LIFE - Roots
Subject: Story of Civilization discussion LESSONS OF HISTORY -
Race and History
"History is color-blind, and can develop a civilization (in any favorable environment) under almost any skin."
There seems to be such an environmental variable in the equation of cultural greatness that it seems futile to assign overall ability on the basis of race. With the little I have studied on the capacity of the brain and how it can develop given a chance, skin color seems absolutely minor in how far a person can go except in terms of tanning. Having been a high-school substitute teacher for two years I got to see children from three different school districts in everything from remedial math to advanced placement physics. My limited observation is that race is only limiting in the degree to which its mores and values keep the brain and heart from accomplishing what they are capable of. A study recently came out entitled "No Excuses: Closing the Racial Gap in Learning", where the authors found that differences between races in the school system were more a result of the home environment (66%) than the school (33%). In other words give children new books and a small class size and it won't have half the effect that a home where television doesn't dominate and parents know exactly where the child is in their class work.
It is hard to ignore simple generalizations such as the Japanese make good hardware people and Americans good software developers when their respective dominance seems to indicate that this is the case. The Italians for their flair for art and style going back to the Renaissance and earlier, the Chinese in poetry, Indians in the meditative arts. No doubt about it flavors of Howard Gardeners seven intelligences shine brighter in some races more than others but to claim one as being superior overall than another is too unfounded and superficial.
Can someone help me with the following quote from Mr. Durant? I am a little lost with the flow of logic and who is to blame for what.
"The role of race in history is rather preliminary than creative. Varied stocks entering some locality from diverse directions at divers times, mingle their blood, traditions, and ways with one another or with the existing population, like two diverse pools of genes coming together in sexual reproduction. Such an ethnic mixture may in the course of centuries produce a new type, even a new people; so Celts, Romans, Angles, Saxons, Jutes, Danes, and Normans fused to produce Englishmen. When the new type takes form its cultural expressions are unique, and constitute a new civilization-a new physiognomy, character, language, literature, religion, morality, and art. It is not the race that makes the civilization, it is the civilization that makes the people: circumstances geographical, economic, and political create a culture, and the culture creates the human type."
Race and History
"History is color-blind, and can develop a civilization (in any favorable environment) under almost any skin."
There seems to be such an environmental variable in the equation of cultural greatness that it seems futile to assign overall ability on the basis of race. With the little I have studied on the capacity of the brain and how it can develop given a chance, skin color seems absolutely minor in how far a person can go except in terms of tanning. Having been a high-school substitute teacher for two years I got to see children from three different school districts in everything from remedial math to advanced placement physics. My limited observation is that race is only limiting in the degree to which its mores and values keep the brain and heart from accomplishing what they are capable of. A study recently came out entitled "No Excuses: Closing the Racial Gap in Learning", where the authors found that differences between races in the school system were more a result of the home environment (66%) than the school (33%). In other words give children new books and a small class size and it won't have half the effect that a home where television doesn't dominate and parents know exactly where the child is in their class work.
It is hard to ignore simple generalizations such as the Japanese make good hardware people and Americans good software developers when their respective dominance seems to indicate that this is the case. The Italians for their flair for art and style going back to the Renaissance and earlier, the Chinese in poetry, Indians in the meditative arts. No doubt about it flavors of Howard Gardeners seven intelligences shine brighter in some races more than others but to claim one as being superior overall than another is too unfounded and superficial.
Can someone help me with the following quote from Mr. Durant? I am a little lost with the flow of logic and who is to blame for what.
"The role of race in history is rather preliminary than creative. Varied stocks entering some locality from diverse directions at divers times, mingle their blood, traditions, and ways with one another or with the existing population, like two diverse pools of genes coming together in sexual reproduction. Such an ethnic mixture may in the course of centuries produce a new type, even a new people; so Celts, Romans, Angles, Saxons, Jutes, Danes, and Normans fused to produce Englishmen. When the new type takes form its cultural expressions are unique, and constitute a new civilization-a new physiognomy, character, language, literature, religion, morality, and art. It is not the race that makes the civilization, it is the civilization that makes the people: circumstances geographical, economic, and political create a culture, and the culture creates the human type."
posted by Zulkifli at 8:16 AM
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home