On May 11, 9:42 am, Day Brown
hughes.net> wrote a long
rambling diatribe itemizing why his tribe is superior to all other
tribes who are ruled by little girls.
You know the title really made it sound like it came from Strumpet.
But, it doesn't read as much better. The general gist seems to be -
"we are so much better because we are more moral than the savages".
Where does Darwin fit in, anyway?
> Tribes always had shamen and witches who raised the kids of
> incompetent parents because the kids mite have the immune responses to
> pandemics.
>
Odd, that. I kinda thought Europeans and Asians had pretty good
immune systems compared to most tribal societies, precisely because
Europe was a densely populated pigsty. The exception being Africa
because the place is hell on earth, bacterially and virally speaking.
Why would you have pandemics in a tribal, low population density
environment?
> Barford, "The Early Slavs" shows us a yeoman farmer alternative, in
> which a young couple would take tools and seed into the vast forests
> of Europe, build a tiny log cabin, as we now say, "pioneer". they
> didnt need strong immune systems. There was nobody around to give them
> anything. what they needed was self control and good parenting skills.
Odd again. You know the term "freeburg"? Comes from kings having to
grant special concessions to folks to establish settlements in the
vast forests, where no one wanted to live. Wolves and brigands, that
kind of crap. I ain't too sure about your pioneering ideas, before
the New World.
Ah, noble European pioneers.... those were the days. Plus, I ain't
Slav and many of us are likely not.
> There was no social safety net. You either put up the firewood and
> food to survive the winter, or you died, and were out of the gene
> pool. They are, of course, the ancestors of many of us, and we've
> inherited many of their attitudes about self reliance and resource
> management.
Resource management - clearly demonstrated by the housing bubble and
debt levels.
> Which non-whites, other than temperate zone East Asians, have not.
> Thus also, intermarriage between these groups at opposite ends of the
> Eurasian land mass has worked out better. with similar moral values.
I would argue that Europeans & Asians have ended up on top for a
number of environmental reasons related to the early arguments
advanced by Guns, Germs and Steel. As well as cultural reasons,
surely - something _not_ admitted by Guns, Germs and Steel. Later on,
Europeans happened to invent capitalism. They then mostly avoided
falling into the isolationism and navel-gazing that seem to have
torpedoed the previously more advanced Muslim and Chinese societies.
If you look at human history, it is unusual for a civilization, up to
now at least, to remain on top of the heap for very long. It is
however not unusual for members of top-dog civilizations to consider
themselves inherently superior for the duration.
