rediff.com
Skip to content

Categories:

Humanness and History

Amit Srivastava


Most of the people think that they are better human than average. In a study done on residents of six nations; Australia, Germany, Israel, Japan, Singapore and the United States, led by the Steve Loughnan of University of Melbourne, the researchers found out that most people also think that they are more human than average. They feel of greater emotional depth and general humanness. People see themselves as embodying human nature more than others. The researchers also found out that people are less apt to rate themselves as exceptional on the specific aspects of human nature they believe make humans unique.


First of all, the six countries belong to the West or the greater West. West is the dominant civilization and its dominance is going to be more asymmetric and permanently irreversible. As such middle class of the rich countries can always donate more and being dominantly Caucasoid they are better mannered. Therefore, they are more apt to reply positively on humanness and rate themselves higher. The world is on the path of greater and greater growth and if alternate to hydrocarbon based fuel is invented then other than geophysical reasons that path may be irreversible. In this era of GATT driven sentiments and emotions, the talk about equality and justice appear natural. The West’s requirement to keep the whole flock together while expanding, makes the Westerner appear politer than what they are. In other words, the responses are more political in nature rather than they being an intrinsic part of human nature.


Before we analyze further let us look at the past and future of the six countries. Australia was once the colony of British and is yet not republic. Even though the race relationships are best in Australia there has been continuous attacks on Indians living in Australia. While Australians might have grievances against Indians living in Australia, it is better for them to close doors for Indian immigrants and other immigrants instead of attacking them. Just sixty five years back whole Europe was reeling under the depression of two world wars and Germany was most responsible for it. The Aryan myth led to Nazi attack towards Jews and the related holocaust. Even the racially homogeneous Europe had to fight two bitter world wars and overstretched cold war to unite regionally under European Union. Today Germany is the biggest economy in Europe. No matter how big beauty is the formation of Israel, the fact is that it is grossest kind of violation of Palestine Arabs rights. While a derived Western country should be welcome in Middle East, it should not be at the cost of high regional tension. Japan was once an imperial power. It learnt pacifism by two of its cities being nuclear attacked by the winning Americans. Singapore is a city-nation state and is direct result of Western expansionism.


It is the last country, the United States which has most impeccable records when judged at the relative power level among the six. It never colonized except for brief rule in Philippines. But it was the shrewdest power in the sense that it never contested European Colonialism and it let it die its natural death. The United States power is largely on its ability to innovate, military strength and Federal constitution. Today it is considered an arrogant power by almost every one including by its allies.


Whatever be the case, the fact is that the group is selective and almost all of six countries have not been always decent since their inception when judged from neutrality. It is true for the US too because it did not have universal suffrage before 1967. If six to seven decades before people were completely different than what they are now, can’t they be different five to six decades later? Isn’t the idea of humanness depends on the poorness of Africa and some regions in Asia? Isn’t it equally true that humanness is the result of shared wealth induced by GATT? What if there is no requirement of aid? Won’t the ‘average’ increase to the level that it becomes difficult to judge oneself above the average?


What is the best for earth- a relatively thinner planet with greater equity and greater accumulated vertical wealth per capita or a current planet with so much disparities and erratic distribution? But in that case the humanness may not find that high value which it finds today. Isn’t easier to move towards lesser populated planet for a sustainable life with all except Whites decreasing their population proportionately?   


    

Posted in Uncategorized.


0 Responses

Stay in touch with the conversation, subscribe to the RSS feed for comments on this post.

You must be logged in to post a comment.



Copyright © 2014 Rediff.com India Limited. All rights Reserved.  
Terms of Use  |   Disclaimer  |   Feedback  |   Advertise with us