個人資料
正文

Why Have Asians Not Dominated?

(2018-03-07 05:05:53) 下一個

Terracotta Army

It is now generally accepted among serious students of intelligence that Asians have the highest average IQs of any racial group. As Richard Lynn has reported in his comprehensive study, IQ and Global Inequality, East Asian countries such as China, Japan, South Korea, Taiwan, Hong Kong and Singapore, have average IQs in the range of 105 to 108. This clearly exceeds the averages Prof. Lynn has found for the 29 European countries, which range from 92 to 102. The question therefore arises, why have Asians not dominated — economically, culturally, and politically?

Before addressing this question directly, it is necessary to debunk a number of Western myths about China in order correctly to assess Asian achievement. There is, of course, more to Asia than China, but its population represents the great majority of East Asians, and throughout most historical periods, it has been the center of East Asian cultural achievement.

To the extent that Westerners think about China’s place in history they see it as having been a unified state with a single culture and language and a continuous history that stretches back thousands of years. They also think of it as having always been culturally and technologically ahead of the West until relatively recently. Joseph Needham, for example, propagates this myth in his monumental Science and Civilization in China.

In fact, the history of China has been as politically messy and fractured as that of Europe. The country was not even nominally unified until the third century BC — under the short-lived Chin dynasty (221-207 BC) — and has spent more than half the time since then split between competing dynasties or under foreign rule. Examples are the period of warlords in the 5th and 6th centuries AD, the Northern and Southern Sung dynasties from 960-1126, and rule by Mongols (1279-1368) and Manchus (1644-1912). Even during times of supposed unification, the control the emperor could exercise was very little compared to that possible in a modern, industrial state.

As for China’s presumed cultural unity, there is not a single language understood throughout China. The division between Cantonese and Mandarin is reasonably well known in the West, but there are other fault lines. The former leader Deng Xiaoping spoke with such a heavy accent and dialect that his daughter interpreted for him when he spoke in public. There is not even a single, standard written language.

China is far from being a unified racial/ethnic entity. It contains within its borders approximately 100 million people who are members of minority groups. It makes no more sense to speak of China as a continuous state or single civilisation than it does to speak of Europe as a continuous state or single civilization.

Nor is there a special antiquity to Chinese achievements. In the use of metals, the Chinese were no earlier than the peoples of the Middle East and Mediterranean, and were certainly later when it came to agriculture and writing.

Even in antiquity, China was not always more culturally advanced than Europe. The Cretans and Mycenaeans had sophisticated cultures that predated classical Greece, and the achievements of the Greeks and Romans were immense. China cannot be said to have been ahead of these civilizations.

To take an example from a later period, today there exist few Chinese buildings predating the Ming era (1368-1644). Before that time, most Chinese buildings were made of wood. China has nothing to compare with the great stone buildings of the European and Mediterranean ancient world, the magnificent castles, abbeys, cathedrals, and churches of the European mediaeval period, and the amazing architectural diversity of modern Europe. Construction of Notre Dame began in Paris in 1163 and the cathedral was largely completed by 1250. There is nothing from China of this period that demonstrates anything like the same level of both intricacy and magnificence.

It is true that before the modern period (say 1500 AD), the Chinese made a number of discoveries before Europe but the opposite is also true. The Chinese made paper, mixed gunpowder, and had the compass first, but Europe was first with the Archimedean screw.

Even when China invented something earlier, Europeans sometimes produced it later independently. The classic example is moveable type. China and Korea had moveable type many centuries before Gutenberg, but there is no evidence Gutenberg was influenced by Asian examples. Movable type quickly became widespread in Europe but was never popular in China. This is probably because written European languages are based on an alphabet with few characters while Chinese is written with thousands of ideograms, each of which requires its own block of type. In any case, since 1700 at the latest, European technology has completely outpaced that of China.

There is far more to civilization than technology, of course, but China falls well short of Europe in social science, philosophy, art, and political organization as well. Throughout their history the Chinese have been very inventive when it comes to practical solutions to particular problems but did not develop theories from practical solutions that offered general explanations of the world. In this sense, China never developed anything that could be called science.

It is also noteworthy that although the Chinese produced many important inventions, they often failed to develop them substantially. When Europeans began to make regular contact with China in the seventeenth century, their guns were far superior to those of the Chinese, even though it was Chinese who had invented gunpowder many centuries previously. The Chinese record of innovation sometimes gives the impression that an invention was made to amuse or to serve the interests of a powerful person rather than to establish an industry or change society.

Lord George Macartney, who headed the first official British diplomatic mission to China in 1793-4, noted that the Chinese seemed to have invented things and then “applied them solely to the purpose wanted, and to never have thought of improving or extending them further.”

Adam Smith wrote about China in The Wealth of Nations:

China has been long one of the richest, that is, one of the most fertile, best cultivated, most industrious and most populous countries in the world. It seems, however, to have long been stationary. Marco Polo, who visited it more than five hundred years ago, describes its cultivation, industry and populousness, almost in the same terms in which they are described by travellers in the present times.

Perhaps this stationary quality reflected a deep-seated arrogance among Chinese rulers, who viewed any kind of innovation with suspicion. Traditionally, the Chinese elites were contemptuous of other peoples, routinely treating them as subordinates. Lord Macartney’s presents to the Emperor in 1794 were counted as tribute rather than gifts, and the British envoy constantly noticed what we would now call a monstrous superiority complex. When he offered the Chinese products of the early Industrial Revolution, the equivalent of which were unknown in China, they often refused to show any interest in them. This is not an attitude conducive to progress.

Philosophy as we would understand it in the West, that is, analytical thought examining the nature of reality with, in theory at least, an absence of ideological baggage, is virtually absent from Chinese history. Traditional Chinese philosophy never divorced itself entirely from religion and was mainly concerned with how society should be ordered. Its primary purpose was social control, and it is more a series of maxims than an exercise in philosophical enquiry. The let-everything-be-challenged method found intermittently in Western philosophy from at least the sixth century BC appears foreign to the Chinese. Interestingly, the Chinese were great compilers of what we would call encyclopaedias. They delighted in recording what was already known or thought, but had little interest in investigating what was not known or might be thought.

Chinese art and fashion show a similar resistance to change. Look at contemporary depictions of Chinese from 1000 AD. They look hardly any different from the Chinese of 1800. Chinese art shows a similar stability over the same period, being for the most part heavily constrained by convention. Where there is deviation from academic artistic discipline it is mainly found in periods where foreign invaders gained power, most noticeably under the Mongol emperors who imported foreign craftsmen and artists. Chinese fashions and art are like those of ancient Egypt, which show a remarkable stability over several thousand years. This is the opposite of the European cultural experience.

Politically, the Chinese never really moved beyond the state of warlordism or of believing in an absolute ruler who was a god or a man directly in touch with gods. There were attempts to introduce more rational and less absolute forms of government, but these were short lived. Confucianism tried to lay down moral rules for rulers, but that was about the limit of any real attempt to restrain emperors by anything short of violence. Ideas about constitutions restricting what government may do, representative government, or direct democracy never arose in Chinese society. In the West, the ideal of individual political participation dates back to the Greeks, and is present in Europe in the Middle Ages. It is completely absent in China.

The Mandarin system and appointment by examination, which started as early as the 7th century AD, are often proposed as evidence of superior Chinese political organization, but were they really superior to that of the Roman Empire, which predated it by centuries? Was Chinese bureaucracy more impressive than that of the Catholic Church at the height of its power? It is possible to describe the Mandarin system more as a way to control and categorize than as a system designed to meet a particular need, such as political rule or the management of assets.

In Chinese history it is also hard to find organizations that perform civic social functions but that are not part of the formal political structure. Examples in the West would be charities, clubs, the co-operative movement, and trade unions. Chinese life has traditionally revolved around the family, while the government provides all forms of larger social organization.

Before the Maoist revolution, China never attempted to go beyond a society of a small elite with immense wealth that left the vast majority in abject penury. There is no Chinese tradition of doubting the justice or legitimacy of such a society. When Europeans began to gain first-hand experience of China from the 17th century onwards, it was common to remark on the tremendous disparities of wealth. As Macartney noted, “[E]very year vast numbers [of Chinese] perish of hunger and cold. The summers are so warm that the common sort go almost naked, and the winter is so rigorous that the mortality is very great from the want of clothing and shelter.”

There was nothing that resembled the corporate charitable concern for the poor found within the Catholic Church, let alone a formal legal obligation to the needy, such as the English Poor Law of 1601. And even after what was supposed to be an egalitarian revolution, for many years the Communist party did nothing more than appropriate to itself the advantages of the Mandarinate but under a different name.

What is Missing?

Why did China never make the jump from trial-and-error technology to true science? Why did it show so little interest in analytical philosophy? Why did it never develop a political system more sophisticated than that of the god-Emperor? Why was the idea of political participation, so widespread in Europe in both the ancient and the late mediaeval world, absent in China? Why was there no civil society?

Could it be that sufficiently propitious circumstances never arose to drive Asians beyond a certain point, that Europe surged ahead by luck rather than any innate difference? This is improbable because China has been a sophisticated society for several thousand years.

The above critique of the myth of Chinese cultural superiority may carry within it suggestions of why Asians have not achieved cultural supremacy. IQ may be a necessary but not sufficient condition for that advance. First, however, it is important to note that IQ is not of a piece. Although the average Asian IQ is higher than the white IQ overall, it is not higher in all respects. Asians score substantially higher than whites on non-verbal tests but lower than whites on verbal tests. They score particularly well on spatial tests.

This IQ profile may be associated with the Asian adherence to an ideographic form of writing. If one set a genius and a dullard the task of developing a writing system, the genius would come up with an alphabet and the dullard some form of pictorial representation. The genius would see that an alphabet was a more economical and powerful means of representation because it required only a small number of symbols. The dullard would merely keep adding to the number of pictures. Of course the Chinese went far beyond crude pictograms, but by retaining a pictorial system they ended up with a form of writing that requires several thousand characters.

In the 15th century, the Koreans invented an alphabet called Hangul, but this was in imitation of alphabets invented by others. It may be that East Asians failed to develop an alphabet on their own because of their leaning towards the visual and the spatial.

The greater Asian aptitude on non-verbal tests and lower ability on verbal tests can also be interpreted as meaning that Asians are adapted to solving what I would call bounded problems. These are problems that have clear boundaries, such as how to build a canal or how to care for silkworms, rather than problems without boundaries, such as inquiring about the nature of the good, the purpose of life, or what constitutes art.

At the same time, IQ is hardly the only measure by which the races differ, and both J. Philippe Rushton and Richard Lynn have written about racial differences in personality. Although intelligence is the best studied and most accurately measured mental trait, there are also reasonably well developed measures of many other traits. Compared to whites, Asians are more cautious, less impulsive, less aggressive, less sociable, less psychopathic, and have lower self-regard (the same can be said about whites compared to blacks). Though they have not been studied as extensively as intelligence, racial differences on these scales are so consistent that it makes almost as much sense to speak of a race or group’s “average personality” as it does to speak of its average IQ.

Asians also have lower levels of testosterone compared to whites (who have less testosterone than blacks), and testosterone is closely associated with aggressiveness, risk-taking, and criminality.

These differences support the conclusion that the Asian personality is less enquiring or adventurous than that of the Caucasian, less verbal or sociable, and more conformist and submissive. This is not the type of personality that — despite an advantage in average IQ — pushes a society towards the achievements that characterize the West: developing an industrial revolution from scratch, creating modern science, giving birth to analytical philosophy, and evolving many varied forms of political life that value the contribution of the individual.

When they are a minority in high-IQ, Western societies, Asians tend to fill technical posts that favor higher IQs, or engage in business, much of which is conducted within their own group. They make relatively little headway in areas that require the highest level of “people skills,” such as politics or advocacy groups. They are excellent accountants, computer technicians, and engineers — these are professions in which their natural abilities blossom — but they do not distinguish themselves in professions that require verbal gifts and gregariousness: politician, comedian, lawyer.

Asians also tend to show very little antisocial behavior. Their crime rates are low, and they rarely portray themselves as victims of racism or demand race-based privileges. This tendency to follow the rules and not to call attention to themselves either as a group or as individuals seems to fit the Asian personality.

What has been the Asian record since industrialization? Asians have had the invaluable example of European industry, science, and general cultural heritage, and have made much better use of it than any other non-Western racial group. However, their record is patchy. Japan has been able to duplicate the technology of the West but has not been able to surpass it. In the 1970s, many Americans feared Japan would dominate it economically and financially, but just as it seemed to pull abreast of the West, it began to stagnate and has shown little growth since the 1980s.

China has not been able to bridge the oceanic gulf in wealth and sophistication between its coastal cities and the vast Chinese interior. No Asian society has achieved much success in fundamental scientific discovery or technological innovation that goes beyond the adaptation of what has been invented or discovered elsewhere. Nor, despite the large populations of Asians living in advanced European societies, can we find front-rank scientists in proportion to their numbers. In the social sciences their contributions are practically invisible. This lack of top-level achievement is particularly striking given that Asians have higher incomes than whites, go farther in school, and start more businesses.

Asians have adopted Western culture as well as Western technology. The Japanese, in particular, are famous for imitating both high and low white culture, from Beethoven to the Beatles. Asian Harry Potter fans are among the most frenzied in the world. The sites on Prince Edward Island associated with the children’s book series about Anne of Green Gables attract as many Japanese as they do Americans or Canadians. Asians have enthusiastically copied the architecture of the West and have even been willing to tear down many fine examples of indigenous architecture.

There is no equivalent of Asian mass culture entering white societies. The most that can be found are periodic outbreaks of the use of oriental art and motifs by European designers.

This willingness to imitate might seem odd in view of the traditionally static nature of Asian societies. Perhaps it could be ascribed to the feelings of inferiority that arose when Asians faced the power of the industrialized West. In China’s case it might arise from a sense of humiliation because of European quasi-colonialism in the 19th century. Many Chinese would say they are modernizing only now because they were held back by white control and manipulation, but this does not fit with the facts. China had centuries during which it could have pulled ahead of the West, and European meddling effectively ended in 1949.

In any case, to copy culture as well as technology shows a strange lack of ambition. Why not do something whites have never done?

One could argue that imitation comes more naturally in conformist, less individualistic societies. Or rather, it may be natural to imitate certain aspects of life but not others. Asians do not show an appetite for imitating social structures. The Japanese and South Koreans may have formally adopted systems of elective government from European examples, but traditional social relations remain strong. Those countries accept practices that in the West would be considered straightforward bribery, and voters are greatly influenced by collective loyalties. As for China, the Communist elite have managed to retain control while allowing some economic freedom. They have certainly avoided democratization, and the government continues openly to manipulate the law.

Japan’s imitation of the West is especially striking, given its earlier suspicions. After some 16th and 17th century experience with European merchants and priests, in the 1630s it took the dramatic step of sealing the country off from all but the most limited European contact. This self-imposed isolation lasted more than two centuries until Commodore Matthew Perry forced trade on the Japanese in 1853.

A new elite ideology then emerged that saw imitation of certain aspects of Western countries as the best way to compete with them. This new ideology was accepted by the people with astonishing readiness despite the earlier policy of isolation. Why did this transition take place so easily? Most probably because of an average personality that is unusually susceptible to authority.

One of the most striking examples of both the remarkable ability and remarkable limitedness of Asians is the history of the Chinese admiral Zheng He. From 1405 to 1433 he commanded a series of seven extraordinary voyages throughout South East Asia and to such places as India, Ceylon, the Arabian peninsula, and even East Africa. The admiral’s largest ships were enormous, six-masted junks estimated to have been 100 yards or more long, and he travelled with tens of thousands of men and hundreds of vessels. His ships were many times larger than anything afloat in the West, and if the Chinese had devoted themselves to sea power, they would certainly have dominated trade and could have discovered and colonized the Americas.

However, there was a change of emperor, and the new regime had no interest in exploration. Zheng He died on the last voyage, and the emperor ordered the fleet burned. That was the end of China as a maritime power.

In the hands of the West, sea power dramatically changed history. In the hands of the Chinese, it was a means to satisfy a fleeting curiosity about foreigners. China had unsurpassed technology, but did not have the spirit to turn that technology into world or even regional dominance.

Despite their higher average IQ, Asians have failed to become the culturally dominant race probably because innate personality traits work against them. Compared to Europeans, they are passive, unquestioning, and lacking in initiative. The next 50 years will probably see a continuing rise in the economic and military power of China, but if history is any guide, this rise in power will not be matched by innovation, and China’s cultural contributions will remain insignificant. 

[Editor’s Note: For a response, see “Why the West Dominated,” by Steve Farron]Original Article

270 Comments

 

 
  •  
     
     
    •  
       
      Avatar
       

      What I have noticed is that, unlike most whites, they are not much interested in knowledge for the sake of knowledge. They will read a book only if it helps them in their career or making money.

       
       
       
  •  
     
    Avatar

    Well good thing Asia have not take on the negative aspects organically via democracy and other egalitarian fallacies.

     
     
     
  •  
     
    Avatar

    They seem pre-adapted to tend my garden and vote democrat.

     
     
     
  •  
     
    Avatar

    They are also naturally collectivist and that does not bode well for entrepreneurship and what it really requires to be successful.

     
     
     
    •  
       
      Avatar
       

      They tend to be an insectoid type society with a rigid caste type consciousness.

       
       
       
      •  
         
        Avatar
         

        One more reason why we don't want to import millions of them to the US - successful Asians who have their own businesses, who you might think would be interested in limited government, tend to vote for big government according to extensive Pew polling.

         
         
         
  •  
     
    Avatar
     

    "China is far from being a unified racial/ethnic entity.".....But from most Westerners' perspective they all seem to be the same racial stock . Now look at the ethnic slumgullion stew the West has become . The Chinese are a people , we used to be but we are no longer . This troubles me .

    I am astounded at Japanese progress between 1853 and 1941 , Chinese and Korean progress after WW2 , S/E Asian progress after Vietnam but the author is right .Every bit of this progress is built on contact with either the West or Russia . That more than anything gives me hope we will not be surpassed by Asia But if we are no longer a people genetically with a common history , like I said , it troubles me .

     
     
     
  •  
     
    Avatar

    I guess there are some things that IQ tests do not measure, for example a desire to explain the unknown. The five or six points that separate the average IQs are not significant. I think the difference can be explained by the fact that Chinese characters are numbered in the thousands; over time their brain has gotten good at recognizing patterns. Our I

     
     
     
    •  
       
      Avatar
       

      Sorry...I hit the wrong key! TO finish up...their brains have adjusted to seeing many different Chinese characters. We only have 26 letters in our alphabet. Another point is that whites have more variance in the higher IQs. We have more geniuses than them.

       
       
       
  •  
     
    Avatar

    Such topic is always difficult to come out with a conclusion (certainly can't be concluded in 1 article) . Many points in this article is valid to me. However, this statement is incorrect :"There is not even a single, standard written language.". The Han Chinese people have been using a single, standard written language for thousand years.

     
     
     
  •  
     
    Avatar

    When I told a Chinese associate of mine that the Egyptian hieroglyphics are actually phonetic symbols (those birds, snakes, etc. each stand for a sound) he said to me, "You mean we're the only ones without a system of phonetic spelling?"

     
     
     
    •  
       
      Avatar
       

      The complexities of their "concept language" could very well be what has held them back. The student of 'Simplified Chinese' has to take this name: 
      洲際彈道導彈,導彈武器。and pull 'Intercontinental Ballistic Missile' out of it.

       
       
       
  •  
     
    Avatar

    It's funny, I was watching Naruto before I read this article.

     
     
     
  •  
     
    Avatar

    "There is no equivalent of Asian mass culture entering white societies."

    There is, actually: anime, and k-pop.

     
     
     
  •  
     
    Avatar

    IQ doesn't measure all kinds of intelligence and you can't put points on intelligence. Also, different races and groups do I find have different personalities. I find Asians excel in some areas while Whites excel in other areas. Whites I find on average tend to be more creative but Asians tend to excel in math more on average and areas like that.

     
     
     
  •  
     
    Avatar

    I know this is not scientific, but it seems to me that success is a combination of IQ, hard work, what I can only call "common sense", and (of course) a little luck. You really need *all* of these in some combination.

     
     
     
  •  
     
    Avatar

    By Asians, the English mean anyone from Asia. Americans mean Far Easterners.
    The Mongolid peasant interior masses may not have an average IQ comparable to migrants around the entire Pacific fringe.
    The problem of alien domination is not mitigated by the intelligence of the domineering.
    Historically, the white peoples colonized relatively virgin lands with relatively backward peoples, building their industrial and agricultural infrastructure. That was "racist"!
    The non-whites are now colonizing developed infrastructures within the white metropolitan lands. That is "not racist"!

     
     
     
  •  
     
    Avatar

    Northeast Asians and Europeans evolved in a convergent manner - conditions brought two separate groups closer together. Both needed cooperative communities to get through the winter months. Europeans restricted their impulses by growing an instinct for guilt and compassion. Asians restricted their impulses by growing the instinct of conformity and politeness. The result makes these two groups on opposite sides of the world more alike to each other than to even their own neighbors. Japan's murder rate is closer to England's than to Cambodia's, because London and Tokyo have similar winters while Cambodia is in the tropics.

     
     
     
  •  
     
    Avatar

    To some extent I believe in multiple intelligences. Certainly there is more to intelligence than memorizing Pi to one thousand digits. Whatever it ultimately is, whites seem to possess the best combination of characteristics for building a desirable community.

     
     
     
    •  
       
      Avatar
       

      Emotional intelligence + intellectual knowledge based intelligence must count for something. Even blacks generally have a sly, cunning sort of intelligence that often makes dopes of us Whites.
      To put it into crude terms, I've always seen us Whites as the perfect balance of b#lls and brains, with blacks and Asians being respective representations of the other two extremes.
      And I know which combo of those attributes I'd rather be stuck in a foxhole with.

       
       
       
  •  
     
    Avatar
     

    I spend a lot of time around Chinese people, and I have noticed a particular pattern of thinking that seems to differ from whites. The brightest of them are exceptionally good at solving algorithmic problems with fixed solutiond, and have very little interest in anything theoretical that does not have a pragmatic solution. Theoretical possibilities, or things like philosophy of mind do not interest them in the slightest. I think this rigid focus on the pragmatic hampers their creative thinking and inventiveness, and limits them in ways that do not affect whites as strongly.

     
     
     
  •  
     
    Avatar

    whites had several expansion centuries, say 1500-1850, where peasants and peons could go build their own homesteads or whatever environment they wanted to try-
    the 1700's and 1800's saw men with their own tools and reasons to use them.........this produced more than a few genius level Edisons, Fultons, et cetera----not only in America but Europe too---in many different fields--------it continues in computers, medicine and much more...........
    it caused an explosion in technology and science and even put men on the moon back in the 60's and 70's
    this involved mostly Caucasian men.........now there seem to be some Asian and maybe a few Africans............I don't know the whole story but the history books might some day lay it out for us.
    if we survive the liberal education scams than now exist in the west

     
     
     
  •  
     
    Avatar

    True Asians (yellow race) do have high IQ/intelligence but not on the same level as whites. The myth of higher Asian IQ vs whites goes back to Lynn. His theories/hypothesis have not been independently research by others. The empirical evidence goes against Asians as having higher IQ/intelligence than whites as shown that most of their technology/innovations have come from white brain power.

    "Compared to Europeans, they are passive, unquestioning, and lacking in initiative." Not quite true, the dominant intellectual force in Asia was China. They were the main innovators in math/philosophy/governing/social ethics. China was pulled backwards (regressive) due to ancestor worship. It stopped the search for truth. China has now awakened again.

    "China had unsurpassed technology, but did not have the spirit to turn that technology into world or even regional dominance." This was due to ancestor worship - looking backwards otherwise China would have become the dominant global force prior to whites during that time period.

     
     
     
  •  
     
    Avatar

    3/4 of the students at the meritocratic high schools are East Asian while comprising approx 15% of the student population of NYC public schools. 55% of the East Asian students qualify for subsidized meals - i.e. they are not all scions of some mysterious East Asian diplomat, tycoon, etc.

    2/3 of National Merit Semi-finalists in California are East Asian while comprising approx 13% of the student population.

    Income levels, homeownership rates, marriage rates, low crime rates, etc. are all topped by East Asians. These are the famous charts and graphs that are omitted by Liberal/Progressives because it screws with their "narrative" of White Privilege.

    The snapshots are merely to show that while all the sturm and drang that the Whites, Blacks and Hispanics enjoy during their incessant conversations about Race, that the Asians are putting their heads down and learning and living exceedingly well. This was a trait that the Protestants of the past were known for: work hard, remain humble and live well...and keep quiet.

    For a site like this to attempt to drag Asians into a fight that they have no desire to be involved with (nor the time) seems to be bad tact. Blacks and Hispanics will for the foreseeable future be less intelligent, less industrious, less disciplined, etc. to help lead society forward - that's obvious. With the Hispanics, the hope for the country is that they will have the opportunity to do that which they do best - physical labor work and they do it well. They may not help lead society but they will be necessary to push it forward from hereon.

    The Blacks are in trouble. The twin factors of time and demographics are working against them. 1) It's been 150 years since slavery was abolished. The further out we get, the less of a historical burden it becomes. 2) The Hispanic population is growing at a rate that will consume the Black population to the point where the political strength of the Blacks will be overwhelmed by the Hispanics. The numbers don't lie.

    Convexity is a term in the financial world which represents the 2nd derivative of an asset's price change to a change in interest rates. Some assets have the peculiar quality of changing price in a certain direction as long as rates change in the direction that they do, until for some mathematical reason the asset price changes in the other direction despite modeling the interest rate changes in the same direction. In other words, the more that Blacks fight for their scraps in this country the more the Hispanics will benefit more and take these scraps at some point in the future as their political power will be far greater than the Blacks at that point. At some point all the marching, crying, whining, etc. that the Blacks do to get their handouts will only be divided with the Hispanics who will have 4 hands for each black hand. The best real case of this dynamic are the Native Indians - their claim to victimhood is greatest of all in this country and yet they are subjugated to reservations in the middle of nowhere with bad provisions of cheese, booze and cigarettes. Their vote was never large enough to be a swing vote unfortunately for them.

    One day, the Black vote will also not be enough to swing elections. And, the reality of the race dynamics are such that the Blacks and Hispanics are naturally competing cultures and will never be long term allies: They simply have too many differences in their histories and cultures.

    Now, to swing back to the Asians. The Asian population is, for better or worse, almost like the Protestants of the past in relative terms to modern times. They will succeed whether anybody likes it or not - and their history tells us that any force applied to them as a Race is merely a bump in the road as they always get back up and move forward. They are a Race that respects the past but is always mindful of moving forward.

    In many ways, it's been proven that Whites and Asians can easily co-exist and be compatible with each other. Most of the great towns with great schools along the coasts and the urban centers of America prove that already - they all seem to be 10-30% Asian and the rest White.

    We live in a federalist republic of different political views, races, creeds, etc. - if you choose to believe that Pandora can be returned to it's box where America can be 95% White again then enjoy your blissful ignorance. For the others, choose your enemies wisely...

    see more
     
     
     
  •  
     
    Avatar

    Asian women are generally considered to be more feminine whilst Asian men are less masculine. So could it be that Asians (of both sexes) are simply more "feminine" in character? Race-realists - e.g., Jared Taylor and the late Philippe Rushton - like to point out that Asians (esp NE Asians) have a higher average IQ than white people. I suspect they emphasise this in the (vain) hope that they will not be labelled as "white supremacists" - but of course this cuts no ice with the equalitarian left. Nobody talks about the possibility that Asian IQ's may be much more tightly clustered about the average - as women's IQ's also are (or so it is alleged). If the SD of the Asian IQ was 10 rather than 15, this would make a huge difference at the tails of the Bell Curve - most importantly the right-hand side (genius level IQ) tail. I am not saying this explains everything but is worth considering.

     
     
     
  •  
     
    Avatar
     

    There's a huge bias by westerners that more collective cultures can not be creative. Of course, Japan is such a culture, and if you look at the actual huge amount spent on video games, anime, Japanese intellectual properties, and technology patents world wide, then on a pound per pound basis it would seem like a developed Asian country has no significant creativity problem. In fact, it is doing well.

    I don't expect to find objectivity in articles like these - there are many positives to a collective culture but those never get mentioned. I do acknowledge that Europe has been in the lead for the last 300 years, but there is no conclusive evidence Asia's lack of dominance is an innate problem rather than missteps. On a personal timeline, 300 years is a very long time, but relative to all of humanity, it is not a lot of evidence.

    Certainly there might be differences but comparing a still developing country to the US and drawing conclusions? I find that strange.

     
     
     
  •  
     
    Avatar

    Didn't Ghengis Khan create the largest empire the world has ever seen? Had it not been for impending matters in China, they would have easily marched into Germany (as they were already in Hungary).

     
     
     
  •  
     
    Avatar

    Well written and unfortunately very true, in the past that is.

     
     
     
  •  
     
    Avatar

    lmao, why white monkeys lie so much?

    "In fact, the history of China has been as politically messy and fractured as that of Europe. The country was not even nominally unified until the third century BC — under the short-lived Chin dynasty (221-207 BC) "

    YES, WHILE IN YOUR PSEUDO-CONTINENT THEY IN A PRIMITIVE FORM LIKE ANIMALS UNTIL A FRE CENTURIES AGO.

    "and has spent more than half the time since then split between competing dynasties or under foreign rule. Examples are the period of warlords in the 5th and 6th centuries AD, the Northern and Southern Sung dynasties from 960-1126, and rule by Mongols (1279-1368) and Manchus (1644-1912)"

    The monkey calls the Mediterranean race(like arabs and romans) "white" but insiste that 'Asian' ethnicities are completely different races from one another.
    Why did he not mention that these North 'Asians' were the strongest warriors in history and that any other civilization would have disappeared were it not for the intelligence of the Chinese? Huns for example, were easily expelled from China and became semi-gods in your pseudo-continent "Europe"

     
     
     
  •  
     
    Avatar

    Whites are the race that creates. Asians are the race that maintains. Blacks are the race that destroys. Individuals may vary, but all are necessary for perfect balance.

     
     
     
  •  
     
    Avatar

    No one touches the Greeks. Their achievements are staggering.

    Turns out, Mycenaean Greeks are the direct ancestors of modern Greeks, and are also genetically linked to the Minoans from Crete.

    http://www.sciencemag.org/n...

    As far as the Asians, studies show they lacked, and still lack, hubris. Moxy. Hubris isn't necessarily a positive trait but it does propel a person. The Greeks were confident and celebrated the individual as well as the whole.

     
     
     
  •  
     
    Avatar
     

    Two thought-provoking letters in response to this essay were published back in the print days of American Renaissance:

    Sir: Mr. Henderson is right to say Asians have not yet dominated, but they will. Even if they could not have invented Western science they have absorbed it at a great rate and apply it diligently. They may stay a step or two behind in the most advanced areas, but they will soon be close enough to defeat us where it matters: in world markets and on the battlefield.

    We are also helping them tremendously by practicing “diversity,” which increases our internal tensions and lowers our productivity. At the same time, as Nguyen Ai Quoc pointed out in his article, “The Rise of Asian Race Consciousness,” Asians are stealing our military technology; we make it easy for them by our foolish emphasis on “diversity.”

    The Chinese may not have known what to do with an ocean-going fleet after Admiral Zheng He died, but they do now. They have gotten over their magnificent indifference to events beyond their borders and are securing raw materials, markets, and sea lanes. They have not been weakened by soft-headed notions of universal brotherhood as we have, and will be ruthless in advancing national interests. Twenty or 30 years from now, there will be nothing in the West to stand up to their relentless quest for dominance.

    They will not be kindly overlords. — Thomas J. Chambers, Redwood City, CA

    Sir: I’m of mixed race — half Chinese — and Robert Hendrson’s article about Asians sickens me! Americans of Asian descent actually do dominate the United States, along with Americans of Jewish descent, in finance, entrepreneurship, technology, and at the nation’s premier universities.

    I suppose by “dominate,” Mr. Henderson means: Why haven’t American-Asians wailed about constant discrimination from every other race in the United States despite the fact that Asians contribute a large portion of this nation’s brain power?

    Well, here’s the reason: Unlike the majority of African-Americans and Latinos, most American-Asians do not have anything to prove. Although many Americans still consider Chinese, Japanese, and Koreans (for most white Americans, they’re all the same!) to be laundromat owners, chinks with nail files perpetually in their hands, Chinese food take-out delivery people, or eternal gooks, Asians are vital to the two most financially and culturally important states — New York and California — and to the Ivy League universities. Just see how many American-Asians work at Goldman Sachs, attend Stanford and Yale, and, if admission were strictly by merit, how completely they would dominate UC Berkeley and UCLA.

    It isn’t due to our “weak” or “submissive” nature that we don’t have an Asian Al Sharpton. It’s because most American Asians educate themselves and within a generation or two have financial security and professional degrees that many generations of African-Americans and Hispanic-Americans have yet to achieve. — Sophia Solivio

  • Avatar
     

    Chinese have the character system, because unlike in Europe, many languages are spoken in one country and surrounding subject countries. This system was perfect for them to communicate freely while having separate languages.

    Also:
    "In the 15th century, the Koreans invented an alphabet called Hangul, but this was in imitation of alphabets invented by others. It may be that East Asians failed to develop an alphabet on their own because of their leaning towards the visual and the spatial."

     

[ 打印 ]
閱讀 ()評論 (0)
評論
目前還沒有任何評論
登錄後才可評論.