I don't deny the importance of culture (and genetics) at all. Both/and is the key here. Likewise with 'white supremacy': white people being a bit smarter and more capable than most other groups, and white people favoring white people, are both features of reality.
I don't even think it's a bad thing, whether whites, Jews, or Chinese are d…
I don't deny the importance of culture (and genetics) at all. Both/and is the key here. Likewise with 'white supremacy': white people being a bit smarter and more capable than most other groups, and white people favoring white people, are both features of reality.
I don't even think it's a bad thing, whether whites, Jews, or Chinese are doing it. I only get annoyed when we're required, for political reasons, to pretend that ability is wholly determinative in one case, and ethnic nepotism wholly determinative in the other. The vicious reactions against suggestions that whites are smart, on the one hand, or that Jews are nepotistic, on the other, pisses me off not because I think that whites are especially superior or that Jews are especially conniving. What gets my goat - and the goats of many others - is the explanatory double standard. In a sane world, it wouldn't be racist to say that whites are a bit smarter, and this explains some of their success, along with ethnic nepotism in the context of white majority societies. Likewise, one would be able to point to Jewish culture and intelligence, AND their propensity to help out fellow members of the tribe, as simultaneous explanations for their group success.
Good point, John, but would add that ethnic nepotism itself operates on a spectrum and is rarely consistent or reliable, it is very much situation specific. Anglo elites have no loyalty to sub-elite Anglos whatsoever. Ditto Jews. So loyalty of a nepotistic character may be real, but may not extend as far or as strongly as outside observers think. Ethnic and other communities fragment and change over time. Kinship also incites mimetic rivalry, which destabilises everything and frustrates nepotism. It is a fascinating subject and well worth pursuing so long as evidence is available.
I don't deny the importance of culture (and genetics) at all. Both/and is the key here. Likewise with 'white supremacy': white people being a bit smarter and more capable than most other groups, and white people favoring white people, are both features of reality.
I don't even think it's a bad thing, whether whites, Jews, or Chinese are doing it. I only get annoyed when we're required, for political reasons, to pretend that ability is wholly determinative in one case, and ethnic nepotism wholly determinative in the other. The vicious reactions against suggestions that whites are smart, on the one hand, or that Jews are nepotistic, on the other, pisses me off not because I think that whites are especially superior or that Jews are especially conniving. What gets my goat - and the goats of many others - is the explanatory double standard. In a sane world, it wouldn't be racist to say that whites are a bit smarter, and this explains some of their success, along with ethnic nepotism in the context of white majority societies. Likewise, one would be able to point to Jewish culture and intelligence, AND their propensity to help out fellow members of the tribe, as simultaneous explanations for their group success.
Not either/or, but both/and.
Good point, John, but would add that ethnic nepotism itself operates on a spectrum and is rarely consistent or reliable, it is very much situation specific. Anglo elites have no loyalty to sub-elite Anglos whatsoever. Ditto Jews. So loyalty of a nepotistic character may be real, but may not extend as far or as strongly as outside observers think. Ethnic and other communities fragment and change over time. Kinship also incites mimetic rivalry, which destabilises everything and frustrates nepotism. It is a fascinating subject and well worth pursuing so long as evidence is available.