@LibertarianRealist I know, I rejected it unseen and I don't intend viewing it either. I've had enough of this subject, especially people who insist on debating positions I don't hold while associating them with my name, whether that is you I will never find out.
Making this video has cost me the chance to make a much better video on a subject I wanted to discuss. I am really not that concerned by this whole subject and yet most people react as if this is the only thing I am interested in.
Great video Martin, love your actual-realism as always. I really wonder why some people need to pretend that there are no aggregate differences between groups. Doesn't the mere fact that we can categorize people into groups imply slight differences between them and non-members?
@bishop8000 Yes, that's common sense, but you can't use common sense when involved with race, you need to be able to cite something from a paper they haven't decided is biased.
@thegoodlocust Read Guns, Germs and Steel. All the answers are in there. Every single one. I could give you page numbers if you need them.
It is not necessary to postulate differences in people to account for different history on the different continents. But having said that it also doesn't follow that there could not also be some differences. I am open minded on the matter.
@MartinJWillett I am aware of the book, but I have too many others on my "to do" list at the moment.
In any case, one doesn't need to postulate what has already been proven - different genetic origins, biological differences, behavioral differences, etc. The most logically elegant answer seems to be that the average differences between the races have had a noticeable impact on the history of those races.
@MartinJWillett Which argument am I ignoring? The command to read a book? That's not an argument - that's a cop out.
I've given counter-examples to your actual argument. For example, the idea that Africans could've domesticated Zebras - hell, the Siberians used to ride reindeer.
It seems to me that "Guns, Germs and Steel" may simply be a clever-looking hypothesis that doesn't stand up to real scrutiny just like the Siberian land bridge theory has been shown to be bunk.
@thegoodlocust Yes Jared Diamond explains exactly why zebras were not domesticated. Ever. By anybody. It is in a chapter called "Zebras and Unhappy Marriages". As I said, read it. Don't come back until you have. I have better things to do with my time.
@MartinJWillett And yet wikipedia shows several examples of Europeans domesticating them in modern times. Do you think horses were originally so easy to domesticate? Of course not, they've been bred for thousands of years to be more docile and less fearful.
As I said, people have ridden things like reindeer, it isn't that zebras couldn't have been domesticated, it was that the natives didn't have the ability or ingenuity to do it.
@thegoodlocust No. Domestication requires that a species be controlled including its breeding. Zebras have never been domesticated and most attempts to ride them have failed, they are just too nasty tempered when fully grown.
Horses were not domesticated multiple times by dozens of tribes either. One tribe domesticated the horse, as a result they had such a military advantage that they left their language from India to Ireland.
@MartinJWillett As I said, horses were domesticated many thousands of years ago and bred to be more docile. The fact that undomesticated zebras can and have been ridden shows that they can be domesticated.
And yes,like the wheel (another thing you are wrong about) horses and other riding animals were domesticated by several different groups.
Llamas, reindeer, elephants, camels, horses, oxen could be domesticated.....but not zebra? This is illogical.
@thegoodlocust Don't waste my time any further. I do not intend to précis the book and post it to you in 500 character instalments. It is significantly easier to read than the Qur'an and much shorter than the bible. You don't have any excuses. Read it. Then you can debate it.
I am not responsible for your education and I'm not getting any reward or pleasure from it.
@MartinJWillett You sound exactly like a Muslim or Christian telling me I need to fully study the bible before having an "educated" opinion on god, creation, morality, the soul, etc.
You are behaving and speaking irrationally and emotionally instead of factually.
If you have some personal problem in your life that you are dealing with then deal with it directly instead of being abusive towards someone who disagrees with the opinions you adopted wholesale from a book you read. .
@thegoodlocust There is a bloody big difference. The book is 457 pages, it has won major awards, it is a riveting read, extremely well written and you will not regret the time spent in reading whether you are convinced by the arguments or not.
Not another word until you have. I will block you if you make another post on this subject before reading the book. Read it or fuck off. I'm easy either way.
@MartinJWillett I could just have easily written a book entitled, "Genes, Capitalism and Navigation" to explain the dominance of Euro-asian civilizations. Of course, since a genetic explanation, even a partial one, is a academic faux pax I doubt I'd be able to find a publisher or win any fancy prizes.
@bluebalute I'll try to remember to watch that when I have the time. I'm sure I'll be frustrated watching the errors though. For some reason I can't seem to add anything to my "Watch later" list at this point.
@MrHerrIQ2 That is difficult to argue against. I am certainly of the opinion that multiculturalism is a total failure. Parallel cultures in close proximity is not something that anybody should ever aspire to as a model. Even cultures as similar as those in Belgium are clearly a cause for tensions, why anybody would want to create a multicultural society deliberately is quite beyond me. Were they insane? High on brain-destroying ideology? They have a lot to answer for.
Political correctness is a problem that now affects the popular science fields.
I just can't take on board anything that I know has elements of mistruth about it.
Pressure groups don't want to deal with the problems when these problems make them important or rich, the world is full of people who want to be 'special' and will find a way to believe they are so (I'm positive I've said this sentence before, almost for sure on one of your other videos).
@MrHerrIQ2 Diversity is certainly a source of tension. One reason why the Nordic countries were so comfortable with a welfare state and America was so uncomfortable was the fact that until recently there was so much homogeneity in the Nordic countries. Feeling a sense of belonging and common concern comes naturally when people feel a common bond. That bond need not be blood, but blood works, creating an alternative bond takes more effort, such as the wars of liberation in Latin America.
@MrHerrIQ2 You only need to look at Ireland or Bosnia to get your answer. Racially there is next to nothing between these people who hate each other with a passion. Race is a source of cleavage but we hardly need the excuse, just think about the First World War, it was literally cousin George and cousin Nicholas against cousin Wilhelm. Mixing up the races isn't something anybody should to aspire to do in and of itself, but it needn't be any worse than mixing up any other different cultures.
Another point to consider is that it hasn't really been a main goal to conquer/destroy other races. When European races have decided to conquer other ones they've been largely successful - Australia, Africa, America, etc. What about Africans conquering Europeans?
Looking at the history of Asian/European civilizations it is pretty clear they've outclassed Africa/Australia for thousands of years. The differences could easily be defined as "large."
@thegoodlocust You also have to bear in mind how having a high level of technology for many years gives you advantages which accumulate like compound interest. Africans never got as far as attacking the coast of Europe because European technology was ahead, but only by a margin of about three hundred years. Africans had excellent steel and they had tribal chieftains and so on which compare with the European technology and culture of the early Viking era. They lacked horses, guns and ships.
@MartinJWillett Which Africans had excellent steel? And why did they have it? What happened to them?
Why couldn't subS Africans ride camels, oxen or dogs? Why didn't they invent they wheel when other civilizations had been using it for thousands of years? Their geography was much better suited for it.
Sure, technology does give you compounding advantages, but what is the source of tech? Intelligence, patience, inventiveness ,etc.
Excuses are interesting, but I like Occam's razor more.
@thegoodlocust Most technology comes from previous technology. The wheel was invented once. Agriculture maybe four times. Writing, from first principles, probably no more than twice. Nothing completely novel was invented in England until after the medieval period, prior to that all inventions came from overseas, mostly from far to the East. If any race had to rely on its own ingenuity entirely they would have been really backward, like, say, the Australians.
@MartinJWillett I'm not sure if I agree that the wheel was invented just once. That seems like an unknown. Moreover, it seems likely that any number of civilizations would've invented it if they hadn't stolen the idea.
In any case, the people from the far east, just like Europeans, are descended from neanderthals and Cro-magnons - our larger brained ancestors, while Africans lack that genetic origin.
Additionally, why didn't subS Africans learn from all the other civilizations around them?
@thegoodlocust The evidence is clear that the wheel was invented once. It was a strange design involving three planks. Later it was refined, but once you've seen a wheel, or met somebody who knows what one is you can't invent it.
There is a clue in the name you used. Blacks lived south of the Sahara, what could grow north of it couldn't grow south of it. But as I keep saying read the book, then decide whether you buy the arguments rather than just imagine that they can't be very good.
Hold on a second - how do you define a "large discrepancy?" I agree the differences between whites and asians are pretty slight, but the native populations in sub-Saharan Africa and Australia seem to have a much lower average level of IQ.
Your hypothesis that a large difference in intelligence would be shown is history is wrong on several points. For one thing, resistance to local diseases and climate might be more significant.
Yeah, I still marvel at the extreme stubborness of the pervasive "ant-racists". In Sweden having a huge influx of basically illiterate people with a VASTLY different mindset and culture is wreacking havoc in economy and socially. As soon as someone suggest putting more stricter limits on the influx they anti-racists scream RACIST from the top of their lungs, splattering their oral feces on anyone in the vicinity. A-R do not let reality and facts stand in their way acheive dreamy fiction land.
@MrHerrIQ2 Secondly the idea that just because there has been separation in the past this must somehow be a good thing. There is no reason to assume that separation is beneficial. Equally I disagree with the idea that mixing up the races cures the mythical problems of inbreeding. It is human nature for populations to interbreed when they have the opportunity. It has always occurred, stopping it with artificial restraints is a curb on our liberty.
Are you sure of this ? Interracial marriages are very low even in multicultural societies. It seems race A still prefers Race A for its mating. Also interbreeding historical was often rape,something that isnt accepted anymore culturally so the rules of the past might not apply anymore.
@quatroseven Yes I am sure of this, I see mixed race people on a daily basis. A minority of people want partners of another race. It's just as well it is only a minority or there would be more fights. If one in twenty breed out of their group the groups will soon blur together. This is normal, good and healthy. Forcing it to happen more or less is wrong and unhealthy.
@MrHerrIQ2 Firstly the idea that a race is or should be any kind of unit of loyalty. The vast majority of human conflicts have involved people of the same race. Conflicts across racial divides are the exception rather than the rule. Apart from a few skirmishes in the nineteenth century for the minority of European countries which had an empire almost every major conflict has been within the same race. The English have fought the Scots, Dutch, Germans, French, Spanish, Danes, Irish and Italians.
@MartinJWillett Most historical conflicts have been between members of the same race because armies had to get to the enemy on foot for most of history -and getting to lands where members of other races lived was rather difficult. Nonetheless there were plenty of ancient and medieval wars that did have a racial element. The Crusades spring to mind. Most wars were certainly between members of different cultures with different languages.
@rahotep101 The Crusades were not racial wars. Neither were the wars of Egypt and her neighbours. These were wars where the protagonists were different races but that wasn't the reason for the war. People fight wars for territory and to drive out invaders, whether the invaders are tribes separated by a mere few hundred years of separate history or a different race makes little difference to the wars.
@MartinJWillett The Crusades were wars with a racial element. The antagonists called each other 'Sarancens' and 'Franks'. It just happens that Arab ethnic imperialism dressed itself up a religion and eventually infected others. Obviously people's petty territorial disputes are likely to be with their immediate neighbours/competitors, who were likely to be of the same race as themselves. The more races are mixed up and living in close proximity, the more wars there are that have racial elements.
@rahotep101 The Franks were the people who spoke the lingua Franca. It was a cultural identity comprising language, religion and a whole set of values, the Franks were not homogeneous, some were Germanic, some French, some Norman (a mere three generations out of Scandinavia).
I'm not sure if there was meant to be a point to this post.
@MartinJWillett Quite.,('Saracens' also inluded such peoples as Arabs, Turks, Kurds, and North Africans) but the point withstands. Historically, Europeans were more likely to go to war with their direct neighbours within Europe, due to petty politics, but even then there was a sense of European solidairy (then expressed as 'Christendom'). They would join forces against the external Islamic enemy. Now we are expected to import non-white Muslims- bred in an alien culture- and live in inharmony.
@quatroseven How does it benefit an infertile ploughman in the eight century that some members of his race now live on the other side of the planet? If you can demonstrate to me how he benefits from knowledge he can't possess or use then we can talk about race as a unit of loyalty.
Enjoy the continue straw-manning and traducing you will face. Observing and participating in the race debate these last couple of months, has shown me the true savage bestial nature of man.
@BahamutDKing Indeed, perfect equality and huge racial differences are both extraordinary claims and the evidence on offer is not up to the task of proving either.
I am not advocating that all humans cultures or all humans are equal in all areas of human endeavour nor do I know of anyone who is advocating a similar line of thought. I don't think that most people have advocated that all races are equal in culture. What the 'antiracists' don't advocate is , that 'races' don't have equal cultures because of their genetics, the position that many of you race realists are advocating despite the lack of evidence for such a position.
I'm danish. Born in DK, live my life like most other danes. Do what most other danes do. I identify myself with how we live our lives here (and most of Eu for that matter). I shiver at the thought of having to live life as they do in other parts of the world.
I don't care about skin color, but I'm concerned about ppl coming here and trying to change how we live.
Am I a racist? Well, I'm only 50% Danish, rest is a mix of French, Portuguese and Egyptian, so go ahead and call me racist.
@ItsmeonY2 The word has a variety of definitions. On some measures you would be considered racist because having a preference between one way of life and another can be viewed as racist by the extremists. By that measure almost everybody who ever lived was racist.
Yup, that's why I get annoyed with ppl calling ppl racist, simply for valuing(did I spell that correct?) other cultural trades.
My point was: I can't be a racist by defenition of skin color, cuz I'm not of one certain group(by defenition).. I'm simply intolerant of those who I find intolerant.
Comment removed
MAchoManRandySavag 3 months ago
Agreed.
iMaDeMoN2012 3 months ago
I posted a video response to this.
LibertarianRealist 3 months ago
@LibertarianRealist I know, I rejected it unseen and I don't intend viewing it either. I've had enough of this subject, especially people who insist on debating positions I don't hold while associating them with my name, whether that is you I will never find out.
Making this video has cost me the chance to make a much better video on a subject I wanted to discuss. I am really not that concerned by this whole subject and yet most people react as if this is the only thing I am interested in.
MartinJWillett 3 months ago
its hard to read and understand what youre saying at the same time
rororonan 3 months ago
@rororonan You can pause, or just ignore the screen. The message is always in the audio.
MartinJWillett 3 months ago
Great video Martin, love your actual-realism as always. I really wonder why some people need to pretend that there are no aggregate differences between groups. Doesn't the mere fact that we can categorize people into groups imply slight differences between them and non-members?
bishop8000 3 months ago
@bishop8000 Yes, that's common sense, but you can't use common sense when involved with race, you need to be able to cite something from a paper they haven't decided is biased.
MartinJWillett 3 months ago
@MrHerrIQ2
Its not mono racialism as a biological reality, its racialism as THE ideology. That has never existed unless we include Ancient tribalism.
quatroseven 3 months ago
Oh and I missed the obvious one - Zebras. They had thousands of years to domesticate them.
Why not?
thegoodlocust 3 months ago
@thegoodlocust Read Guns, Germs and Steel. All the answers are in there. Every single one. I could give you page numbers if you need them.
It is not necessary to postulate differences in people to account for different history on the different continents. But having said that it also doesn't follow that there could not also be some differences. I am open minded on the matter.
MartinJWillett 3 months ago
@MartinJWillett I am aware of the book, but I have too many others on my "to do" list at the moment.
In any case, one doesn't need to postulate what has already been proven - different genetic origins, biological differences, behavioral differences, etc. The most logically elegant answer seems to be that the average differences between the races have had a noticeable impact on the history of those races.
thegoodlocust 3 months ago
@thegoodlocust Put the others down and read this book. William Occam was not a scientist. Jared Diamond is a polymath.
I will not waste my time arguing with people who ignore the argument.
MartinJWillett 3 months ago
@MartinJWillett Which argument am I ignoring? The command to read a book? That's not an argument - that's a cop out.
I've given counter-examples to your actual argument. For example, the idea that Africans could've domesticated Zebras - hell, the Siberians used to ride reindeer.
It seems to me that "Guns, Germs and Steel" may simply be a clever-looking hypothesis that doesn't stand up to real scrutiny just like the Siberian land bridge theory has been shown to be bunk.
thegoodlocust 3 months ago
@thegoodlocust Doh, I should have read further down before my first post. Excuse me.
bluebalute 3 months ago
@thegoodlocust Yes Jared Diamond explains exactly why zebras were not domesticated. Ever. By anybody. It is in a chapter called "Zebras and Unhappy Marriages". As I said, read it. Don't come back until you have. I have better things to do with my time.
MartinJWillett 3 months ago
@MartinJWillett And yet wikipedia shows several examples of Europeans domesticating them in modern times. Do you think horses were originally so easy to domesticate? Of course not, they've been bred for thousands of years to be more docile and less fearful.
As I said, people have ridden things like reindeer, it isn't that zebras couldn't have been domesticated, it was that the natives didn't have the ability or ingenuity to do it.
thegoodlocust 3 months ago
@thegoodlocust No. Domestication requires that a species be controlled including its breeding. Zebras have never been domesticated and most attempts to ride them have failed, they are just too nasty tempered when fully grown.
Horses were not domesticated multiple times by dozens of tribes either. One tribe domesticated the horse, as a result they had such a military advantage that they left their language from India to Ireland.
Just read the book.
MartinJWillett 3 months ago
@MartinJWillett As I said, horses were domesticated many thousands of years ago and bred to be more docile. The fact that undomesticated zebras can and have been ridden shows that they can be domesticated.
And yes,like the wheel (another thing you are wrong about) horses and other riding animals were domesticated by several different groups.
Llamas, reindeer, elephants, camels, horses, oxen could be domesticated.....but not zebra? This is illogical.
thegoodlocust 3 months ago
@thegoodlocust Don't waste my time any further. I do not intend to précis the book and post it to you in 500 character instalments. It is significantly easier to read than the Qur'an and much shorter than the bible. You don't have any excuses. Read it. Then you can debate it.
I am not responsible for your education and I'm not getting any reward or pleasure from it.
MartinJWillett 3 months ago
@MartinJWillett You sound exactly like a Muslim or Christian telling me I need to fully study the bible before having an "educated" opinion on god, creation, morality, the soul, etc.
You are behaving and speaking irrationally and emotionally instead of factually.
If you have some personal problem in your life that you are dealing with then deal with it directly instead of being abusive towards someone who disagrees with the opinions you adopted wholesale from a book you read. .
thegoodlocust 3 months ago
@thegoodlocust There is a bloody big difference. The book is 457 pages, it has won major awards, it is a riveting read, extremely well written and you will not regret the time spent in reading whether you are convinced by the arguments or not.
Not another word until you have. I will block you if you make another post on this subject before reading the book. Read it or fuck off. I'm easy either way.
MartinJWillett 3 months ago
@MartinJWillett I could just have easily written a book entitled, "Genes, Capitalism and Navigation" to explain the dominance of Euro-asian civilizations. Of course, since a genetic explanation, even a partial one, is a academic faux pax I doubt I'd be able to find a publisher or win any fancy prizes.
thegoodlocust 3 months ago
@thegoodlocust On your book "Genes, Capitalism and Navigation", you're a little late: /watch?v=bgnmT-Y_rGQ :)
bluebalute 3 months ago
@bluebalute I'll try to remember to watch that when I have the time. I'm sure I'll be frustrated watching the errors though. For some reason I can't seem to add anything to my "Watch later" list at this point.
thegoodlocust 3 months ago
@thegoodlocust Try reading the best selling classic work in the field first, eh?
MartinJWillett 3 months ago
@thegoodlocust If David Duke's books of paranoia could get punished, surely yours could too.
RedSkyNord 1 week ago
@MrHerrIQ2 That is difficult to argue against. I am certainly of the opinion that multiculturalism is a total failure. Parallel cultures in close proximity is not something that anybody should ever aspire to as a model. Even cultures as similar as those in Belgium are clearly a cause for tensions, why anybody would want to create a multicultural society deliberately is quite beyond me. Were they insane? High on brain-destroying ideology? They have a lot to answer for.
MartinJWillett 3 months ago 5
Political correctness is a problem that now affects the popular science fields.
I just can't take on board anything that I know has elements of mistruth about it.
Pressure groups don't want to deal with the problems when these problems make them important or rich, the world is full of people who want to be 'special' and will find a way to believe they are so (I'm positive I've said this sentence before, almost for sure on one of your other videos).
abjectreality 3 months ago
@MrHerrIQ2 Diversity is certainly a source of tension. One reason why the Nordic countries were so comfortable with a welfare state and America was so uncomfortable was the fact that until recently there was so much homogeneity in the Nordic countries. Feeling a sense of belonging and common concern comes naturally when people feel a common bond. That bond need not be blood, but blood works, creating an alternative bond takes more effort, such as the wars of liberation in Latin America.
MartinJWillett 3 months ago
@MrHerrIQ2 You only need to look at Ireland or Bosnia to get your answer. Racially there is next to nothing between these people who hate each other with a passion. Race is a source of cleavage but we hardly need the excuse, just think about the First World War, it was literally cousin George and cousin Nicholas against cousin Wilhelm. Mixing up the races isn't something anybody should to aspire to do in and of itself, but it needn't be any worse than mixing up any other different cultures.
MartinJWillett 3 months ago
Another point to consider is that it hasn't really been a main goal to conquer/destroy other races. When European races have decided to conquer other ones they've been largely successful - Australia, Africa, America, etc. What about Africans conquering Europeans?
Looking at the history of Asian/European civilizations it is pretty clear they've outclassed Africa/Australia for thousands of years. The differences could easily be defined as "large."
thegoodlocust 3 months ago
@thegoodlocust You also have to bear in mind how having a high level of technology for many years gives you advantages which accumulate like compound interest. Africans never got as far as attacking the coast of Europe because European technology was ahead, but only by a margin of about three hundred years. Africans had excellent steel and they had tribal chieftains and so on which compare with the European technology and culture of the early Viking era. They lacked horses, guns and ships.
MartinJWillett 3 months ago
@MartinJWillett Which Africans had excellent steel? And why did they have it? What happened to them?
Why couldn't subS Africans ride camels, oxen or dogs? Why didn't they invent they wheel when other civilizations had been using it for thousands of years? Their geography was much better suited for it.
Sure, technology does give you compounding advantages, but what is the source of tech? Intelligence, patience, inventiveness ,etc.
Excuses are interesting, but I like Occam's razor more.
thegoodlocust 3 months ago 8
@thegoodlocust Most technology comes from previous technology. The wheel was invented once. Agriculture maybe four times. Writing, from first principles, probably no more than twice. Nothing completely novel was invented in England until after the medieval period, prior to that all inventions came from overseas, mostly from far to the East. If any race had to rely on its own ingenuity entirely they would have been really backward, like, say, the Australians.
MartinJWillett 3 months ago
@MartinJWillett I'm not sure if I agree that the wheel was invented just once. That seems like an unknown. Moreover, it seems likely that any number of civilizations would've invented it if they hadn't stolen the idea.
In any case, the people from the far east, just like Europeans, are descended from neanderthals and Cro-magnons - our larger brained ancestors, while Africans lack that genetic origin.
Additionally, why didn't subS Africans learn from all the other civilizations around them?
thegoodlocust 3 months ago
@thegoodlocust The evidence is clear that the wheel was invented once. It was a strange design involving three planks. Later it was refined, but once you've seen a wheel, or met somebody who knows what one is you can't invent it.
There is a clue in the name you used. Blacks lived south of the Sahara, what could grow north of it couldn't grow south of it. But as I keep saying read the book, then decide whether you buy the arguments rather than just imagine that they can't be very good.
MartinJWillett 3 months ago
@thegoodlocust It might just as well be a lack in the cultures of africa, rather than genetics.
Greggah 2 months ago
Hold on a second - how do you define a "large discrepancy?" I agree the differences between whites and asians are pretty slight, but the native populations in sub-Saharan Africa and Australia seem to have a much lower average level of IQ.
Your hypothesis that a large difference in intelligence would be shown is history is wrong on several points. For one thing, resistance to local diseases and climate might be more significant.
thegoodlocust 3 months ago
Yeah, I still marvel at the extreme stubborness of the pervasive "ant-racists". In Sweden having a huge influx of basically illiterate people with a VASTLY different mindset and culture is wreacking havoc in economy and socially. As soon as someone suggest putting more stricter limits on the influx they anti-racists scream RACIST from the top of their lungs, splattering their oral feces on anyone in the vicinity. A-R do not let reality and facts stand in their way acheive dreamy fiction land.
Paxmax 3 months ago
f'ing great and awesomely put.
Paxmax 3 months ago
@MrHerrIQ2 Secondly the idea that just because there has been separation in the past this must somehow be a good thing. There is no reason to assume that separation is beneficial. Equally I disagree with the idea that mixing up the races cures the mythical problems of inbreeding. It is human nature for populations to interbreed when they have the opportunity. It has always occurred, stopping it with artificial restraints is a curb on our liberty.
MartinJWillett 3 months ago
@MartinJWillett
Are you sure of this ? Interracial marriages are very low even in multicultural societies. It seems race A still prefers Race A for its mating. Also interbreeding historical was often rape,something that isnt accepted anymore culturally so the rules of the past might not apply anymore.
quatroseven 3 months ago
@quatroseven Yes I am sure of this, I see mixed race people on a daily basis. A minority of people want partners of another race. It's just as well it is only a minority or there would be more fights. If one in twenty breed out of their group the groups will soon blur together. This is normal, good and healthy. Forcing it to happen more or less is wrong and unhealthy.
MartinJWillett 3 months ago
@MrHerrIQ2 Firstly the idea that a race is or should be any kind of unit of loyalty. The vast majority of human conflicts have involved people of the same race. Conflicts across racial divides are the exception rather than the rule. Apart from a few skirmishes in the nineteenth century for the minority of European countries which had an empire almost every major conflict has been within the same race. The English have fought the Scots, Dutch, Germans, French, Spanish, Danes, Irish and Italians.
MartinJWillett 3 months ago
@MartinJWillett Most historical conflicts have been between members of the same race because armies had to get to the enemy on foot for most of history -and getting to lands where members of other races lived was rather difficult. Nonetheless there were plenty of ancient and medieval wars that did have a racial element. The Crusades spring to mind. Most wars were certainly between members of different cultures with different languages.
rahotep101 3 months ago
@rahotep101 The Crusades were not racial wars. Neither were the wars of Egypt and her neighbours. These were wars where the protagonists were different races but that wasn't the reason for the war. People fight wars for territory and to drive out invaders, whether the invaders are tribes separated by a mere few hundred years of separate history or a different race makes little difference to the wars.
MartinJWillett 3 months ago
@MartinJWillett The Crusades were wars with a racial element. The antagonists called each other 'Sarancens' and 'Franks'. It just happens that Arab ethnic imperialism dressed itself up a religion and eventually infected others. Obviously people's petty territorial disputes are likely to be with their immediate neighbours/competitors, who were likely to be of the same race as themselves. The more races are mixed up and living in close proximity, the more wars there are that have racial elements.
rahotep101 3 months ago
@rahotep101 The Franks were the people who spoke the lingua Franca. It was a cultural identity comprising language, religion and a whole set of values, the Franks were not homogeneous, some were Germanic, some French, some Norman (a mere three generations out of Scandinavia).
I'm not sure if there was meant to be a point to this post.
MartinJWillett 3 months ago
@MartinJWillett Quite.,('Saracens' also inluded such peoples as Arabs, Turks, Kurds, and North Africans) but the point withstands. Historically, Europeans were more likely to go to war with their direct neighbours within Europe, due to petty politics, but even then there was a sense of European solidairy (then expressed as 'Christendom'). They would join forces against the external Islamic enemy. Now we are expected to import non-white Muslims- bred in an alien culture- and live in inharmony.
rahotep101 3 months ago
@rahotep101 'in harmony', rather.
rahotep101 3 months ago
@MartinJWillett
Actually this is a great argument that Race should be a unit of loyalty.
quatroseven 3 months ago
@quatroseven How does it benefit an infertile ploughman in the eight century that some members of his race now live on the other side of the planet? If you can demonstrate to me how he benefits from knowledge he can't possess or use then we can talk about race as a unit of loyalty.
MartinJWillett 3 months ago
Enjoy the continue straw-manning and traducing you will face. Observing and participating in the race debate these last couple of months, has shown me the true savage bestial nature of man.
DKshad0w 3 months ago in playlist Liked
All come back to "extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence"
BahamutDKing 3 months ago
@BahamutDKing Indeed, perfect equality and huge racial differences are both extraordinary claims and the evidence on offer is not up to the task of proving either.
MartinJWillett 3 months ago
Good arguments Martin. Its BANJO! Y'all!
DMSProduktions 3 months ago
@DMSProduktions Bugger. There's no spell check in my paint program.
MartinJWillett 3 months ago
@MartinJWillett Sorry mate. At least I picked it up for you.
DMSProduktions 3 months ago
I am not advocating that all humans cultures or all humans are equal in all areas of human endeavour nor do I know of anyone who is advocating a similar line of thought. I don't think that most people have advocated that all races are equal in culture. What the 'antiracists' don't advocate is , that 'races' don't have equal cultures because of their genetics, the position that many of you race realists are advocating despite the lack of evidence for such a position.
Pentazoid111 3 months ago
@Pentazoid111 You had better not be including me in your "you race realists".
MartinJWillett 3 months ago
I'm danish. Born in DK, live my life like most other danes. Do what most other danes do. I identify myself with how we live our lives here (and most of Eu for that matter). I shiver at the thought of having to live life as they do in other parts of the world.
I don't care about skin color, but I'm concerned about ppl coming here and trying to change how we live.
Am I a racist? Well, I'm only 50% Danish, rest is a mix of French, Portuguese and Egyptian, so go ahead and call me racist.
ItsmeonY2 3 months ago
@ItsmeonY2 The word has a variety of definitions. On some measures you would be considered racist because having a preference between one way of life and another can be viewed as racist by the extremists. By that measure almost everybody who ever lived was racist.
MartinJWillett 3 months ago
@MartinJWillett
Yup, that's why I get annoyed with ppl calling ppl racist, simply for valuing(did I spell that correct?) other cultural trades.
My point was: I can't be a racist by defenition of skin color, cuz I'm not of one certain group(by defenition).. I'm simply intolerant of those who I find intolerant.
ItsmeonY2 3 months ago
@ItsmeonY2 You're a racist!1111!
DKshad0w 3 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@DKshad0w
"You're a racist!1111! "
Well, then you're a pinhead.
ItsmeonY2 3 months ago
Wow, Martin, you have bombarded us with videos lately. And I'm not complaining.
yoshobbit 3 months ago
Interesting points. Just another example that nothing is black and white.
mirex951 3 months ago