I have a puzzle. It occured today, out of nowhere, in a seemingly unrelated place, but here it is.
IMPORTANT: This is purely hypothetical and academic question, more for the student of anthropology. If you are in the mood to be offended, skip the post now.
The world, as it moves from the East to the West, moves almost in a gradient of High Context-Low context, of low aggression to high aggression. The Japanese and the Americans, when one says they are the opposite ends of the world, its in more ways than one.
One rationale for this, is perhaps, that the Caucasian race is based almost entirely in the West.
The homes of these civilisations happen to be in these places, and the gradient happens to move from East to West..
The extreme West(North Americas) did have another race, but not any more. The South Americas do have another race, but I am not aware of their aggression levels, so will have to leave them out for now.
Then the mind went, suppose, we were to plant the Western race in the East, and vice versa - then?
And the pop answer: But we have! The Australian continent is, like the North Americas, politically dominated by the same race as in Europe, with same predecessors. But they are not dying to be counted among the political superpowers, the local maoris live well, and so do their customs. Most of the land is also left alone to live as it pleases, and the people have not mushroomed all over, and colonised the land just because land exists.
Why did it not happen in Australia?? Why were the locals not exterminated?
Could it, just faintly, could it be a case of the land? Could the East-West movement have anything to do with it? Your thoughts... ?
What happens when a High context, Low Aggression culture is planted in the West? Does it acquire the aggression of the land, or does the land acquire the culture of its inhabitants? It wont make sense to think of minority populations as examples. The example should be where the said culture dominates the land - then what happens?