In the 1980s, I was Chase Manhattan Bank's economist for Sub-Saharan Africa. When I took the job, I immersed myself in writings about the continent. One of the recurring themes was the irrationality of the borders--just about all of which were drawn by European colonial powers. One nation might include ethnicities who differed by language, religion, and history; and some of those thrown together were ancient enemies. Often, a single coherent ethnic group would be divided across several of the contrived nation-states. One African nation was heralded as an exception--perhaps THE exception to these contrivances. That was Somalia, which was ethnically, religiously, linguistically, and culturally homogeneous. Somalia's population was almost entirely ethnic Somalis--Sunni Muslims who spoke a common language. And the vast majority of ethnic Somalis lived in Somalia. Somalia and the Somali people also possessed a stunning piece of coastline along one of earth's busiest trade routes. Surely, observers thought, Somalia had the makings of an exception to Africa's pattern of economic and social collapse. And yet ... ... Somalia ultimately descended into fractious internal warfare among rival warlords; the country became the exemplar of the term "failed state."
"Of course, all of this splintered, scattered thinking is a manifestation of the wars among the powers and principalities that rule over each ethnic group. They are doing what they’ve always done: using their human proxies to sow fear, discord, violence, and to jockey for position over other ethnicities." Thank you as always for this reminder to see through the correct "lens". It instantly makes everything make sense. And reminds believers who we really eternally are and to whom we belong.
I find it ironic that many people on the Mexican genealogy pages are proud to say they are descended from Aztec, and not those evil Spanish conquerors. Others want to know what their tribe is. A tribe from the 17th century usually. Some are brave enough as I do, to point out that the nature of tribes is to fight each other, and in addition the brutality of the Aztecs. On other genealogy sites others of European extraction will claim kinship with an ancestor from 13 generations ago. I always point out that at that level you have 32,768 individual you descend from. There is some real ancestor worship out there. Christians should all be the same tribe, but we are human and we act like it.
Even in Africa you find huge cultural, linguistic and ethnic differences. And we're just going to ignore the inhabitants of North Africa, who are mostly Semites, which is to say "Caucasian."
Many Americans, including blacks, think of Africa as a homogenous monoculture, which is idiotic. They all might "look the same" to us, but they actually do not. There are differences, and they can be extremely important to them. Just ask the Tutsis and Hutus.
Barring a major technological setback, in 200 years the whole world will be light brown and there's nothing anyone can do about it. Savor diversity while it lasts.
There is a simple solution to all this violence. It's called "separation." Parents use it with toddlers, jailers use it with prison gangs, campers use it with boys and girls. Keep them apart, stop the problems.
Or as someone once said: "Good fences make good neighbors."
Thank you, Juliette, for a wonderful missive. I think the big issue is what we think of History. If we think of History as controlling and defining us, we're angry about everything. Mr. x is a symbol of X-ness, and I must defeat him. If we think of History as heuristics, we have quick guesses enabled and a temptation to pre-judgment, but we can react to reality. Mr x is X (probably bad!), but he gave my daughter a band-aid when she fell in front of his shop and he laughed with her. Maybe Mr x is okay. Maybe?
It's the slow development of these heuristics, gently ignoring History, that changes us. (Actually, not ignoring, but bringing History up to date.) J Goldberg said human nature has no history. McWhorter said we'll f* ourselves into peace. How can we work our heuristics into History, so that we preserve our differences, but can laugh when our daughters get a band-aid?
It seems that the strength of a group enables peace. So, generally, someone who espouses his values, and says "we have this to offer," helps himself, and his group, and (in reaction) other groups. Because in the end the principle will matter, not who espouses it. Who can doubt that Frederick Douglas was among the greatest of Americans by this standard? He inducted himself intro free men, and brought any willing compatriots, by his forcefulness, and indicted anyone of the group he purposed to join by their own principles.
As a lily-white dude, I was surprised the first time I observed tension between blacks (black Americans) and blacks (Africans), when I was a bartender in DC. But after a few months, seeing the dislike, I started to like both of them, viewing them as sports teams, rooting for jerseys. The sass was vitriolic and intense.
I think intersectionalists quickly essentialize these things. But for the most part, the groups I've seen view the Other as something to be defeated, put down, competed against, ridiculed. There's an enormous amount of hostility, but 95% of it is like gorillas, or like Yanks-Sox, chest-beating.
There are forces to keep it that way (or even, miraculously, to tamp it down!). And there are forces that turn it into bloodshed. The dislike between X and Y can be quite creative--the fertile verge. Or it can be murderous.
Aw, nigger-lover judged me. How ever shall I go on? Oh, I know, preferring my own race over niggers and asking niggers like Juliette Milk Dud to return to Africa.
In the 1980s, I was Chase Manhattan Bank's economist for Sub-Saharan Africa. When I took the job, I immersed myself in writings about the continent. One of the recurring themes was the irrationality of the borders--just about all of which were drawn by European colonial powers. One nation might include ethnicities who differed by language, religion, and history; and some of those thrown together were ancient enemies. Often, a single coherent ethnic group would be divided across several of the contrived nation-states. One African nation was heralded as an exception--perhaps THE exception to these contrivances. That was Somalia, which was ethnically, religiously, linguistically, and culturally homogeneous. Somalia's population was almost entirely ethnic Somalis--Sunni Muslims who spoke a common language. And the vast majority of ethnic Somalis lived in Somalia. Somalia and the Somali people also possessed a stunning piece of coastline along one of earth's busiest trade routes. Surely, observers thought, Somalia had the makings of an exception to Africa's pattern of economic and social collapse. And yet ... ... Somalia ultimately descended into fractious internal warfare among rival warlords; the country became the exemplar of the term "failed state."
"Of course, all of this splintered, scattered thinking is a manifestation of the wars among the powers and principalities that rule over each ethnic group. They are doing what they’ve always done: using their human proxies to sow fear, discord, violence, and to jockey for position over other ethnicities." Thank you as always for this reminder to see through the correct "lens". It instantly makes everything make sense. And reminds believers who we really eternally are and to whom we belong.
I find it ironic that many people on the Mexican genealogy pages are proud to say they are descended from Aztec, and not those evil Spanish conquerors. Others want to know what their tribe is. A tribe from the 17th century usually. Some are brave enough as I do, to point out that the nature of tribes is to fight each other, and in addition the brutality of the Aztecs. On other genealogy sites others of European extraction will claim kinship with an ancestor from 13 generations ago. I always point out that at that level you have 32,768 individual you descend from. There is some real ancestor worship out there. Christians should all be the same tribe, but we are human and we act like it.
Even in Africa you find huge cultural, linguistic and ethnic differences. And we're just going to ignore the inhabitants of North Africa, who are mostly Semites, which is to say "Caucasian."
Many Americans, including blacks, think of Africa as a homogenous monoculture, which is idiotic. They all might "look the same" to us, but they actually do not. There are differences, and they can be extremely important to them. Just ask the Tutsis and Hutus.
Hence my "neighbors" observation. Rwanda also mentioned.
My father's country has about 30 ethnicities, not counting various types of whites, Arabs, Hindu, and Chinese.
Barring a major technological setback, in 200 years the whole world will be light brown and there's nothing anyone can do about it. Savor diversity while it lasts.
There is a simple solution to all this violence. It's called "separation." Parents use it with toddlers, jailers use it with prison gangs, campers use it with boys and girls. Keep them apart, stop the problems.
Or as someone once said: "Good fences make good neighbors."
Thank you, Juliette, for a wonderful missive. I think the big issue is what we think of History. If we think of History as controlling and defining us, we're angry about everything. Mr. x is a symbol of X-ness, and I must defeat him. If we think of History as heuristics, we have quick guesses enabled and a temptation to pre-judgment, but we can react to reality. Mr x is X (probably bad!), but he gave my daughter a band-aid when she fell in front of his shop and he laughed with her. Maybe Mr x is okay. Maybe?
It's the slow development of these heuristics, gently ignoring History, that changes us. (Actually, not ignoring, but bringing History up to date.) J Goldberg said human nature has no history. McWhorter said we'll f* ourselves into peace. How can we work our heuristics into History, so that we preserve our differences, but can laugh when our daughters get a band-aid?
It seems that the strength of a group enables peace. So, generally, someone who espouses his values, and says "we have this to offer," helps himself, and his group, and (in reaction) other groups. Because in the end the principle will matter, not who espouses it. Who can doubt that Frederick Douglas was among the greatest of Americans by this standard? He inducted himself intro free men, and brought any willing compatriots, by his forcefulness, and indicted anyone of the group he purposed to join by their own principles.
As a lily-white dude, I was surprised the first time I observed tension between blacks (black Americans) and blacks (Africans), when I was a bartender in DC. But after a few months, seeing the dislike, I started to like both of them, viewing them as sports teams, rooting for jerseys. The sass was vitriolic and intense.
I think intersectionalists quickly essentialize these things. But for the most part, the groups I've seen view the Other as something to be defeated, put down, competed against, ridiculed. There's an enormous amount of hostility, but 95% of it is like gorillas, or like Yanks-Sox, chest-beating.
There are forces to keep it that way (or even, miraculously, to tamp it down!). And there are forces that turn it into bloodshed. The dislike between X and Y can be quite creative--the fertile verge. Or it can be murderous.
Even niggers don't want to fuck other niggers.
How would you know?
A: This is one of the few terms I find distasteful and don't use, and judge others as to whether they use carefully. You lose.
B: I suspect they do. Hence the kids!
C: As J-O says, how would you know?
D: Anything more interesting to say? Sigh.
Aw, nigger-lover judged me. How ever shall I go on? Oh, I know, preferring my own race over niggers and asking niggers like Juliette Milk Dud to return to Africa.