I don't think you can say that either. Honestly, I don't think we can say much useful about "African" culture. If you want to say, "The cultures of Sub-Saharan Africa", then I would say there's a conversation about geography, diet, isolation, animal predators, and a bunch of other things to add.
Again, we can find a lot of agreement here. Within context of the conversation I thought Sub-saharan Africa was implied, but if there's confusion, my apologies.
As to IDpol, it only has a place when there are identifiable groups. Ethnic divisions are just subdivisions of race. Ethnic divisions ruled the day since antiquity, but with modern mobility, ethnic difference have evolved into racial differences. People from far greater distances are now regularly in close contact. I think Aristotle had it right. Heterogeneity in people will lead to factionalism. This, by necessity will encourage tyranny to maintain order, as factionalism is an inherently chaotic force.
I think the view on the Germans is a bit of bad history. The ethnic cleansing is not why 50 million people died. Territorial expansion is. Another ancient motivation for conflict. There's certainly an argument that the ideas of lebensraum where racially based, so in turn the territorial expansion was also racially based, but I think that's being a bit too narrow in scope to make it a better fit for a certain circumstance. There's also the argument that socialism, being economically incompetent, required plunder to feed the socialist machine. It's a fair observation, and mostly true. I think conflating the racialism and the socialism is off base, though. Without the territorial expansion, the racialism wouldn't really have been much more than a blip on history's radar. Mostly, because the territorial expansion made deportation options impossible, and the wartime strain on resources made concentration camp maintenance untenable.
Put them together and you get a guaranteed genocide, whether it's done by Blacks, Whites, Chinese, Indians, Jews, etc. There is no possible good outcome.
I'd say that putting Blacks, Whites, Chinese, Indians, Jews, etc together is how you get genocide. There's no possible good outcome. Unfortunately, that ship has sailed. It's just a question of who gets the paddling at this point.
Again, we can find a lot of agreement here. Within context of the conversation I thought Sub-saharan Africa was implied, but if there's confusion, my apologies.
As to IDpol, it only has a place when there are identifiable groups. Ethnic divisions are just subdivisions of race. Ethnic divisions ruled the day since antiquity, but with modern mobility, ethnic difference have evolved into racial differences. People from far greater distances are now regularly in close contact. I think Aristotle had it right. Heterogeneity in people will lead to factionalism. This, by necessity will encourage tyranny to maintain order, as factionalism is an inherently chaotic force.
I think the view on the Germans is a bit of bad history. The ethnic cleansing is not why 50 million people died. Territorial expansion is. Another ancient motivation for conflict. There's certainly an argument that the ideas of lebensraum where racially based, so in turn the territorial expansion was also racially based, but I think that's being a bit too narrow in scope to make it a better fit for a certain circumstance. There's also the argument that socialism, being economically incompetent, required plunder to feed the socialist machine. It's a fair observation, and mostly true. I think conflating the racialism and the socialism is off base, though. Without the territorial expansion, the racialism wouldn't really have been much more than a blip on history's radar. Mostly, because the territorial expansion made deportation options impossible, and the wartime strain on resources made concentration camp maintenance untenable.
I'd say that putting Blacks, Whites, Chinese, Indians, Jews, etc together is how you get genocide. There's no possible good outcome. Unfortunately, that ship has sailed. It's just a question of who gets the paddling at this point.