My comment on issues re Randall Collins' views:
"I should point out, parenthetically, that my inferences from some of Collins' views would not be shared by him, based on some of his views, eg that 'we are all one, under the skin', things like that.....
although this seems to me inconsistent with his theory of change as based on conflict, it is what it is apparently, for him."
Are we all really, and I mean globally 'all', not just Americans, as Collins and the founding fathers' founding principles of America assert, all one, under the skin? What even does under the skin really mean?
If not, how not?
Just for a start, the idea of races seems at first blush to cut against the enlightenment, and pre enlightenment, notion, going back to Hobbes, really, of a state of nature composed solely of individuals, without regard to race, each in a struggle with all others, a hypothetical world where for each of them life was solitary, cruel, nasty, brutish, and short.
I will just give one isolated example, among many, which we now know of from archaeology, where early humans confronted late Neanderthals. Although genetically they intermixed, there are sites where Neanderthals were slaughtered as a group, butchered, and eaten for food by modern humans, as opposing groups.
So then, the question arises, even in a pre civilized state, the closest thing human like creatures probably ever got to a state of nature, were there ever really isolated individuals not tribally and racially bound to eachother and against others?
My guess is that such individuals, where and when they existed, were outcasts from such existing groups.
Just for fun, let's call them The First Mavericks!
Another example of racial differences, for which we have extensive historical evidence, to which I have previously referred on this blog, is that of human labor under tropical conditions. Black laborers, against all other races, slave or not, were the gold standard for tropical labor, for clearly racial reasons:
http://bozonbloggon.blogspot.com/2016/06/re-equality-meritocracy-and-race.html
Professor Allison, Suffolk University, Teaching Company Course "Before 1776", has a very helpful passage on it.
Expressions of emotion seem to vary by races. They are not just sociological variations.
Some cats talk, some don't; do not tell me that the difference, among cats, is sociological.
If I were a military leader, and I wanted to assure a good force for jungle or even desert duty, I would be a fool to pick mostly white folks, yet America cannot use such a criterion in the military, and seldom is able to use it in private companies.
Just for fun, let's call them The First Mavericks!
Another example of racial differences, for which we have extensive historical evidence, to which I have previously referred on this blog, is that of human labor under tropical conditions. Black laborers, against all other races, slave or not, were the gold standard for tropical labor, for clearly racial reasons:
http://bozonbloggon.blogspot.com/2016/06/re-equality-meritocracy-and-race.html
Professor Allison, Suffolk University, Teaching Company Course "Before 1776", has a very helpful passage on it.
Expressions of emotion seem to vary by races. They are not just sociological variations.
Some cats talk, some don't; do not tell me that the difference, among cats, is sociological.
If I were a military leader, and I wanted to assure a good force for jungle or even desert duty, I would be a fool to pick mostly white folks, yet America cannot use such a criterion in the military, and seldom is able to use it in private companies.
No comments:
Post a Comment