0 comment Saturday, July 5, 2014 | admin
Do women have stronger same-race dating preferences than men?
According to a study cited in this piece, it appears so.
I am not a scientist, so some of the details of the study are a little technical for me, but it appears that the people in this study were Columbia University graduate students (and that already makes the sample rather atypical) and they were of all races.
A frequent observation (or complaint, depending on the viewpoint of the speaker) is that White women are more prone to date and mate outside their race, as compared to White men. Just in observing couples around the country, it does seem that there is more of this interracial pairing, but it is still, in overall numbers, not that common. But it does seem to be increasing, and no surprise there, given the media's constant promoting of racial mingling.
Overall, though, I've seen far more White male-nonwhite female pairings than vice-versa. And this is a longstanding trend, going back long before the present PC era, when it was far from unknown for White men to marry nonwhite women (Latina, American Indian, or Filipina).
After World War II, the Asian war bride phenomenon was not uncommon.
It does seem that men are more programmed to mate with women they are physically attracted to, and many men do not discriminate when it comes to the primal urges. Women tend to think more long-term with relationships -- often to the chagrin of men -- and will evaluate men as potential husbands rather than just on the basis of sexual attraction.
With men, the trend of mail-order brides is growing, it seems, as discussed here.
When I was a child, there were Asian 'war brides' married to White American men who had served in Korea, Japan, or elsewhere in Asia. I had classmates who had Irish-American or Anglo-American dads and Japanese mothers. It seemed especially common for men who served in the military to marry Filipina women or East Asian women. In some parts of the country, White men not infrequently married Latina women or American Indian women. And this, remember, was in an era where interracial marriage was generally frowned on, if not outright forbidden. But there has always been a stronger taboo against black-White marriages or pairings.
By contrast, I rarely if ever encountered White women married to nonwhite men of any race, with the occasional exception of a Hispanic male-White female or in some areas, American Indian male-White female marriage. But by far, most interracial marriages appeared to be White men with various nonwhite women: Asian, Pacific Islander, Hispanic or American Indian.
I still think these pairings are more common than any form of black-White pairing. So I do think it's a little unfair to blame women excessively for lack of racial/ethnic fidelity.
Many men who seek out mail-order brides from various parts of Asia and the Pacific blame feminism for their choosing to marry an exotic woman. I think this is in many cases a rationalization for their personal preference for these exotic women. Some term the preference as a 'fetish' and I would say that isn't too strong a word.
Is feminism to blame? Certainly feminism has not improved understanding between the sexes; arguably it has worsened the battle of the sexes in Western countries. But to be fair, not all women are feminists; I often say that feminism has spread to the right, with many 'conservative' women sounding like Gloria Steinem, but traditional women have not disappeared completely. Likewise, I think it is an inaccurate stereotype that the Asian-Pacific women are all frail little lotus blossoms. I've worked with some who are decidedly assertive women, not at all demure and retiring, despite the popular image.
But if a man really wants to maintain racial integrity and fidelity, he would not be inclined to choose a woman of such a racially disparate origin.
As for the women who date or mate interracially, these days, given the 'colorblind' dogma of liberalism, and the fact that most women are politically liberal, it isn't surprising that many women date interracially. Women, unfortunately, tend to be vulnerable to an appeal to their sympathies and their nurturing side. 'Victimhood' awakens the softer feelings of some women. But most importantly, most women don't want to be called 'racist' -- which, trust me, they are called by nonwhites whose advances are not welcomed. The race card is usually played very early on and many weak-minded women give in when the r-word is thrown at them.
It seems to me to be an unfair tactic to use in approaching someone of the opposite sex but it does happen.
Nowadays, choosing to stay within one's own race or ethnicity is increasingly portrayed as 'bigoted' and racist. But it's generally acknowledged that people tend to pair up with those who have commonalities and similarities; the idea that 'opposites attract' is overrated. Men and women by their respective natures sometimes have a difficult time understanding each other; why add ethnic/cultural misunderstanding, racial grievances and guilts, and historical resentments to the inbuilt male-female conflicts?
In the 1957 movie Sayonara, which was really all about interracial love, and the 'star-crossed', misunderstood qualities thereof, the message was that ultimately, love conquers all, and only narrow minds want to bring race or culture into it.
The tagline of the movie was
Worlds apart...theirs was the daring love affair violating every rule, every custom, every centuries-old belief!''
Do you think Hollywood was working the agenda then? There was a spate of these movies during the 50s.
I do remember that near the end of the movie, when Marlon Brando is trying to persuade his Japanese lover, played by Miiko Taka, that she should go against the taboos and marry him, she makes a speech about how their children will be neither Japanese nor American, and asks him where they would belong.
Now, I'm just going from memory here, so please don't chastise me if I remember incorrectly, but I recall that Brando answers with a speech about how that the only thing that matters is Love, not popular opinion, and not even their respective families who might object.
Typical Hollywood cliches, but does that work in real life?
And what about the children? I suspect they would have trouble deciding where they belong. Most likely they would identify more with the nonwhite identity; that seems to be the general rule.
But what could be more natural than wanting children and grandchildren in whom we can see our parents and grandparents? One of the distinguishing marks of family members is that there is a physical resemblance. Family members generally share outward physical traits as well as mental and psychological similarities. I am sure that Japanese grandparents might prefer to have a grandchild with distinctly, identifiably Japanese looks, one who looks like them. Of course they would not be called racist for feeling that way. Only Whites are accused of racism for wanting their descendants to look like them and to be part of the continuity of a family line of the same race.
A family has a dimension in time; our extended family is not just those who are alive at the same time, but those who have gone before us, who gave us life, and those to whom we give life, those who come after us. Why should we not want them to be as like us as possible, and like our parents and grandparents and their parents and grandparents?
We are all part of a continuity which made us what we are today, and we are the result of many generations of holding true; we owe something not only to our living kin but to our forebears and above all, our progeny. Those who choose to ''violate every rule, every custom, every age-old belief' as the movie tag-line put it, are acting selfishly and shortsightedly. They are disavowing both their ancestors and their progeny, who will likely feel little connection to them.
The article I linked yesterday contained the prediction that this country would be completely hybridized in a matter of time. I think it's likely, if present trends continue, that this will be the case. Given that the younger generations seem so programmed to be militantly 'colorblind' or to actually prefer nonwhites, it seems the trend is bound to accelerate with each new generation. That prospect, to me, seems almost tantamount to being told that I will have no progeny, because the people who inhabit this place after I am gone will likely speak another language, honor other traditions, be of an alien religion, and look very unlike me and my forebears, even if they bear some of the same genes. The fact is, they will bear other, very dissimilar genes, and identify as part of that people. And that, in essence, will be the end of my line.
I do think that there will be some who will want to resist being put into the big DNA blender. It may be only a few, but as long as people still have some free choice about marrying and reproducing, at least some will continue do what is natural to us: choose to remain among our own.
According to a study cited in this piece, it appears so.
I am not a scientist, so some of the details of the study are a little technical for me, but it appears that the people in this study were Columbia University graduate students (and that already makes the sample rather atypical) and they were of all races.
A frequent observation (or complaint, depending on the viewpoint of the speaker) is that White women are more prone to date and mate outside their race, as compared to White men. Just in observing couples around the country, it does seem that there is more of this interracial pairing, but it is still, in overall numbers, not that common. But it does seem to be increasing, and no surprise there, given the media's constant promoting of racial mingling.
Overall, though, I've seen far more White male-nonwhite female pairings than vice-versa. And this is a longstanding trend, going back long before the present PC era, when it was far from unknown for White men to marry nonwhite women (Latina, American Indian, or Filipina).
After World War II, the Asian war bride phenomenon was not uncommon.
It does seem that men are more programmed to mate with women they are physically attracted to, and many men do not discriminate when it comes to the primal urges. Women tend to think more long-term with relationships -- often to the chagrin of men -- and will evaluate men as potential husbands rather than just on the basis of sexual attraction.
With men, the trend of mail-order brides is growing, it seems, as discussed here.
When I was a child, there were Asian 'war brides' married to White American men who had served in Korea, Japan, or elsewhere in Asia. I had classmates who had Irish-American or Anglo-American dads and Japanese mothers. It seemed especially common for men who served in the military to marry Filipina women or East Asian women. In some parts of the country, White men not infrequently married Latina women or American Indian women. And this, remember, was in an era where interracial marriage was generally frowned on, if not outright forbidden. But there has always been a stronger taboo against black-White marriages or pairings.
By contrast, I rarely if ever encountered White women married to nonwhite men of any race, with the occasional exception of a Hispanic male-White female or in some areas, American Indian male-White female marriage. But by far, most interracial marriages appeared to be White men with various nonwhite women: Asian, Pacific Islander, Hispanic or American Indian.
I still think these pairings are more common than any form of black-White pairing. So I do think it's a little unfair to blame women excessively for lack of racial/ethnic fidelity.
Many men who seek out mail-order brides from various parts of Asia and the Pacific blame feminism for their choosing to marry an exotic woman. I think this is in many cases a rationalization for their personal preference for these exotic women. Some term the preference as a 'fetish' and I would say that isn't too strong a word.
Is feminism to blame? Certainly feminism has not improved understanding between the sexes; arguably it has worsened the battle of the sexes in Western countries. But to be fair, not all women are feminists; I often say that feminism has spread to the right, with many 'conservative' women sounding like Gloria Steinem, but traditional women have not disappeared completely. Likewise, I think it is an inaccurate stereotype that the Asian-Pacific women are all frail little lotus blossoms. I've worked with some who are decidedly assertive women, not at all demure and retiring, despite the popular image.
But if a man really wants to maintain racial integrity and fidelity, he would not be inclined to choose a woman of such a racially disparate origin.
As for the women who date or mate interracially, these days, given the 'colorblind' dogma of liberalism, and the fact that most women are politically liberal, it isn't surprising that many women date interracially. Women, unfortunately, tend to be vulnerable to an appeal to their sympathies and their nurturing side. 'Victimhood' awakens the softer feelings of some women. But most importantly, most women don't want to be called 'racist' -- which, trust me, they are called by nonwhites whose advances are not welcomed. The race card is usually played very early on and many weak-minded women give in when the r-word is thrown at them.
It seems to me to be an unfair tactic to use in approaching someone of the opposite sex but it does happen.
Nowadays, choosing to stay within one's own race or ethnicity is increasingly portrayed as 'bigoted' and racist. But it's generally acknowledged that people tend to pair up with those who have commonalities and similarities; the idea that 'opposites attract' is overrated. Men and women by their respective natures sometimes have a difficult time understanding each other; why add ethnic/cultural misunderstanding, racial grievances and guilts, and historical resentments to the inbuilt male-female conflicts?
In the 1957 movie Sayonara, which was really all about interracial love, and the 'star-crossed', misunderstood qualities thereof, the message was that ultimately, love conquers all, and only narrow minds want to bring race or culture into it.
The tagline of the movie was
Worlds apart...theirs was the daring love affair violating every rule, every custom, every centuries-old belief!''
Do you think Hollywood was working the agenda then? There was a spate of these movies during the 50s.
I do remember that near the end of the movie, when Marlon Brando is trying to persuade his Japanese lover, played by Miiko Taka, that she should go against the taboos and marry him, she makes a speech about how their children will be neither Japanese nor American, and asks him where they would belong.
Now, I'm just going from memory here, so please don't chastise me if I remember incorrectly, but I recall that Brando answers with a speech about how that the only thing that matters is Love, not popular opinion, and not even their respective families who might object.
Typical Hollywood cliches, but does that work in real life?
And what about the children? I suspect they would have trouble deciding where they belong. Most likely they would identify more with the nonwhite identity; that seems to be the general rule.
But what could be more natural than wanting children and grandchildren in whom we can see our parents and grandparents? One of the distinguishing marks of family members is that there is a physical resemblance. Family members generally share outward physical traits as well as mental and psychological similarities. I am sure that Japanese grandparents might prefer to have a grandchild with distinctly, identifiably Japanese looks, one who looks like them. Of course they would not be called racist for feeling that way. Only Whites are accused of racism for wanting their descendants to look like them and to be part of the continuity of a family line of the same race.
A family has a dimension in time; our extended family is not just those who are alive at the same time, but those who have gone before us, who gave us life, and those to whom we give life, those who come after us. Why should we not want them to be as like us as possible, and like our parents and grandparents and their parents and grandparents?
We are all part of a continuity which made us what we are today, and we are the result of many generations of holding true; we owe something not only to our living kin but to our forebears and above all, our progeny. Those who choose to ''violate every rule, every custom, every age-old belief' as the movie tag-line put it, are acting selfishly and shortsightedly. They are disavowing both their ancestors and their progeny, who will likely feel little connection to them.
The article I linked yesterday contained the prediction that this country would be completely hybridized in a matter of time. I think it's likely, if present trends continue, that this will be the case. Given that the younger generations seem so programmed to be militantly 'colorblind' or to actually prefer nonwhites, it seems the trend is bound to accelerate with each new generation. That prospect, to me, seems almost tantamount to being told that I will have no progeny, because the people who inhabit this place after I am gone will likely speak another language, honor other traditions, be of an alien religion, and look very unlike me and my forebears, even if they bear some of the same genes. The fact is, they will bear other, very dissimilar genes, and identify as part of that people. And that, in essence, will be the end of my line.
I do think that there will be some who will want to resist being put into the big DNA blender. It may be only a few, but as long as people still have some free choice about marrying and reproducing, at least some will continue do what is natural to us: choose to remain among our own.
Labels: American Identity, Ethnic Identity, Ethnocentrism, Social Sciences
0 comment Thursday, June 12, 2014 | admin
Over at the Cambria Will Not Yield blog, CWNY reviews a book, The Fateful Hoaxing of Margaret Mead.
I haven't read the book, although it sounds interesting. For those who don't know the story behind it, it's about the anthropologist Margaret Mead and her study of adolescence in Samoan culture, which was the basis for her book Coming of Age in Samoa.
The writer of the book himself is also an anthropologist, and apparently had been a follower of Mead:
And indeed, Freeman admits, he himself was a Mead enthusiast when he began his follow-up research, until he discovered that Mead�s research was flawed and inaccurate. He even includes, in the book, a letter from Mead to himself in which she concedes that her research was inaccurate.
What Freeman unearths is that Samoa was not the uninhibited sexual paradise that Mead described in her book. Mead spent most of her time "researching" the Samoan culture in a Navy hotel and never really lived with the Samoans. She got her information about the sexual practices of young Samoan girls from two girls, who, Freeman reveals, were just indulging in the Samoan custom of telling tall tales. They never dreamed that Mead would take them seriously.
But Mead, who had studied under the cultural determinist Franz Boas, was determined to give her mentor the research he wanted. And the liberal world wanted to believe that there was a tropical paradise devoid of Western cultural guilt about sexual matters.''
I remember years ago when I took several anthropology courses in college; I briefly considered an anthropology major until these courses disabused me of that idea. But at the time I studied anthropology, Mead's research in Samoa was still considered valid; apparently the truth had not yet been revealed. But the fact is that the liberals who dominate the anthropology field were quick to believe Mead's findings and to pass them on as gospel -- because they wanted to believe. They came with a preconceived image of 'primitive cultures' as being superior, because natural and unspoiled. They fully believed in the Rousseauian idea of the 'noble savage', of primitive tribal beings as the naive but pure children of nature.
And they particularly wanted to believe that the noble savage embodied all the things they wished for Western society, including 'free love', unbridled sexuality, polymorphous perversity, a lack of inhibitions. So they seized on Mead's research as just what was needed to preach that modern Western society needed more of the above; only thus would we be really healthy and 'integrated' people, once we were freed of our silly Christian European puritanism.
Mead, plainly and simply, was a leftist ideologue, who brought certain preconceptions to her work. She no doubt wanted, even if only unconsciously, to find certain things which would corroborate her ideology. Most often, I found this to be true among those that work in the 'social sciences'. It may be unconscious, or it may be conscious, but they bring biases and an agenda to their work.
During my feminist days, I remember that Mead was very much lionized by feminists as being a role model and a pioneer in exposing the falseness of sex roles.
The kinds of ideas she promulgated have been very influential in much of the currently pervasive liberalism:
In subsequent field work, on mainland New Guinea, she demonstrated that gender roles differed from one society to another, depending at least as much on culture as on biology, and in her work in Bali with her third husband, Gregory Bateson, she explored new ways of documenting the connection between childrearing and adult culture, and the way in which these are symbolically interwoven.
[...]
She affirmed the possibility of learning from other groups, above all by applying the knowledge she brought back from the field to issues of modern life. Thus, she insisted that human diversity is a resource, not a handicap, that all human beings have the capacity to learn from and teach each other.
[...]
In a society becoming increasingly pessimistic about the human capacity to change, she insisted on the importance of enhancing and supporting that capacity. She believed that cultural patterns of racism, warfare, and environmental exploitation were learned, and that the members of a society could work together to modify their traditions and to construct new institutions. This conviction drew her into discussions of the process of change, expressed in the slogan, "Never doubt that a small group of thoughtful, committed citizens can change the world."
And we have all seen just how much a relatively small group of 'committed' liberal ideologues have managed to change the world to their liking, even despite the fact that Mead's research has been shown to be dubious at best. The fact that her Samoan informants probably lied to her and told her what she wanted to hear has not apparently fazed her supporters, or caused the anthropology world to recant their enthusiasm for the Noble Savage ideal. So what if her research is discredited, and her subjects lied or spun stories? What's the liberal word -- truthiness? The particulars may be inaccurate but the overall 'truth' is there underlying it, and besides, the ideology is what matters, not the trivial facts.
And this incident was not the last time the anthropological world was hoaxed. Another story we heard in college was about this wonderful tribe that had been discovered in the remote wilds of the Philippines, the Tasaday tribe. Our wide-eyed anthropology prof told us how these people were peaceful and childlike; they did not know war or violence. Why, they had no word for 'war'!
Later it was revealed that this tribe was not what it seemed.
According to this story, the hoax was perpetrated by a Filipino official
Now the question was, who organized this incredible hoax? All roads led to Elizalde. Some of the Tasaday came forth and admitted conspiring with him. One man gave this revealing account:
"We didn't live in caves, only near them, until we met Elizalde...Elizalde forced us to live in the caves so that we'd be better cavemen. Before he came, we lived in huts on the other side of the mountain and we farmed. We took off our clothes because Elizalde told us to do so and promised us if we looked poor that we would get assistance. He gave us money to pose as Tasaday and promised us security from counter insurgency and tribal fighting."
It became evident that Elizalde had been manipulating the Tasaday for his own personal gain.
Also, when Marcos's dictatorship ended, Elizalde was the first crony to leave the Philippines, taking with him $35 million dollars from the non-profit PANAMIN organization that he had started specifically for the Tasaday.
Elizalde ended up in Costa Rica. He squandered all the money, became addicted to drugs, and died impoverished in 1997. Instead of a hero, he is now known as the perpetrator of the greatest anthropological hoax since piltdown man.''
And this paragraph, though amusing in a sad way, shows the dilemma of the liberal anthropological world in dealing with primitive tribes:
The Tasaday Hoax led many anthropologists to reconsider how they deal with indigenous tribes. It is a situation full of dilemmas. Anthropologists are often faced with situations where members of the tribe they are studying die on a regular basis from easily curable diseases. But administering medicine may be the first step toward the loss of a culture. Many tribes actually express desire to become more technological. Anthropologists usually pressure them not to do so. One Brazilian indigenous tribal chief, after hearing such a recommendation, is quoted saying, "Do they think we like not having any clothes? It may be the way of our ancestors, but the bugs bother us..." Should tribes like these be exposed to the modern world? There are no easy answers.''
So preserving these tribes in a museum-like setting, with their cultures intact, is more important than saving their lives, or helping them to improve their conditions?
This only illustrates, though it does not explain, the liberal mindset.
However, even the impulse to preserve the primitive cultures in their traditional setting is more laudatory than the current craze among the liberal do-gooders and government elites: bringing stone-age people to Western countries, where they will both encounter culture shock and engender it among their hosts, as they try to enter a 21st century culture.
The social sciences' adulation of primitive cultures, and the more primitive and 'other' the better, is at the heart of our current policy of allowing mostly Third World immigration to the West. Of course there are the cold-eyed corporate elites who want these people here for exploitation and possibly to foment discord, but hand in hand with them, in a strange alliance, are the starry-eyed academics who idolize the noble savage ideal in their minds. This latter group of people will stop at nothing in trying to remake the world to conform to their ideology-driven image of what should be. We see this partnership at work in the story about the Tasaday and the collusion between the exploitative politician and the utopian anthropologists.
Liberals, it's clear, should never be allowed near the levers of power, or attain any position of authority or influence until they have proven themselves capable of interacting with reality instead of trying, as is their wont, to conform reality to their utopian ideologies. We are now seeing, in the deteriorating society around us, the fruits of their harebrained social engineering.
I haven't read the book, although it sounds interesting. For those who don't know the story behind it, it's about the anthropologist Margaret Mead and her study of adolescence in Samoan culture, which was the basis for her book Coming of Age in Samoa.
The writer of the book himself is also an anthropologist, and apparently had been a follower of Mead:
And indeed, Freeman admits, he himself was a Mead enthusiast when he began his follow-up research, until he discovered that Mead�s research was flawed and inaccurate. He even includes, in the book, a letter from Mead to himself in which she concedes that her research was inaccurate.
What Freeman unearths is that Samoa was not the uninhibited sexual paradise that Mead described in her book. Mead spent most of her time "researching" the Samoan culture in a Navy hotel and never really lived with the Samoans. She got her information about the sexual practices of young Samoan girls from two girls, who, Freeman reveals, were just indulging in the Samoan custom of telling tall tales. They never dreamed that Mead would take them seriously.
But Mead, who had studied under the cultural determinist Franz Boas, was determined to give her mentor the research he wanted. And the liberal world wanted to believe that there was a tropical paradise devoid of Western cultural guilt about sexual matters.''
I remember years ago when I took several anthropology courses in college; I briefly considered an anthropology major until these courses disabused me of that idea. But at the time I studied anthropology, Mead's research in Samoa was still considered valid; apparently the truth had not yet been revealed. But the fact is that the liberals who dominate the anthropology field were quick to believe Mead's findings and to pass them on as gospel -- because they wanted to believe. They came with a preconceived image of 'primitive cultures' as being superior, because natural and unspoiled. They fully believed in the Rousseauian idea of the 'noble savage', of primitive tribal beings as the naive but pure children of nature.
And they particularly wanted to believe that the noble savage embodied all the things they wished for Western society, including 'free love', unbridled sexuality, polymorphous perversity, a lack of inhibitions. So they seized on Mead's research as just what was needed to preach that modern Western society needed more of the above; only thus would we be really healthy and 'integrated' people, once we were freed of our silly Christian European puritanism.
Mead, plainly and simply, was a leftist ideologue, who brought certain preconceptions to her work. She no doubt wanted, even if only unconsciously, to find certain things which would corroborate her ideology. Most often, I found this to be true among those that work in the 'social sciences'. It may be unconscious, or it may be conscious, but they bring biases and an agenda to their work.
During my feminist days, I remember that Mead was very much lionized by feminists as being a role model and a pioneer in exposing the falseness of sex roles.
The kinds of ideas she promulgated have been very influential in much of the currently pervasive liberalism:
In subsequent field work, on mainland New Guinea, she demonstrated that gender roles differed from one society to another, depending at least as much on culture as on biology, and in her work in Bali with her third husband, Gregory Bateson, she explored new ways of documenting the connection between childrearing and adult culture, and the way in which these are symbolically interwoven.
[...]
She affirmed the possibility of learning from other groups, above all by applying the knowledge she brought back from the field to issues of modern life. Thus, she insisted that human diversity is a resource, not a handicap, that all human beings have the capacity to learn from and teach each other.
[...]
In a society becoming increasingly pessimistic about the human capacity to change, she insisted on the importance of enhancing and supporting that capacity. She believed that cultural patterns of racism, warfare, and environmental exploitation were learned, and that the members of a society could work together to modify their traditions and to construct new institutions. This conviction drew her into discussions of the process of change, expressed in the slogan, "Never doubt that a small group of thoughtful, committed citizens can change the world."
And we have all seen just how much a relatively small group of 'committed' liberal ideologues have managed to change the world to their liking, even despite the fact that Mead's research has been shown to be dubious at best. The fact that her Samoan informants probably lied to her and told her what she wanted to hear has not apparently fazed her supporters, or caused the anthropology world to recant their enthusiasm for the Noble Savage ideal. So what if her research is discredited, and her subjects lied or spun stories? What's the liberal word -- truthiness? The particulars may be inaccurate but the overall 'truth' is there underlying it, and besides, the ideology is what matters, not the trivial facts.
And this incident was not the last time the anthropological world was hoaxed. Another story we heard in college was about this wonderful tribe that had been discovered in the remote wilds of the Philippines, the Tasaday tribe. Our wide-eyed anthropology prof told us how these people were peaceful and childlike; they did not know war or violence. Why, they had no word for 'war'!
Later it was revealed that this tribe was not what it seemed.
According to this story, the hoax was perpetrated by a Filipino official
Now the question was, who organized this incredible hoax? All roads led to Elizalde. Some of the Tasaday came forth and admitted conspiring with him. One man gave this revealing account:
"We didn't live in caves, only near them, until we met Elizalde...Elizalde forced us to live in the caves so that we'd be better cavemen. Before he came, we lived in huts on the other side of the mountain and we farmed. We took off our clothes because Elizalde told us to do so and promised us if we looked poor that we would get assistance. He gave us money to pose as Tasaday and promised us security from counter insurgency and tribal fighting."
It became evident that Elizalde had been manipulating the Tasaday for his own personal gain.
Also, when Marcos's dictatorship ended, Elizalde was the first crony to leave the Philippines, taking with him $35 million dollars from the non-profit PANAMIN organization that he had started specifically for the Tasaday.
Elizalde ended up in Costa Rica. He squandered all the money, became addicted to drugs, and died impoverished in 1997. Instead of a hero, he is now known as the perpetrator of the greatest anthropological hoax since piltdown man.''
And this paragraph, though amusing in a sad way, shows the dilemma of the liberal anthropological world in dealing with primitive tribes:
The Tasaday Hoax led many anthropologists to reconsider how they deal with indigenous tribes. It is a situation full of dilemmas. Anthropologists are often faced with situations where members of the tribe they are studying die on a regular basis from easily curable diseases. But administering medicine may be the first step toward the loss of a culture. Many tribes actually express desire to become more technological. Anthropologists usually pressure them not to do so. One Brazilian indigenous tribal chief, after hearing such a recommendation, is quoted saying, "Do they think we like not having any clothes? It may be the way of our ancestors, but the bugs bother us..." Should tribes like these be exposed to the modern world? There are no easy answers.''
So preserving these tribes in a museum-like setting, with their cultures intact, is more important than saving their lives, or helping them to improve their conditions?
This only illustrates, though it does not explain, the liberal mindset.
However, even the impulse to preserve the primitive cultures in their traditional setting is more laudatory than the current craze among the liberal do-gooders and government elites: bringing stone-age people to Western countries, where they will both encounter culture shock and engender it among their hosts, as they try to enter a 21st century culture.
The social sciences' adulation of primitive cultures, and the more primitive and 'other' the better, is at the heart of our current policy of allowing mostly Third World immigration to the West. Of course there are the cold-eyed corporate elites who want these people here for exploitation and possibly to foment discord, but hand in hand with them, in a strange alliance, are the starry-eyed academics who idolize the noble savage ideal in their minds. This latter group of people will stop at nothing in trying to remake the world to conform to their ideology-driven image of what should be. We see this partnership at work in the story about the Tasaday and the collusion between the exploitative politician and the utopian anthropologists.
Liberals, it's clear, should never be allowed near the levers of power, or attain any position of authority or influence until they have proven themselves capable of interacting with reality instead of trying, as is their wont, to conform reality to their utopian ideologies. We are now seeing, in the deteriorating society around us, the fruits of their harebrained social engineering.
Labels: Academia, Hoaxes, Leftism, Liberalism, Social Engineering, Social Sciences
0 comment Saturday, May 24, 2014 | admin
After my previous post relating to New York City, I came across this article, which reports that ''City living marks the brain.''
Actually I don't think they needed a study to discover this; anybody who has lived in a crime ridden -- I mean, diversity-enriched, vibrant big city, can attest to that.
''Using functional brain imaging, a group led by Andreas Meyer-Lindenberg of the University of Heidelberg's Central Institute of Mental Health in Mannheim, Germany, showed that specific brain structures in people from the city and the countryside respond differently to social stress. Stress is a major factor in precipitating psychotic disorders such as schizophrenia.
[...]
So Meyer-Lindenberg set out to study how city life might increase the risk of mental illness. The team scanned the brains of 32 student volunteers while they performed arithmetic tests.''
The volunteers were 'stressed' by having the researchers criticize or pressure them while they were being tested. Apparently, effects of the 'stress' activated certain areas of the brain, the amygdala and the cingulate cortex.
''The amygdala, which processes emotion, was activated only in people currently living in a city. And the cingulate cortex, which helps to regulate the amygdala and processes negative emotions, responded more strongly in those brought up in cities than in those who grew up in towns or rural areas.''
And since even neutral 'science' is tainted by politics, we read further that Meyer-Lindenberg is planning another study:
''He also plans to study how other risk factors identified by social scientists � such as being an immigrant � affect stress processing. "We will use tools from social scientists to help us quantify things like perceived discrimination, social support networks, or stigma," he says.''
I wonder if Meyer-Lindenberg plans to study the stress associated with being subjected to mass immigration? Or the stress of being accused of 'discrimination', or the stress of having your hometown become dangerous and unlivable?
Somehow I suspect no such studies are contemplated.
As for those poor stressed immigrants, they have a home country to return to, which should ease their minds. We however, are losing our country. That is real stress.
Actually I don't think they needed a study to discover this; anybody who has lived in a crime ridden -- I mean, diversity-enriched, vibrant big city, can attest to that.
''Using functional brain imaging, a group led by Andreas Meyer-Lindenberg of the University of Heidelberg's Central Institute of Mental Health in Mannheim, Germany, showed that specific brain structures in people from the city and the countryside respond differently to social stress. Stress is a major factor in precipitating psychotic disorders such as schizophrenia.
[...]
So Meyer-Lindenberg set out to study how city life might increase the risk of mental illness. The team scanned the brains of 32 student volunteers while they performed arithmetic tests.''
The volunteers were 'stressed' by having the researchers criticize or pressure them while they were being tested. Apparently, effects of the 'stress' activated certain areas of the brain, the amygdala and the cingulate cortex.
''The amygdala, which processes emotion, was activated only in people currently living in a city. And the cingulate cortex, which helps to regulate the amygdala and processes negative emotions, responded more strongly in those brought up in cities than in those who grew up in towns or rural areas.''
And since even neutral 'science' is tainted by politics, we read further that Meyer-Lindenberg is planning another study:
''He also plans to study how other risk factors identified by social scientists � such as being an immigrant � affect stress processing. "We will use tools from social scientists to help us quantify things like perceived discrimination, social support networks, or stigma," he says.''
I wonder if Meyer-Lindenberg plans to study the stress associated with being subjected to mass immigration? Or the stress of being accused of 'discrimination', or the stress of having your hometown become dangerous and unlivable?
Somehow I suspect no such studies are contemplated.
As for those poor stressed immigrants, they have a home country to return to, which should ease their minds. We however, are losing our country. That is real stress.
Labels: Cultural Marxism, Social Sciences, Urban Stress