|
|
Re: Are Americans genetically superior?
wvanhou237@aol.com
14 Nov 1996 08:07:57 GMT
In article <myers-1311960835130001@cronkite.temple.edu>,
myers@astro.ocis.temple.edu (Paul Z. Myers) writes:
>
>Right...it seems to me the original poster is confusing the ability of
>the individuals with the capability of a nation. The US, by accident
>of history, has a more coherent, "united" population than Europe, for
>instance, and has been better able to marshal the population to a common
>goal. That could very easily change: European nations are trying to forge
>more unity, while here in the US we see increasing signs of divisiveness
>and regionalism. Neither are smooth, inexorable trends, but if there were
>a United Europe vs. a splintered US, I'm sure they would kick our
butts...
>an unfounded, hypothetical genetic advantage wouldn't help.
>
I got into this discussion arguing that it would not be a "hybrid
vigour" but
a selective migration that has given the American population as a whole a
tendency to be just a little bit more optimistic, energetic, inventive
etc;
Do you think that might be that accident of history that gave the US
a
coherent, united population? I know we are no more divided, and much less
regionalistic now than we were pre-WW2. It only takes one small incident
to
weld this nation into a very solid whole.
Do you really think that Europe will be able really to become a
Union?
Maybe in a few hundred years. Right now France is keeping a wary eye on
a newly re-united Germany. Both of them want to be the '"leading nation".
The Nordic countries don't really want to get too close to either of them.
England absolutely doesn't want to give up either the Pound or her
sovreignty.
Italy probably would think that any kind of union would be O.K. France
never
did want to be part of NATO because they couldn't be the leader. Right now
everybody in Europe wants NATO to do great things. But can't decide what
untill the US says "follow me boys".
All of which has absolutely nothing to do with
sci.anthropology.paleo.
NUFF SED
W F VAN HOUTEN
Older. But wiser ?
|