Philosophy Now Forum

Arising_uk wrote:

(Seleucus wrote)This can probably be said of spoken word too, our word "man" for instance goes back to at least Proto-Indo-European.


(Arising_uk)But language has no links to genetics or biology? If it did then babies would not be able to learn a language like a native if adopted by a different 'race'.

Regarding the etymology of certain words, yesterday I was studying one particular word for a physical feature of practical human significance , a cove or some such place where a boat can be moored. This particular word is common to coastal places from the Mediterranean to western Scotland, and Ireland , with some local variations. The practical cultural element endures while the peoples migrate. If I remember right the etymology of important words such as 'man' and for useful features of terrain such as rivers are specially durable across large territories where there is practical use for the terms. There is a correlation of linguistic elements with genetic origins. I am thinking of how it's probable that early dwellers in what is now Britain and Ireland, before Celtic invasions, came from Iberia and from Italy and brought the word for a cove or mooring place with them.

The fact that babies can learn any language is about phonetics and syntax more than meanings of words. About the social use of language not about cultural traditions.

Belinda wrote: ↑Mon Nov 20, 2017 11:15 pm Arising_uk wrote:

(Seleucus wrote)This can probably be said of spoken word too, our word "man" for instance goes back to at least Proto-Indo-European.


(Arising_uk)But language has no links to genetics or biology? If it did then babies would not be able to learn a language like a native if adopted by a different 'race'.

Regarding the etymology of certain words, yesterday I was studying one particular word for a physical feature of practical human significance , a cove or some such place where a boat can be moored. This particular word is common to coastal places from the Mediterranean to western Scotland, and Ireland , with some local variations. The practical cultural element endures while the peoples migrate. If I remember right the etymology of important words such as 'man' and for useful features of terrain such as rivers are specially durable across large territories where there is practical use for the terms. There is a correlation of linguistic elements with genetic origins. I am thinking of how it's probable that early dwellers in what is now Britain and Ireland, before Celtic invasions, came from Iberia and from Italy and brought the word for a cove or mooring place with them.

The fact that babies can learn any language is about phonetics and syntax more than meanings of words. About the social use of language not about cultural traditions.

I wouldn't say that the language belongs to a certain race per se, but rather a language has a race. Languages spread regardless of race, and language itself while in ancient times was an indicator of race, has become an owner of races. If Japanese didn't learn English along with Japanese, what would that do about races owning languages? It's an indicator of our times and not a natural, organic language spreading as would have been in ancient times.

Belinda wrote:... There is a correlation of linguistic elements with genetic origins. ...

I must be missing your point as correlation is not causation, so I agree with you that as people move they take words with them and some get kept as peoples intermingle or change but really so what? Some are also redundant and we keep them so we have the River Avon over here that just means 'River River' and there's a whole host of such things - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_r ... lace_names

Belinda wrote: ↑Mon Nov 20, 2017 3:50 pmI don't claim to know a lot about Islam...

'Christ' for a Muslim can refer only to the fact that...

Hmm...

Islam accept the idea of an eternal soul which is what allows for the paradoxical statement at 4:157 that Jesus was crucified but he did not die.

Arising_uk wrote: ↑Mon Nov 20, 2017 10:01 pm

Seleucus wrote:As we have discussed, yes, the Chinese phenotype is an essential element of Chinese identity, specifically I mean flat faces, short legs, stumpy feet, stubby noses, straight black hair and slanty eyes. ...

And yet the Chinese have at least five distinct ethnic groups?

Not sure where you got that number from? The official Chinese count is Han plus 55 minority ethnic groups. Last time I checked, Koreans, Mongols, Kazakh, Uyghur and so on don't consider themselves Chinese...

Read this again: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hua%E2%80 ... istinction

The peoples who crossed the Hua-Yi divide and accomplished identity shift no longer exist, the Jie for instance. We can say the same in the West of peoples like the Illyrians or the Alans. No one today calls himself an Illyrian, the language, culture and spiritual tradition only exists in ancient references, today their ancestors are Italians, Greeks, Albanians and so on. This supports Spengler, or Barth, that ethnic identities either continue or end, not essentially change.

Either way, snipping away at little bits isn't going to counter my thesis which is that ethnic identities have incredible resilience and continuity over enormous spans of time. It's probably your habit to click the quote function and reply to each sentence as it triggers you rather than synthesizing a global position?

But language has no links to genetics or biology? If it did then babies would not be able to learn a language like a native if adopted by a different 'race'.

But who ever said it did?

And what has this to do with your view of race?

Go ahead and tell me what my view of race is?

Can you unpack a little more clearly what you're meaning to say here? Maybe some cites or quotes?

Sure,

"Race purity is a grotesque world in view of the fact that for centuries all stocks and species have been mixed, and that warlike—that is, healthy—generations with a future before them have from time immemorial always welcomed a stranger into the family if he had “race,” to whatever race it was he belonged. Those who talk too much about race no longer have it in them. What is needed is not a pure race, but a strong one, which has a nation within it. This manifests itself above all in self-evident elemental fecundity, in an abundance of children, which historical life can consume without ever exhausting the supply."

"It would be founded on a grand culture-creating, race-shaping myth, propagated through art and religion, that enthralls and mobilizes a whole people. It would be less concerned about the race we were or the race we are than about the race we can become."

"Comradeship breeds races ...".

Which is interpreted in the following way by Richard Herbert: "Spengler vehemently rejecting the purity-based racial theories prevalent within the NSDAP. But, what is the nature of this strong rejection? At its root, what we see in Spengler is a sharp contrast between his characterization of (a) the raceless man’s engaging in discourse on race and (b) the man of race’s non-discursive lived experience of race. The former discursive behavior, we see Spengler treat as degenerate and weak—the latter non-discursive behavior, as vital and strong." link

For us, the last major race creating event occurred with the Indo-European dispersal. A new race might very well form? In the meantime, what people like Jewish Zuckerberg and his diaspora Chinese wife, and their daughter, represent isn't a coming super-race but Herbert's "raceless man": deterritorialized internationalists: global imperialists set on oppressing the eternal yearning for freedom and autonomy of the varied and unique peoples of the world.

Belinda wrote: ↑Mon Nov 20, 2017 11:15 pm Arising_uk wrote:

(Seleucus wrote)This can probably be said of spoken word too, our word "man" for instance goes back to at least Proto-Indo-European.


(Arising_uk)But language has no links to genetics or biology? If it did then babies would not be able to learn a language like a native if adopted by a different 'race'.

Regarding the etymology of certain words, yesterday I was studying one particular word for a physical feature of practical human significance , a cove or some such place where a boat can be moored. This particular word is common to coastal places from the Mediterranean to western Scotland, and Ireland , with some local variations. The practical cultural element endures while the peoples migrate. If I remember right the etymology of important words such as 'man' and for useful features of terrain such as rivers are specially durable across large territories where there is practical use for the terms. There is a correlation of linguistic elements with genetic origins. I am thinking of how it's probable that early dwellers in what is now Britain and Ireland, before Celtic invasions, came from Iberia and from Italy and brought the word for a cove or mooring place with them.

The fact that babies can learn any language is about phonetics and syntax more than meanings of words. About the social use of language not about cultural traditions.

Right, very strong correlation, because languaculture is very sticky and very slow moving.

Viveka wrote: ↑Mon Nov 20, 2017 11:28 pm

Belinda wrote: ↑Mon Nov 20, 2017 11:15 pm Arising_uk wrote:

(Seleucus wrote)This can probably be said of spoken word too, our word "man" for instance goes back to at least Proto-Indo-European.


(Arising_uk)But language has no links to genetics or biology? If it did then babies would not be able to learn a language like a native if adopted by a different 'race'.

Regarding the etymology of certain words, yesterday I was studying one particular word for a physical feature of practical human significance , a cove or some such place where a boat can be moored. This particular word is common to coastal places from the Mediterranean to western Scotland, and Ireland , with some local variations. The practical cultural element endures while the peoples migrate. If I remember right the etymology of important words such as 'man' and for useful features of terrain such as rivers are specially durable across large territories where there is practical use for the terms. There is a correlation of linguistic elements with genetic origins. I am thinking of how it's probable that early dwellers in what is now Britain and Ireland, before Celtic invasions, came from Iberia and from Italy and brought the word for a cove or mooring place with them.

The fact that babies can learn any language is about phonetics and syntax more than meanings of words. About the social use of language not about cultural traditions.

I wouldn't say that the language belongs to a certain race per se, but rather a language has a race. Languages spread regardless of race, and language itself while in ancient times was an indicator of race, has become an owner of races. If Japanese didn't learn English along with Japanese, what would that do about races owning languages? It's an indicator of our times and not a natural, organic language spreading as would have been in ancient times.

Yes. I've just been unpacking Fredrik Barth over the past few weeks who says something similar of culture: culture isn't the expression of race, but rather race is an element of culture, i.e. Oriental culture is associated with slanty eyes and straight black hair, Western culture with Blondness and pointy noses, etc.

Arising_uk wrote: ↑Tue Nov 21, 2017 12:54 am

Belinda wrote:... There is a correlation of linguistic elements with genetic origins. ...

I must be missing your point as correlation is not causation, so I agree with you that as people move they take words with them and some get kept as peoples intermingle or change but really so what? Some are also redundant and we keep them so we have the River Avon over here that just means 'River River' and there's a whole host of such things - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_r ... lace_names

Ugg... We've already established like a month ago that while there isn't strong causation of race on culture, there is very strong correlation, because the movement of culture is a very slow and painful process, so the watershed lines of the world line up so that you almost never find a Korean who eats with his hands, follows the Greek Orthodox church and speaks Bantu, instead we find slanty eyed moon faced people with haplogroup O-M176 (Koreans), speaking Hangul (Korean), following a syncretic spirituality of Buddhism mixed with animistic ancestor worship, and eating with chopsticks and loving K-pop and Korean dramas and pansori.

A bit surprisingly maybe, what we are starting to find though is that while the causal direction of race to culture or race to language, (or language to culture for that matter), is weak, the direction of culture to race, or now perhaps also language to race, is much stronger.

Seleucus wrote: ↑Tue Nov 21, 2017 3:35 am

Viveka wrote: ↑Mon Nov 20, 2017 11:28 pm

Belinda wrote: ↑Mon Nov 20, 2017 11:15 pm Arising_uk wrote:



Regarding the etymology of certain words, yesterday I was studying one particular word for a physical feature of practical human significance , a cove or some such place where a boat can be moored. This particular word is common to coastal places from the Mediterranean to western Scotland, and Ireland , with some local variations. The practical cultural element endures while the peoples migrate. If I remember right the etymology of important words such as 'man' and for useful features of terrain such as rivers are specially durable across large territories where there is practical use for the terms. There is a correlation of linguistic elements with genetic origins. I am thinking of how it's probable that early dwellers in what is now Britain and Ireland, before Celtic invasions, came from Iberia and from Italy and brought the word for a cove or mooring place with them.

The fact that babies can learn any language is about phonetics and syntax more than meanings of words. About the social use of language not about cultural traditions.

I wouldn't say that the language belongs to a certain race per se, but rather a language has a race. Languages spread regardless of race, and language itself while in ancient times was an indicator of race, has become an owner of races. If Japanese didn't learn English along with Japanese, what would that do about races owning languages? It's an indicator of our times and not a natural, organic language spreading as would have been in ancient times.

Yes. I've just been unpacking Fredrik Barth over the past few weeks who says something similar of culture: culture isn't the expression of race, but rather race is an element of culture, i.e. Oriental culture is associated with slanty eyes and straight black hair, Western culture with Blondness and pointy noses, etc.

I agree. Culture is what decides what the 'ideal' is when it comes to certain races.

Arising_uk wrote: ↑Tue Nov 21, 2017 12:54 am

Belinda wrote:... There is a correlation of linguistic elements with genetic origins. ...

I must be missing your point as correlation is not causation, so I agree with you that as people move they take words with them and some get kept as peoples intermingle or change but really so what? Some are also redundant and we keep them so we have the River Avon over here that just means 'River River' and there's a whole host of such things - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_r ... lace_names

My point is that it looks to me that as those ancient Iberians moved north they kept their important words such as words for water, man, and where to safely moor a boat.The Iberians and Italians who did not migrate lent their important words to successive invaders and settlers. The latter case is like the name River Avon (Celtic BTW not Iberian) which is to say River River . Gaelic has other words that seem to be related to Iberian, such as the word for sea, and the word for god.(The latter may be a Latin import from Irish Christians).

It's really easy to imagine the scenario of successive later arrivals using the local words as and when the words referred to particular local places and ideas. We have done it ourselves in foreign places, in modern times. Children in particular are very quick on the uptake of local words. So we agree so far, Arising_uk.

I also agree that correlation is not causation. And I am wondering if this particular correlation of words and genetic origin is valid. Intuitively it looks valid as it's so easy to picture the scenarios and recall having done it oneself. For one thing certain natural features and certain ideas and cultural practices are relevant to survival and therefore common to all people in all localities wherever those may be.

I also have to be careful not to put the theory where scholarship should be. Here is a new idea for me as I have been informed previously that the River Wansbeck meant 'River River River' due to successive incomers renaming it while retaining the locals' name.

WANSBECK, RIVER (NORTHUMBERLAND)
This is an Anglo-Saxon river name and derives from Wagens Pic. A pic was a bridge built from logs, seemingly used by wagons. The Wansbeck is not therefore a true beck.

However here again we can correlate Anglo Saxon genetics with a cultural element. Goodness knows that in Britain there is a host of cultural elements that correlate with Anglo Saxon genetic heritage. Isn't it true that after a certain number of correlations have been confirmed we take those to signify fact? Seleucus's point seems to be not only my point that culture does coincide with genetic inheritance. But Seleucus goes out on a limb when he then claims that some cultures/ genetics are better than others.

Seleucus interpreted Viveka:

Yes. I've just been unpacking Fredrik Barth over the past few weeks who says something similar of culture: culture isn't the expression of race, but rather race is an element of culture, i.e. Oriental culture is associated with slanty eyes and straight black hair, Western culture with Blondness and pointy noses, etc.

The claim that race is an element of culture , not that culture is an element of race, is to claim that an idea like 'race' is cultural. It would follow that " Oriental culture" is associated with slanty eyes and straight black hair, Western culture with Blondness and pointy noses, " is a cultural belief. Which culture ? I ask. The very word 'Oriental' is a fantasy of popular culture which came and went. To our ears 'Oriental' is a word that belongs to Victorian explorers and travellers, and 1930s Hollywood. Along with slanty eyes and straight black hair. In this present day Chinese people are much more associated with their economic ability to overtake the USA.

Belinda wrote: ↑Tue Nov 21, 2017 11:09 amMy point is that it looks to me that as those ancient Iberians moved north they kept their important words such as words for water, man, and where to safely moor a boat.The Iberians and Italians who did not migrate lent their important words to successive invaders and settlers. The latter case is like the name River Avon (Celtic BTW not Iberian) which is to say River River . Gaelic has other words that seem to be related to Iberian, such as the word for sea, and the word for god.(The latter may be a Latin import from Irish Christians).

She dares to go into the rabbit hole of linguistics! Beware!

On this note, I see some articles today where genetics is being used to sort out linguistic conundrums, eliminate or support relationships, so while not cause, the correlation is judged to be very high between race and language by experts, eg. https://mathildasanthropologyblog.wordp ... o-asiatic/

But Seleucus goes out on a limb when he then claims that some cultures/ genetics are better than others.

Not timelessly superior, or as D&G put it for negros, "a race inferior for all of eternity" (p.94). Meanwhile, would you want to live in Vietnam or Chad or Ecuador, no you wouldn't. You'd like to live in a nice White country like in Europe or Australia or the US. And the flood of one-directional (im)migration supports this obvious perception as well.

The very word 'Oriental' is a fantasy of popular culture which came and went. To our ears 'Oriental' is a word that belongs to Victorian explorers and travellers, and 1930s Hollywood.

That may be true of politically correct types who were lured in by Edward Said.

Along with slanty eyes and straight black hair. In this present day Chinese people are much more associated with their economic ability to overtake the USA.

A filthy 3rd World dictatorship like China is not going to overtake the West as much as guilt-ridden demoralized White leftists might like to fantasize about it; no ego to lead and no creativity either are the biggest issues with Chinese psychology that prevents that. In the round-robin of civilizational total war that was WWII, it took the best champion the West could put forward a mere three and a half years to force the best of the Oriental peoples into surrender. The West will rule the world for a very long time yet.

By jingo Seleucus viewed Britannia ruling the waves from shore to shining shore :

A filthy 3rd World dictatorship like China is not going to overtake the West as much as guilt-ridden demoralized White leftists might like to fantasize about it; no ego to lead and no creativity either are the biggest issues with Chinese psychology that prevents that. In the round-robin of civilizational total war that was WWII, it took the best champion the West could put forward a mere three and a half years to force the best of the Oriental peoples into surrender. The West will rule the world for a very long time yet.

Seleucus wrote:

Not timelessly superior, or as D&G put it for negros, "a race inferior for all of eternity" (p.94). Meanwhile, would you want to live in Vietnam or Chad or Ecuador, no you wouldn't. You'd like to live in a nice White country like in Europe or Australia or the US. And the flood of one-directional (im)migration supports this obvious perception as well.

Yes, Trumpland would be better for me than Chad , Vietman, or Ecuador. For historical, not racial, reasons nice white countries are better for me to live in. Individuals in nice white countries live well off the economic profits from the imperial past. Immigrants to nice white countries need a bit more affluence in order to keep their bodies and souls together.

What is D&G?
I like the way you spell 'negros'.

Belinda wrote: ↑Tue Nov 21, 2017 5:04 pm By jingo Seleucus viewed Britannia ruling the waves from shore to shining shore :

A filthy 3rd World dictatorship like China is not going to overtake the West as much as guilt-ridden demoralized White leftists might like to fantasize about it; no ego to lead and no creativity either are the biggest issues with Chinese psychology that prevents that. In the round-robin of civilizational total war that was WWII, it took the best champion the West could put forward a mere three and a half years to force the best of the Oriental peoples into surrender. The West will rule the world for a very long time yet.

More thinking of the US as the West's greatest champion considering the humiliation Japan served Britain in the East...

Individuals in nice white countries live well off the economic profits from the imperial past.

Except that European countries invested vastly more into their colonies than they extracted. See for example Raffles tally of the Dutch books during his tenure there, p.xxvi, History of Java, Volume I: by 1730 losses totaled 7,700,000 Guildres, by 1779 this came to just about 80 million. Why that happened is as the colonizers were drawn in from mere trade bases to territorial administration with all the infrastructure, defense, education and so on that entailed cost ballooned, one of the reasons Europeans were glad to let their colonies go in the second part of the 20th Century. I know, I know, leftists told you otherwise but these are the hard numbers.

What is D&G?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deleuze_and_Guattari

Seleucus wrote: ↑Wed Nov 22, 2017 4:36 am Except that European countries invested vastly more into their colonies than they extracted.

Extracted in what form?

The reason that you have colonies is to provide yourself with a larger, and sometimes closed, market for your finished goods and also to extract primary products. If you had a normal economic relationship, then after a while that trading relationship would adjust; increased investment into the colony would turn it from a market for your exports to a competitor. But in a colonial relationship you can prevent that happening. That is how the money is made.

More thinking of the US as the West's greatest champion considering the humiliation Japan served Britain in the East...

That is because Britain was somewhat distracted by a war against a fellow western power, so in terms of your idea of history as an east v west struggle, it was a bit of an own-goal by the Aryan supermen.

Seleucus wrote:

More thinking of the US as the West's greatest champion considering the humiliation Japan served Britain in the East...

Together with, and perhaps despite, Britain's winning the Battle of Britain, if America had not become an active ally we in Britain would have been overrun by Nazis. FDR was a great and good president.

One would not want to live in China due to its lack of human rights and its developing status. The USA and the free Western world generally show signs of both decadence and ignorant nationalism. Look at Poland , Trump, Germany, and horrible Brexit. The 'fight' right now is about democracy and human rights against the international oligarchy. Are you really unaware of the existence of the latter?