There are several ways that an ethnic group may claim to be superior to another. Some of these may be true, others are always false.FishbellykanakaDude wrote:How can an ethnicity be superior?Guest wrote:Isn't the notion that "we believe we are superior" a common theme in almost all ethnic conflicts?/Erdogan wrote:Maybe one of our helicopters is gone, but they will pay for this. Not in kind, but so much more, because we are determined, and we believe we are superior. We will succeed in this as well.
(I have my own answer to that, but I'm after yours.)
Aloha!
The most common form of superiority that people claim is intrinsic superiority. This claim is that one ethnic group is more valuable or worth more that another group. This is the claim that they are better simply for being who they are. There is never any evidence to support the notion of intrinsic superiority, it is simply assumed. I do not believe that there even can be any evidence in favour of intrinsic superiority. Rather, I believe the words of Thomas Jefferson included in the Declaration of Independence that all men are created equal. More that that, I believe the doctrine of the Bible that men are created in the image and likeness of God. According to this doctrine, all claims of intrinsic superiority must be false.
A second claim is one of material superiority. This is simply the claim that one ethnic group has more or better stuff than another. Although this is often debatable, it is sometimes so manifestly true that it hardly needs to be said. Material superiority is often used as evidence to support the claim of intrinsic superiority, but I cannot see the logic of this.
A third claim related to the second is one of strategic superiority. That is that one ethnic group has a strategic, tactical, or military advantage over another ethnic group. Because nations sometimes win wars against other nations, it is evident that some nations do in fact have a strategic advantage.
A third type of superiority often claimed is genetic superiority. Although this claim is often made without any basis whatsoever, it can sometimes be true in particular traits. For example, people of Irish descent are more likely to have genetic propensity for thyroid and adrenal problems; these traits result in a lower metabolism which provided an advantage for surviving the Irish Potato Famine, but is a disadvantage for most other purposes. Other genetic traits can less clear: for example, the Irish propensity for relatively pale skin (compared to many groups) may be an advantage in Ireland, but it becomes a disadvantage in the Australian desert. In the end, there are so many genetic traits (and so many of them can be both good and bad in different contexts) that it is impossible and responsible to say that any ethnic group is absolutely genetically superior to any other.
A fourth way that an ethnic group sometimes claims to be superior to another is moral superiority. This claim asserts that one ethnic group has a higher moral conduct than another. This is by far the most complicated one to evaluate. Some would claim morality is entirely culturally dependent and that because of this no culture can be morally superior to another. But this argument is not only contrary to the Bible, but it is difficult to support when confronted with such flagrantly immoral things as rape or murder. If one accepts a standard of absolute morality, it becomes clear that some vices run more heavily in some ethno-cultural groups than in others. For example, some practice cannibalism, some don't. Some practice infanticide, some don't. However, the ethnic groups that abstain from some vices by participate more in others. Additionally, even the statistics that measure which crimes are commit more often by which race of people are usually fiercely debated. Because of these reasons, moral superiority of one ethnic group over another is very difficult to prove.
These are some of the ways that one ethnicity may claim to be superior to another. I look forward to your response.