If you live in a culture where such commitments are a-typical it's not a weakness. If you were placed into a society which didn't have such a concept of hard obligations and acted as though they did, you would be at a disadvantage. There's not an inherent superiority or inferiority, just an "impedance mismatch"
The thing is, there's no evidence that either blacks, nor Africans, live in a culture where 'promises' don't exist. In fact, many live in an Honor Culture where such commitments and duties are held in extreme regard.
Most african cultures are fear-power based. We see this reflected in US urban communities and the code of silence. This is done out of fear of reprisal, not honor.
You're claiming intimate knowledge of African cultures by one institution of an American ghetto?
That's utterly stupid.
It's no different from saying, "Europeans have proven their inability to have a stationary culture because white Americans live in Trailer Parks."
And you still don't understand the relationship between fear, power, and duty. If a culture focuses heavily on power, fear of that consequences from that power are a natural result. So is the concept of duty, stemming from obligations both to and from power. They will both exist. To claim that only one can exist is idiocy. If you look in the most culturally degenerated places on Earth, like prisons, you will still find a concept of duty emerge among people as either a form of homage to the powerful, or a duty for the powerful to protect those who sear fealty.
...the code of silence. This is done out of fear of reprisal, not honor.
Then you don't know anything about those communities. A code of silence is not held out of fear. It can be re-enforced by fear, but it does not exist solely out of fear. A code of silence is an obligation to the community not to let outsiders interfere. A violation of a code of silence is a threat to some, but it is an action taken against a community as a whole by allowing outsiders in.
I don't understand how you could think a code of silence, which is most famous from the Italian mob, is evidence of something innately African.
It is impossible for a judgement on the memes a group holds to be a commentary on their genes unless you accept the premise that memes have a genetic basis, and that is the foundation for everything you claim to hate.
If memes are genetic, then there are, objectively speaking, inferior genes. Since you argue vehemently against that conclusion whenever you weigh in on the topic, I have to assume that the rejection of genetic inferiority is a core part of your belief system.
No, you're saying that Africans never developed the concept of any sort of self-imposed duty. Considering that such a thing is a base level activity in all known human societies and peoples, your position is one that demarcates Africans as particularly inferior to all other humans.
It would be like saying "European societies never developed the concept of an offer. Asians had to introduce the concept of to them." The implication being that Europeans are a beastly population of uncivilized and sub-human savages who only have a history of theft and violence because the concepts of generosity are foreign to them.
European societies never developed the concept of an offer. Asians had to introduce the concept of to them.
If there's some sort of historical evidence of this, combined with observable behavior to this effect that goes on to this day, it would definitely be food for thought. There's not though. Trade is a bit different than abstract concepts like duty and honor. The adoption of the concept of private property could be interesting to explore, though.
If there's some sort of historical evidence of this, combined with observable behavior to this effect that goes on to this day, it would definitely be food for thought. There's not though.
The same thing is true of your claim, that's why I made the allegory.
Trade is a bit different than abstract concepts like duty and honor.
Trade relies on abstract concepts like duty and honor. Honor, taken from it's modern western individualist meaning, is more akin to "Integrity". Trade requires a voluntary exchange, and high integrity means the most likely fulfillment of a mutually beneficial trade. Duty, like integrity, ensures that a voluntary trade takes place if the trade can't be done simultaneously. Your promise to finalize the exchange is a duty, literally. Only the most minor form of immediate voluntary trade can be conducted without duty. It can't be done at all without integrity.
It actually would be because it's still a genuine declaration of a race of people as innately inferior.
If you live in a culture where such commitments are a-typical it's not a weakness. If you were placed into a society which didn't have such a concept of hard obligations and acted as though they did, you would be at a disadvantage. There's not an inherent superiority or inferiority, just an "impedance mismatch"
The thing is, there's no evidence that either blacks, nor Africans, live in a culture where 'promises' don't exist. In fact, many live in an Honor Culture where such commitments and duties are held in extreme regard.
Most african cultures are fear-power based. We see this reflected in US urban communities and the code of silence. This is done out of fear of reprisal, not honor.
You're claiming intimate knowledge of African cultures by one institution of an American ghetto?
That's utterly stupid.
It's no different from saying, "Europeans have proven their inability to have a stationary culture because white Americans live in Trailer Parks."
And you still don't understand the relationship between fear, power, and duty. If a culture focuses heavily on power, fear of that consequences from that power are a natural result. So is the concept of duty, stemming from obligations both to and from power. They will both exist. To claim that only one can exist is idiocy. If you look in the most culturally degenerated places on Earth, like prisons, you will still find a concept of duty emerge among people as either a form of homage to the powerful, or a duty for the powerful to protect those who sear fealty.
Then you don't know anything about those communities. A code of silence is not held out of fear. It can be re-enforced by fear, but it does not exist solely out of fear. A code of silence is an obligation to the community not to let outsiders interfere. A violation of a code of silence is a threat to some, but it is an action taken against a community as a whole by allowing outsiders in.
I don't understand how you could think a code of silence, which is most famous from the Italian mob, is evidence of something innately African.
Race is a genetic concept; culture a memetic one.
It is impossible for a judgement on the memes a group holds to be a commentary on their genes unless you accept the premise that memes have a genetic basis, and that is the foundation for everything you claim to hate.
When did I claim that?
If memes are genetic, then there are, objectively speaking, inferior genes. Since you argue vehemently against that conclusion whenever you weigh in on the topic, I have to assume that the rejection of genetic inferiority is a core part of your belief system.
I don't see how you could possibly imagine that memes are purely genetic.
Only if you're making a moral judgement on the concept of obligation.
No, you're saying that Africans never developed the concept of any sort of self-imposed duty. Considering that such a thing is a base level activity in all known human societies and peoples, your position is one that demarcates Africans as particularly inferior to all other humans.
It would be like saying "European societies never developed the concept of an offer. Asians had to introduce the concept of to them." The implication being that Europeans are a beastly population of uncivilized and sub-human savages who only have a history of theft and violence because the concepts of generosity are foreign to them.
If there's some sort of historical evidence of this, combined with observable behavior to this effect that goes on to this day, it would definitely be food for thought. There's not though. Trade is a bit different than abstract concepts like duty and honor. The adoption of the concept of private property could be interesting to explore, though.
The same thing is true of your claim, that's why I made the allegory.
Trade relies on abstract concepts like duty and honor. Honor, taken from it's modern western individualist meaning, is more akin to "Integrity". Trade requires a voluntary exchange, and high integrity means the most likely fulfillment of a mutually beneficial trade. Duty, like integrity, ensures that a voluntary trade takes place if the trade can't be done simultaneously. Your promise to finalize the exchange is a duty, literally. Only the most minor form of immediate voluntary trade can be conducted without duty. It can't be done at all without integrity.