violet_crown
Active member
- Joined
- Jun 18, 2009
- Messages
- 4,959
- MBTI Type
- ENTJ
- Enneagram
- 853
- Instinctual Variant
- sx/sp
Very interesting read, thank you for that.
Seconded.
Very interesting read, thank you for that.
Why does this thread exist?
Because I wonder and wish how I can evolve into black ESTP.
Because it seems very much like they all want to be gangsters, and your archetypal gangster is a black ESTP (or ISTP I guess).
Because I wonder and wish how I can evolve into black ESTP.
Trade at level 35 holding a Moon Stone.
Trade at level 35 holding a Moon Stone.
And lol at the bolded. My friends would slap a black man for saying that
@<a href="http://www.typologycentral.com/forums/member.php?u=15371" target="_blank">RaptorWizard</a>
I’m curious, which people in the media do you consider to be ‘gangsta?’
You might want to look into Frantz Fanon's Black Skin, White Masks to get a better grasp of the concept.
OT, but I consider this to be a very dangerous man, probably thousands, if not tens of thousands, of people were killed by those inspired by his writings.
There is one problem with post-colonial studies, it does not ask why some societies evolved into a position where they were able to colonize, and others remained in a pre-industrial or, IMO, primitive state.
Because it seems very much like they all want to be gangsters, and your archetypal gangster is a black ESTP (or ISTP I guess).
I always associated the typical loud black attention whore to be an ENFP.
Here's an example of a black ESTP:
Here's an example of a black ENFP
I think the very nature of your question reveals a certain bias in the way you choose to formulate things, but to answer it, the answer is pretty simple: resources. Europeans had to look for resources elsewhere because we emptied ours. Ever played a strategy game, real-time or otherwise where in order to sustain your survival in the game requires one to secure resources? It is interesting to point out that the resources are always finite. Why? Because if they weren't expansion of territory would for most of the part be unnecessary and forcing the player(s) to expand creates conflict as players must now fight over securing resources in order to continue their expansion and thus secure victory.
I do have a bias. I favor the western model of liberal democratic capitalism and I do not regret that western countries triumphed over other societies, which would not have developed beyond their existing "modes of production".
The question still remains, if we believe your answer, why did European societies produce a surplus, leading to the development of towns and early industry (prior to industrial revolution), necessitating more resources, while "primitive" societies did not.
They didn't produce surplus in such a sense. They simply exhausted the natural resources faster than they were replenished.
They had the basis of the technolgocial ability to colonize, before such an intention existed. The colonized societies did not have the technology to do so to Europe.
Reread my edited post if you didn't. I added new information in it.
Anyway, why should they if they manage their resource production in a sustainable way so there was never a need for them to expand the territory? Also, I don't think I need to remind you that many societies located in the same geographical area experience(d) inter-society conflict. A perfect example are the inter-tribal rivalries among the Germanic tribes such as the Celts. Conflict doesn't need to expand to a new continent and many societies developed complex trade routes e.g. Vikings instead of forcefully conquering another resource-rich area simply because the former is a more efficient way of acquiring them, to use two European examples.