History Questions Not Worth Their Own Thread VI

[awesome]

Whites who migrate to malaria-stricken part of Africa are not immediately becoming less likely to get malaria and more likely to get sickle-cell anemia.

So your argument is a failure. Blacks live there for thousands of years. That's why they are Black and that's why they are less likely to get malaria.

And when a Black person who has this malaria-immunity gene moves to the United States, this gene does not disappear. Because he or she is Black.



That's called selection and is related to genes & biology - not culture. And not people made those decisions, but nature itself. Simply those who developed that malaria-immunity gene, lived longer and had more offspring. While those who didn't have it, were more likely to die young, and didn't pass on their genes.

Of course individuals who look more healthy, or more adapted to a particular climate, are desired mating partners. And here sexual selection comes in. But in case of malaria-immunity gene I don't think that you can recognize a person who has it by just looking at him or her. So natural selection was important here.

When pale-skinned people migrate to sunny regions, they become darker due to adaptation and increased mortality rate of palest individuals (skin cancer). When dark-skinned people migrate to cold and cloudy places, they become lighter due to the same factors (e.g. not enough vitamin D and higher mortality).

So there is a genetic drift / adaptation going on, which is rather slow - about 2% of children per generation become lighter / darker than their parents.

If generation A moves to a cold cloudy climate, then among generation B, some 98% will be like their parents (A), but 2% will be slightly lighter. Etc.

question: are you reading your own posts? because you're obviously not reading anyone else's.
like i said a couple times already, cultural issues both assume that the scientific facts are true and further explain why they are so. let's say you live in a poor society where food is scarce. you're going to be more attracted to somebody who is well-fed because then you think that you're more likely to be well-fed, too. science says that selected traits will be passed on, but culture tells why those traits are going to be selected in the first place.

Anthropologists do study the connections between behaviour and race. So they study psychology & sociology of various races. Or at least they did so in the past. It is considered racist nowadays to think that various races might be even slightly behavorally different, so psychology of race is no longer popular.

you're confused here. my point was that anthropologists study culture, which implies sociology. nobody's arguing that a modern american black guy has different values than a modern american white guy, or at least not that it comes from the color of his skin. the modern american black guy will, however, have different values than the 1600s american black guy. or the black guy who lived in the 1600s BC.

 

[Domen]

let's say you live in a poor society where food is scarce. you're going to be more attracted to somebody who is well-fed because then you think that you're more likely to be well-fed, too. science says that selected traits will be passed on, but culture tells why those traits are going to be selected in the first place.

However, scarcity of food isn't a thing related to culture. Poverty only sometimes is.

If you e.g. live in a desert then scarcity of food is a sad necessity, not a cultural choice.

Malaria also isn't a cultural choice. You settle in a jungle and malaria is already there.

Tsetse fly is also not a cultural choice, even though it affects lifestyle (you can't rear cattle).

my point was that anthropologists study culture

Ethnographers study cultures (and ethnic groups in general). Physical anthropologists don't.

I think you are confusing them. Physical anthropologists don't study culture, but biological aspects:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Biological_anthropology

I wasn't precise enough - when I wrote about anthropology in my previous posts, I meant physical anthropology.

nobody's arguing that a modern american black guy has different values than a modern american white guy, or at least not that it comes from the color of his skin. the modern american black guy will, however, have different values than the 1600s american black guy. or the black guy who lived in the 1600s BC.

Indeed. Group values do exist, but they aren't related to race, but to things like religion, political stance, culture, etc.

It seems, however, that there exists a kind of Afro-American subculture within the USA. But not all Blacks are part of it.

 

[awesome]

Culture adapts, just like the humans who observe these cultures themselves.

 

[Plotinus]

Moderator Action: Guys, I don't think this argument is really germane to this thread.
Please read the forum rules: http://forums.civfanatics.com/showthread.php?t=422889

 

[Domen]

Culture isn't inherently linked to climate and environment.

Especially when it's an advanced culture capable of shaping its living space on its own. Los Angeles was founded in a desert and Manaus was founded in a jungle, but it's inhabitants didn't adopt respectively a desert lifestyle and a jungle lifestyle.

Here civilization comes to mind, as this "level" of culture which is capable of shaping its space to some extent.

 

[awesome]

So we agree then.

 

[CaptainLost]

Moderator Action: Guys, I don't think this argument is really germane to this thread.
Please read the forum rules: http://forums.civfanatics.com/showthread.php?t=422889

Definitely. So, new question: what is the bloodiest/worst civil war in history? Not just in casualties but amount of hatred between both sides, terrible weapons, etc.

 

[jackelgull]

The first fitna- or in other words, the Shia-sunni split that still plagues the Arab world today. I don't think there has ever been a civil war that has resulted in 1400 years of enmity or so many casualties.

 

[History_Buff]

That's hardly one war though.

The actual answer is the Taipeng Rebellion, which killed at least 20 million people.

 

[gay_Aleks]

How did Islam spread into Malaysia and Indonesia?

 

[Ajidica]

How did Islam spread into Malaysia and Indonesia?

Trade.

 

[Flying Pig]

What was it that made it particularly persuasive, though?

 

[Masada]

Trade.

Sorta. You really need to say migration by Muslims into the Malay Archipelago due to trade. Trade is sorta useless as an explanatory factor on its own.

What was it that made it particularly persuasive, though?

Srivijaya had collapsed about a century before which left the region without a hegemon that could enforce religious and cultural norms in the Malay Archipelago. With Srivijaya gone a profusion of small entrepot ports had grown up the length and breadth of the Sumatra, and to a lesser extent Peninsula Malaysia, which led to something of a chaotic state of affairs. Into this chaotic state of affairs came Muslim traders who offered entrepot port polities a new channel for trading with. Some port polities chose to welcome these new Muslim traders because it gave them an edge over their competitors. Overtime, the Muslim trading communities in these cities expanded as new traders came in, existing traders married and children were born. Eventually, the ruler of these ports converted for whatever reason and bought his court and followers with him. This had a ripple effect and in short order one had a notionally Muslim city. Overtime more cities became Muslim, one of which, Malacca, happened to become hegemon in the region with that ensuring that most of the port polities in the Malacca Straits would convert. I can write some stuff about the conversion of Java, the Eastern Islands and why Islam failed to expand into a lot of areas if you want. The processes involved in the former two being rather different to the processes involved in the Straits.

 

[Agent327]

Sorta. You really need to say migration by Muslims into the Malay Archipelago due to trade. Trade is sorta useless as an explanatory factor on its own.

Not quite. Judaism, as Islam, was spread in the wake of trade as well. Trade sorta comes naturally with traders, and successful trade apparently is a good propagandist to spread the religion of the traders (starting with the Prophet himself, who started out as a trader). And yes, with successful trade comes some migration; but migration alone certainly doesn't explain the spread of Islam in Indonesia for instance. (This doesn't quite apply to the spread of Christianity though, for a variety of reasons.)

 

[Masada]

Not quite. Judaism, as Islam, was spread in the wake of trade as well. Trade sorta comes naturally with traders, and successful trade apparently is a good propagandist to spread the religion of the traders (starting with the Prophet himself, who started out as a trader).

Well no. See: trade can go both ways. So invoking trade in isolation is useless.

And yes, with successful trade comes some migration; but migration alone certainly doesn't explain the spread of Islam in Indonesia for instance.

I never said it did. But it does explain the spread into Malaysia and Indonesia of Islam. It doesn't explain the whole thing certainly but then that was never the question.

 

[Agent327]

Well no. See: trade can go both ways. So invoking trade in isolation is useless.

Hm. I wonder how many Malay migrated to Arabia.

I never said it did. But it does explain the spread into Malaysia and Indonesia of Islam. It doesn't explain the whole thing certainly but then that was never the question.

If you don't want to explain 'the whole thing' then again trade alone can suffice. Successful trade, that is. But the point is, at this stage of commerce, trade invariably comes with a number of traders moving to where the chance of successful trade is. They don't need to migrate there themselves, but once a successful trade is established it helps to have some representative in situ. But if you are insistent on sticking with the 'migration' thing, you need to show that that was in fact what led to the spread of Islam. The fact that some Muslim traders moved to where they could trade does not in itself explain anything.

 

[Domen]

Not quite. Judaism, as Islam, was spread in the wake of trade as well. Trade sorta comes naturally with traders, and successful trade apparently is a good propagandist to spread the religion of the traders (starting with the Prophet himself, who started out as a trader). And yes, with successful trade comes some migration; but migration alone certainly doesn't explain the spread of Islam in Indonesia for instance. (This doesn't quite apply to the spread of Christianity though, for a variety of reasons.)

Yes, religions can spread in both ways - either migrations of their adherents, or conversions of local peoples, or both ways in various proportions.

Judaism spread mostly with migrations of Jews, and only partially with conversions (genetic studies of Ashkenazi Jews have shown some significant Southern European admixture which indicates that many Greeks, others, and Roman citizens - especially from southern and eastern parts of the Empire - converted and became absorbed by Jewish communities during Hellenistic and Roman times, but still ca. 60% or more of Ashkenazi haplogroups have Middle Eastern, Ancient Palestinian origins, dating to times before the Diaspora communities of Jews started to gradually emerge outside of Palestine).

So the spread of Jewish communities - despite absorption of some local converts - was mostly the result of gradual migrations of the Diaspora.

Christianity, on the other hand, was obviously spreading mostly with active conversions - at first, in early Roman times, through teachings of the Apostles and their continuators, then in late Roman times in a state-sponsored way (it became the state religion of the Empire), and later during Medieval times also in a state-sponsored way (monarchs were Christianizing their subjects) or in an otherwise imposed way (like for example conquest by crusaders).

Outside of Europe in some places Christianity spread with conversions (early on in places like Armenia or Ethiopia - which were actually among the first nations to become Christian, before the Roman Empire adopted this religion; more recently in South America and Africa - through missionaries, in South America for example Jesuits played an important role), while in other places with migrations (obvious candidates are Siberia, North America and Australia).

 

[Flying Pig]

Judaism spread mostly with migrations of Jews, and only partially with conversions (genetic studies of Ashkenazi Jews have shown some significant Southern European admixture which indicates that many Greeks, others, and Roman citizens - especially from southern and eastern parts of the Empire - converted and became absorbed by Jewish communities during Hellenistic and Roman times, but still ca. 60% or more of Ashkenazi haplogroups have Middle Eastern, Ancient Palestinian origins, dating to times before the Diaspora communities of Jews started to gradually emerge outside of Palestine).

That could also indicate intermarriage.

 

[Domen]

That could also indicate intermarriage.

More likely it was inversely: conversion first, only then intermarriage (and not necessarily during the same generation).

Today it also works like this. Recently an Arab-Jewish wedding took place in Israel, but the Jew converted to Islam before the wedding.

I'm sure you've heard about this because the wedding caused major Anti-Islamic protests and Pro-Islamic counter-protests.

 

[SeekTruthFromFacts]

Eventually, the ruler of these ports converted for whatever reason

This is sorta useless as an explanatory factor on its own. ;-)
Can you elaborate?

I can write some stuff about the conversion of Java, the Eastern Islands and why Islam failed to expand into a lot of areas if you want.

Please do.