• Welcome to DOSBODS

    Please consider creating a free account to be able to access all the features of the DOSBODS community. It only takes 20 seconds!

Sign in to follow this  
Frank Hovis

Mixing up Race and Culture - Marc Faber

Recommended Posts

I agree that culture makes a vast difference but I would suggest that this effect gets multiplied by the IQ of the population and that there are very significant differences between average IQ across different population groups. Thus, America (with a protestant work ethic) would have prospered even more if the population were predominantly Chinese or Jewish.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I once spent an idle lunch hour in a students union getting drunk while playing pool with a Zimbabwean student.

He told me that his dream was to go back to Zimbabwe and become s corrupt government official, he said that there was a lot of money to be made.

xD

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, SpectrumFX said:

I once spent an idle lunch hour in a students union getting drunk while playing pool with a Zimbabwean student.

He told me that his dream was to go back to Zimbabwe and become s corrupt government official, he said that there was a lot of money to be made.

xD

 

There's more money to be made being a corrupt government official here.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, SpectrumFX said:

Probably true, but he had connections back home that would get his foot in the door.

xD

Typical. Think how many spend years training hard to be corrupt officials, and this guy walks it because he's well connected. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, LC1 said:

Typical. Think how many spend years training hard to be corrupt officials, and this guy walks it because he's well connected. 

Maybe he should change his name to Bush, or Clinton?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9 minutes ago, Frank Hovis said:

I am most certainly not politically correct or virtue signalling here but I think that America would have propsered if the population were predominantly black if they had the right culture.  I really think that IQ is a diversion; my best ever MD was hardly the brightest tool in the box but he knew what was important and what wasn't and just concentrated on the former.  I have had others who have been extremely clever but as a result thought they knew everything and repeatedly interfered which didn't help anyone. 

I have worked with black people in this country who have been absolutely as good as anyone else.  They have all been to British schools, worked hard, gone to a decent uni, worked hard, and worked hard at work!  Racially they're different but culturally they're not.

There isn't even the faintest hint of SJWness about thsi post by the way; just to balance it I would deport every single sunni mulsim out of Britain tomorrow.  And again that would be upon cultural grounds as the culture is toxic.

Also how much did slavery contribute to the prosperity of America (and other western countries)?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

This is a minefield of course. Briefly, I think it is hard to disentangle race and culture. Would the US have been so successful if Africans had settled there instead of whites? 

It's a loaded question full of biases. I happen to not think that the US is an example of success. Pre-imperialism, were Africans "successful"? By whose barometer are we judging? They were pretty successful at being hunter gatherers, or pastoralists, I would argue. Keeping nature in fair balance, much like native inhabitants of the US were prior to invasion of their lands. 

This Faber guy may as well be saying that it's good that it was whites because they are much more efficient at bringing about a particular form of destructive appropriation of natural resources for private profit, encouraging the rampant individualism and associated problems we have these days. This wasn't inevitable. 

Not saying we should all go back to being peasant farmers, but the issue is complex and the question in the OP presumes a great deal about what constitutes "better". Plus it does seem a bit racist, if only for its oversimplicity.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, Dipsy said:

Also how much did slavery contribute to the prosperity of America (and other western countries)?

I'd say that it accelerated development rather than being a requirement for it. 

Australia / NZ didn't require slaves to develop but went a lot more slowly as a consequence of relying upon internal population growth and hard working immigrants from the British Isles.

I don't really buy the "slave" argument and as far as I can see the vocal US blacks who do buy into it are contributing to the failure of many black Americans who after 150 years of freedom should just get on with making a success of their own lives rather than casting around for somebody from two centuries' ago to blame for their failure.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, LC1 said:

This is a minefield of course. Briefly, I think it is hard to disentangle race and culture. Would the US have been so successful if Africans had settled there instead of whites? 

It's a loaded question full of biases. I happen to not think that the US is an example of success. Pre-imperialism, were Africans "successful"? By whose barometer are we judging? They were pretty successful at being hunter gatherers, or pastoralists, I would argue. Keeping nature in fair balance, much like native inhabitants of the US were prior to invasion of their lands. 

This Faber guy may as well be saying that it's good that it was whites because they are much more efficient at bringing about a particular form of destructive appropriation of natural resources for private profit, encouraging the rampant individualism and associated problems we have these days. This wasn't inevitable. 

Not saying we should all go back to being peasant farmers, but the issue is complex and the question in the OP presumes a great deal about what constitutes "better". Plus it does seem a bit racist, if only for its oversimplicity.

Would the US have been so successful if Africans had settled there instead of Europeans?

 

Would be my take upon it; and the answer to me is a clear "no". 

But I don't think that you can then, as Marc Faber has done, extend that to blacks rather than whites.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 minutes ago, Dipsy said:

Also how much did slavery contribute to the prosperity of America (and other western countries)?

One could easily present the argument that in the long term the US would have been better off without it, as mechanisation removed the "requirement" for slaves only 2-3 generations later, and all the cultural divides and issues that followed it would have been avoided, the culture would perhaps be much more united now. They might not have been top of the Olympics medal table all the time though...

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, Frank Hovis said:

I'd say that it accelerated development rather than being a requirement for it. 

Australia / NZ didn't require slaves to develop but went a lot more slowly as a consequence of relying upon internal population growth and hard working immigrants from the British Isles.

I don't really buy the "slave" argument and as far as I can see the vocal US blacks who do buy into it are contributing to the failure of many black Americans who after 150 years of freedom should just get on with making a success of their own lives rather than casting around for somebody from two centuries' ago to blame for their failure.

I don't disagree that black Americans need to stop blaming slavery for what they believe is their current condition but whilst it may not have been a requirement for western nations, slavery certainly  helped generate wealth. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
29 minutes ago, swissy_fit said:

100% with you here Frank, but get ready for some really crap unscientific videos that "prove" you wrong to be posted.

What proportion of IQ is determined by genetics? The sjw answer is that it is entirely determined by environment and that the races are precisely equal in potential. That's why they have to blame everything on slavery, colonialism and white racism.

I guess once all the white people have been dealt with we'll find out if they're right. Early results from Haiti, SA and Zimbabwe don't look too promising. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

James Watson discovered DNA. He had this to say...

 

"He says that he is "inherently gloomy about the prospect of Africa" because "all our social policies are based on the fact that their intelligence is the same as ours – whereas all the testing says not really", and I know that this "hot potato" is going to be difficult to address. His hope is that everyone is equal, but he counters that "people who have to deal with black employees find this not true". He says that you should not discriminate on the basis of colour, because "there are many people of colour who are very talented, but don't promote them when they haven't succeeded at the lower level". He writes that "there is no firm reason to anticipate that the intellectual capacities of peoples geographically separated in their evolution should prove to have evolved identically. Our wanting to reserve equal powers of reason as some universal heritage of humanity will not be enough to make it so".[95]"

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
14 minutes ago, LC1 said:

This is a minefield of course. Briefly, I think it is hard to disentangle race and culture. Would the US have been so successful if Africans had settled there instead of whites? 

It's a loaded question full of biases. I happen to not think that the US is an example of success. Pre-imperialism, were Africans "successful"? By whose barometer are we judging? They were pretty successful at being hunter gatherers, or pastoralists, I would argue. Keeping nature in fair balance, much like native inhabitants of the US were prior to invasion of their lands. 

This Faber guy may as well be saying that it's good that it was whites because they are much more efficient at bringing about a particular form of destructive appropriation of natural resources for private profit, encouraging the rampant individualism and associated problems we have these days. This wasn't inevitable. 

Not saying we should all go back to being peasant farmers, but the issue is complex and the question in the OP presumes a great deal about what constitutes "better". Plus it does seem a bit racist, if only for its oversimplicity.

That's the noble savage fallacy. Primitive cultures are brutal and violent. American Indians were constantly at war with one another and used to keep each other as slaves. They cared not one jot for mother earth, that's a western preoccupation. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 minutes ago, whitevanman said:

What proportion of IQ is determined by genetics? The sjw answer is that it is entirely determined by environment and that the races are precisely equal in potential. That's why they have to blame everything on slavery, colonialism and white racism.

I guess once all the white people have been dealt with we'll find out if they're right. Early results from Haiti, SA and Zimbabwe don't look too promising. 

I'd say they've thrown the baby out with the bathwater because these regimes are essentially racist against whites and the European culture which they brought and which made those countries successful in the past.

2 minutes ago, whitevanman said:

That's the noble savage fallacy. Primitive cultures are brutal and violent. American Indians were constantly at war with one another and used to keep each other as slaves. They cared not one jot for mother earth, that's a western preoccupation. 

Absolutely. I read an ethnographic study of a remote part of Indonesia ?70 years ago. On the surface it all looked lovely but once the guy started interviewing people the facade was seen to be just that.

One woman was on her third husband. The current husband had taken a fancy to her and ambushed and killed her previous husband and taken her. The previous (deceased) husband had done exactly the same to her first husband. She had no choice but to submit each time or she would have also been killed.

And this initially had looked like a happy long-married couple.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
24 minutes ago, Frank Hovis said:

I'd say that it accelerated development rather than being a requirement for it. 

Australia / NZ didn't require slaves to develop but went a lot more slowly as a consequence of relying upon internal population growth and hard working immigrants from the British Isles.

I don't really buy the "slave" argument and as far as I can see the vocal US blacks who do buy into it are contributing to the failure of many black Americans who after 150 years of freedom should just get on with making a success of their own lives rather than casting around for somebody from two centuries' ago to blame for their failure.

 

Well, they did. People were sent out to Oz in their thousands as virtual slaves in the form of prisoners. Between 1788 and 1868 about 162,000 people were sent to Oz as convicts. 20% were women and they were all basically labelled as 'courtesans' - prostitutes although very few actually were.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
58 minutes ago, NTB said:

I agree that culture makes a vast difference but I would suggest that this effect gets multiplied by the IQ of the population and that there are very significant differences between average IQ across different population groups. Thus, America (with a protestant work ethic) would have prospered even more if the population were predominantly Chinese or Jewish.

Never in History has the black peoples of Africa created a city.  Never.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
18 minutes ago, whitevanman said:

That's the noble savage fallacy. Primitive cultures are brutal and violent. American Indians were constantly at war with one another and used to keep each other as slaves. They cared not one jot for mother earth, that's a western preoccupation. 

being in balance with nature usually means they starve when they outpopulate their ability to feed, and some die, rebalancing in the process.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this  

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.