I don't think that the level of
aggressivity is an ethnic trait
or even genetic.
Any such statement on "human nature"
is very suspect.
I am not aware of any present mongols
being more aggressive than other peoples.
And I am not being PC, just never heard about
such scientific evidence.
Most research comparing such ethnic or
race differences are scientifically
contraversial to say the least.
The level of allowed/legit aggressivity
is a social construct
(level of control expected i.e.
aggressivity tolerated), with individual
variation being a mixture of nurture
environment and the given chemical balance
of the nervous system.
eva
>
> Competition has been with us since the dawn of time. Hunters and gatherers
> competed for harvesting territory, farmers competed as tribes for the best
> lands and then within tribes for the best lands, and manufacturers have
> competed since manufacturing became the dominant mode of business. The
> whole thing has been driven by real or perceived scarcity - either I get my
> cut or someone else will - and, it would seem, the need to dominate, which,
> though deplorable, is nevertheless a human characteristic.
>
> In this process, peaceful people tend to get kicked around - e.g., the
> peaceful Utes who once lived in southern Alberta were kicked out by the
> Blackfeet; Bantu tribes overran Africa; the Mongols, from far east Asia,
> overran Europe as the Huns had previously; and of course we are still,
> hopefully, familiar with what the Germans and Japanese tried to do just a
> few decades ago. I once asked a Professor of Russian History why the
> Mongols overran Russia and moved into eastern Europe in the 13th and 14th
> Centuries. He looked at me with some surprise, not as though it was a
> stupid question, but one that he had never really considered. His answer:
> "Why, they were Mongols, that's what Mongols did."
>
> Ed Weick
>
>
