White People are... Better?

[Thaluikhain]

Radiation is indiscriminate and bombs do horrendous damage. The majority of deaths from both nuclear drops were instant, with people vanishing in the blink of an eye from the heat--they evaporated, even leaving behind burned in shadows that you can still see to this day--the rest of the deaths come from being crushed, inhaling smoke, burning alive, radiation and blast waves turning people's organs into liquid. The U.S. didn't just "drop a bomb" and "nuclear" isn't a pop word used for impact. The damage done with those two bombs is unfathomable. The sheer heat from such radiation created a scene I heard one man describe as apocalyptic, with thousands of people running to the lakes around the city to cool their melting skin.

To even attempt to disregard or play down the horror America caused is sickening. People didn't just die, they went through unimaginable hell--human beings are still suffering from radiation.

As opposed to the many thousands of civilians killed or maimed by conventional bombs?

Yes, the effects were horrific (I'd point out that most people didn't die immediately), but the same is no less true of bombing a city to bits using conventional munitions, which for some reason nobody seems to care about.

You can condemn the US government and military for a great many things, but what methods they use to kill and maim untold thousands of civilians is an odd choice.

 

[Clearing the Eye]

You can condemn the US government and military for a great many things, but what methods they use to kill and maim untold thousands of civilians is an odd choice.

It's odd to condemn a government for employing hideously painful weapons on civilians? Read what I quoted you writing a few times. You think about that.

But that's enough. Make a thread for it if you want--this aint about it.

EDIT:

"The bomb was dropped by parachute and exploded 580m (1,900ft) above the ground. Between 60,000 and 80,000 people were killed instantly. The heat from the bomb was so intense that some people simply vanished in the explosion. Many more died of the long-term effects of radiation sickness. The final death toll was calculated at 135,000. As well as residents of Hiroshima, the victims included Koreans who had been forced to come to Japan as labourers, and American prisoners-of-war who were imprisoned in Hiroshima."

-http://www.bbc.co.uk/history/ww2peopleswar/timeline/factfiles/nonflash/a6652262.shtml

Yes, the majority of people died instantly from the heat. Yes, the U.S. dropped a nuke on their POWs.

 

[Nickolai77]

Well, Europeans civilizations basically raped, pillaged, and ruined many civilizations that were advancing at a decent pace. Then they colonized all the places that had the best resources, usually over the ruins of those civilizations they wrecked. It was how the world worked back then, really. It could have just as easily been any other geographically based ethnicity that did so. Nobody's really to blame for it, it was just how the world worked back then.

But how did the white population, much, much younger than the others, manage to gain better technology, health and government that quick? We sort of went from zero to one hundred in five minutes, while everyone else struggled to get up to sixty. Then, with our technology that must have seemed godly to the poor natives, we took over everything.

Well firstly all those things you mention- better technology and government, are all aspects of "Civilisation" which originally came from the Middle East- specially around the Fertile Crescent (modern day Iraq roughly) from where Mesopotamian and Sumerian civilisation came from. From there Civilisation spread towards Europe, by being picked up by the Greeks and Phoenicians who both established various colonies around the Mediterranean.

Europe was, geographically speaking, a much better place for a civilisation to flourish than the Middle East. Europe is very green and fertile, plenty of resources, few extreme temperatures and plenty of animals to domesticate. Europe was always going to be one of those places which would be wealthy enough to form major empires.

But how did Europeans come to dominate other, otherwise equally advanced civilisations such as the Islamic world and the Chinese civilisation? Again- geography. In the 15th century European sailors sought to find a way to the spice isles in East Asia- don't forget that, whilst Europe is great for growing food, you can't grow many types of food used for flavour things like pepper and spices all came from India, and therefore very expensive to import especially when the Ottomans and Venetians basically had a monopoly on the spice trade.

One explorer, a certain Christopher Columbus had the daring idea of, instead of trying to sail to India by trying to go round Africa (a dangerous journey) he would go West across the Atlantic Ocean. And so he inadvertently discovers the Americas. How the Spanish conquered the Americas largely explains how Europeans came to conquer all tribal and some civilised peoples.

1)Europeans were already technologically advanced for humans- having steel armour and gunpowder weapons- giving them a huge technological advantage on the battlefield. Being an advanced farming civilisation, Europeans also benefited from animals such as horses and dogs.

2)Germs: Europeans had been farming for 5000 years, and thing with a farming lifestyle is that diseases become a major problem (as opposed to hunter-gathering societies). Over time, Europeans evolved an immunity to these diseases that many other natives lacked. It's diseases like influenza and smallpox which killed millions of natives- far far more than battle casualties- weakening the integrity of American civilisations. (e.g- smallpox killed the Incan Emperor, sparking a civil war between his two heirs, allowing Franciso Pizzaro to conquer the Incan Empire as it remained divided.

3) The Atlantic Ocean: The Atlantic Ocean is big but so big that it denied the Europeans crossing it to the Americas- unlike the Pacific Ocean to the Chinese. This meant that Europeans crossed the Atlantic with ever-increasing frequency and this led to better and better boat designs (and mainly navigational techniques) which would allow them to reach all corners of the Earth and make more conquests in places such as the pacific. Crossing the Atlantic also established an incentive for Europeans to make more discoveries and conquer other places.

4) Science: European navigational techniques could only have been advanced with scientific knowledge, and Europeans were fortunate enough to develop the scientific method. This started off in the Renaissance- the Black Death cut Europeans population by more than half, greatly increasing living standards and allowing for Europeans to become more educated- this contributed to a growing interest in Europe's "Golden Age"- under the Roman Empire. Renaissance scholars wanted to re-discover the secrets of their ancient predecessors, but as they did they found increasingly their much admired ancient scholars to be incorrect. This meant that scholars had to find ways to correct (and find out new stuff that the ancients missed) natural knowledge. In the 17th century this developed into modern science, and it was science that allowed Europeans to improved medicines, weapons, the industrial revolution etc- and it's that which allowed Europeans to dominate other advanced civilisations such as China and the Islamic world.

So essentially, why white people conquered much the world is down to Europe's geography- and the fact that we invented modern science.

 

[IamQ]

When it comes to africa, I always figured it was mostly due to fauna. In Europe, we ain't got many dangerous predators, or natural disasters so we had it easier to level our civilization up. Then, once we had reached Max, we went to Africa and steamrolled them, before they had time to level up.

Wouldn't say that for Eastern Asia though. If you look up chinese history, it wasn't until the 19th century it begun to go down for them, due to corruption, but that didn't matter because now-a-days they own most of the world by making everyones products.

We were only lucky with America also. If I remember correctly, there had been a super-plague in America, only 20 years before the Europeans came, so there were about 90% less Native Americans than there should be, which made it easier for us to colonize. The Vikings tried that back in the 6th century, but back then, they were all alive and kicking, so the Vikings never made it past the east coast.

 

[Clearing the Eye]

Well, Europeans civilizations basically raped, pillaged, and ruined many civilizations that were advancing at a decent pace. Then they colonized all the places that had the best resources, usually over the ruins of those civilizations they wrecked. It was how the world worked back then, really. It could have just as easily been any other geographically based ethnicity that did so. Nobody's really to blame for it, it was just how the world worked back then.

But how did the white population, much, much younger than the others, manage to gain better technology, health and government that quick? We sort of went from zero to one hundred in five minutes, while everyone else struggled to get up to sixty. Then, with our technology that must have seemed godly to the poor natives, we took over everything.

Well firstly all those things you mention- better technology and government, are all aspects of "Civilisation" which originally came from the Middle East- specially around the Fertile Crescent (modern day Iraq roughly) from where Mesopotamian and Sumerian civilisation came from. From there Civilisation spread towards Europe, by being picked up by the Greeks and Phoenicians who both established various colonies around the Mediterranean.

Europe was, geographically speaking, a much better place for a civilisation to flourish than the Middle East. Europe is very green and fertile, plenty of resources, few extreme temperatures and plenty of animals to domesticate. Europe was always going to be one of those places which would be wealthy enough to form major empires.

But how did Europeans come to dominate other, otherwise equally advanced civilisations such as the Islamic world and the Chinese civilisation? Again- geography. In the 15th century European sailors sought to find a way to the spice isles in East Asia- don't forget that, whilst Europe is great for growing food, you can't grow many types of food used for flavour things like pepper and spices all came from India, and therefore very expensive to import especially when the Ottomans and Venetians basically had a monopoly on the spice trade.

One explorer, a certain Christopher Columbus had the daring idea of, instead of trying to sail to India by trying to go round Africa (a dangerous journey) he would go West across the Atlantic Ocean. And so he inadvertently discovers the Americas. How the Spanish conquered the Americas largely explains how Europeans came to conquer all tribal and some civilised peoples.

1)Europeans were already technologically advanced for humans- having steel armour and gunpowder weapons- giving them a huge technological advantage on the battlefield. Being an advanced farming civilisation, Europeans also benefited from animals such as horses and dogs.

2)Germs: Europeans had been farming for 5000 years, and thing with a farming lifestyle is that diseases become a major problem (as opposed to hunter-gathering societies). Over time, Europeans evolved an immunity to these diseases that many other natives lacked. It's diseases like influenza and smallpox which killed millions of natives- far far more than battle casualties- weakening the integrity of American civilisations. (e.g- smallpox killed the Incan Emperor, sparking a civil war between his two heirs, allowing Franciso Pizzaro to conquer the Incan Empire as it remained divided.

3) The Atlantic Ocean: The Atlantic Ocean is big but so big that it denied the Europeans crossing it to the Americas- unlike the Pacific Ocean to the Chinese. This meant that Europeans crossed the Atlantic with ever-increasing frequency and this led to better and better boat designs (and mainly navigational techniques) which would allow them to reach all corners of the Earth and make more conquests in places such as the pacific. Crossing the Atlantic also established an incentive for Europeans to make more discoveries and conquer other places.

4) Science: European navigational techniques could only have been advanced with scientific knowledge, and Europeans were fortunate enough to develop the scientific method. This started off in the Renaissance- the Black Death cut Europeans population by more than half, greatly increasing living standards and allowing for Europeans to become more educated- this contributed to a growing interest in Europe's "Golden Age"- under the Roman Empire. Renaissance scholars wanted to re-discover the secrets of their ancient predecessors, but as they did they found increasingly their much admired ancient scholars to be incorrect. This meant that scholars had to find ways to correct (and find out new stuff that the ancients missed) natural knowledge. In the 17th century this developed into modern science, and it was science that allowed Europeans to improved medicines, weapons, the industrial revolution etc- and it's that which allowed Europeans to dominate other advanced civilisations such as China and the Islamic world.

So essentially, why white people conquered much the world is down to Europe's geography- and the fact that we invented modern science.

Right place, right time, huh? Life, you so unfair.

 

[Clearing the Eye]

When it comes to africa, I always figured it was mostly due to fauna. In Europe, we ain't got many dangerous predators, or natural disasters so we had it easier to level our civilization up. Then, once we had reached Max, we went to Africa and steamrolled them, before they had time to level up.

Wouldn't say that for Eastern Asia though. If you look up chinese history, it wasn't until the 19th century it begun to go down for them, due to corruption, but that didn't matter because now-a-days they own most of the world by making everyones products.

We were only lucky with America also. If I remember correctly, there had been a super-plague in America, only 20 years before the Europeans came, so there were about 90% less Native Americans than there should be, which made it easier for us to colonize. The Vikings tried that back in the 6th century, but back then, they were all alive and kicking, so the Vikings never made it past the east coast.

"Hit max and steamrolled them before they could level up" makes it sound so much cooler than it was in reality, lol.

Might be a bad person for laughing at that >_>

 

[Kolby Jack]

You can condemn the US government and military for a great many things, but what methods they use to kill and maim untold thousands of civilians is an odd choice.

It's odd to condemn a government for employing hideously painful weapons on civilians? Read what I quoted you writing a few times. You think about that.

But that's enough. Make a thread for it if you want--this aint about it.

EDIT:

"The bomb was dropped by parachute and exploded 580m (1,900ft) above the ground. Between 60,000 and 80,000 people were killed instantly. The heat from the bomb was so intense that some people simply vanished in the explosion. Many more died of the long-term effects of radiation sickness. The final death toll was calculated at 135,000. As well as residents of Hiroshima, the victims included Koreans who had been forced to come to Japan as labourers, and American prisoners-of-war who were imprisoned in Hiroshima."

-http://www.bbc.co.uk/history/ww2peopleswar/timeline/factfiles/nonflash/a6652262.shtml

Yes, the majority of people died instantly from the heat. Yes, the U.S. dropped a nuke on their POWs.

HAHA, I like how you say it's done but then edit your post to get the final word. That doesn't make you look like a douchebag at all! You started this derailment, don't try and pretend it just suddenly got out of your control when you were the one encouraging it.

And frankly, it was just that kind of war. Shit was fucked up on all sides, and everyone was doing whatever it took to win. Judge it by modern-day standards if you want, but it's ultimately pointless.

And I know it was probably a joke statement, but no, you haven't proven that white people are "worse" than the other races. We're all human, and we're all capable of the same shit. Good or bad.

 

[Brendan Stepladder]

I think I have an answer for you, OP. A 480 page answer. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Guns,_Germs,_and_Steel

EDIT: Knowing how modern society works, it is almost certain that nobody will read this book based on my post. Let it suffice to say that this book explains why Europe kicked everyone's asses without the author resorting to racism or just saying, "Well, Europe was just lucky to develop X first."

Seriously, read it.

Go to your nearest bookstore/library/Amazon.com and get it. Right now. I'm not kidding.

OP, GODAMMIT, READ THE MOTHERFUCKING BOOK!!!

 

[Clearing the Eye]

I think I have an answer for you, OP. A 480 page answer. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Guns,_Germs,_and_Steel

"The book attempts to explain why Eurasian civilizations (in which he includes North Africa) have survived and conquered others, while refuting the assumption that Eurasian hegemony is due to any form of Eurasian intellectual, moral or inherent genetic superiority."

Almost like the book was made for me to answer this question, lol.

 

[Brendan Stepladder]

I think I have an answer for you, OP. A 480 page answer. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Guns,_Germs,_and_Steel

"The book attempts to explain why Eurasian civilizations (in which he includes North Africa) have survived and conquered others, while refuting the assumption that Eurasian hegemony is due to any form of Eurasian intellectual, moral or inherent genetic superiority."

Almost like the book was made for me to answer this question, lol.

I'm not kidding. This book is genius. It actually answers the question in extreme detail. A hefty read but more than well worth it.

Read it. Goddammit just read it.

 

[Axolotl]

I've been on a history bent lately and have noticed something odd that I've never thought about in detail. It seems white countries (countries either predominantly run by or founded by Caucasians or Europeans) have it a great deal better than black nations (those occupied mainly by African descendants) and a fair deal better than Asian countries. Not saying the individual people are better or worse, smarter or dumber, just that overall the nations seem vastly different. We're all aware of the "privileged white" status. But have you ever really thought about it?

Well, yeah alot of people have thought about it, and an awful lot has been written on the subject. Probably the best book on it is Guns, Germs and Steel by Jared Diamond which quite frankly is a book that everyone should read, although Civilisation by Niall Ferguson is also worth reading for more specific reasons.

If we look through history, time and time again white people (usually some form of Anglo Saxon) show up on the scene, rape and pillage the vastly worse off native population of black people, then install their own technology and culture. The English did it, the Germans did it, the French did it, the Spanish did it, etc., etc. People with a massive technological advantage, all whom happen to be white, demolish and replace nations. Why? How?

If by "history" you mean the last 300 years from Europe's perspective, then yes. However a much broader look there are plenty of exceptions, for a start the dominance of the Arab world before the Renaissance or China's near-constant dominance over there local area, in fact China being the most powerful state on the planet has been the Status Quo for most of history.

It's widely believed the first of our species developed in Africa, before later moving through what is now Asia and eventually up to Europe. While the oldest human being we've ever found was discovered in Australia (50,000 ish years-old, btw) Africa is thought to be the pool from which the majority of humans developed. They spent a long, long time there, then moved North and into China, establishing the longest running empire yet. White people as we've come to know, didn't arrive on the scene until both the two other major ethnic "types" if you will, had already been growing, learning, evolving and advancing for quite some time. But somehow, white man managed to acquire a massive technological lead, obtaining things like mechanical engineering, health care and medicine, advanced sanitation and water systems, weapons of war--you get the idea.

Well for a start, Western civilisation has been going on longer than anywhere else, Europeans didn't have to invent it all from scratch, they built it on the foundations made in the Fertile Crescent that were spread into Europe via Greece and Rome. Also any invention in Asia inevitably spread to Europe, this is how they were able to rebuild during the Renaissance and the Reformation, by using ideas and technology imported from elsewhere. Now this doesn't show why Europe won over Asia but it does show why it won over Africa and America.

So, somehow European humans managed to outpace and out-tech their older relatives, take over much of the world during centuries of exploration and conquest and end up today as easily the best off nations. How? Look at the top countries by way of health care, economy, human rights, education and levels of conflict. The top half of the list is comfortably white--Norway, Canada, Australia, France, Germany, etc. They've all had their ups and their downs, going through wars and depressions like anywhere else, but still the happiest, healthiest and most advanced peoples are white. Asia isn't far behind, held back mostly by extreme levels of poverty that offset their smaller, better off minorities. Some Arab countries are filthy rich, with some of the world's richest making bank from oil, but, again and to a worse degree, poverty, war, education and general health in the lower end overshadows the richer portion.

Well that is changing for a start, education is dominated by Asian countries, going by the latest PISA scores Shanghai, Singapore, Hong Kong and Korea universally outranking every Western country save Finland with Japan and Taiwan being not far behind. If you look at the growth rates then you can see that things will look very different in the near future. For example going by Goldman-Sachs estimates made in 2007 the top ten GDPs in 2050 will Include China, India, Mexico, Indonesia and Japan. While these are unlikely to predict the exact future they show the broad strokes you can express, and if anything the recent financial crisis will only hasten this process.

I never realized it was this much of a difference. How did it turn out this way? Am I imagining things?

It turned out like this for alot of reasons, to be quick, Europe beat America becauase it had steel, gunpowder and smallpox. It beat Africa because it had guns and capitalism. It beat the arabic states because they got too politically unified under to Ottoman Empire which did what all uncontested empires do and decayed and declined and didn't modernise until someone came along to collapse it. It beat China because it too had a repressive empire that didn't innovate or modernise because it had no rivals until the Europeans arrived and Japan modernised. It beat Australia for the same reasons it beat Africa.
I don't know why it beat India, you can read up on that yourself.

And before you ask why Europe had these and the rest of the world didn't, it mainly because Europe was more divided than anywhere else, there were a number of states in close proximity that were engaged in constant cultural, political, economic and military conflict any state that didn't modernise would decline and suffer (see Spain and Italy) while a state could any state that could rise from relative povety into prominance in just a short period with the right innovation (see England). If you look at the major movements in European history they happened in lots of different countries the Renaissance was Italian, the Reformation was German, the Americas were discovered by the Spanish, the Enlightenment was French and the Industrial Revolution was British, not to mention various smaller movements and discoveries. If you lost any of these countries then you lose a vital part of Europe's growth.

I don't have time to go into more detail so I hope that helped.

 

[Heronblade]

It is principally a matter of culture, not race. For example, for several centuries, the middle eastern world held most of the cards. While the European nations floundered after the fall of the Roman Empire and had forgotten nearly all of the technological and social advances associated with that nation, their Arab counterparts remained largely unphased, holding onto and in many way improving that knowledge, while also being one of the most prosperous regions on Earth, until the crusades, a long term event that effectively destroyed their wealth and culture.

 

[TheIronRuler]

I've been on a history bent lately and have noticed something odd that I've never thought about in detail. It seems white countries (countries either predominantly run by or founded by Caucasians or Europeans) have it a great deal better than black nations (those occupied mainly by African descendants) and a fair deal better than Asian countries. Not saying the individual people are better or worse, smarter or dumber, just that overall the nations seem vastly different. We're all aware of the "privileged white" status. But have you ever really thought about it?

If we look through history, time and time again white people (usually some form of Anglo Saxon) show up on the scene, rape and pillage the vastly worse off native population of black people, then install their own technology and culture. The English did it, the Germans did it, the French did it, the Spanish did it, etc., etc. People with a massive technological advantage, all whom happen to be white, demolish and replace nations. Why? How?

It's widely believed the first of our species developed in Africa, before later moving through what is now Asia and eventually up to Europe. While the oldest human being we've ever found was discovered in Australia (50,000 ish years-old, btw) Africa is thought to be the pool from which the majority of humans developed. They spent a long, long time there, then moved North and into China, establishing the longest running empire yet. White people as we've come to know, didn't arrive on the scene until both the two other major ethnic "types" if you will, had already been growing, learning, evolving and advancing for quite some time. But somehow, white man managed to acquire a massive technological lead, obtaining things like mechanical engineering, health care and medicine, advanced sanitation and water systems, weapons of war--you get the idea.

So, somehow European humans managed to outpace and out-tech their older relatives, take over much of the world during centuries of exploration and conquest and end up today as easily the best off nations. How? Look at the top countries by way of health care, economy, human rights, education and levels of conflict. The top half of the list is comfortably white--Norway, Canada, Australia, France, Germany, etc. They've all had their ups and their downs, going through wars and depressions like anywhere else, but still the happiest, healthiest and most advanced peoples are white. Asia isn't far behind, held back mostly by extreme levels of poverty that offset their smaller, better off minorities. Some Arab countries are filthy rich, with some of the world's richest making bank from oil, but, again and to a worse degree, poverty, war, education and general health in the lower end overshadows the richer portion.

I never realized it was this much of a difference. How did it turn out this way? Am I imagining things?

.
Historically, I think that it's because you're looking it from the European narrative. China had surpassed Europe for centuries in economic and technological terms. It had been bullied by the great powers (Peking treaty; http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Convention_of_Peking) into submission. I would also like to note that by that time Qing China was rather isolationist.

If you look at the world around you, those countries that grew into greater prominence were more aggressive and expansionist than others (Which is why you also see the Arab Caliphate as a great nation). Mongols were one of the most awesome people ever, only because they expanded over massive territory - same deal with the Persian Empire.

Now, why current great nations are almost entirely white and European? Because Europe fucked up all of the other regions so badly that they are still recovering. See the decolonizing process of the various colonies the great powers had (In Africa, Asia). Some countries went into revolutionary movements (Communism, Fascism) while others had dictators take over (Or installed by the great powers themselves).

 

[Vegosiux]

Well, first it was just a simple thread derailment, but now we've gone headlong into Godwin's law. I'm not going to be a part of this!

Only that Godwin was invoked with full justification here, since WW2 event were being discussed - of course that would involve Nazis at some point, they were righ there!

As for the OP, I think it has all been said. History has taken the path it has taken, and some people just happened to settle on resources that were relevant in the historical context. I mean, sure, a lot of oil in Middle East, but that didn't really help them much in the eighth century, did it?

 

[Esotera]

I suppose you could make the argument that places like Europe are much easier to farm and raise livestock than many parts of Africa, so there was more time to develop technology rather than just surviving, which leads to an advantage. I wouldn't say that any civilization that imposes its will upon others is 'better' though.

 

[Clearing the Eye]

I've been on a history bent lately and have noticed something odd that I've never thought about in detail. It seems white countries (countries either predominantly run by or founded by Caucasians or Europeans) have it a great deal better than black nations (those occupied mainly by African descendants) and a fair deal better than Asian countries. Not saying the individual people are better or worse, smarter or dumber, just that overall the nations seem vastly different. We're all aware of the "privileged white" status. But have you ever really thought about it?

If we look through history, time and time again white people (usually some form of Anglo Saxon) show up on the scene, rape and pillage the vastly worse off native population of black people, then install their own technology and culture. The English did it, the Germans did it, the French did it, the Spanish did it, etc., etc. People with a massive technological advantage, all whom happen to be white, demolish and replace nations. Why? How?

It's widely believed the first of our species developed in Africa, before later moving through what is now Asia and eventually up to Europe. While the oldest human being we've ever found was discovered in Australia (50,000 ish years-old, btw) Africa is thought to be the pool from which the majority of humans developed. They spent a long, long time there, then moved North and into China, establishing the longest running empire yet. White people as we've come to know, didn't arrive on the scene until both the two other major ethnic "types" if you will, had already been growing, learning, evolving and advancing for quite some time. But somehow, white man managed to acquire a massive technological lead, obtaining things like mechanical engineering, health care and medicine, advanced sanitation and water systems, weapons of war--you get the idea.

So, somehow European humans managed to outpace and out-tech their older relatives, take over much of the world during centuries of exploration and conquest and end up today as easily the best off nations. How? Look at the top countries by way of health care, economy, human rights, education and levels of conflict. The top half of the list is comfortably white--Norway, Canada, Australia, France, Germany, etc. They've all had their ups and their downs, going through wars and depressions like anywhere else, but still the happiest, healthiest and most advanced peoples are white. Asia isn't far behind, held back mostly by extreme levels of poverty that offset their smaller, better off minorities. Some Arab countries are filthy rich, with some of the world's richest making bank from oil, but, again and to a worse degree, poverty, war, education and general health in the lower end overshadows the richer portion.

I never realized it was this much of a difference. How did it turn out this way? Am I imagining things?

.
Historically, I think that it's because you're looking it from the European narrative. China had surpassed Europe for centuries in economic and technological terms. It had been bullied by the great powers (Peking treaty; http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Convention_of_Peking) into submission. I would also like to note that by that time Qing China was rather isolationist.

If you look at the world around you, those countries that grew into greater prominence were more aggressive and expansionist than others (Which is why you also see the Arab Caliphate as a great nation). Mongols were one of the most awesome people ever, only because they expanded over massive territory - same deal with the Persian Empire.

Now, why current great nations are almost entirely white and European? Because Europe fucked up all of the other regions so badly that they are still recovering. See the decolonizing process of the various colonies the great powers had (In Africa, Asia). Some countries went into revolutionary movements (Communism, Fascism) while others had dictators take over (Or installed by the great powers themselves).

Shoot everyone else in the knee and you'll win the race, no matter how good or bad you are at running, I guess, lol.

 

[TheIronRuler]

-snip-
Shoot everyone else in the knee and you'll win the race, no matter how good or bad you are at running, I guess, lol.

.
You're right.

 

[SeeIn2D]

Alright well I'll just say that you may be right but you're also wrong. Yes.

White people do arguably have it "better" in the world but that's their own doing and not in the sense that you'd think of. I can explain my point of view best with an example. In Spain during the 1400s the Islamic culture had territory in Granada with their crown jewel being the Alhambra which was a marvel of architecture and culture. Now during this time King Ferdinand and Queen Isabella were reigning supreme in Spain. They didn't like this. They went down to Granada and pretty much sacked the Alhambra and to display their dominance they built a very nice, but very Catholic, building right in the center of this Islamic structure.

The point of that story being that white people, generally Europeans throughout history, have always literally forced these other cultures to slow progression or stop all together. Apartheid in India was another horrible example of a culture being suppressed by "the white man". So in short I do believe that in many cases "white people" have it better. However I also believe that it's because other cultures were suppressed by those same "white people" and couldn't advance at the same rate.

 

[Ryotknife]

It is a matter of pure luck that the world wasnt shaped by the Asians, specifically China. They were worlds ahead of anyone else (even the Europeans) at one point, but were more interested in the arts and music than in math or science (even though they were fully capable of both)