---

well ive repeadetly talked about geographies affect on racism and no one wants to talk about it and i have no idea why?
Like what are you guys thinking, is it more like :

a.) i dont want people to discuss geography's affect on racism
b.) i think the idea that geogrpahy plays an important role in racism is stupid.
c.) i dont think spaceman bryce actually thinks that so I dont want to talk to him about it
d.) i hate spaceman bryce


so like which is it. i don't understand. What are you guys thinking?

I'm interested. Well named's idea is fine, about a new thread, but I also think it could fit in the immigration thread, just my two cents.

To respond to your question, I still don't know what you mean, so it needs more meat on the bones as a convo starter. Are you saying people in northern latitudes are more/less racist? Being isolated on an island makes you more racist? I'm just making these up, but what are you saying?

No offense, but it could also be that your posts are not interesting enough for people to respond to, or that they don't know much about it and are waiting for you to expand on your thoughts. I would be the latter group.

This is just a thread starter post but any way I recently read well named's rather good thread on racism and an intense debate stirred between two sides who saw racism as either biologically motivated or sociologically motivated. While between those two sides I would certainly see sociological reasons being dominant I think the bigger reason is geography. i will go deeper into this in due course but start off with the idea that it used to be much harder to travel. 150 years ago it took 3 weeks to cross America instead of 2 days. It took longer than that to travel in earlier times and even less people regardless of colour had access to travel. 400 years ago very few people had ever gone more than 50 miles from their home.I cite page 254 of 1616: a world in motion.

https://books.google.com/books?id=Gp...20past&f=false

the truth is 300 years ago even 100 years ago most white people never saw a black person in their entire life. advances in travel diminished racism and will continue to diminish racism in the future. This is not my entire argument but it is my opening one.

I think the argument that being more intimately familiar with people of different races, ethnicities, cultures, or other differences (like LGBT) reduces people's tendency to view those differences negatively is good. I mentioned LGBT because I think there's a good argument that one of the driving factors in the growth of acceptance of gay people and support for gay marriage was more people realizing they knew people who are gay. It's harder to "otherize" people we actually know.

I would say though that technology isn't completely eliminating this problem from a racial perspective in the US simply because the US is still highly segregated. The geographic distance matters less than it used to, but there is still a "distance" between white and black neighborhoods in most places. I think your argument points to segregation as one of the larger problems to think about, and I think that's good.

I think your first paragraph misconstrues some of the debate in the other thread, though. The argument wasn't about whether racism is motivated biologically or sociologically. It wasn't about what causes people to be racist, but about explanations for racial disparities in various statistics, mostly in criminal justice but also in wealth, income, education, and etc. In one sense I did argue that geography plays a role in that (via the discussion of concentration of neighborhood poverty), but I think it's a slightly different topic than what you are discussing.

I'm going to have to kind of phone it in here but I would like to point out that when you say racial disparities are caused by concentrated neighborhood poverty. I see what you see I see gentrified and suburban neighborhoods being treated better than generational poor neighborhoods both in the more unfortunate appalachain white neighborhoods and in the more poverty stricken african american neighborhoods. I see a familial trap that is hard to get out of. poor environments dragging people down. but I think it goes much deeper than that.


The countries with the most nobel prize winners:



"World Facts
Nobel Prize Winners By Country

United States has the most noble prize winners with 353 followed by the UK with 125 and Germany with 105.
Nobel Prize Winners By Country
Marie Curie, a Polish-born and naturalized-French physicist and chemist was the first multiple recipient of the Noble Prize

The Nobel Prize is the most distinguished and coveted global honour. First awarded in 1901, it has recognized individuals and groups from over 30 countries or territories. In the 104 years of its existence, the Nobel Prize has been awarded to close to 800 laureates. The Nobel Laureates can be groups or individuals. There have even been multiple time nominees and awards. The highest number of recognitions has been given to the International Committee of the Red Cross. It has received the Peace prize three times in history.

The Nobel Prize was created through the final will of Alfred Nobel, an accomplished Swedish inventor. Although Nobel’s will was read after his death in 1895, it was highly controversial and took six years before the awards came into being. The Nobel Prize recognizes significant contributions to the advancement of various aspects of culture, science and academics. In Alfred Nobel’s will, he dictated that the interest from his estate fund will be awarded to those recognized in Physics, Chemistry, Literature, Medicine and Peace. In 1968, a further category of Economics was introduced after the Central Bank of Sweden made a donation to the Nobel Foundation.

The first multiple recipient of the Nobel Prize was Marie Curie, a Polish-born and naturalized-French physicist and chemist famous for her work on radiation. Curie’s awards were also unique because she received the prizes in two different categories. In 1903, Marie Curie alongside her husband and another physicist were awarded the Nobel Prize in Physics. This was in recognition of their achievements in studying radioactive behaviour of elements and successfully isolating isotopes. She repeated the feat in 1911 by winning the prize in Chemistry after isolating pure radium. The Curie family in total has had five Nobel Laurates.

The United States of America leads the ranking of Nobel Prize winners by country. From 1901 to 2015, the United States has had 257 winners. The majority of these prizes have been in the Nobel Prize for Physics. It is commonly thought that the access to improving technology has led to this accomplishment in the US. As a matter of fact, the only category of Nobel Prizes in which the North American country doesn’t lead is the Nobel Prize for Literature. This has France in the lead with 11 Laureates.

The Nobel Peace Prize is usually seen as the most coveted for both individuals and organizations. It also has a reputation of throwing surprises in the annual event. In the early years up to the Second World War, the Nobel Peace Prize was always awarded to diplomatic mediators and anti-war activists. However, as the 20th Century progressed, the type of nominee and Laureates diversified to works done in other humanitarian ventures. An example of a distinctive Nobel Peace Laureate is Muhammad Yunus of Bangladesh. He believes that economically empowering rural women will deliver the Third World country from the throes of poverty.

The most famous Nobel Peace Prize Laureate was Nelson Mandela, the first president of post-apartheid South Africa. He jointly received the 1993 Peace award with Frederik de Klerk for their efforts in ending apartheid in South Africa. The anti-apartheid efforts in South Africa had earlier seen Reverend Desmond Tutu being awarded the same recognition in 1984.
Nobel Prize Winners By Country

View information as a: List Chart

Rank Country Nobel Prizes
1 United States 353
2 United Kingdom 125
3 Germany 105
4 France 61
5 Sweden 30
6 Switzerland 25
7 Japan 24
8 Canada 23
9 Russia 23
10 Austria 21
11 Italy 20"

source:http://www.worldatlas.com/articles/t...e-winners.html


ALL OF these countries are oced countries and first world developed countries. Which countries don't have a lot of nobel prizes . countries like mauritania, the republic of congo, madagascar.

There's a very clear correlation between development,hdi and wealth AND who wins nobel prizes. note this is an argument routinely perverted by the alt right.
But what I see is darker than this. When i was a kid I was routinely uninvited to social gatherings and parties due to my temperament and forced to stay in my room and had things taken away from me and i was not made stronger for it; rather everyone else was happy and went to college and i became mal-adjusted. What doesn't kill you makes you stronger is a lie from epople who have never truely suffered.

So why doesn't mauritania and niger get any nobel prizes? The human geography of wealth traps them into a dark room. The inability to access resources is debilitating to populations of people the same way a cold room was debilitating to me. They were forced to focus on a lower level in the heirarchy of needs but more importantly were never given the chance to have their ideas flourish. either that is true or people form less developed countries are dumber because of x.

keep in mind if you give someone only water and rice and lock them away forever they become very dumb indeed. they never learn how to speak or see or talk even.

Well I think it's pretty uncontroversial to state that people are more likely to be racist in the south. The southern states were the slave states, and today we still see a very clear division between the north and south in presidential electoral maps.

I agree. Increased mobility and inter-mingling of people from different cultures reduces negative cultural relativism, such as southern whites thinking they are superior to blacks. I think this is because it allows people to gain more experience and first hand knowledge. When you're closed in your own little bubble of everyone around you being exactly the same, you're not going to have experience with different people and cultures, so I think largely racism is ignorance and stupidity.

What I really love about white supremacists is how stupid they are. They think they are genetically superior to Africans, but they themselves have African genes because humans originated in Africa. A superior pure white race is absolute nonsense. They're ****ing Africans. We're all Africans.

because 2p2 is not a place where you can debate the social constructionist view of race.

I concur

It's biological as well as social.

Go back 100,000 years. Home sapiens sapiens were extremely wary of people outside of their tribe. Inter-tribe violence was even worse in the struggle for power within the social hierarchy - a struggle mostly for reproductive rights.

With good cause as well. While a neighboring tribe could be a valuable trading partner, they could also be plotting a sneek attach to murder the men and boys and steal and rape the women. And this is regards to neighboring tribes who share similar physiological features, let alone someone of a different race.

To me if you think about this post in a different way it confirms my point. First you say **** sapeins were extremely wary of people outside of their tribe. but then the next sentence is that Inter-tribe violence was even worse than tribe on tribe violence. Didn't we try to move on from that? Like at some point didn't tribes begin to realize that becoming more than just trading partners but actual allies was good for both groups? It worked out pretty good for the Anglos and the saxons.

those tribes could only walk on foot and 100,000 years ago had no concept of science or direction. they had no knowledge of people 300 miles away let alone a 2000 or on a different continent. Now anyone can meet people from all over the globe. And there still is racism but its based on human geography. The people who are most discriminated against come from the poorest countries.

I'm always more than a little wary about evolutionary psychology. It's easy to imagine a reason why human behaviour could be selected for, it's another task entirely to test that. That's not to say I don't think behavioural traits are in part genetic, rather that we ought to be very hesitant making claims about "human nature" when it comes to contexts like **** sapien motivation and characteristics. It seems clear that a certain level of mistrust is beneficial, but equally co-operation and civilisation are of immense benefit and humans are highly capable of that too.

One of the problems I see with geography as an explanation is that it might fail to explain, for instance, why a person is more likely to be racist against certain ethnicities than others. That is, why is a white person from England may be more likely to be racist against a black person from anywhere than a white person from Australia (approx. as far away as they can be from).

However, and I can do the digging for a source here, this is somewhat a modern approach to race. It wasn't always that race was thought primarily as skin colour. There were points in history where the English might have considered themselves a separate race to the Irish. Even contemporaneously, the North Korean regime argues for the racial superiority of Koreans over the Japanese (who most in the West would simply label "Asian"), and the Japanese have a history of policies suppressing Korean ethnicity. There is a blurring of nationality and race that can't be explained purely by lack of interaction through geography.

Edit: Geography certainly plays its part, particularly when wealth inequality is often moved geographically. That is, within Western countries, the poor are generally concentrated in particular areas. Further afield, large amounts of Western prosperity are sustained by the exploitation of workers overseas. The West is sustained by allowing conditions abroad that it would never allow within its borders. This leads to the kind of inequality you were talking about with other nations, and will only exacerbate racial tension while ever the "failure" of those less developed nations is used as a talking point by the far right to say that certain races persistently fail to gain our level of prosperity.