Parasite Prevalence Predicts Authoritarianism

[Sucrates]

Right wing authoritarianism is what most people think of when they think of authoritarianism.

What is your point?

Nice attempt at ad homenim. If you have a problem with the method or results I'd like to hear it.

The methods and results are irrelevant.

 

[Hugh Johnson]

Native American slave ownership - Wikipedia

What has that got to do with anything?

 

[Hugh Johnson]

No need to be so snarky. When you have two correlated factors it is often unclear what is the cause and what is the effect. Here it is far more likely that it is Authoritarian government that causes a greater prevalence of parasites due to the mistreatment of their people rather than the reverse. The Kim family didnt come into power into North Korea because the people in the North had more parasites than in the South. It was his family's misrule that starved the people and created the environment for mass parasites.

I'm not being snarky. You are arguing from ignorance and should do a quick google search before making ***t up.

 

[DaveFoster]

What has that got to do with anything?

Here's what you said:

"Also, authoritarianism is a perfectly sensible adaptation to infectious diseases. The human animal dislikes conflict, and in circumstances where diseases dominate, being vary of strangers and non-standard sexuality is often the line between life and death. Look at what happened to the New World natives after Europeans arrived. All out genocide and slavery for the few survivors."

You're referencing one side of a historical conflict as if Europeans alone engaged in genocide and slavery, which only passes in public school as historically accurate.

 

[x-ray peat]

I'm not being snarky. You are arguing from ignorance and should do a quick google search before making ***t up.

so much irony for a such a short post.
I am sure everyone is very impressed with your google scholarship.

plus what exactly are you arguing with as you already agreed with my point, that what is the cause and what is the effect can be unclear here as they are circular.

Tbf, an authoritarian government in today's cicumstance does cause underdevelopment and poverty so it is a vicious circle.

 

[x-ray peat]

Here's what you said:

"Also, authoritarianism is a perfectly sensible adaptation to infectious diseases. The human animal dislikes conflict, and in circumstances where diseases dominate, being vary of strangers and non-standard sexuality is often the line between life and death. Look at what happened to the New World natives after Europeans arrived. All out genocide and slavery for the few survivors."

You're referencing one side of a historical conflict as if Europeans alone engaged in genocide and slavery, which only passes in public school as historically accurate.

and from the first few hits on google.

 

[DaveFoster]

and from the first few hits on google.

Unfortunately true.

 

[Travis]

This is a historically biased period of history, as the Natives didn't have a written language—nor even paper. Whatever had happened is what the Europeans say had happened.

My guess is the Europeans did what power crazed and psychopathic Europeans generally tend do to natives including—but not limited to—such things as slavery, murder, and theft. Had they come to simply to shake hands, go canoeing, or play chess, I wouldn't be a European living in America. Imperialism had always been their goal.

I would further speculate that the infectious disease myth is largely untrue. My understanding is that plagues can only occur in populations under malnutrition; it's also my understanding that the Natives were eating better than the Europeans. I think the infectious disease myth could be considered euphemistic, lollipop history: something to tell children you'd imagine they'd grow out of, and stop believing, by the time they're adults—but never do since they were too busy not learning other things.

Did some Natives get sick from the ratty Europeans? I think so, most likely, but not an entire continent. The growing European population necessitated the space each generation commandeered with mindless justifications, completely overtaking the continent after a few iterations while finally reducing the native remnants down to modest tracks in unpopulated rural areas—since many European Americans cannot comfortably stand their presence without feeling that nearly‐subconscious creeping shame of their ancestors, that same feeling that spawned the euphemistic infectious myth. This is just as bad as teachers parroting the line that 'Columbus discovered America,' despite that fact that millions of people—who should rightly be considered as such—had already done so, and had been respectfully inhabiting it for millennia.

 

[x-ray peat]

This is a historically biased period of history, as the Natives didn't have a written language—nor even paper. Whatever had happened is what the Europeans say had happened.

My guess is the Europeans did what power crazed and psychopathic Europeans generally tend do to natives including—but not limited to—such things as slavery, murder, and theft. Had they come to simply to shake hands, go canoeing, or play chess, I wouldn't be a European living in America. Imperialism had always been their goal.

I would further speculate that the infectious disease myth is largely untrue. My understanding is that plagues can only occur in populations under malnutrition; it's also my understanding that the Natives were eating better than the Europeans. I think the infectious disease myth could be considered euphemistic, lollipop history: something to tell children you'd imagine they'd grow out of, and stop believing, by the time they're adults—but never do since they were too busy not learning other things.

Did some Natives get sick from the ratty Europeans? I think so, most likely, but not an entire continent. The growing European population necessitated the space each generation commandeered with mindless justifications, completely overtaking the continent after a few iterations while finally reducing the native remnants down to modest tracks in unpopulated rural areas—since many European Americans cannot comfortably stand their presence without feeling that nearly‐subconscious creeping shame of their ancestors, that same feeling that spawned the euphemistic infectious myth. This is just as bad as teachers parroting the line that 'Columbus discovered America,' despite that fact that millions of people—who should rightly be considered as such—had already done so, and had been respectfully inhabiting it for millennia.

It is actually today's version of history that is what is really biased, so completely rewritten that we end up hating our own country. If you want to know the true history of that period then you could do no better than Francis Parkman, who wrote seven books covering early North American history. "A Half Century of Conflict," in particular, focuses on the battles between the New England Colonists and the Indians. The brutality and savagery of the Indian raids, at times under French leadership, against women and children is truly shocking. Neither side was blameless.

Here is a quite good Amazon summary of the abridged version "The Battle For North America."
"This has long been considered the classic study on this conflict. Parkman wrote extensively on the French and Indian Wars in addition to his works on the famous conflict of 1756-63. This volume contains an amalgam of his writings chronicling the entire French North American experience. The editor has carefully chosen the main parts of the series of publications written by Parkman in the late 19th century.

Readers today may be offended by his views toward the Indians. One has to remember that in Parkman's day the Indian was still an important issues. One needs to look at how the Huron and Iroquois warriors were universally dreaded and feared in Colonial times. There was good reason for this. These warriors delighted in torture and ritualized killing, as well as cannibalism. The woodland Indians were not some idyllic society that was just crushed by the white man. Those who apply that simplistic approach toward their reading of this great work will not get much out if it. Like everything to do with history; it must be seen within the context of its time. The reader will also find that Parkman's biteing observations are not only reserved for the red man. The French and colonists also come in for their share of criticism.

The reader will get a first-rate knowledge of the early French Explorers and their deeds in founding the French colony in Quebec and America. Some of the chapters dealing with the Jesuits and their labors to convert the Huron are a bit slow at times, but the reader is always rewarded with his patience. The early wars between the British colonists and their French adversaries is brilliantly developed. Parkman is blunt in his dislike of the centralized French system of government in Canada, but he acknowledges its ability to harness its limited resources to poise a major threat to the American colonists.

The book comes to life in the final part when the major events of the 1756-63 conflict are discussed. Here Montcalm is favored over Vaudreil in the administration of the French colony. Montcalm represented the more conventional conduct of the war, whereas Vaudreil wanted to wage the savage war of raids. Today the view may be more in favor of the latter over the former. This is due again to the Indian favoritism of today. In Parkman's day it was seen differently and the reader needs to balance both perspectives."

 

[Travis]

I wouldn't expect them to just lay down; you'd expect them to fight back. Boundaries are boundaries, and the invader is always the instigator. Is some areas of the Middle East, it is unclear what land belongs to which people since borders have shifted almost yearly for millennia. In places like 17th century America, there's no real ambiguity since one side actually had sailed across an entire ocean to colonize a entire continent. Obviously, the American Natives had not built ships to raid England with beforehand.

I can believe the Natives were sometimes on the offense with nightly raids, but history is still distorted with European bias. I think it would be impossible to get a fair account of who was more brutal in their raids, since the Natives had no written language. I'm sure it was all quite awful, but the Europeans had incrementally occupied land all the way to California. The only time a border had been respected was with Mexico, which was occupied by other Europeans—the Spanish.

Certainly there are vendettas and you'll never have 'peace in the Middle East,' but countries which had been occupied for thousands of years are best left alone. The Europeans had used their technological prowess and ruthlessness to dominate the globe at the expense of billions of natives, from Guam to Jamaica, over the course of ~500 years—starting with the Portuguese, the Spanish, and the Dutch. It's really no worse than what's going on today, but at least the crimes hundreds of years ago were immediately apparent. Today, people are being disenfranchised on a much less perceptible level—almost chronically in some areas.

 

[x-ray peat]

Like I said neither side is blameless. @DaveFoster and I were just pointing out that history is not so simple as the Europeans were bad and the Indians good. Calling the colonists "power crazed and psychopathic Europeans" just plays into that narrative. For the most part the colonists were either escaping religious persecution or unbelievable poverty and starvation, and didn't have the choice to just go back to Europe.

Moreover what you are judging so harshly is just the natural history of all animal life on this planet, and especially humans. The Native Americans were also immigrants to this country at one time and had also engaged in wars of conquest with one another for thousands of years before any European ever showed up. This was the history of all peoples of the world.

 

[kayumochi]

It was only a few short decades ago that the population of the American South was ravaged by the hookworm. As good as an explanation as any for the love of authoritarianism there ... https://motherboard.vice.com/en_us/...-lazy-just-infected-with-hookworms-stereotype

 

[Travis]

Calling the colonists "power crazed and psychopathic Europeans" just plays into that narrative. For the most part the colonists were either escaping religious persecution or unbelievable poverty and starvation,

So they were all unarmed, peaceful, persecuted Ghandi‐types who had managed to conquer an entire continent—how exactly? Through mediation?

 

[x-ray peat]

So they were all unarmed, peaceful, persecuted Ghandi‐types who had managed to conquer an entire continent—how exactly? Through mediation?

You don't see any room between "unarmed, peaceful, persecuted Ghandi‐types" and "power crazed and psychopathic Europeans?"
They were just acting human

 

[pimpnamedraypeat]

Like I said neither side is blameless. @DaveFoster and I were just pointing out that history is not so simple as the Europeans were bad and the Indians good. Calling the colonists "power crazed and psychopathic Europeans" just plays into that narrative. For the most part the colonists were either escaping religious persecution or unbelievable poverty and starvation, and didn't have the choice to just go back to Europe.

That's not true they came here for profit. What you just regurgitated is a historical lie. Unless you think the East India company was religiously motivated?

Going by your starving poor Europeans mythology, the savage Indians could have wiped them out easily could they not?

 

[pimpnamedraypeat]

What has that got to do with anything?

It justifies their genocide

 

[x-ray peat]

That's not true they came here for profit. What you just regurgitated is a historical lie. Unless you think the East India company was religiously motivated?

Going by your starving poor Europeans mythology, the savage Indians could have wiped them out easily could they not?

Your history is a bit confused. First of all the East India company colonized India, hence the name East India not West India. Moreover the colonization of India was altogether different than the colonization of North America. Second though the sponsors of many of the colonies did so because of a profit motive, the actual colonists who went did so primarily to escape religious persecution or to make a better life for themselves. The persecution of the Puritan in England, the Huguenot in France, or the Pennsylvania Dutch in Germany are not historical lies.

The Indian's did try to wipe them out by the way and often times did. The reasons the Europeans won out in the end was that they were far better armed and far more numerous over time.

 

[pimpnamedraypeat]

Your history is a bit confused. First of all the East India company colonized India, hence the name East India not West India. Moreover the colonization of India was altogether different than the colonization of North America. Second though the sponsors of many of the colonies did so because of a profit motive, the actual colonists who went did so primarily to escape religious persecution or to make a better life for themselves. The persecution of the Puritan in England, the Huguenot in France, or the Pennsylvania Dutch in Germany are not historical lies.

The colonies were for profit. They were not started due to religious persecution. The existed for monetary reasons. This country was colonized for monetary reasons. And the East India company was definitely involved maybe you should look into that. This country was started for profit and it's still for profit. The religious hullabaloo is bs crafted for the serfs to believe.

The people who came to america were shipped here to work for monetary reasons. They didn't beg to come they were sent here because they were unwanted. You would be surprised to lwarn but not maby people wanted to come here initially

The Indian's did try to wipe them out by the way and often times did. The reasons the Europeans won out in the end was that they were far better armed and far more numerous over time.

Thanksgiving taught me something different.

 

[Travis]

So why are white people allowed to concede, to strike a deal, and keep their land? Not even the much‐dreaded Germans and Japanese were exterminated after World War II. I think the main reason was: besides looking differently, they were illiterate; they were simply treated as non‐people, or as savages.

This wasn't quite like Haiti, Guam, or Indonesia—the American natives weren't enslaved to any considerable extent. The expropriation was more subtle, more drawn‐out. Perhaps he closest thing this even comes too is Africa but not quite, as Africans still inhabit the continent despite being practically forced to sell their economic products cheaply.

Certainly: some settlers were decent people and just trying to make use of space, but an entire race of people eventually became nearly exterminated. This is no parallel with inter‐European wars of the past, where eventually the leaders sat down and had signed papers after one party had conceded. For these reasons, the word 'war' seems a bit inappropriate for the entire event.

After World War One a good many citizens became so repulsed that it had been decided to create International Rules of War, instituted at The Hague. It would seem as people become more literate, and more civilized, the less tolerance they have towards egregious acts of violence. What happened in America had elements of imperialism, war, and racism, all culminating in the unprecedented near‐extermination of an entire race.

Military men have historically manufactured tension where there'd been none, to increase the public's perception of their trade. Even to this day the public is fed inaccurate reasons for engagement, The Gulf of Tonkin and 9/11 being notable examples, but no doubt it's been occurring for centuries. I think you can be certain even back them, European military men would manufacture lies about the natives to increase the demand for war—and perhaps even staged 'false flag' events. You can also be nearly certain the industrialists also manufactured lies to justify the expropriation of land.

 

[DaveFoster]

So why are white people allowed to concede, to strike a deal, and keep their land? Not even the much‐dreaded Germans and Japanese were exterminated after World War II. I think the main reason was: besides looking differently, they were illiterate; they were simply treated as non‐people, or as savages.

This wasn't quite like Haiti, Guam, or Indonesia—the American natives weren't enslaved to any considerable extent. The expropriation was more subtle, more drawn‐out. Perhaps he closest thing this even comes too is Africa but not quite, as Africans still inhabit the continent despite being practically forced to sell their economic products cheaply.

Certainly: some settlers were decent people and just trying to make use of space, but an entire race of people eventually became nearly exterminated. This is no parallel with inter‐European wars of the past, where eventually the leaders sat down and had signed papers after one party had conceded. For these reasons, the word 'war' seems a bit inappropriate for the entire event.

After World War One a good many citizens became so repulsed that it had been decided to create International Rules of War, instituted at The Hague. It would seem as people become more literate, and more civilized, the less tolerance they have towards egregious acts of violence. What happened in America had elements of imperialism, war, and racism, all culminating in the unprecedented near‐extermination of an entire race.

Military men have historically manufactured tension where there'd been none, to increase the public's perception of their trade. Even to this day the public is fed inaccurate reasons for engagement, The Gulf of Tonkin and 9/11 being notable examples, but no doubt it's been occurring for centuries. I think you can be certain even back them, European military men would manufacture lies about the natives to increase the demand for war—and perhaps even staged 'false flag' events. You can also be nearly certain the industrialists also manufactured lies to justify the expropriation of land.

I'm positing this as the most developed argument in this thread: