Blog Archive

Friday, November 11, 2011

The Importance of Indigenous Accomplishment:

Many people fail to understand the difference between mimicry and innovation. Progress can only come about through innovation. No matter how good a country looks via mimicry of its betters, it's essentially unimportant, because they aren't a factor in human progress. They won't make any contribution to the future of mankind, they'll just continue to parasitically live off of the contributions of others.

When people point to Ethiopia as a shining symbol of African achievement, you have to understand that Ethiopia never produced anything unique to themselves. They simply borrowed everything from abroad. Ethiopia's location, just across the red sea from the Arabian peninsula, made them more a part of the middle east than Africa proper. Ethiopia lived off of the intrinsic strength of the Caucasian nations bordering them, whereas those nations did not depend on Ethiopia to become great themselves. The same is true of Mali. Mali did have a big city that was very showy, but it was all a result of their connections to Arab traders who they borrowed from. Their Islamic faith was borrowed from their Caucasian neighbors, as was their architecture, etc. You can't judge Africans by their 'edge' countries which were influenced by their Caucasian neighbors. Tourist islands in the Caribbean face the same problem. The high standard of living in these tourist islands is due entirely to their Caucasian neighbors who are providing the tourist dollars, it has nothing to do with the native black islanders. The ancient Zimbabwe ruins are due to, believe it or not, Jewish traders who moved all the way down there in the ancient past and influenced the natives both genetically and culturally. African Americans have too many Caucasian neighbors and too many Caucasian genes to be a representative sample of Africa either, so their high per capita GDP versus the outside world is meaningless. You can only judge Africa by purely African countries who have no contact with the outside world.

This is called isolating your variables. It's standard procedure in science. A polluted sample with any foreign influences is considered corrupted and must be discarded. We need a clean laboratory environment where nothing from outside interferes with our study of the nature of what's inside. To get a true picture of the Negro, you have to travel to the hearts of darkness, the places that never saw a Caucasian in their lives: Congo, Cameroon, Rwanda, Uganda, Nigeria, Niger, etc.

In the modern period, almost every single black country is at least somewhat influenced by the outside world, and so almost all of them have managed basic things like large buildings, roads, clothing, written language, etc. But these were all innovations when we originally arrived. They had to pick them all up from us. It was not native to their own 'civilization.' As a result, the most accurate measure of black 'achievement' is 'zero.' It isn't 'greater Zimbabwe,' 'Mali,' 'Ethiopia,' or 'Egypt.'

The same is true on the other side of accomplishment. Currently East Asians are outperforming Caucasians by many rubrics. However, some of the best East Asian 'achievers' actually live in white majority nations. It's evident that their greater ability to succeed is due to the foreign influence of all the whites around them, since they were never so impressive scientifically, economically or artistically when living amidst themselves. For East Asians actually living in East Asia, we have to remember that China was still a backwards, impoverished land full of tyranny and famine when the West started sailing around the world to meet them. Korea was just a puppet state of China, equally poor and worthless. And Japan stayed a feudal era country wielding bows and arrows deep into the 1800's. These nations had no higher math, no scientific method, no musical tradition equivalent to our Classical music orchestras, no artistic tradition equivalent to our Michelangelo Renaissance, no literary tradition equivalent to our Shakespearean England, nothing.

The indigenous accomplishment of Japan, China and Korea was decent -- they had some inventions we didn't, some art that was worthwhile, some philosophy that had a few insights we lacked, but in reading Murray's Human Accomplishment, you quickly realize that it pales in significance or quantity compared to either ancient Europe's achievements (Greco-Roman political freedom, military prowess, philosophical profundity, the people's general prosperity, artistic ability, just law codes, etc), or modern Europe's achievements (the steam engine, electricity, computers, landing on the moon, splitting the atom, the airplane, etc.).

Comparing a few pitiful inventions of the Chinese like 'the compass' to the absolute juggernaut of modern science which was 100% invented by whites is just a joke. There is no comparison. The world does not operate today on the basis of Chinese inventions. Everyone, everywhere, is using exclusively European inventions in every aspect of their daily lives. Nor was the 'compass' a necessary antecedent to the steam engine, the computer, or calculus, so China doesn't somehow get credit for all western inventions through some sort of arcane back door either.

The present success of East Asians is due to their mimicry of the West. They are simply adopting our inventions -- human rights, democracy, equal treatment of women, capitalism, the scientific method, the rule of law, etc -- and becoming rich off of them. Their books, movies, music, and tv shows are based off of our books, movies, music, and TV, all of which we invented on our own. The fact that their books, movies, music, and TV is often better than ours doesn't mean East Asians are superior to whites. It just means that sometimes even apprentices can surpass their masters. Until these apprentices invent their own art forms, political models and scientific theories which we end up mimicking, color me unimpressed. Great mimics don't make great innovators. The two are entirely separate fields.

Even today, the majority of innovation stems from the West. The nobel prizes distributed this year went primarily to Jews, ie, Caucasians, not East Asians. This has been true over the entire previous century. It appears fated to continue for the entire next century as well.

16 comments:

SmallerCap said...

Jews and Arabs are white?

Since when are Semetics caucasian?

Diamed said...

Three races: Caucasian, Negroid, Mongoloid. Semites are a sub-class of Caucasian. Just look it up on Wikipedia or anywhere you like.

Anonymous said...

"You can only judge Africa by purely African countries who have no contact with the outside world."
what? so black innovation is only important when they have NO contact with the outside world?. oh so the Europeans, Arabs, mongoloids, all their culture/innovations had no outside influence correct?,are you kidding me?. If blacks had no contact with the outside world, Africa wouldn't be in such a bad condition as it is today, Black Africans would own the richest land mass on the globe in terms of natural resources (ie: gold, diamond, oil etc...). the Richest man in history was Mansa Musa, a black African (no that wasn't a typo) who affected the value of gold for 20 YEARS in Egypt. It's okay for other peoples and cultures to emulate each other, but when a Black does it, it meanings they are inferior and unproductive? really?. And I love how you gather your information from the most credible source on the internet "Just look it up on Wikipedia or anywhere you like"

Anonymous said...

this has been some interesting read, so the Principal premise of your argument here is that when Nigger countries Propser it's because of the white man, when they fail (like they most of the time do) it's their fault. That argument is not logically sound I mean if you consider their objective "prosperity" (too strong a word let's say advancement) is the Direct Influence whitey, than it should also equate to Whitey having a Direct Influence in their faillure? no?. if Not, why one but not the other?.

Diamed said...

Wikipedia is the most accurate source for anything on Earth. There is no better source of information. This is just a fact. The Encyclopedia Britannica has been tested against Wikipedia and it turns out Wikipedia is more accurate. Why wouldn't it be? All its facts are checked by the entire online community, so no errors can survive for more than a microsecond.

Most civilized cultures across Earth have their own native art, science, and history they can be proud of for originating themselves, plus what they learned from others. Africans, and Aboriginal Australians I suppose, have nothing. That's a big difference.

You can tell that the impact of Whites on Blacks has been positive by the fact that African Americans are better off than Africans. South Africa is also better off than the rest of Africa, even though it's only 10% white. Africans continuously seek to migrate from their benighted countries to South Africa and America, but African Americans and South African blacks aren't exodusing back to Congo. By their own feet they make their views clear on the matter.

If you're going to pull the colonialism card then how is it that South Africa, which was ruled by whites all the way until 1990, is better off than the rest of Africa, which got free of colonialism long ago? Why is it that Haiti, which gained its freedom and became 100% black over two hundred years ago, is worse off than countries recently freed from colonialism like India?

Most of all, why are all the other colonies of Europe doing so well compared to African colonies, which were in fact the last countries to be colonized and therefore had the shortest 'burden' of white influence?

Hong Kong, Singapore, India, Macao, Indonesia, etc, all went through colonization but none of them ended up like Africa. In truth, colonialism was the best thing that ever happened to Africa, but blacks always have to find someone else to blame.

The science of anthropology/history/geography is isolating variables. Colonialism happened to everyone, but the response to colonialism elsewhere was to progress into rich, powerful, democratic nations. Why was Africa solely incapable of this progression? It can't be colonialism. So what else is left? Only blacks themselves.

Anonymous said...

That argument is not logically sound I mean if you consider their objective "prosperity" (too strong a word let's say advancement) is the Direct Influence whitey, than it should also equate to Whitey having a Direct Influence in their faillure? no?. if Not, why one but not the other?.

you still haven't answered the above comment

Industrialization has been proven to be harmful to the planet. Why do you think we are having an energy crisis?.

fact: before the Imperialist colonialism of Africa, the continent itself was not living in poverty. Ever Heard of the ju Hoansi of the Kalahari (yes they were a hunter-gatherer type community). They had no diseases, were living healthy lifestyles, no poverty or quarrels. Now look at them, they and their culture are nearly extent, are living on government handouts, community is ravaged with disease quarrels and poverty as a direct result of colonialism.

Anonymous said...

I'm glad you brought up haiti (conveniently leaving out the other Black Caribbean countries).In 1806, Haiti was diplomatically isolated. It had audaciously declared its independence two years before, after crushing the French army sent by Napoleon to re-enslave it (immagine a bunch of Niggers with no military experience OUTWITTING and out-classing the largest and most skillfully trained army of the time).But no country in the world recognized its independence. Certainly not France, which had just suffered a major blow to its fortunes and prestige. Not Spain, which still had its slave-based colonial empire in the Caribbean and Latin America. Not Great Britain, at that time the predominant world power.In the early 1800s, Haiti's government still felt threatened by France even after it had crushed Napoleon's army in 1802. For example, in 1821 France offered internal self-rule under a French protectorate. This was essentially what Louverture thought he had won in 1801 and the Haitian government saw it as a threat.

In return for conditional recognition as an independent nation in 1825 haiti had to offer France 150 million gold francs as indemnity and to lower customs duties for French products to half those of any other nation (mind you european forces were at bay for years threatening to attack them not allowing them to grow as a country). This was a tremendous sum, estimated by the present Haitian government to be $21 billion in current dollars including interest. After a show of force by the French navy in 1825, Haiti swiftly borrowed 24 million francs to pay the first installment. Full recognition by France followed in 1838.In the 19th century, the United States and the European powers used Haiti's extreme diplomatic isolation and the devastation resulting from its revolution against the French slave owners to control it. In the late 20th and early 21st centuries, the United States uses Haiti's dire poverty.

Tell me what Other Non-black Nation do you know, had to pay such an incredible price for their independence and than have their economy hindered by CONSTANT threats over-seas while suffering from a complete Isolation from the rest of the world for more than a decade? And than have it’s sovereignty thrown into question with the US invasion for 19 years (July 28th 1915- august 1, 1934). Furthermore, you cannot compare India to Haiti. The people of India had a culture under which they can unify their people, Haitians (and just about every other African slave nation) had their culture completely stripped away and were treated as mere animals . That in of itself must profoundly impact the psyche and hence your own self-worth. You can’t compare a slave country (Haiti) who had to overcome Tremendous obstacles in every aspect imaginable be it social, cultural, and economical to a colonies like China, India, Singapore, there simply is no comparison.

In conclusion, according to you no matter what blacks do, they are still inferior (if they prosper they prosper because of someone else, if they fail they fail because of themselves). So what than is the final solution for the black race?

Diamed said...

For the last time, Egyptians are now and always have been Caucasian. Do some research. Try reading up on ancient Egypt on Wikipedia.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ancient_Egyptian_race_controversy

"Recent DNA studies have indicated that ancient Egyptians had an approximate 90% genetic commonality with modern Egyptians, which would make the current population largely representative of the ancient inhabitants.[4]"

Inform yourself before you try to inform others.

Anonymous said...

Egypt as a world power was not militarily defeated by Assyria till 6th century, and it was not until 525 BC, that Black (Egypt) was defeated, occupied and colonized on a large scale by another power – Persia (Gee I wonder why Egypt is Now an Arabic nation) in 525 B.C. It is then that mass movement of Black Egyptians headed southwards and might as well have marked mass migrations of Black Africans from Egypt to other parts of the continent. Thereafter, Greek, Roman, Arab, Turkish and European conquerors followed. Egyptian civilization, then by 525 B.C. had reached its apogee.

The arts, religion, philosophy, science and mathematics had been established – the latter were highly theoretical and abstract in nature – giving the lie to racist claims that Africans are incapable of thinking at abstract level. The theory of the origin of the universe covered in Memphite Theology, 750 B.C., on which present day scientific theories are based could not have been put forward by people without capacity to think at abstract level. Cheikh Anta Diop, [Civilization or Barbarism – An Authentic Anthropology, 1981, 1991] has devoted a whole chapter to Africans’ contribution to science and mathematics. The theories cover geometry, Pythagorean Theorem, irrational numbers, quadratic equation of the circle, surface of the triangle and trapezium, volume of the cylinder, the parallelepiped, the sphere, algebraic equations, the calendar, phases of the moon, engineering monuments, medicine, mummification, astronomy, etc. And you guessed right. The mathematical and scientific writing covered by Cheikh Anta Diop were not in Greek but rather in Egyptian.

If my History is wrong feel free to correct me. Of-course I don't expect this to be posted, you have a way of conveniently not "approving" any credible real concrete rebuttals threatening your position; Last i check people with Weak positions tend to do that.

Diamed said...

Your history is wrong. That's why I gave you that wikipedia link. Egyptians have always been Caucasians, at any period. 10,000 BC, 500 BC, any BC, any AD. That's what the wikipedia link told you. So stop repeating your horrendously mistaken information regarding Egypt and read the link I gave you.

The reason I reject your stupid, factually wrong comments is because I have no reason to support the dissemination of lies. It isn't because I can't refute them, it's because they're lies, and therefore have no right to even be seen by the outside world.

Anonymous said...

In 2003, a Swiss archaeological team working in northern Sudan uncovered one of the most remarkable Egyptological finds in recent years. At the site known as Kerma, near the third cataract of the Nile, archaeologist Charles Bonnet and his team discovered a ditch within a temple from the ancient city of Pnoubs, which contained seven monumental black granite statues. Magnificently sculpted, and in an excellent state of preservation, they portrayed five pharaonic rulers, including Taharqa and Tanoutamon, the last two pharaohs of the 'Nubian' Dynasty, when Egypt was ruled by kings from the lands of modern-day Sudan. For over half a century, the Nubian pharaohs governed a combined kingdom of Egypt and Nubia, with an empire stretching from the Delta to the upper reaches of the Nile. The seven statues, with their exquisite workmanship, transform our understanding of the art of this period. In particular, the colossal statue of Taharqa--almost certainly done by an Egyptian sculptor--is a masterpiece of stone artwork. Beautifully illustrated with over 170 color photographs, The Nubian Pharaohs illuminates the epic history of this little-known historical era, when the pharaohs of Egypt came from Sudan.



http://www.livius.org/no-nz/nubia/nubian_pharaohs.html

all these Nubian pharohs were white yes?, and no my History is not wrong, the proof is in the pudding.

Diamed said...

You and I both know that the Nubian conquerors were foreigners who invaded and controlled Egypt for a time, but were not the actual Egyptian people. Just like how Normans invaded and conquered England, but did not colonize and replace the population of England with Frenchmen.

Nubians were not responsible for all of the mathematical and architectural wonders of Egypt, the Egyptian people were, who were Caucasians just like the Caucasians we see today. This is agreed upon by all scholars and proven through incontrovertible DNA evidence. Your claim was that Egypt was populated by blacks until 500 B.C. As evidence you mention a few pharoahs, a small ruling class, were black for a short period of Egyptian history by right of conquest. This and that are two different things.

Anonymous said...

"Nubians were not responsible for all of the mathematical and architectural wonders of Egypt, the Egyptian people were, who were Caucasians just like the Caucasians we see today"

Really?

Surely, you must know that the major features of cultural and political development that led to dynastic Egypt originated in southern Egypt during what is called the predynastic period. Some evidence suggests that predynastic Egyptian and early Nubian cultures had ties to the early Sub-Saharan cultures and shared a Saharo-Nilotic heritage (check me on that , can't wait for your rebuttal). Perhaps the earliest predynastic culture, the Badarian-Tasian* (4400 B.C. or earlier, to 4000 B.C.), had the clearest ties to Saharan cultures in the desert west of Nubia. The subsequent development, known as Naqada culture (3900 to around 3050 B.C.) by numerous scholars, had three phases and led directly to the 1st dynasty in southern Egypt without a break or evidence of foreign domination. It had three major centers in Upper Egypt, the small kingdoms of Naqada, Hierakonpolis, and Abydos, which came to be a much revered place in Egypt. The cemetery grounds of Abydos contain the largest tomb of a predynastic ruler, along with the burials of all the kings of the 1st dynasty. Naqada culture expanded north in its later phases, culturally incorporating northern Egypt before the 1st dynasty. There is also evidence at some sites—including Hierakonpolis, where the famous Narmer Palette was found—for interactions with Nubian societies, specifically one called the A-Group, whose kings shared some insignia with Egypt. By the time the 1st dynasty began, Egypt and Nubia were rivals; Egypt defeated the A-Group state and incorporated its territory, which became a part of the first province of Upper Egypt.

Anonymous said...

furhtermore,The Neolithic (food-producing) cultures after 6000 B.C. in the Nile Valley became a part of the foundation for the ancient Egyptian way of life. The archaeology of early Egypt indicates continuity with local cultural traditions along the Nile as well influences from the Sahara, Sudan, and Asia (the Near East). The Neolithic cultures in northern Egypt show evidence over time of varying contacts, with Saharan influences the most dominant (Yup your eyes are not a deceiving you this isn't a typo). In the case of food procurement, ancestral Egyptians living on Lake Fayum added to their tradition of foraging by raising Near Eastern domesticated plants (wheat and barley) and animals (sheep and goats). Domesticated cattle came from the Sahara but (disputably) some scholars have argued that it may also have come from the Near East. These early Egyptians incorporated the new food stuffs and techniques—and likely some people—into their culture and society on their own terms (offcourse this doesn't prove that the asians and arabs became the majority arround this time, remember this is arround 5000Bc Before the Assyrian/non-black invasion).

Julie Mitchell said...

Current archaeology proves that the Asians have NOTHING of their own. Ancient civilizations in China and the rest of Asia have all been confirmed Caucasian.

Julie Mitchell said...

Current archaeology proves that the Chinese and other Asians have nothing. Ancient civilizations in China and Asia were Caucasian.

The same is true of Egypt and Persia, etc. Nothing has ever come from any other race except for the white one.