« CULTURAL EVOLUTION BY GROUP SELECTION | Gene Expression Front Page | Languages, genes & migrations »
May 04, 2003

Rational thinking on immigration

A recent study by the Department of Immigration in Australia confirms the Borjas effect and proposes a solution to it. Note also the reference to the US's ability to absorb immigration which is relevant to the discussion I had with zizka in comments on a previous posting:

Poorly educated city dwellers should be given a helping hand to cope with Australia's expanded immigration program with an overhaul of the tax system to spur them into jobs, a Federal Government report says.

While immigration "makes Australians richer on average", the report says, adverse side-effects can be headed off.

Without help, the poorly educated could suffer as they competed for jobs in parts of Sydney and Melbourne where low-skilled migrants were concentrated.

The thrust of the Garnaut report is that Australia is pursuing the right immigration strategy with its emphasis on attracting the young and highly skilled.

This contrasted with the approach in the US, which is dominated by an influx of largely unskilled Latin Americans to fill shortages at the bottom end of the labour market. low-income Australian workers generally get a bigger income "kick" from the immigration system than their better-educated counterparts, the report says.

This was because governments redistributed the financial benefits of a bigger population to the less well-off.

High-skills immigration also created more future job opportunities, but well-qualified locals found their labour was no longer as scarce.

Despite this, highly skilled locals were better placed to benefit from property prices.

"Owners of urban land are especially big winners and not only in the cities that receive large proportions of migrants," says Professor Garnaut.

The report, commissioned by the Immigration Department as part of its evaluation of the program bringing in 100,000-plus migrants a year, says a case can be made that the US system, with more flexible wage rates, is better at placing low-skilled migrants in jobs.

Posted by jason_s at 03:34 PM

I maintain that the economic-based explanation of immigration/integration/intermarriage does not address the issue of the artificial erosion of natural diversity.

Nature provided diversity, linguistic, geographic, dietary, racial and cultural. How is it that trade, or economics, would work against this, to destroy it all?

Is economics "natural" also?

Posted by: David Yeagley at May 5, 2003 08:13 AM

Canada's bonehead immigration plan.


Copps unveils plan to boost immigration
Would focus on reuniting families, scrap head tax

`It's the roadmap for the brain drain for Canada'


Liberal leadership candidate Sheila Copps unveiled an immigration policy last night that calls for an increase in immigration levelsand the elimination of the widely reviled $975 head tax.

In a speech at a fundraising dinner organized by the Multicultural Women's Committee of Toronto, Copps outlined a five-point plan that would represent a major shift in Ottawa's current focus on skilled workers and the business class of immigrants, and would instead focus on reunification of families as a way to "grow communities."

"It's the roadmap for the brain drain for Canada," the heritage minister said in an interview.

Under her plan Copps would:

Call on the Liberal party to finally honour its 1993 Red Book promise to increase immigration levels to 1 per cent of the population — which would bring in nearly 330,000 people a year, up from about 230,000 taken in this year.

Expand the definition of family class to include sponsorship of adult brothers and sisters and their dependents as landed immigrants, which would largely account for the 100,000-a-year increase in immigrants.

Copps said that in the past decade, the Liberal government moved the focus of its immigration policies to skilled-worker immigrants to boost Canadian business, but "we haven't had the take-up that we would have liked."

She refused to say why she believes current policies haven't worked. "I'm here to talk about the future. I'm not here to denigrate the past," she said.

Scrap the $975 right-of-landing fee or head tax, and drastically cut other steep immigration processing fees.

"The first thing you get when you become a landed immigrant in Canada should be a huge hug, not a huge bill," Copps said in the written text of her speech. "Fast-track" the process for approving family members' visitors' visas through the introduction of a "bonding system" that would allow Canadians to post bonds to ease the entry of family members coming to Canada for weddings or funerals.

"Just as it was important that we fast-track business travel between Canada and the U.S., I think it is important that we fast-track family travel between Canadians and family members around the world," Copps said.

Former immigration minister Sergio Marchi once considered such a system, but immigration department officials have long disapproved of the idea, believing that even a $20,000 bond could become another tool for smugglers exploiting people desperate to come to Canada, where they could make a refugee claim in an effort to stay.

Copps said she would toughen penalties for "the few people who overstay their allotted visit."

Increase international consular services in the Asia-Pacific region to provide better support to those seeking entry to Canada.

Copps said she sees immigration "as the major key to economic prosperity," but she has not addressed the refugee system in her five-point plan, and would not say whether she intends to expand on it.

... And this woman is running for Prime Minister. Oh Canada!

Copps said she sees immigration "as the major key to economic prosperity,"

Can anyone allow explain to me how letting in brother Abdul and his six kids benefits Canadian society more than importing entrepreneurial millionaire Wong from Hong Kong?

Posted by: Sen at May 5, 2003 01:28 PM

Sheila Copps is an idiot. Well, actually - she's an amazing politician. I don't know how she managed to get herself re-elected in Hamilton after her going back on the "scrap the GST" platform.

I seen Diane Francis talking on TV about how the Liberal party basically has a political base made up of special interest immigrantion groups. Her book - Immigration, promises to be an interesting read.

Posted by: the alpha male at May 5, 2003 02:36 PM

While Australia does not have the problems of the US and Europe with hordes of low IQ, culturally incompatible migrants, with the consequent crime increase, and irredentist threat in the US, immigration still destroys the cultural homogeneity of the nation.

A nation is a macrocosm of a family, the people have a real natural status as related kin from a larger family, sharing a common language, history and culture. If there is no cultural commonality, then an artificial unifying force must impose, like communism, or liberalism, both materialist ideologies that deny the fundamental transcendental truth that can be seen in Nature - not just amongst humans - that people (or chimps or dogs) are not equal in capacity (ergo democracy is false, an erroneous legitimacy); men and women are different; races are different, and not equal; and humans require meaning above material, one that can be found only, as a rule, within the natural communities of family and ethno-cultural community.

I live in Australia. A nation like a family requires a history to give it meaning, knowledge of itself and desire to extend beyond the present generation. How can there be a history in Australia if we all come from different lands, speak different languages.? What is the commonality? There is only two neither, distinctive to Australia: ideology for the elite, and its derivative, mass cultural, superficial hedonism and materialism, a non-culture, of talk shows, Big Brother, commercialized sport, and pop music: cultural nihilism. For the Elite it is either an ideological commitment to free-market liberalism and materialism, placing material wealth over culture and race, a material "liberty” from the natural unions that give us meaning; or on the Left, a doomed quest to end the inequality amongst people, sex and races that will always exist. Note the Elite identify and loyal to an “international community“, behind their cant is contempt (truly a lack of understanding and refusal of responsibility) for their own underclass.

Chinese in Australia still can continue their Chinese traditions, because there still is a China, not just a State, but an intact ethno-cultural homogeneity, with a common history and traditions, more permanent than any alien ideology could suppress, and now flowering brighter now Marxist rule is transforming into Singaporean style authoritarianism. The Vietnamese, Lebanonese, all others but Western countries appear to understand the importance of ethnic-cultural homogeneity, and are willing to preserve the integrity of their culture. Yet Australia, no longer ethnically homogeneous and an shrinking majority ethnicity (no longer culture), can have no common culture. Once Australians defined themselves as both British and Australian, and part of European Christendom, heir to Ancient Greece and Rome. Members of Society - necessarily a minority where there is diversity of talent - saw themselves and were educated in this historical cultural context, a base of Latin and Greek overlaid by a millennia of English culture - prose, verse, music, art and religion - a shared tap root branching to more recent colonial tradition. Now our historical knowledge and link with previous traditions has been severed, leaving the most recent growth stricken, only able to survive through artificial succour by parasite, but without natural sustenance and form will soon rot, unless saved by re-graft back to the whole. Similarly concussed memory loss leaves a man helpless, lost without the knowledge accrued through his life, from his earlier interaction with the natural environment and a culture and technology resultant of accumulated layers of learning and discovery since civilization began.

One must only protect and understand one’s own culture, before others, no less than one’s own family before others. If not, we are parasitically enjoying tastes of other cultures, not yet destroyed by Globalization and multiculturalism, or looking back to the past, to Shakespeare and great painters, but supporting cultural and economic policies that destroy the very ability, the cultural depth, to create these art works that we selfishly enjoy but would not if previous generations had similarly neglected their duty.

The historical memory of erstwhile Anglo-Saxon Australia has become a shame-ridden anti-white propaganda. The air is pregnant with soft-totalitarian propaganda more insidiously effective than in any Red state; all our premises are based on Liberal ideology whether it be Bolshevik Leftism or Menshevik Liberalism. Whereas East Berliners could turn the television on and see greater liberty to the West, we can only look back on a history scarcely taught and only though a twisted prism.

As Mr. Yeagley alluded, multiethnic immigration destroys the cultural diversity ordained by nature, only Orwellian doublespeak calls it multiculturalism. No real family is unrelated, sharing no history but a false ideology, where sisters wage war, brothers told to be feminine, and children they are not ignorant and can make family decisions. A so-called Democracy, with no common culture or ethnicity is an atomized community, a neutron star where everything is crushed into a conglomerate mass, near impossible to escape the ignorance and propaganda that has turned the people into dumb cattle, with a centre struggling to hold, and at worst, a collapse that would leave truly nothing.

Posted by: Dan at May 6, 2003 12:47 AM

>Chinese in Australia still can continue their Chinese traditions, because there still is a China, not just a State, but an intact ethno-cultural homogeneity

Dan, not everyone thinks like you. I'm of Chinese descent and China could sink into the sea, I could give a shit. Race is sort of a fixed category, culture isn't, people can move between cultures like they can move between football clubs (perhaps not a good analogy but you know what I mean). If Western culture is as durable and universalist as I and many others think it is then it will survive for the same reason why it was forged in a crucible where free choice was maximised (the decentralised environment of feudalism competing church and state and other loyalties) because most people will eventually end up gravitating towards it. I value Western culture not beca7use it is a 'culture' per se - there is nothing sacred or special about culture, lots of cobwebs to clear, lots of childish idiocies, diamong mixed with mud; but because western culture seems to be the modular culture which adapts the diamonds from the mud.

Posted by: Jason Soon at May 6, 2003 02:21 AM

>One must only protect and understand one’s own culture, before others, no less than one’s own family before others. If not, we are parasitically enjoying tastes of other cultures, not yet destroyed by Globalization and multiculturalism, or looking back to the past, to Shakespeare and great painters, but supporting cultural and economic policies that destroy the very ability, the cultural depth, to create these art works that we selfishly enjoy but would not if previous generations had similarly neglected their duty.

Dan, another problem I have with your formulation is that in your view of culture you are akin to the Bill McKibbens of the world who say that the word 'human' stops at some arbitrary point that happens to be the point in time you reside in. In your case re the word 'culture' you go much further. You imply that the culture produced by western civ pre-multiculturalism and immigration is not 'western' culture but is something else. why do you draw the line where your nostalgia-meter for long-winded ancient Greeks resides?

Much as I dislike the pomo relativists who argue that every soap opera is the equivalent of Shakespeare or Sophocles they do a disservice to their general point rather than invalidating it. For instance much as I like Mozart he produced a lot of boring shit too. Personally I'd rather listen to Louis Armstrong's rendition of Potato Head Blues with the Hot Sevens rather than a lot of Mozart's juvenilia. Armstrong was of course part of the group of people before the conservative Straussian-Bloomian nostalgists' fond visions of Western civ - you could argue his music was a consequence of immigration albeit the forced kind. But on what grounds is everything by Mozart less a work of art than Louis Armstrong's work with the Hot 5s and 7s? On what grounds is every boring godawful work of Wagner's a greater artistic achievement than the free jazz of Ornette Coleman? Why is the work of that that boring spinster Jane Austen part of the achievement of Western civ but not Neal Stephenson's great historical fiction of a great cultural achievement Cryptonomicon?

Posted by: Jason Soon at May 6, 2003 03:09 AM

Some of the classics of Western literature are pretty close to soap opera, or actually pulp fiction. The popular romances of Old French have their place in the canon, and they led to high literature (The Romance of the Rose), but they were romance/ adeventure pulp fiction with a dash of the supernatural (werewolves and sorcerers).

I agree with Jason about music. We're going through a massive paradigm shift (joke) in the music world, and American music, with enormous influence is from African sources, is winning. (Music is one of our strongest exports). This is true in all-white countries like Iceland, without an immigration factor. Classical music is almost entirely past-oriented -- there are three different music groups here in little Portland trying to get people to listen to original classical music, with little success.

Actually, western classical music seems to be strongest in the Far East, where bourgeois families seem to expect their daughters to learn violin or piano, they way they don't any more in the West.

By now, music schools teach jazz styles classically --- you can get a PhD in Duke Ellington, Louis Armstrong, or Coltrane. There are good reasons for this -- for example, for every instrument except violin, viola, cello, and piano, jazz raised the bar on virtuosity.

A lot of the advantage of jazz came from the fact that it was improvised and recorded. Classical musicians can't play anything that can't be scored, and the system used is very, very clunky and archaic.

American culture originally was an overlay of Greek, Latin, Hebrew, and Persian influences on my ancestral Germanic substrate. American culture has added a lot more elements to the mix and has come out ahead that way.

I don't want to get into Australian culture, which is about 200 years old and had a very dodgy origin. When I do think of Australian culture, besides the good beer I think of the populist radicalism that Dan complains about, but which I like.

Posted by: zizka at May 6, 2003 08:37 AM

> I'm of Chinese descent and China could sink into the sea …If Western culture is as durable and universalist as I and many others think it is then it will survive for the same reason why it was forged in a crucible where free choice was maximised (the decentralised environment of feudalism competing church and state and other loyalties)

Universalism is based on false premises, outside the West other races have kept their natural conciousness. That you care nothing for China does not invalidate the such loyalty, the very whose you admire evolved over 10 centuries, and survived only because it had a real culture unity, real communities not based on a common language, culture and ethnicity, not just abstract ideological construction. There are good evolutionary biological reasons not to reduce the human race to one brown race, unlikely though, as only the West, is suffering this most extreme blindness.

I think that rapid technological, economic, and communications advances since the beginning of the industrial revolution have indeed alienated us from a natural existence, and must be reigned in to the point where they do not violate the institutions that hold civil society together those of family, nation and a transcendental reverence the Natural Order and World, a moral and spiritual framework that religion has traditionally provided. I am not against technological advance per se if it improves the race and culture: I am not necessarily opposed to technological eugenics such as embryo selection, and though extremely wary and would prefer otherwise would not automatically reject cloning.

I make a distinction between, Western and modern, the West one could say has existed since 8th or 9th century, although Razib may argue that Islam is part of the Western tradition. Obviously the transformation to the current perverted modernism was gradual with roots stretching back centuries. There is an individualism that appears to be inheritant in Nordics - one that lay dormant under feudalism, but remerged and strengthened with the Renaissance, (German Lombardians), Reformation, and Enlightenment – which is dangerous without the balance of strong social institutions of family and ethno-cultural nation. In the US, the cultural decay that inevitably comes with Democracy was noted by Tocqueville as early 1830.
The postmodernism, racism, feminism, of the 1960s cultural revolution was just the peak.

There is a intrinsic value in the Roman, and especially Greek writings, which express a subtlety complexity, and of depth of understanding into the human condition. The very fact that European scholars and students studied the ancient texts for centuries gives them meaning. Our legal system is Roman, as is our system of Government; the Greek Philosophers and metaphysicians were first to use abstract thought to a new level greatly influenced subsequent Western thinkers, and were cognizant of realities that we have now forgotten.

I’m not surprised you don’t like Austin; the themes in Austin tend to appeal to female readers. I’ve read two Austin books and largely enjoyed them, more for the writing style and historical context, but it too is not my favorite theme.

The beauty of art is firstly its intrinsic genius, secondly relevance to the observer.

A child’s drawing is only of interest to his mother, a photo album to the family pictured - or family historians; Shakespeare, like Austin and Wagner, have more relevance if one is connected through a common race, culture and knowledge and appreciation of these facts.

The complex harmonies, and melodies of Mozart required genius to produce, and while you may not like Wagner, his genius too is widely recognized. But there it only in their cultural context that they can truly be appreciated, reflecting a cultural depth – the mythic themes of Wagner, and music complexity that one could spend a lifetime exploring, not something one can do with any top ten hit. While Amstrong may not have had the genius of Mozart or Wagner he was certainly very technically gifted, and not subversive (I don’t think) or anarchistic or bland like so much contemporary music. I enjoy listening to him, but suspect, and quite naturally, he would have or should have more relevance to blacks. I can turn to my own tradition.

Posted by: Dan at May 6, 2003 09:05 AM

Zika: American music, with enormous influence is from African sources, is winning. (Music is one of our strongest exports).

What of the social and cultural impact of this music, even more the cultural, social and political changes that have produced such a society where this music is seen as art?

>I don't want to get into Australian culture, which is about 200 years old and had a very dodgy origin. When I do think of Australian culture, besides the good beer I think of the populist radicalism that Dan complains about, but which I like.

Australian culture is indeed dodgy, radical, founded on utilitarian philosophy, and disconnected British people from their land and history. Ideally it may have been better to have left Australia as a National Park, focused on culture and race quality rather than quantity: the Romans, Greeks and dog breeders ealier still knew what Galton developed only in more detail, genius though he was. In reality, strategically unrealistic, with the French and Germans hot behind, no good either for biological diversity, there would be no aboriginals now.

Posted by: Dan at May 6, 2003 09:59 AM

My point is not that American music, ultimately of African origin, is "seen as art". It is art.

There's always been a "high art" / "popular art" divide, but this isn't the classical / jazz or the black / white divide. Classical and jazz are both high art. And popular art has always had a major crappy aspect to it. Blaming social and cultural changes on musical change is also old hat.

The big problem in western music I see is the kidnapping of classical music by the universities, where composers are taught to write music that no one wants to listen to. At some point academic music will disappear, classical music will continue to be played as written, and creative musicians will work with everything there is to produce new stuff.

Posted by: zizka at May 6, 2003 12:01 PM

"We're going through a massive paradigm shift (joke) in the music world, and American music, with enormous influence is from African sources, is winning."

american music won a long time ago. most countries maintain some particular styles that are important in their home lands, but they rarely spread. the flow of music is mostly one way.

american music is also easily as white as it is black. almost every new direction in music results from blacks and whites sharing ideas.

jazz is way, way down the list of most listened to kinds of music. it may not be dead but it is undeniably underground now. a jazz record rarely enters the soundscan chart. there are no, or very few, commercial radio stations that could operate with a jazz format. i don't remember any when i used to follow arbitron.

the discussion of jazz and classical here, as if they were vital forms of music right now, always puzzles me. even symphonies, which play classical in most american cities, are really no different than a local rock band getting together once a week to play covers. the only major difference is, symphonies almost never have new hits to cover. they keep playing the same stuff from a long time ago.

Posted by: jody at May 6, 2003 04:34 PM

Like I said, jazz is classical now. Small audience. Art music. Serious music.

When you look at what musicians like to listen to, though, you'll find them listening to different stuff than they play. A lot of the local styles (e.g. flamenco, sitar music, Chicago blues) have more following among musicians playing in other styles than anywhere else. There really is a musical pecking order different than the dollar amounts.

World music isn't commercially big, but from a musical point of view the creativity you get with Afro-Norwegian music, for example, is amazing.

Posted by: zizka at May 6, 2003 06:00 PM

ok, i don't have much time, but i need to elaborate more on why we need to find a middle path between mythic organicists (volkish ideas) & idealistic propositionists (a nation being a social contract between the individual and a government). but as polybius noted-the beauty of the roman republican system was its flexibility-slowly and inexorably romanizing other latin & later italian tribes through piece-meal extension of the franchise.

Posted by: razib at May 6, 2003 06:53 PM

African type music is technically more complex rhythmically than European music. European music is more complex formally and harmonically. The music of India is more complex in terms of intonation (ragas select from some ungodly number of possible tones, 54 I think).

Music is, in fact, math. Plato was right. All the above has been mathematically expressed. Calling music and art subjective is a positivist cliche.

I didn't mention rap because I'm old and don't like it much. You guys go on ahead without me.

Posted by: zizka at May 6, 2003 08:37 PM

Music is peripheral, as I said the underlying policies are the key, although if you can’t recognize a decline in culture and moral standards I don’t know what more I can say. The main point is that the premises underlying multiethnic immigration, and Liberalism generally, are FALSE, contravene the Nature Laws understood by most of the great minds, including the founding fathers of America, Burke, and Aristotle. As they are based on lies, eventually the internal contradictions will cause the system to collapse, such as with Communism, merely a more radical form of Liberalism. Liberalism, will take longer, but already the culture has collapsed. A Civil society that once propagated the ideals of natural pride, honour, propriety, piety, and modesty has largely disappeared, destroyed by the shibboleths of Democracy, diversity, and liberty, and materialism; with the backbone of civil of society broken, collapse is only averted by the external support of the bureaucratic state, aided an Orwellian media, artificially interfering and supporting the patient while the internal cancer spreads, while the public is distracted and confused by the distracting superficialities of politics, commerce and mass culture, and media propaganda; a society underpinned by falsehood.

Culture is built on the layers of ancient thought, and must be exercised to remain strong: the Greeks had a higher culture than us, understood more truly human nature. Technology that we glorify is a hollow shell: you can teach a chimp to drive, but the car was built only because of the genetic superiority of the race, which, when climate allowed, developed a true culture reflecting this potential; a culture that worked in tandem with nature and reality, that built on the past not rejecting wisdom to celebrate postmodernist ideological fabrication, and as such was able to develop, in different manifestations, over thousands of years.

Humans have to live in larger community beyond the family, tribes or nations. Better to have them based around a fundamental truths like common race, culture and language and differences in sex rather than an artificial ideological bureaucratic construction like modern Western states, which must perpetuate lies - ability, race, and sex differences don’t exist or played down - in order to maintain its external integrity and prevent the unrest that must inevitably occur.

By rejecting a real natural identity for a falsity, leaves us vulnerable to other groups that retain their natural kin loyalties. Those ethnic groups, such as those with origins around the Middle East, with strong religious, cultural and racial loyalties, do not see themselves part of Universal Western civilization; they have a stronger loyalty that allows some to plan beyond the present generation, others to suicide for their kin: unthinkable in the secular West unified by hollow construction, obsessed by trivialities of sport, celebrity, materialism and short term politics.

Race originally denoted a flow or movement like a horse race or mill-race, a phylogenetic continuum, (R. Pearson, ManQuat, Sum 02). A race must have loyalty to its own people, otherwise, it is not a continuum, and like a family who has no loyalty, will not plan in the long term, live only in the present, and celebrate materialism, hedonism and careerism at the expense of future generations. Of course, like families, races are not static, but they must slowly evolve and build on the past. But surely it is preferable to have a number of rich races and “living” cultures in the world than “multicultural” states that are shallow, with only historical cultural riches that are undecipherable or misunderstood by the brainwashed, uneducated masses, and unlearnt, misconstrued or degraded by an elite, ashamed of its white heritage - easier than truth, responsibility and repentance; an elite having polluted their own country with unrestrained capitalism and democracy, spreads the virus to other cultures so they too can enjoy the blandness of McDonalds, the hollow privilege of democratic representation; but of course no pressure to accept immigrants, for only the West is the target, only it is racist, already has no culture, and evermore no race and homeland to recover.

Posted by: Dan at May 6, 2003 10:57 PM

I am interested to hear the middle ground; I know my ideals are far from present reality, much would have to change. I'm also aware on a number of different levels it is easier for me to have these views than many, but that does not mean they are or not true. At present I only see the middle ground may, may work long term if we reach a higher genetic potential through eugenics or more remotely or impossible to quantify, cybernetics such as a singularity. Even if a reasoned middle ground is sustainable, is it desirable for everyone? Maybe we should have both multicultural and ethnically homogeneous homelands. But there must be some of the latter if racial diversity is to survive. Surely it is evolutionary preferable to have more than one race which could terminate through disease etc, but more over intrinsically preferable to have this diversity. One only values and is aware of uniqueness if there is an other.

I agree Razib about Roman Repulic and its slowness, but I think only works when genetically similar, Celts, Belgae, Anglo-Saxons, Nordics. It is unworkable, or destructive to absorb ethnicities that are so genetically different, especially when the notable phenotypal differences are IQ and important behavior characteristics. Also those who have a larger homeland elsewhere, like Germania, should stay where they more properly belong.

Posted by: Dan at May 6, 2003 11:26 PM

As an afterthought, like you Razib, I like the Nordic type, although Western women have been polluted by feminism. But culture can change, the gene pool is permanent. What a tragedy, if this diversity, the 10s, even many 100 of K years according to Neand-CroMag continuum and general multiregionalist theory, is lost. Japanese girls also are attractive, their government and people understand of cultural and racial importance, their economy may slumber, birthrate fall for a while, but what hollow success is economic growth if you no longer who you were.

Posted by: Dan at May 6, 2003 11:58 PM

I agree Razib about Roman Repulic and its slowness, but I think only works when genetically similar, Celts, Belgae, Anglo-Saxons, Nordics.

dan-again, my time is short-i will elaborate in detail my ideas this wkd, but a commentary.

the groups you mentioned made little or peripheral contributions to the roman republic. the cisalpine celts contributed some to the roman nobility at some point through admixture, but "anglo-saxons" & "nordics"? in fact, the roman republic had people of northern and southern european heritage-and people of etruscan ancestry, who were probably non-indo-europeans from asia minor. of course, these were all "caucasoid" people. if the number assimilated per generation is small i don't think there is a great problem, the differences between groups can be small though the averages differ, but those assimilated might match the host population.

as an example-presume a white polity allowing a fixed number of black immigrants. even if you take a hereditarian position you would admit that there is overlap between the two populations though they differ as organic wholes because of their sum variation. the "nature" of the white population would change only cosmetically if the immigration policy to the white polity from the black polity admitted only those with behavioral characteristices that matched or "exceeded" the white mean. conversely, the black polity might admit those whites who exhibit behavioral tendencies that mirror the black mean, though there might be a "cosmetic" whitening of the appearence.

in short-the issue is more subtle that surface classifications.

on a final note-in my opinion most mythic organicists tend to overemphasize the myth portion a bit. the details of history get lost in the broad axioms about race-soul and volk-and modern contexts are projected backward.

Posted by: razib at May 7, 2003 12:01 PM

"as for the current world-dominant music, I'm amazed that no one's mentioned rap by name."

probably because it's not the world dominant music. in europe, techno is more important. in south america, rock and latin are more important. bad pop is the order of the day in japan. the only music that was really at the top of the charts everywhere was teen pop. but that's taking a break now.

rap is nowhere near dominant live. american rappers rarely tour the world. the sales-to-attendance ratio is very low. rock, country, and vocalists dominate touring.

"Art? Probably not"

music can definitely be ranked depending on what aspect you want to evaluate.

"African type music is technically more complex rhythmically than European music."

usually. some techno has extremely complicated rhythm though.

"I'm skeptical that there's much music as technically sophisticated as Beethoven/Bach/Mozart/"

depends on how you want to measure.

the degree of difficulty is matched by some pieces on classical guitar, metal guitar, and fretless electric bass. polyrhythmic drumming is also equally difficult due to the different time signature on each limb.

in terms of sophistication, measured by how many parts, there is techno with a similiar number of parts. big band might have a similar number of effective parts.

when matching for ensemble music, kodo is probably equal to a symphony.

a symphony has all these at the same time. the drawback is that the result is not that good compared to other music. people don't listen to symphonies much.

Posted by: jody at May 7, 2003 01:38 PM

One of the things I said that is not controversial is that jazz raised the bar on instrumental virtuosity for most instrumentalists (except for the strings and piano, but including the string bass). Classical music was written for orchestras of journeymen playing simple parts, with a few soloists and with fairly difficult violin parts. I used to play trombone and that instrument never gets any interesting parts.

Posted by: zizka at May 7, 2003 03:37 PM

Ahhh, had just written a decent reply to GC (no offense taken)then my computer crashed, I have to go now but be back. Must learn to save.

Posted by: Dan at May 7, 2003 03:50 PM

>GC: To boil down our disagreement to one point - do you agree that individualism, rather than clan membership, is what makes the West exceptional?

The rapid technological and commercial advances in the West from the late Middle Ages, that led to economic and military superiority and domination over the much of the world, was only biologically possible because of genetic uniqueness, a high cognitive capacity as heirs to Cro-Magnon man. This superior cognition was both stimulated and destroyed by environmental conditions. Stimulated by the end of the ice age that allowed larger communities to develop and farming, literature. Unlike the large river basins and plain of China that allowed a larger more homogenous population to develop, the Middle East and Mediterranean was close to Africa and Asia Minor; while Europe was thickly forested, divided by the Alps, with no natural barriers to the East. Such conditions provided for much cultural interaction especially to the South and East; the rise and fall of Empires, and racial intermixture. There were Dark Ages, but all cultural achievement was not lost in these troughs; each new civilization was an aggregate, a new layer to previous cultural attainment and technological discovery – Egypt, Minoan Crete, Mycenae, Greece, Rome, Western Christendom. Proto-Western individualism developed in Greece and Rome, was submerged under Feudalism only to flower in the Renaissance, encouraged by political leaders in the many competing small states.

This individualism, did indeed lead to technological innovation, economic growth and imperial expansion – and great artistic and philosophical achievements – that we enjoy now; but this individualism - indeed itself a natural reality, the desire of individual expression, biologically routed in our individual uniqueness and capacity for free will, an expression that must be recognized and exercised as much as biological group commonality and sexual and biological difference. It is a fine balance. One could say that kin and group loyalties amongst Semitics are destructive; though properly their business, it becomes mine when my own welfare or existence, or that of my family, race or those who I care about, is threatened.

The reverse pathology, when individualism dominates over other loyalties is the Western disease – which Nordics may be genetically predisposed, needing a strong understanding of human nature and communal ties to balance their strong individualism. What is the destruction reaped by Western individualism: the able denying their superiority capability necessary for long-sighted leadership, and cultural leadership necessary to create real cultural enrichment as opposed to mass culture and mocking political postmodern art designed to deny true creative genius. Related, but more directly destructive is the denial of racial difference, allowing hordes of low IQ immigrants, even when their religions are openly hostile, or their presence must necessarily bring crime and racial tension, and when a simple calculation of immigrant numbers and differential fertility must lead to loss of homeland and eventual racial dilution thus extinction. China meanwhile, has probably come from a lower base (Anglo Saxons, still more cro-magnon’s had a much larger cranial capacity; Catholic celibacy, dysgenic warfare, and differential fertility for a century and a half, have reduced IQ and other attributes greatly. Orientals, meanwhile, according to the best anthropological evidence have increased IQ steadily through prehistoric and historic times, through racial intermixture from whites, as evidence from Tarim Basin, and especially through polygamy, and the brutal consequences of favoring males that gives females greater reproductive choice, to the point where their IQ is much higher than the related Eskimo and North American Indians, with an average higher IQ than whites, but a distribution pushed rightwards, disproportionately higher in the visuospatial subcomponent. The Orientals eventually acquired and improved Western technology, without experiencing the atomizing and destabilizing consequences of excessive individualism and ethno-cultural heterogeneity.

>gc do you agree that nonwhites can be quite "Western" (i.e. like myself, Jason, and Razib) and that whites can be quite non-Western (i.e. like the addled leftist terrorist sympathizers)?

Anyone can feel Western if you mean modernist: multiculturalist, democratic, globalist; these are just ideas, albeit false. (Democracy, as understood by Burke, can only work to a degree with a very limited franchise, such property, high education, and a healthy civil society, ethnically and cultural homogeneity, preferably with the balance of monarchy and a hereditary aristocracy, interested in continuing their lineage and order in the realm not short term interest.) As an individual, it may be even possible to feel Western in its original pre-industrial/liberal sense such as purely felt in 1750, and still not completely subsumed by modern ideology – to enjoy a degree of individual freedom, but also aware of the cultural history – for example feel British with loyalty to the monarch, local and national community, Christian, and fondness for British history and land, as well as a wider European identity, a common Greco-Latin heritage and continued continental cultural interaction – but truly one must realize that this very richness and meaning can only be created by a real historical identity based on near racial homogeneity, and common culture, not based solely on propositional citizenship or ideology.

>Razib: the groups you mentioned made little or peripheral contributions to the roman republic.

I meant that since 500 BC, Britain was populated by a wave of invaders with similar racial origin: the Anglos, Saxons, Jutes, similar culturally and genetically to the later Norse, ancestors to the Normans; the Celts only somewhat more distant in genes and culture, the Belgae in between; only the Iberian Neolithic substantially different, and still well within the Caucasian cline, a now extinct or Mongolized Mediterreranid subrace; with the Picts and Beaker people an unknown quanity, perhaps in between Celts and Iberians. I’m not sure in Britain whether the Paleolithic substratum was Nordic, Alpinid or Mediterranean. Compare Rome, populated by the second century by Arabs, Celts, and Nordics, and Negroes, too different to ever assimilate or feel deep cultural unity, only a nominal citizenship; such artificiality led to Roman decadence and infertility, far from the patricians who built the Republic who were proud of their historical lineage and united to countrymen by a shared history. Any racial mixture is culturally destabilizing, but sustainable if the groups are genetically similar, and the input small and gradual, with no abrasive cultural differences like hostile religions, and if there is no continuing external source of racial and cultural identification, like Germans under Rome, and Mexicans and Arabs today.

>Razib: there is overlap between the two populations though they differ as organic wholes because of their sum variation

As you alluded the sum variation of the organic whole of any two groups is different, but I disagree that there is an “overlap between two populations” except on certain phenotypes like IQ or height. The sum genetic variation of an Australian Aborigine, Nigerian, Korean, and Swede would not overlap, and no one would ever mistake any individual in one of these groups for another; no Swede has the distinctive oriental eyes of the average Korean, primitive cranial morphology of an aboriginal, or dark skin of a Nigerian. The sum genetic variance of the outlying individuals in the three ethnicities is closer to their respective ethnic group centers than any individual sum variance from the other two groups. Of course some traits are more important for socioeconomic success like IQ and conscientiousness but identity is wider than that. A thousand lion and tigers of the same intelligent, and bred similarly docile, the two types would be still different, though they are genetically similar enough to breed, even if infertile. That said, high IQ and behavioral congeniality makes Orientals more compatible immigrants than more closely related Arabs, although there remains the problem of unshared communal heritage and hence shallow identity.

>Razib: might admit those whites who exhibit behavioral tendencies that mirror the black mean

I don’t understand. Why go to so much trouble to mimicking the very diversity nature has given us? It is like the Government allocating children to parents from a general lot, because all babies have a human “right” not to be restricted to any one “rearer” and every adult the right to be a “rearer”; (Natural ascriptive roles, those that are born into, not chosen, become nominal, able at whim to be prescribed and defined by the state). Or the government allocating partners to all adults based on a bureaucratic formula of compatibility.

Also reversion to the mean will ensure that parents who have been chosen for having qualities like IQ to mirror the host population will have children that will revert back to the mean of their ancestry, so a black African couple both with 110 IQ would have on average children with a IQ 90 (midday between 70 population mean and parents IQ) as opposed to whites 105.

>Razib: most mythic organicists tend to overemphasize the myth portion a bit

Maybe, but surely much of the alienation, banality and depravity of Western modernity is because of a lack transcendental identity, to ideals above the utilitarian and material, to nation and family. Some sort of reverential spirituality seems also to be necessary for a meaningful existence, even if not traditional religion; note the religious intensity of secular ideologues - the peace activists, globalists, multiculturalists and feminists - filling the psychological requirement once filled by spirituality - their fervor only increasing as evidence mounts that their utopia is unworkable, contra nature – the natural difference in ability, race and sex, and the transcendental unions of family and ethno-cultural nation.

Posted by: Dan at May 8, 2003 06:12 AM

response to mr know it all, part 1.

"do you have any sources for this assertion?"

a music expert such as yourself should have no trouble looking it up.

"I think that rap as a genre will be competitive"

it's not even close in south america, or japan, or india.

"who cares about concert-to-sales ratios?"

you don't understand the music industry. if it only worked by sales, 50 cent would already have as much historical importance as the grateful dead! thousands would not show up for jimmy buffett. phish might as well have not existed. dave matthews would have no business playing stadiums. the ultra show in miami should have sold 25 tickets instead of 25 thousand because nobody buys oakenfold or van dyk or sasha here.

run DMC was the most important rap band in the 80s. they were the tightest rap band i've seen. however, ten years after their peak, run DMC was playing bars.

then public enemy was the most important band in rap. apocalypse 91 was an awesome album. but ten years after their peak, they could not fill roseland or hammerstein in new york.

on his own, dr dre couldn't sell an arena right now, and he had a six times platinum album three years ago.

part of being dominant is drawing power, and staying power. it's not a good endorsement of rap if few people care about the major acts ten years later.

eminem will be the all time best seller and will always get spins. but how long until nelly falls to where public enemy is? not long. ten years and nobody will spin nelly.

when it comes to international festivals and tours, rock so totally dominates rap that only somebody like yourself would claim that drawing power is not a relevant factor in the overall comparison of what is most popular.

"If you intend to denigrate the art form"

i never denigrated rap once here. in fact, i know more about rap than you. i wrote music with a local rapper. i worked security for wu-tang clan. i also respect rappers more than you. i suspect you don't like black people, despite what you say to the contrary.

"techno is produced in a studio and played at a concert, just as rap is."

i think what you're trying to say is that both rap bands and techno bands just show up at the concert and push play. most rap bands do this, but not all. the roots play with a band, cypress hill and jay-z play with a band sometimes. also, any freestyle rap is improvised on the spot. method man did this at wu-tang shows.

most techno shows can't be done without DJs working continuously with their vinyl or synths. house might require the least amount of work, trance more so. hard house and jungle require constant work. prodigy, orbital and crystal method usually play their synths live.

"But international sales and/or downloads on Kazaa are what really matter"

first, sales are definitely not all that matters. sales are heavily skewed towards measuring what teens are hearing on MTV and top 40 radio. programmers control what's played. if they want to shut out something they can. this is why, when MTV programmers decided to stop playing metal, the bands had to rely on tours, street teams, and ozzfest until they could sell enough records to force the programmers to play them. now metal records debut at number 1 on soundscan again. if touring was not an important factor to force airplay, you never would have heard korn, limp bizkit, godsmack, incubus, deftones, slipknot, system of a down, staind, disturbed, static-x, or sevendust. i know this for absolute fact because i personally was involved with these bands during the late 90s underground metal revival as a DJ and promoter, trying desperately to get some, any play on MTV or radio.

Posted by: jody at May 8, 2003 09:17 PM

response to mr know it all, part 2.

this also extends to punk and trance, other styles which nobody should care about according to sales, but with significant followings. warped tour will sell thousands of tickets at every stop. creamfields, gatecrasher, and love parade are massive techno festivals attended by a hundred thousand people.

second, international sales are probably not the measure you want to put the most weight on. rap only goes one way. out of america. but rock goes out and comes back in too. if rap is so dominant, where are the major rappers from other countries? they don't exist. but there are major rock bands from other countries. in other countries, domestic rap rarely enters the chart, but domestic rock and pop do. so if rap was as dominant as you say it is, musicians in other countries should be rapping it up extensively. but they're not.

third, kazaa is not the best way to measure what is the most popular. the first problem is, you really have no idea what is happening with music not done in english. spanish music is a big world. in america, spanish speaker for english speaker, mana is probably more popular than metallica.

the other problem with kazaa is that it skews to teens and college students with computers. that's hardly representative of the world population. is english rap the dominant music in india? no. most people in india don't even have a computer.

"And it was popularity I was talking about when talking about "world dominant" music."

rap is not the world dominant music. get over it. if any music is the world dominant music, and i don't think there is such a thing, it's pop or rock.

"I don't think Tupac can hold a candle to Mozart in terms of mathematical complexity of composition, but he's surely the object of more posthumous adulation."

first, nobody, but you it seems, cares about mathematical complexity in music. if they did, aphex twin and meshuggah would be major bands. or maybe, the east asians would make the best music. but in the real world, they are by far the worst.

second, i'm not sure how the posthumous adulation of tupac shows anything more than a lot of people liked his music and were shocked they lost their favorite rapper in his prime. getting killed during the height of your career often does wonders for your legend. then again, how much adulation does biggie get outside rap? almost none.

we'll never know, but i think if tupac lived through the 90s and on into the next century, and then got shot, nobody would care. almost nobody cared when jam master jay was killed. also, how much time since the demise of tupac? let's check back on the tupac saga a hundred years from now and see if the average joe even knows his name like they know mozart.

Posted by: jody at May 8, 2003 09:22 PM