I am pleased that I was not involved.
P.s when do you arrive in Spain? I really would be interested to hear how you get on, and your impressions of Madrid in this destroyed part of the world.
Gaz: You saying anything about self-righteousness is a bloody riot. People constantly bicker everywhere in the world. Some people simply don’t get on with each other, some people don’t agree on much but get on anyway. Some people are veritable Ronaldos. Someone grazes them ever so slightly and they scream as if they’ve been savaged by dingoes. At the same time, they feel free to insult and impugn others and pretend they’re the victims when they’re told to get stuffed. This is life. The relative anonymity of the internet allows for more ghastliness to be aired.
Hm. Christopher, it seems that we agree.
Gaz: Christmas Carols in 1914’s trenches come to mind. I’ve found that people who often disagree with each other can, if they bother to actually listen and not make snide, belittling comments, find some common ground on some issues.