How important is race in connection to culture?

[Delbáeth]

As above. This is something I’ve been wondering about for sometime. Does race make the culture? Do our European cultures exist because of our European race (Caucasoid or what ever the correct term would be)?

[Sergius]

Race as in what? Subracial traits and types? And how should it affect anything?
This discussion comes up every now and then, and it makes no sense to me.
The only way it can be turned into a matter that can be formulated in questions and answers, as far as I can tell, is by asking if, say, Germany would be different if Germans were racially similar to Aboriginals. That is not what I would call a meaningful discussion. Please tell me another way of looking at it, if there is one.

[Delbáeth]

Originally Posted by Faustas

Race as in what? Subracial traits and types? And how should it affect anything?
This discussion comes up every now and then, and it makes no sense to me.
The only way it can be turned into a matter that can be formulated in questions and answers, as far as I can tell, is by asking if, say, Germany would be different if Germans were racially similar to Aboriginals. That is not what I would call a meaningful discussion. Please tell me another way of looking at it, if there is one.

You pretty much sumed up my question, would Germany be different if Germans were racially similar to Aboriginals for example?

[Sergius]

Yeah, it would.

[Delbáeth]

Originally Posted by Faustas

Yeah, it would.

Then how so?

[Errigal]

I many ways it's too big a question, or too big a "what if?"; like "what if the islands of Ireland and Great Britain were on the equator, how would that have changed history?"

I do think there are some inherited personality traits which differ from one racial group to another but my imagination is too limited to picture in what ways these differences could have shaped culture.

If Bavaria had been inhabited by Polynesians would they still have celebrated Oktoberfest? I don't know.

[Der]

Originally Posted by Leipreachán

You pretty much sumed up my question, would Germany be different if Germans were racially similar to Aboriginals for example?

Then why aren't the Aboriginals culturally like Germans?

[Sergius]

Why would they be? Human civilisations do not move in one fixed direction by default. Over time different nations have been created and they have accomplished different things with the opportunities given to them by a number of different circumstances.

[Carnyx]

Culture is not only environmental.


What "aboriginals" you mean? Australian aboriginals? For the record, Aboriginal=Indigeneous=Autochtonous.

[Der]

The way I see it, culture is the product of race and a number of other circumstances (environment) where you find similar races you will find similar and or related cultures. Races don't only differ physically but also psychologically that’s why I find it inconceivable that Germany could be what it is today should it have been made up of Mongolids, Australian Aborigines or Negrids.

[Sergius]

Yes, I meant the Australian ones.

The human race wasn't divided into subraces from one day to the next with a number of prefixed settings, such as physiology or psychology. That is why you will find that neighbouring peoples of related cultures are prone towards similarities in physical appearance. In most cases they have lived in proximity and evolved from some archaic basis type, 'racially' and culturally.

[Sergius]

Originally Posted by Carnyx

Culture is not only environmental.

What else enters into it, then?

[Errigal]

Originally Posted by Carnyx

...


What "aboriginals" you mean? Australian aboriginals? For the record, Aboriginal=Indigeneous=Autochtonous.

Good catch.

Germany is inhabited by Aboriginals, aboriginal Germans.

It is worth mentioning that very many migrations happened among the aboriginal peoples of Africa, Asia and the Americas since, say, 1000 AD. So if a Mohawk is native to the upper Great Lakes area of North America, a German is native to Germany.

[Lutiferre]

Originally Posted by Leipreachán

As above. This is something I’ve been wondering about for sometime. Does race make the culture? Do our European cultures exist because of our European race (Caucasoid or what ever the correct term would be)?

Depends exactly what you mean with race.
In earlier days, race was used about every people or tribe you'd imagine. Race would be a both spiritual and material dimension. But today, race is used often in a more exclusively anthropological/material context.

So maybe what you need to do is simply specify your terminology.
Perhaps we should ask, what comes first, or which is the most crucial part, the people or the culture? And more precisely, we should be asking what qualities of the people we are looking to establish in relation to their culture. You have to look at the mechanism.

Isnt culture a quality of the people? In that case, how important are the people in connection to their culture? They are the originator of it, so the qualities of the people are crucial for the culture. Which would logically mean that the race or people is very important for their culture.

[Menydh]

Originally Posted by Der

Then why aren't the Aboriginals culturally like Germans?

Who knows if because they did not enter into contact with the Graeco-Roman Civilization?

Alright, that's a part a joke. And part serious too.

Originally Posted by Der

The way I see it, culture is the product of race and a number of other circumstances (environment) where you find similar races you will find similar and or related cultures.

Then you have a lot of explaining to do. For example, Northern Africa had an already advanced Civilization, when other people who comform modern Europe had nothing alike. And I'm not going as far back as Egypt, but Carthage.

Had Rome not defeated Carthage, things would have been much different and, being the center of the civilized world in Carthage and not in Rome, it is highly unlikely that the so-called Barbarians from the North would have been able to reach the neuralgic center of "Civilization". But sure, then it might have been the Barbarians from the South.

But I'm afraid that this is something that should not be said so clearly, because the flip side of the politically correct coin is going to label it with the usual anti-germanic or anti-nordic. Which is not. Since it is not me who defines nations in the primitivistic sub-racial ways that they do.

And yet Carthage was destroyed, Northern Africa continued to be one of the richest provinces of Imperial Rome. That is, until another Europid people took over it: the Vandals. So much it was an important province, that virtually all of the efforts of the Roman Empire during the peak of the Barbarian invasions, were directed to save the provinces of the Eastern Roman Empire and the Tingitania. While the provinces of the Western Roman Empire (Hispania, Gallia, Britannia), except for some interventions later on, saw how the Legions departed to protect other parts of the Empire and, at best, they were left at their fate under federated troops (something could be said about leaving wolves to cater for the sheep). But that's another story.

So it doesn't quite work like you would like to imagine it. But it should be noticed that the example that has been chosen is a bit too extreme. There are some races which are certainly more primitive than others, as is the case of the Australian Aborigines and the Khoi-San from Southern Africa.

Having said this, I do not deny the differences but I warn against generalizing and overplaying the roles of these differences, while not putting them within context.

Races don't only differ physically but also psychologically that’s why I find it inconceivable that Germany could be what it is today should it have been made up of Mongolids, Australian Aborigines or Negrids.

Speaking of generalizing, you have named the Mongolids. I should strongly remind you here of the millenary Civilization of the Chinese, when the Europeans were far behind them.

And, in fact, if it had not been because the Portuguese set themselves to voyages of Discovery that allowed Europeans to expand and dominate the World, at a time when a Chinese Emperor had already decreed a strict policy of isolation and restricted their navigation voyages, Europe again would have been something very different.


So what is important in connection to culture? Race? Well, it is to a point but then again its importance is arguable and certainly overplayed on certain circles. It is for those whose insignificance is a role model of life to cry out and overplay its importance in civilizational terms, as it is their only means to hold to it.

Still the question remains. What is really important in connection to culture? And the answer is Caste. How a society organizes its system of castes will in the longer term decide its success or its defeat.

And here I will repeat what I've been saying one time and again, for a very long time: if you expand a view based on egalitarianism, no matter if it is based on social class (Socialism) or race (National Socialism, White Nationalism, Nordicism, etc.), or else (other "socialistic") you are building the foundations to finish off with that society, nation, ... race.

[Weltschmerz]

Originally Posted by Mynydd

And yet Carthage was destroyed, Northern Africa continued to be one of the richest provinces of Imperial Rome. That is, until another Europid people took over it: the Vandals. So much it was an important province, that virtually all of the efforts of the Roman Empire during the peak of the Barbarian invasions, were directed to save the provinces of the Eastern Roman Empire and the Tingitania. While the provinces of the Western Roman Empire (Hispania, Gallia, Britannia), except for some interventions later on, saw how the Legions departed to protect other parts of the Empire and, at best, they were left at their fa