you are viewing a single comment's thread.

view the rest of the comments →

[–]InvoluntaryHalibut 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (2 children)

That's definitely true, but what about groups made up of multiple races that have settled in the same area, and lived there for generations? Dixie, for example, has a large number of Whites, Blacks, Natives, and Latinos all living in about the same area. I'd say Dixie's harsh climate and geography have made us stronger than our Yankee counterparts, and that applies to all races.

These are interesting points. Non natives (whites and blacks) have lived in the american south for about 400 years. Im not saying that isn’t long enough to see some new behavioral traits in an isolated group. In a unique new environment (from europe or africa) it might happen rapidly but you would need a strong selection process —i.e. A certain portion of “ill-suited” individuals would be removed from the gene pool each generation. This usually looks like death through starvation or war or disease. Evolution is mean. Maybe the Civil War could have been a strong selection event.

But generally southern agrarians of the last few centuries have not had a super harsh climate to contend with. Think of this in the context of hunter gatherers surviving the frozen tundras of Eurasia where there is essentially no food for 6 months out of the year except for big game. People who did’t organize well and didn’t plan ahead died in big numbers every year for around 50,000 years.

The south has had continuous immigration for hundreds of years and the people have generally not intermixed. If they did and remained genetically isolated, and their economy remained the same, you would definitely see a set of unique common behaviors emerge eventually.

I think in a place like the south you have whites and blacks and now latinos still living out old strategies and following different sets of rules which is why they keep clashing. Can you impose a common set of rules (which is part of an environment) and evetually get everyone to evolve to follow those rules and cooperate? Maybe. That is what they tried to do with Christianity. Now they are going to try to do it with communism/ sjw religion. Maybe over a very long period. Is it worth it for each of these groups to live interdependently within the same culture and society? Each will have to sacrifice instrinsic behaviors to their group. What makes us unique as groups is also what makes us not get along.

Im going on too long. But Im reading a lot on the subject lately

[–][deleted] 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (1 child)

This usually looks like death through starvation or war or disease.

The South is the poorest region of the US, due to the Yankees plundering out wealth and redistributing it to Wal Street billionaires. Millions of our children starve so some rich Yankee can own five mansions.

We're definitely in a war of propaganda; the Yanks try to slander our culture and way of life by any means they can.

The South is also the region most prone to disease, especially in the wetlands. That's less of an issue now, due to modern technology, but we still have it harder.

Maybe the Civil War could have been a strong selection event.

The civil war, and the genocide that ensued until the present day. We've had to fight an uphill battle not only to preserve our culture, but to survive in a land plundered by our colonial overlords. In Dixie, only the strong survive.

But generally southern agrarians of the last few centuries have not had a super harsh climate to contend with. Think of this in the context of hunter gatherers surviving the frozen tundras of Eurasia where there is essentially no food for 6 months out of the year except for big game. People who did’t organize well and didn’t plan ahead died in big numbers every year for around 50,000 years.

There are very few places left on Earth that are that harsh, relegated to rainforests and deserts — and even they may not be as harsh. Not many people actually live in those areas, anyways.

The south has had continuous immigration for hundreds of years and the people have generally not intermixed.

There's been a lot of mixing between various European groups, and between the Europeans and Natives, but segregation kept Blacks separate from the other races for about a century — which is why they have their own flavor of Dixie culture.

If they did and remained genetically isolated, and their economy remained the same, you would definitely see a set of unique common behaviors emerge eventually.

We do have a lot of common behaviors, like language and food. There are a lot of differences, but there are more similarities — especially when contrasted with the Yankees.

I think in a place like the south you have whites and blacks and now latinos still living out old strategies and following different sets of rules which is why they keep clashing.

Those "different sets of rules" have been unnaturally sustained long after segregation's end, in order to maintain the racial division that has for so long benefited the North.

Can you impose a common set of rules (which is part of an environment) and evetually get everyone to evolve to follow those rules and cooperate

If we can unite against the Yankee empire under the banner of Dixie Nationalism: it can be achieved — but that would be a struggle in of itself, as the mutual animosity between our People has been cultivated for centuries. We'd need a strong leader who can bring us together based on our similarities, instead of dividing us along our differences.

That is what they tried to do with Christianity.

That's an interesting point, as the vast majority of people in Dixie are Baptists, but very few outside of it are. There are currently two currents of Baptism, separated only by race; I see the fusion of these currents as vital to Dixie unification. Don't get me wrong, I ain't some hyper-religious theocrat, but I'd be naive to downplay religion's influence on culture.

Each will have to sacrifice instrinsic behaviors to their group.

Yes, but there are hundreds of different sub-groups in Dixie, each with their own flavor of Southern culture. I see it vital that we allow each group to maintain their way of life, so long as it doesn't interfere with unity.

Im going on too long. But Im reading a lot on the subject lately

Hah, you're fine.

[–]InvoluntaryHalibut 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

The South is the poorest region of the US, due to the Yankees plundering out wealth and redistributing it to Wal Street billionaires.....the Yanks try to slander our culture and way of life by any means they can.

As a yank I don’t really disagree. I just think that the South is a relatively poor part of a rich country. Its hard to say how it compares to the typical conditions of the Eurasian hunter gatherer but realize that was a selection process that took 50,000 years

I see much of today’s conflicts as a urban / rural dichotomy. The cities are mostly bureaucracies — the number of factories continues to fall. The rural and sub-urban “red” areas are constantly having their wealth redistributed to an urban bureaucracy that does not share their values. The urban bureaucracies have an increasingly subjective definition of “work” which they force actual workers to compensate them for through taxes, regulations, universities, insurance.

Those "different sets of rules" have been unnaturally sustained long after segregation's end,

You and I are probably just going to disagree on this. I feel that racial differences are profound and they are genetic and not due to an unnatural systemic racism. Anyone can get used to grits and collard greens— they’re tasty. But there are a set of behavioral differences between southern blacks and whites which I do not think has been caused by segregation or any other imposed rules.

I can see that you are a very strong “culture” person, i.e. You put great emphasis on the shared rules and and a common world view behind those rules, your rural dixie baptist identity. That is important and it does change a population over time to create better rule followers of a particular regime.

I just think you should allow for the possibility that you are overestimating the ability of a cultural regime to unify a group of diverse people over a relatively short period of time (~400 yrs) who have operated within different environments under different cultural rules for thousands and thousands of years. You are underestimating the importance of genetics on behavior.

I do not enjoy pointing out the data but it is overwhelming. If we are too polite to point out the data, then every time an Ahmad Arbery happens, people will say “there they go picking on black people for walking down the street.”

If whites and blacks and any other groups choose to live together it should be with the informed understanding that given an absolutely level playing field within a common culture, we will not perform the same.

Its not fair. Entire groups are not choosing to be bad in school or good at crime. Its just that differences in our history over 150,000 years or so have made us behave differently under identical conditions.