White man's world

Fo Real

Let me start off with the disclaimer that it's not illegal to be racist, only to carry out acts of violence against other races (or anyone really) or to incite violence.

By all expectations, the natives of Europe, on the peripheral edge of the Eurasian landmass, should have only a minor impact on world history and culture given the size of their homeland. But rather, the population has spread out and conquered to give white majorities in the USA, Canada, Australia, New Zealand, Argentina etc and spread their influence, language and culture to every corner of the Earth. It truly is a white man's world.

Whites went into Africa and enslaved the locals, exploiting them for free manual labour for centuries.

Whites conquered the Americas and completely wiped out several indigenous races of people and seriously decimated the populations of others, leaving behind a mongrel race of mestizos. Ditto with Australia.

Whites travelled to the Far East and subjugated the locals to gain access to resources and forced the Chinese and Japanese to open their ports for trade using the threat of a gun.

I believe whites could have completely wiped out all inferior* races during World War II. I find it interesting that it took other whites to stop the Nazis carrying out their plans to completion. This same white, lefty, self-hatred element retards the progress of the white race today. Why have whites been so successful? And why do some whites have a guilt complex about being born into an inherently superior caste?

(* = personal opinion)

Fo Real

While I would agree with the sentiment that there are double standards regarding racism biased against whites, I wouldn't encourage the use of racial slurs on a public internet forum as it could be considered provocative and incitement to hatred. Please note, however, that there is nothing wrong or illegal with holding these views privately as our thoughts cannot be policed.

EDIT - this post was in response to an above post that appears to be now deleted.

J K

I don't like the family living next door to me. Do you think if I wipe them out(I'm planning to use a hatchet) am I superior or inferior to them?

newmug

It wasn't "whites", it was the english. They invaded everywhere you mentioned, and seeing as they already had power, guns, and money, it was easy for them to be successful. Hence the "white" dominated world we have today. But it could have been anyone, they were just lucky.

J K

newmug wrote: »

It wasn't "whites", it was the english. They invaded everywhere you mentioned, and seeing as they already had power, guns, and money, it was easy for them to be successful. Hence the "white" dominated world we have today. But it could have been anyone, they were just lucky.

Luck and resource allocation. Coal and steel in England for your example. But western civilisation grew up around city states on the Mediterranean who had rich native resources, trade by sea and later on the successful military and colonising model of the Romans.

Sardonicat

Fo Real wrote: »

Whites went into Africa and enslaved the locals, exploiting them for free manual labour for centuries.

Whites conquered the Americas and completely wiped out several indigenous races of people and seriously decimated the populations of others, leaving behind a mongrel race of mestizos. Ditto with Australia.

Whites travelled to the Far East and subjugated the locals to gain access to resources and forced the Chinese and Japanese to open their ports for trade using the threat of a gun.

Do you regard these things as a positive achievement?

Fo Real wrote: »

I believe whites could have completely wiped out all inferior* races during World War II. I find it interesting that it took other whites to stop the Nazis carrying out their plans to completion.

The logical conclusion of your line of thought is the Nazis. Are you sorry thet were stopped?

HavingCrack

Are you aware that 'white' is such a broad term as to be vaguely useless? At various times Spaniards, Italians, Greeks, Hungarians, Finns, Russians etc were not considered 'white'. If you want to start labelling "races" Caucasian is probably more along the lines of what you mean and Caucasians also include North Africans, Arabs, Turks, Iranians and fairer skinned Indians and Pakistanis.

Clearly you just mean Europeans and only a certain group at that, namely France, Portugal, Italy, Great Britain, Netherlands, Belgium, Germany and Russia. The rest of Europe doesn't get a look in. This is only a relatively recent phenomenen as well. Spain and Portugal were once controlled by Arabs, Greece and the Balkans by Turks, the Mongols built the world's largest Empire, the Pacific Islanders are believed to have discovered America before Europeans etc.

As to why Europeans were more successful than other areas of the world at colonisation it's a combination of reasons that varies by region but I'll give three for example.

1-South America. Some extremely advanced civilizations existed, namely the Maya, Inca and Aztecs. The Inca also controlled a huge swath of South America so they already had quite a large empire. The sheer size of South America and their relatively low population meant the need for overseas expansion never existed. They were defeated by the Spanish due to a combination of horses, guns and smallpox and influenza(the main tools of European expansion). Other less advanced areas of stone age people existed (as they still do) in remote jungles and islands and were easily overwhelmed by outsiders.

2-North America. The native Americans (4 million in total) felt there was plenty of room on the continent for new settlers. However the British, French and latterly 'white' Americans broke every single agreement they signed. Eventually numerical superiority took its toll.

3-Africa. High levels of civilizations-eg Great Zimbabwe, Egypt, Benin etc. Lack of firearms (which had never penetrated Africa) led to them easily being overun by European armies. As to why they never felt the need for colonisation...perhaps they felt Africa was large enough. If they lived in the south they may not have even been aware of Europe or Asia.

As to why Europeans felt the need to expand there were several reasons.

1-To find new trading routes to Asia after the Silk Road was closed with the founding of the Ottoman Empire.

2-Overpopulation in their native lands.

3-To Christianise the world.

4-To size more land and boost the state coffers effectively.


Whether you belive whipping out other cultures, raping their land, turning them into drug addicts and forcing them to become Christians is an example of racial superiority is entirely up to yourself.

I don't have a guilt complex about the actions of other white people, that's ridiculous. Using that logic I ought to feel guilty about the North Atlantic slave trade, it's non-sensical. Personal responsibility is my creed. Interestingly why do you feel the 'white' race needs to continue to aim for dominance over the world??

Nodin

Fo Real wrote: »

Let me start off with the disclaimer that it's not illegal to be racist, only to carry out acts of violence against other races (or anyone really) or to incite (....) superior caste?

(* = personal opinion)

So essentially you believe 'superiority' is demonstrated by the ability to steal, enslave and kill...?

Fo Real

newmug wrote: »

It wasn't "whites", it was the english.... But it could have been anyone, they were just lucky.

Incorrect. A lot of European countries had colonies abroad. You are forgetting Belgium, France, Spain, Italy, Denmark, Portugal etc....
As for Europeans "just being lucky"...lol. There were/are other peoples who had much larger homelands and populations (e.g. the Indians) yet a small number of Europeans easily conquered and dominated them. Europe is not rich in natural resources either. We don't have the silver mines of South America, the oil reserves of the Middle East or the diamonds of West Africa. Yet this disadvantage doesn't stop our unstoppable march to world domination. Some would say Europeans already dominate the world via cultural influence.

J K wrote: »

Luck and resource allocation. Coal and steel in England for your example.

I dealt with these points above.

HavingCrack wrote: »

1-South America. Some extremely advanced civilizations existed...

I agree. I'd consider the Aztecs and Mayans more advanced than today's Austrailian aborigines. However, the Europeans still conquered them. The means are irrelevant.

HavingCrack wrote: »

2-North America. The native Americans (4 million in total) felt there was plenty of room on the continent for new settlers. However the British, French and latterly 'white' Americans broke every single agreement they signed. Eventually numerical superiority took its toll.

You are ignoring the fact that the whites allowed non-white immigration into the New World. Yet even today "African Americans" occupy a lower social class than the ancestors of their European masters. They possess all the money and power. Whites rule the USA, Canada and arguably several of the states of South America (Uruguay and Argentina, definitely).

HavingCrack wrote: »

3-Africa. High levels of civilizations-eg Great Zimbabwe, Egypt, Benin etc. Lack of firearms (which had never penetrated Africa) led to them easily being overun by European armies. As to why they never felt the need for colonisation...perhaps they felt Africa was large enough. If they lived in the south they may not have even been aware of Europe or Asia.

The fact that Africans were chucking spears against European guns is symtomatic of the lack of innovation in African culture. As recent as 1935, the Italians conquered Ethiopia in a few months. Granted, they weren't left with much choice - Ethiopia and Liberia, a colony given to ex-slaves out of compassion, were the only parts of Africa still left uncolonised.

Iompair

An interesting bok that deals with this subject is "Guns, Germs and Steel" by Jared Diamond.

I found it a good read and his explanations are pretty persuasive, there are other essays criticising some of the ideas he puts forward that are also worth reading, but the book itself is a good place to start.

Nodin

Fo Real wrote: »

Whites conquered the Americas and completely wiped out several indigenous races of people and seriously decimated the populations of others, leaving behind a mongrel race of mestizos. Ditto with Australia.

You'll find that "whites" actually overthrew the reigning Empire with the help of subjugated native tribes, and proceded to shaft their allies in the aftermath, aided in both by the effects of disease which killed well in excess of 50% of the population in the first wave of infection alone. One might as well celebrate the triumph of the Black Rat.

As I asked earlier - you believe 'superiority' is demonstrated by the ability to steal, enslave and kill...?

mikemac

Iompair wrote: »

An interesting bok that deals with this subject is "Guns, Germs and Steel" by Jared Diamond.

Good book
The TV series of the book is on youtube also

Permabear

This post has been deleted.

Eliot Rosewater

Fo Real wrote: »

There were/are other peoples who had much larger homelands and populations (e.g. the Indians) yet a small number of Europeans easily conquered and dominated them.

In terms of civilisation, Europeans were more advanced. You could possibly attribute this to the bountiful nature of the European peninsula, and its wide access to the sea (for food, trade and war).

This advantage manifested itself in better warfare methods, which allowed Europeans to colonise foreign lands so easily. I personally think there's a bit of luck involved, and, even if there weren't, European domination is more attributable to the climate and geography of Europe rather than any intrinsic "merit" of the European people.

Fo Real wrote: »

Europe is not rich in natural resources either. We don't have the silver mines of South America, the oil reserves of the Middle East or the diamonds of West Africa.

Oil reserves? Oil only became such an important resource in the 20th century; before that coal would have been more important. The lack of oil in Europe is irrelevant to Britain's colonising of the world.

Fo Real wrote: »

As recent as 1935, the Italians conquered Ethiopia in a few months.

France, one of the greatest nations in Europe, was taken over by the Nazi's in 3 weeks. Belgium, 18 days; The Netherlands, 1 week; Denmark, 1 day.

The most important question here is why do you think the ability of a group of people to kill and enslave others makes them "the greatest"?

Fo Real

Eliot Rosewater wrote: »

The most important question here is why do you think the ability of a group of people to kill and enslave others makes them "the greatest"?

Because it means they are stronger, smarter and more cunning.

Do you accept that white people own most of the wealth, power and resources in today's world? Decisions made in Europe and America have a profound effect on the rest of the planet. (Inb4 Obama. This half-white figurehead is merely a puppet for his white speech writers, policy makers and is under the control of the white majority congress).

Bjorn Bored.

It is also predominantly whites who will more than likely be responsible for the destruction of the entire planet through their invention and probable future use of nuclear weaponry.

Nodin

Fo Real wrote: »

Because it means they are stronger, smarter and more cunning.

By which lights the AIDS virus is an example to aspire to.

You didn't answer as to my refutation of your claims re the Americas.

Fo Real wrote: »

Do you accept that white people own most of the wealth, power and resources in today's world?

They do. Not as much as twenty years ago, because the power has begun to swing to Asia - specifically China. There was a time when the great powers resided in the East, with the Persians and Arabs. It's nothing to do with 'superiority'.

slum dog

Fo Real wrote: »

Let me start off with the disclaimer that it's not illegal to be racist, only to carry out acts of violence against other races (or anyone really) or to incite violence.

By all expectations, the natives of Europe, on the peripheral edge of the Eurasian landmass, should have only a minor impact on world history and culture given the size of their homeland. But rather, the population has spread out and conquered to give white majorities in the USA, Canada, Australia, New Zealand, Argentina etc and spread their influence, language and culture to every corner of the Earth. It truly is a white man's world.

Whites went into Africa and enslaved the locals, exploiting them for free manual labour for centuries.

Whites conquered the Americas and completely wiped out several indigenous races of people and seriously decimated the populations of others, leaving behind a mongrel race of mestizos. Ditto with Australia.

Whites travelled to the Far East and subjugated the locals to gain access to resources and forced the Chinese and Japanese to open their ports for trade using the threat of a gun.

I believe whites could have completely wiped out all inferior* races during World War II. I find it interesting that it took other whites to stop the Nazis carrying out their plans to completion. This same white, lefty, self-hatred element retards the progress of the white race today. Why have whites been so successful? And why do some whites have a guilt complex about being born into an inherently superior caste?

(* = personal opinion)

ive often pondered the same quetions. the history of the white mans domination iof the world is less than 1000 years old. there have been other dominant empires b4 that time and its only that we live through the time we are lving in now that we see things this way. the 'white man' as you say has been just lucky with exploration and superior technology. who know the asians could of got there b4 us. still you cant say we are superior because every social group in history has had a leader of different race. But I must say there are things that white people excel at that other races dont. Same goes for black people exceling at things which whites would not

HavingCrack

Fo Real wrote: »

Do you accept that white people own most of the wealth, power and resources in today's world?

A very small percentage of 'white' people own most of the world's wealth. The divide between the have's and have nots is huge even within 'white' majority countries. As I said before what do you classify as white?? An awful lot of Americans wouldn't consider Mexicans, Cubans, Salavdoreans or Italians as white for example. Power within the Untid States rests within a tiny group of people of predominatly English and to a lesser extent German ancestery.

Anyway, 'white' or 'European' domination of the world is at an end. China, Japan (already more powerful than Germany, France, Italy, Spain etc in economic terms), India and Brazil are all rising powers and will probably overhaul the US and Europe within 50-150 years as the predominate players.

Interestingly you are aware that all humans originally came from Africa?? So in a way we're all descendents of 'black' people??

Fo Real

HavingCrack wrote: »

Interestingly you are aware that all humans originally came from Africa?? So in a way we're all descendents of 'black' people??

I know more about evolutionary biology than you probably think. If you go back far enough those same black people have a common ancestor with a carrot. What's your point?

Interestingly if the different races were kept apart with no contact (blacks stayed in Africa, whites stayed in Europe) we more than likely would have evolved into different species, incapable of interbreeding. Whites would keep blacks in zoos, amazed at their ability to walk upright and complete simple menial jobs. But now we're engaing in whataboutery.

Fo Real

HavingCrack wrote: »

A very small percentage of 'white' people own most of the world's wealth. The divide between the have's and have nots is huge even within 'white' majority countries.

This is true but in general terms Europeans have a far superior standard of living than most of the world. We don't suffer from famines, we have relatively easy access to healthcare and education. Why did you put white in inverted commas? Are you suggesting Jews aren't white?

HavingCrack wrote: »

As I said before what do you classify as white?? An awful lot of Americans wouldn't consider Mexicans, Cubans, Salavdoreans or Italians as white for example. Power within the Untid States rests within a tiny group of people of predominatly English and to a lesser extent German ancestery.

This is merely religious snobbery, with the WASPS looking down on the Catholics. A Mexican or a Cuban can of course be white, but not neccessarily. It depends if any indigenous blood was mixed with that of their white European ancestors.

HavingCrack wrote: »

Anyway, 'white' or 'European' domination of the world is at an end. China, Japan (already more powerful than Germany, France, Italy, Spain etc in economic terms), India and Brazil are all rising powers and will probably overhaul the US and Europe within 50-150 years as the predominate players.

Your prophecy may become true, ironically because of the lefty ethnic-minority sympathisers among the whites. However, white cultural influecne cannot be eroded so easily. The Chinese and Japanese may become economically superior, but they will never achieve their dream of actually becoming white. The skin lightening business is huge in Asia. link

Nodin

Fo Real wrote: »

This is (........) in Asia. link

Earlier I refuted your narrative with regard to to Latin America. Please respond to this.

Nodin

Fo Real wrote: »

This is merely religious snobbery, with the WASPS looking down on the Catholics. A Mexican or a Cuban can of course be white, but not neccessarily. It depends if any indigenous blood was mixed with that of their white European ancestors.

The term is 'sectarianism'.

As there is no "white" race the rest there is nonsense.

Fo Real wrote: »

The Chinese and Japanese may become economically superior, but they will never achieve their dream of actually becoming white. The skin lightening business is huge in Asia. link

So you think the Chinese and Japanese - both non-"white" races will become "superior"? Doesn't that rather undermine your central thesis?

Fo Real

Nodin wrote: »

Earlier I refuted your narrative with regard to to Latin America. Please respond to this.

Sorry, Nodin. I had you on "ignore" since you announced you support Sinn Féin. I can't bear rebel songs and drunks who haven't a word of Irish shouting "tiocfaidh ár lá". Just catching up on your posts now.

You mentioned the role of disease in the European conquest of the Americas. True, this was an essential factor. But this is called Natural Selection. Only the strong survive. It is one of the driving forces of evolution. Europeans could shake off the diseases yet the idigenous Americans died from them. For me, it's another sign of European superiority.

Regarding Europeans using the help of enemy tribes to overthrow the Aztecs: it was a wartime situation and the cunning will be victorious. A whole civilisation had fallen within weeks. Amazing.

Nodin wrote: »

So you think the Chinese and Japanese - both non-"white" races will become "superior"? Doesn't that rather undermine your central thesis?

I said economically superior.

Eliot Rosewater

Fo Real wrote: »

Sorry, Nodin. I had you on "ignore" since you announced you support Sinn Féin. I can't bear rebel songs and drunks who haven't a word of Irish shouting "tiocfaidh ár lá". Just catching up on your posts now.

Infracted for personalizing the debate. This your second infraction on this thread Fo Real; if you can't post in Humanities without breaking the rules you will be banned.

/mod

Fo Real

Apologies to the mods. I won't be posting in this thread anymore to avoid a potential ban.

Feel free to allow the thread to run its course without me or lock it - whichever you think is best.

raah!

Fo Real wrote: »

I said economically superior.

What is to stop this economic superiority, combined with comparable technological capabilities, to lead to military dominance. And therefore, "intrinsic racial superiority"?

You should really specify what you mean by "white superiority" as well. It has been pointed out to you that it was a small subsection of white cultures, and even then a small subsection of white people within those cultures who were engaged in things like cultural and technological advancement.

Nodin

Fo Real wrote: »

You mentioned the role of disease in the European conquest of the Americas. True, this was an essential factor. But this is called Natural Selection. Only the strong survive. It is one of the driving forces of evolution. Europeans could shake off the diseases yet the idigenous Americans died from them. For me, it's another sign of European superiority..

...which makes no sense, as Europeans were merely carriers.

Fo Real wrote: »

Regarding Europeans using the help of enemy tribes to overthrow the Aztecs: it was a wartime situation and the cunning will be victorious. A whole civilisation had fallen within weeks. Amazing...

...and you're avoiding the central point, which is that your statement

Whites conquered the Americas and completely wiped out several indigenous races of people and seriously decimated the populations of others

is not correct.

Fo Real wrote: »

I said economically superior.

Yet earlier you stated

Do you accept that white people own most of the wealth, power and resources in today's world? Decisions made in Europe and America have a profound effect on the rest of the planet.

as further material in your argument for "white" superiority. Today China is the worlds manafacturer, is powerful and owns much wealth and resources, and its decisions have a profound effect on the rest of the planet. Why is sauce for the goose not sauce for the gander?

Nodin

Fo Real wrote: »

Apologies to the mods. I won't be posting in this thread anymore to avoid a potential ban.

Feel free to allow the thread to run its course without me or lock it - whichever you think is best.

You were told exactly what you should do to avoid further infractions. I'd suggest you're taking the opportunity to escape lines of questioning you find difficult - if not outright impossible - to deal with.

HavingCrack

Fo Real wrote: »

I know more about evolutionary biology than you probably think. If you go back far enough those same black people have a common ancestor with a carrot. What's your point?

Interestingly if the different races were kept apart with no contact (blacks stayed in Africa, whites stayed in Europe) we more than likely would have evolved into different species, incapable of interbreeding. Whites would keep blacks in zoos, amazed at their ability to walk upright and complete simple menial jobs. But now we're engaing in whataboutery.

It's impossible to keep races apart because we're all descended from the same Africans. Race is only a modern construct. We all share common ancestors, like it or not. 'White' Europeans are descended from 'black' Africans.

Fo Real wrote: »

This is true but in general terms Europeans have a far superior standard of living than most of the world. We don't suffer from famines, we have relatively easy access to healthcare and education. Why did you put white in inverted commas? Are you suggesting Jews aren't white?

1-Famines-Irish Famine, Ukranian Famine, starvation in ww1 Germany-yes we do suffer from Famines.
2-Healthcare-Europe-yes we do have excellent healthcare but so do countries such as Japan which aren't 'white'.
3-Education-English speaking countries lead the world in education rather than Europe to be honest.

I put 'white' in inverted comma's because it's far too broad a category as I poitned out in earlier posts. Would you consider Indian's to be white? or Iranians? or Libyans? They're all genetically similar to 'Europeans'.I never even mentioned Jews, I don't know where you're getting that from. Jew's were originally a Semetic people similar to Arabs whom lots wouldn';t consider white.

Fo Real wrote: »

This is merely religious snobbery, with the WASPS looking down on the Catholics. A Mexican or a Cuban can of course be white, but not neccessarily. It depends if any indigenous blood was mixed with that of their white European ancestors.

That's skating the issue. It's racism against Mexicans at best, certainly not 'religious snobbery'.

Fo Real wrote: »

Your prophecy may become true, ironically because of the lefty ethnic-minority sympathisers among the whites. However, white cultural influecne cannot be eroded so easily. The Chinese and Japanese may become economically superior, but they will never achieve their dream of actually becoming white. The skin lightening business is huge in Asia. link

The skin lightening business is huge in Asia only due to the legacy of poorer people working outside in the sun having a tan. The wealthy could stay inside and become fat. Being skinny and tanned was never fashionable in Asia or indeed Europe (only changed in the 1930's). You could argue colonial legacy contributes to this but it's always been a factor in Asia. Anyway surely economic superiority confers greater command of world resources which leads to military supremacy which lead to East Asians becoming a 'master race'.

I notice you avoid replying to any of my questions that don't fit your theory.

HavingCrack

Nodin wrote: »

Yet earlier you stated as further material in your argument for "white" superiority. Today China is the worlds manafacturer, is powerful and owns much wealth and resources, and its decisions have a profound effect on the rest of the planet. Why is sauce for the goose not sauce for the gander?

It doesn't fit with his theory of white supremecy and so he chooses to ignore it instead.

nyarlothothep

Fo Real wrote: »

You mentioned the role of disease in the European conquest of the Americas. True, this was an essential factor. But this is called Natural Selection. Only the strong survive. It is one of the driving forces of evolution. Europeans could shake off the diseases yet the idigenous Americans died from them. For me, it's another sign of European superiority..

The Europeans introduced unknown elements into the environment, that being diseases which weren't native to it, it wasn't a case of the "strong" surviving, moreso a case of a foreign element which the indigenous peoples there hadn't adapted to yet because it was never part of their environment to begin with. By the same logic you could say that the Europeans were weaker than the the Chinese when the plague was exported through trading routes. Moreover a disease native to Europe could decimate the population in China, a virus from outerspace could cause mayhem indiscriminately across the world. In reality what we're talking about are foreign elements which wreak havoc on a local environment, the words weak and strong carry a lot of baggage/value judgements which distort the topic at hand. Obvious trolling too.

Emme

Maybe Mediterranean and later, Vikings, Normans, English and Americans have had a disproportionate effect on Western culture in the last two millenia, but travel and communication weren't as advanced and in the East the Chinese were forging ahead for much of the time, e.g. Genghis Khan and the Mongol empire. India also had an advanced culture with the Mughal empire. The Arabs were brilliant at astronomy, science, architecture and medicine and the Crusaders took some of this knowledge back to Europe which was the foundation of the European renaissance.

Then there were the Egyptians, the Native Americans and the Mayans. Native Americans seemed to have an eco-friendly, non-invasive sort of culture but the Mayans and the Aztecs were fairly bloodthirsty. As for Europeans, we supposedly migrated across to Europe from India after coming from Africa but this took a long time to happen.

If Asians want to be pale good luck to them as long as they don't do damage to themselves - Europeans have been killing themselves to get a tan for decades! It's more a case of you're never happy with what you have rather than wanting to be a different race. Fo Real - be happy with who you are, success is not dependent on race.

Well, I think the whole area of European "Dominance" came because it was the only continent that really embraced "seafaring". Perhaps because of the shape of Europe, and the land-based natural barriers, Europeans expanded outwards through the use of the seas. The Dutch, the Spanish, the French, the English etc all ended up creating their initial colonies from the result of seafaring explorations with the possible exception of Africa which was initially explored from the north to the south, with rumor (and slaves) hitting the European explorers.

The problem I have with this white supremacy, or even western supremacy is that there have been just as successful empires born outside of Europe and have lasted much longer in terms of time. It is only that the European influence was the most recent. I'd recommend those skeptics to have a look at the Persian Empire, The Chinese, etc. Oddly enough the amounts of land which they ruled is easily on par with most of the European powers, with the exception of the British, who came at a particularly later stage.

Honestly though, I think religion was the major difference between Europe and the rest of the world. Asia didn't have religions with the organisation & hierarchy like Catholicism.. Most of Asia resided with ancestor worship, combating with a host of other religions like Buddhism, or more "practical" religions. There wasn't a drive to push outside their borders to find converts. India was more interested in fighting brutal internal wars within its fluctuating "borders". China, Japan, Siam etc all expanded out a fair bit at different stages and then closed borders hiding themselves from the external world.

And then we have Christianity which pushed many seafaring nations to explore, conquer and convert for the glory of God. And while that was happening, we'd regularly turn on ourselves and make the idea of emigrating to other countries far more appealing than staying in our own countries.

Lastly, in regards to this rather stupid "white superiority" complex... While Europe were building their most impressive castles, China had already built cities completely encased in walls 6 foot wide. I could name hundreds of discoveries, inventions, and hell, social conventions developed by Eastern nations (Muslims, Chinese, etc) when Europe was still forming its first clans, but they'd likely fall on deaf ears.

The only reason that Europe (and I don't mean White) has any degree of supremacy is due to "our" being the latest of civilisations. And we're still a relatively young one compared with those that lasted a thousand years. And even then, we're being eclipsed rather quickly by Asia once more.

I wouldn't get all high and mighty about this "white" thingy. I'd highly recommend leaving "the West", and having a look at some other countries and what they've achieved in the past. Traveling through Thailand & China, really made me realise just how small European achievements have been compared with the rest of the world.

Emme

Deleted User wrote: »

And then we have Christianity which pushed many seafaring nations to explore, conquer and convert for the glory of God.

Christianity is an Abrahamic religion like Judaism and Islam. All three religions originated in the Middle East. Islam also had a philosophy of exploring, conquering and converting for the glory of God. At one stage Islam had spread to Spain and it has also spread to many parts of Asia and Africa. Christianity is not exclusively white or European, some of the earliest Christians were Coptic Christians who lived in what is now Ethiopia and there are some remaining Coptic Christians in Egypt who resisted the influence of Islam.

Emme

Emme wrote: »

Christianity is an Abrahamic religion like Judaism and Islam. All three religions originated in the Middle East.

The difference being that Christianity essentially moved its power base to Italy (Rome), and for the next few centuries expanded its grip of influence from that central point. Once Rome adopted Christianity it pretty much ended up taking over most of Europe in one form or another.

Judaism never created a central hierarchy which provided a focus of all its worshipers to form a dogma of conversion for other peoples. Instead, Jews migrated outwards to many parts of the Europe, Russia etc, but stayed mostly to themselves.

Islam also had a philosophy of exploring, conquering and converting for the glory of God. At one stage Islam had spread to Spain and it has also spread to many parts of Asia and Africa.

True. Islam did spread and was a major part of some of the most powerful empires this world has seen. But, again, a major difference is that Islam lacked the central authority that Christianity had in Europe. Saladin is considered to be the high point for many concerning Islamic power considering their ability to combat "Christian" influence, or later the Ottoman Empire although that empire was rotting from the moment of its creation.

The problem is though Islam had the misfortune to come to grips directly with Christian influence, and as a result of the numerous religious wars against Europe, this severely limited their ability to expand. On the seas, Muslim traders were regularly (over the centuries) demolished by Christian privateers, or Trade federations. It was only the Islamic slave trade that lasted the longest, and even that was slowly taken over by Europeans expanding into Africa.

Christianity is not exclusively white or European, some of the earliest Christians were Coptic Christians who lived in what is now Ethiopia and there are some remaining Coptic Christians in Egypt who resisted the influence of Islam.

I don't believe I said that Christianity was exclusively white, nor that it was exclusively European.. But be honest here. The true power of Christianity was created, and maintained in Europe. Its true power base was in Rome. Most European countries had direct ties with the "Church" in Rome, and the Church held massive sway over the continent, often being able to stop/create wars simply on missives from the Pope.

The focus of authority, leadership, and propaganda provided by that central focus gave Christianity an advantage. Islam and Judaism lacked the supreme leadership to provide a certain drive, instead relying on local leaders which came and went with variable success. Christianity had those too, but having the Vatican allowed them to use those local successes on the world stage. [Edit: The concentration of wealth for the Church in Rome was probably also a major factor since the Church "sponsored" many religious wars against the heathens, whereas other religions based their defense/offense on the individual countries or leaders themselves]

WindSock

Deleted User wrote: »

I wouldn't get all high and mighty about this "white" thingy. I'd highly recommend leaving "the West", and having a look at some other countries and what they've achieved in the past. Traveling through Thailand & China, really made me realise just how small European achievements have been compared with the rest of the world.

That's quite true, in my experience also. The reason why we may think our 'white' culture is superior, and has colonised the world is because we are shrouded in it every day. We are also in the age of media & communication so the transmission of it is far easier than ever before. There are aspects of globalised white culture in cities all over the world, as regards to food chains for example but really it is not enough to homogenise a whole other culture to our own / American. It's like thinking that Ireland is becoming like China from all the Chinese restaurants around the place. Or to think that we whiteys changed the world with the car for instance...but where did the wheel come from.

Going to some Asian countries, you really do realise that although there are facets of both in either, our cultures and their cultures are ultimately incompareable, therefore neither can be seen as superior / inferior.

The Corinthian

Fo Real wrote: »

By all expectations, the natives of Europe, on the peripheral edge of the Eurasian landmass, should have only a minor impact on world history and culture given the size of their homeland. But rather, the population has spread out and conquered to give white majorities in the USA, Canada, Australia, New Zealand, Argentina etc and spread their influence, language and culture to every corner of the Earth. It truly is a white man's world.

Well, it's arguabable that Europeans have had the greatest impact on this World or even our species.

Remember, Homo sapians have been around for about 300,000 years, and possibly the greatest achievement in that time has not been the European expansion of the last half-millennium, but the Neolithic Revolution that fundamentally changed us from largely nomadic hunter-gatherers to urban producers-consumers - and that was a development of what we would call the Semitic people.

Whites went into Africa and enslaved the locals, exploiting them for free manual labour for centuries.

Whites conquered the Americas and completely wiped out several indigenous races of people and seriously decimated the populations of others, leaving behind a mongrel race of mestizos. Ditto with Australia.

In both cases we were significantly technologically advanced to be able to do so, a development that was actually quite recent. Prior to the Renaissance, we were actually quite backward and a fairly easy pushover for others - indeed we were in a state of constant invasion for over a thousand years, from the Goths through to the Mongols.

Africa and Australia largely, or completely, missed out on the Neolithic Revolution and so were easy to take. The Americas also suffered from this to an extent - at least in the north - but in the south they had developed a technology comparable to that of the Romans. Given that they managed to migrate there much later than we did to Europe, that is not an unimpressive feat.

Ultimately we just happened to be ahead in the technology game at that point and got it into our heads to strike out. The Arabs and Chinese were both ahead in the game at other points in history, but for various reasons did not turn to seaward expansion. That they did not is largely a question of luck and not ability.

Whites travelled to the Far East and subjugated the locals to gain access to resources and forced the Chinese and Japanese to open their ports for trade using the threat of a gun.

The Far East was not as clear cut as you would think. China had for most of it's history been as if not more advanced than Europe, and was ultimately subjugated because it had become culturally, politically and technologically stagnant. India is was a similar case, with a fractured and stagnant society that became vulnerable to outside exploitation.

Japan was an isolationist culture, less advanced, but not by that much. While they were forced to open their ports, this realization caused them to quickly adapt, quicker and more radically than Europeans have ever managed, to meet this challenge. Siam (Thailand) is another example of this.

I believe whites could have completely wiped out all inferior* races during World War II. I find it interesting that it took other whites to stop the Nazis carrying out their plans to completion. This same white, lefty, self-hatred element retards the progress of the white race today.

What, a mass invasion of Africa, south America and Asia? I think you are overestimating our ability if that is the case. Unless you mean only those "inferior races" residing in Europe, in which case you'd need to be more specific, because I'm not sure who and on what basis you classify them.

Why have whites been so successful? And why do some whites have a guilt complex about being born into an inherently superior caste?

We had agriculture from an early stage, which we maintained and improved.

We were able to capitalize upon pre-existing Hellenistic (which in turn was taken from Egypt and the Middle East) science and philosophy, via the Arabs (because we were burning those books in our Christian fervor), giving rise to the Renaissance and later, in turn, the Enlightenment. This led to rapid technological advancement.

We managed to weather out our own period of stagnation - the Dark Ages, and came into our own as the other major civilizations (China, India, Islam) were essentially in their own stagnant periods and thus could not compete.

We were lucky.

All of which is unnecessary to point out because all you have done is show a correlation between one broad ethic group or race and it's success in a very narrow and recent period of history.

Doing so presumes that there were genetic reasons for this success, which is a gigantic presumption, not to mention that it focuses on a period of only about 500 years, ignoring the previous 9,500 or so years since the first civilizations began.

So I really do not see how you can claim racial superiority at all. Maybe technological or even cultural could be argued, but none of the evidence you've mooted can be used to argue a racial one.

Zombrex

Fo Real wrote: »

Let me start off with the disclaimer that it's not illegal to be racist, only to carry out acts of violence against other races (or anyone really) or to incite violence.

By all expectations, the natives of Europe, on the peripheral edge of the Eurasian landmass, should have only a minor impact on world history and culture given the size of their homeland. But rather, the population has spread out and conquered to give white majorities in the USA, Canada, Australia, New Zealand, Argentina etc and spread their influence, language and culture to every corner of the Earth. It truly is a white man's world.

Whites went into Africa and enslaved the locals, exploiting them for free manual labour for centuries.

Whites conquered the Americas and completely wiped out several indigenous races of people and seriously decimated the populations of others, leaving behind a mongrel race of mestizos. Ditto with Australia.

Whites travelled to the Far East and subjugated the locals to gain access to resources and forced the Chinese and Japanese to open their ports for trade using the threat of a gun.

I believe whites could have completely wiped out all inferior* races during World War II. I find it interesting that it took other whites to stop the Nazis carrying out their plans to completion. This same white, lefty, self-hatred element retards the progress of the white race today. Why have whites been so successful? And why do some whites have a guilt complex about being born into an inherently superior caste?

(* = personal opinion)

As others have pointed out if you live 1,000 years ago and were Asian you would probably be standing around wondering why Asians are so much more superior to the backward disease ridden Europeans, is it something to do with Asians being the superior race.

Wait until the end of history and then declare a winner. Declaring yourself overall winner because at this specific moment in history you are winning is stupid. And remember you are white, you aren't supposed to be stupid.

seenitall

I seem to remember reading somewhere a prediction that within a few hundred years, white-skinned people will live increasingly in sort of genetic enclaves (ditto for blond and blue-eyed people). Due to these traits being recessive genetically, to globalisation and also to white-skinned people culturally-conditioned very low birth rates, most of the world will be some-kind-of-brown-skinned (and frankly, probably much better off for it - at least racists like the OP will be marginalisd even further).

ChocolateSauce

Nodin wrote: »

They do. Not as much as twenty years ago, because the power has begun to swing to Asia - specifically China. There was a time when the great powers resided in the East, with the Persians and Arabs. It's nothing to do with 'superiority'.

*estimate?

To add to that, it is worth noting that except for the periods of approx. 0AD-200AD and 1750-2030*, China has been significantly wealthier and more powerful than any European or western entity. ie. for 20 of the last 25 centuries it has been the east, not the west, which the sun shone on.

tim_holsters

Iompair wrote: »

An interesting bok that deals with this subject is "Guns, Germs and Steel" by Jared Diamond.

I found it a good read and his explanations are pretty persuasive, there are other essays criticising some of the ideas he puts forward that are also worth reading, but the book itself is a good place to start.

Great book. It's unlikely the OP would ever read it mind.

macam girl

FO REAL QUOTE:Why have whites been so successful? And why do some whites have a guilt complex about being born into an inherently superior caste?

Errr fo real it seems your the only one with the complex, you have been slated here by folk with way more knowledge of history,common sense and morals. I feel sorry for you, ha ha- how sad you are.

KaiserMc

macam girl wrote: »

FO REAL QUOTE:Why have whites been so successful? And why do some whites have a guilt complex about being born into an inherently superior caste?

Errr fo real it seems your the only one with the complex, you have been slated here by folk with way more knowledge of history,common sense and morals. I feel sorry for you, ha ha- how sad you are.

He has been slated because it is the 'pc' thing to do. You seem to enjoy the fact that this person has been slated for his opinion that 'Whites' are a very successful people. In all honestly what this guy is stating is true,Muslims have tried to conquer Europe throughout the ages and thankfully in the main have failed. Common sense and morals do not come into it,just because you have married a Muslim does not make the 'White' people an evil people,they are a brave and successful race who have faced many hardships and have triumphed though suffering huge losses of people and area.

macam girl

This has nothing to do with the religion my husband chooses to practiceconfused:

I also think that somebody who thinks that this-Originally Posted by Eliot Rosewater
The most important question here is why do you think the ability of a group of people to kill and enslave others makes them "the greatest"? makes anyone superior and also makes references like this-"Whites would keep blacks in zoos, amazed at their ability to walk upright and complete simple menial jobs. But now we're engaing in whataboutery." Defo has no morals- I also never said this-White' people an evil people,they are a brave and successful race who have faced many hardships and have triumphed though suffering huge losses of people and area ? You did KaiserMc ? ha ha. Me I happen to think that everybody is the same in soul and spirit, nobody is better than anybody, just better off. So do one mate.

KaiserMc

KaiserMc wrote: »

He has been slated because it is the 'pc' thing to do.

Well no. I disagree with him. Its that simple. Ask anyone. I speak my thoughts regardless of how pc/non-pc they are.

And TBH his post wasn't torn apart to be seen as pc. It was torn apart because it lacked substance.

In all honestly what this guy is stating is true,Muslims have tried to conquer Europe throughout the ages and thankfully in the main have failed. Common sense and morals do not come into it,just because you have married a Muslim does not make the 'White' people an evil people,they are a brave and successful race who have faced many hardships and have triumphed though suffering huge losses of people and area.

You do realise that at the time that Muslims were interested in invading Europe, their empire(s) rivaled that of the European kingdoms. But even more interesting is that the standard of living would have been similar. Unless you were quite rich or nobility you were unlikely to see any benefits of either side. Do some research. The European kingdoms (YUP, I prefer European to "White") were just as likely to torture the common people as anyone.

Edit: I meant to add that the Christian kingdoms invaded the M.East first. With the possible exception of the Moors in Spain, it was the Christians that decided they needed the Holy Land which consisted of Islamic territory. So before you go on about the poor "white race", please remember that Europeans are pretty good at starting wars.

I actually have a great amount of respect for some Muslim groupings. Their interpretation of the Koran and how it affects their lives is quite interesting, and easily the nicest religion I have been exposed to. But you wouldn't really get to know such here in Ireland or in most of the western world. I got to know these people in China.

Nodin

KaiserMc wrote: »

He has been slated because it is the 'pc' thing to do. You seem to enjoy the fact that this person has been slated for his opinion that 'Whites' are a very successful people. In all honestly what this guy is stating is true,Muslims have tried to conquer Europe throughout the ages and thankfully in the main have failed. Common sense and morals do not come into it,just because you have married a Muslim does not make the 'White' people an evil people,they are a brave and successful race who have faced many hardships and have triumphed though suffering huge losses of people and area.

"Muslims" are not a race. "White" is not a race. What he stated is untrue and inaccurate and has been shown to be such.

Who this person is married to is really nothing to do with the subject at hand.

Dr_Phil

Nodin wrote: »

"White" is not a race.

So let's see what IS a race:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Race_%28classification_of_humans%29

"Race is a social concept and discourse that refers to the classifications of humans into populations or groups based on various factors, such as their culture, language, social practice or heritable characteristics."

HavingCrack

Dr_Phil wrote: »

So let's see what IS a race:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Race_%28classification_of_humans%29

"Race is a social concept and discourse that refers to the classifications of humans into populations or groups based on various factors, such as their culture, language, social practice or heritable characteristics."

The vast majority of scientists have stated that 'race' as a method of dividing human does not exist. Race is a made up concept.

HavingCrack

KaiserMc wrote: »

He has been slated because it is the 'pc' thing to do. You seem to enjoy the fact that this person has been slated for his opinion that 'Whites' are a very successful people. In all honestly what this guy is stating is true,Muslims have tried to conquer Europe throughout the ages and thankfully in the main have failed. Common sense and morals do not come into it,just because you have married a Muslim does not make the 'White' people an evil people,they are a brave and successful race who have faced many hardships and have triumphed though suffering huge losses of people and area.

Muslims are members of a religion called Islam.....I find it hillarious the way you choose to reply to the weakest post rather than any of the difficult arguments others such as klaz put forward.

CokaColumbo

Fo Real wrote: »

Whites went into Africa and enslaved the locals, exploiting them for free manual labour for centuries.

What my history teacher never bothered to mention was the fact that a large percentage (anywhere between 1/3 and 1/2) of the black slaves who were exported to the American colony etc. had already been enslaved by other African slave owners. So it wasn't simply a case of white racists vs. black victims.

And Islam is not a race. It is an ideology or religion.