White People are... Better?

[Barry93]

Guns, germs and steel?

Anyway, some group was always going to do better than the others, based on random chance.

Europe happened to develop faster than other groups, or perhaps didn't run into stagnation, and was able to dominate the others. This will change at some point, but hasn't yet.

Look at places like Japan or Singapore, for example, they were able to make the most of the changing world and have done well for themselves as nations.

While I agree, I just feel like pointing out that while Japan was an impressive nation before WW2, AFTER WW2 most of its progress was due to massive rebuilding and reconstructing efforts from the US. It's why the USA and Japan are best buddies today even though we nuked them... twice.

Dropped them right on residential cities, too. The Yanks attempted to tell us both cities happened to be important military points, but considering something like 90% or more of the causalities were civilians >_>

Pretty much as disgraceful as the Jewish Holocaust, only smaller.

Wow. Not even close. Not even in the same ballpark. Not even in the same country! No. Just, no.

I'd call dropping nuclear weapons on innocent men, women and children akin to genocide--just on a much smaller scale. Areas of Japan are still fucked from it; birth defects, cancers and disease still claim lives. Watched a sad documentary about it a few weeks ago on The Discovery Channel. They interviewed a woman who was a child when it happened. The U.S. wanted to know what the radiation would do to humans, especially children, so they organized "medical research" teams to go over and "help." She vividly recalled being inspected and made to take her clothes off in front of a room full of men. Disgusting stuff, really.

One of the many reasons I hate the U.S. with all of my tiny, black heart, lol.

Either nuclear weapons were used, or the U.S had to invade mainland Japan. The latter would've cost the lives of tens of thousands of Americans. As Japan showed many times throughout WWII, they were willing to fight to the last man. Truman was in a position where thousands would die either way, but he made the right call.

 

[Clearing the Eye]

You're spat of history gathering is admirable but your getting the wrong impression. If you're approaching this from a genetics point of view then you'll be disappointed about how little difference there is between Europeans and other races. What you're ignoring is something important and that's a centralized belief system. The differences between ancient rome, the empires of africa and asia technologically speaking wasn't vast. And as other people pointed out it was China that had the lead for a very long time. It wasn't until Catholicism that things went in a different direction between Europe and the other continents and even then it wouldn't be for another 1000 years once all that nasty Crusades stuff finished. (crusades can't be ignored if you're talking about the advancement of europe). With Catholicism there was a general set of beliefs and norms between countries and its citizens and the popes managed to, to no small, degree bring them together under a loose band to form a their own distinct and similar nations with recognized borders. So now there were countries and citizenry that had a common set of beliefs and norms so that when wars happened and finished it didn't reset political/alliances advancements back to zero. England was still England, France was still France, Spain still Spain after wars came and went so there was still governments to pick up the pieces to put countries back together.
But Europeans even still weren't better at every thing. India, Iroquois confederacy, Japan, China, Africa, the Middle east. Europeans would be more advanced after each one of the meetings because they'd win and take these lessons like castle building, paper, rule of the citizenry over kings, metallurgy. Also if you ever want to read/watch Guns Germs, and Steel you'll probably find that interesting. One popular opinion you shouldn't listen to is that Europeans were simply the most savage and brutal of all societies and that simply isn't true. China right up until the 70's loved nothing more then a good genocide to clear things up. Not to say that Europeans were simply wonderfully peaceful people just that if China had decided to set about building ships and take off to build a global Empire they would of been about as violent as the Europeans.
It was a mixture of simple greed and stable long term governments that forced the advancement of Europe into the age of exploration that set Europe on the path of world dominance that is actually coming to an end as we speak. Interesting times we live in, there are no real indicators of any of this being genetic predisposition of being smarter that I've ever seen.

You're the first person to mention religion. Interesting.

Because Genghis Khan never managed to reach Europe to fuck everything up. The arab world was miles ahead of us technologically and scientifically until Genghis fucked their shit up.

Genghis made it quite close, didn't he? I know basically all of northern Asia was his, but just how far he dominated I'm not sure. Dude was pretty fucking boss at rallying his people, lol.

 

[Ledan]

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?

Read "Guns, germs, and steel" by Jamed Diamond or watch the documentary by the same name. It's all about the answer to this question.
If you really don't feel like reading it, or watching it: The basic answer is geography. The Europeans have a better position relative to everyone else, and some more complicated reasons explained by James Diamond.

 

[Jamieson 90]

It's partly due to enlightmen period and how non white/european cultures viewed technology and science. At the time in europe we recognised the power of technology and science, while other cultures may have been aware of it but had reasons for not persuing it. For example the Chinese at the same time had vastly superior and larger war ships, but they didn't see any cultural reason to keep them so they got rid of them, whereas Europeans saw their own navies as advantages. So what I'm saying is that non white countries didn't not have the capacity to use the technology they just didn't persue it.

For example there are relgulations in India that stop the building of manufactoring disticts to pererve the old parts of cities/towns, etc it's reasons like this that prohibted the advance of certain countries. Additionally it also comes down to perceptions of race, and the idea that White people at the time were superior, and that as a superior race they had the right and duty to collonise and educate the lesser races hence leading to what we saw.

 

[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?

Read "Guns, germs, and steel" by Jamed Diamond or watch the documentary by the same name. It's all about the answer to this question.
If you really don't feel like reading it, or watching it: The basic answer is geography. The Europeans have a better position relative to everyone else, and some more complicated reasons explained by James Diamond.

Mmm. The basic gist I'm getting is the Europeans lucked into fantastic soil and landscape. But, like anything, our reign as top dog will end soon enough. Maybe it's Asia's turn again, lol.

 

[sunsetspawn]

Hmmm...

Could Caucasians of Europe have evolved differently due to the cold, which may have been exacerbated by an ice age. Cold weather would only allow the most cunning to survive the winters, causing a different environmental "fitness of mentality" to occur in Caucasians, which has also recently proven beneficial in global society.


There's also the Neanderthal argument. It's already theorized that Neanderthals and Denisovans may have interbred with modern Homo Sapiens greatly strengthening their immune system.

The specific gene HLA-A, for example, is present in the Neanderthal and Denisovan genomes. It contributed this much to the following modern human populations: Up to 95.3 percent for Papua New Guineans, 80.7 percent for Japanese people, 72.2 percent for Chinese people, 51.7 percent for Europeans, and 6.7 percent for Africans.

http://news.discovery.com/human/neanderthals-interbreeding-humans-110825.html


Well, the Neanderthals were in Europe, and they moved there hundreds of thousands of years before Homo Sapiens. Perhaps the interbreeding with the European Neanderthals gave Caucasians, that came later, some sort of mental component that later became a drive for global domination.

Just throwing some speculation out there that goes beyond the derpy, "white peoples are teh evils, roflcopter."

 

[Axolotl]

I mean, we trace our cultural routes back to Romans, but do you think Romans/Greeks were white? Hell no, they weren't.

By what standards were the Romans not white?

By just about every.

The Romans originated in the Mediterranean. The term "Caucasian" refers to the Caucus mountains between the Black and Caspian seas. While the Roman Empire did, eventually, reach that far, it didn't originate there.

And? I really don't see you're point here, Caucasian is a term that refers to the race generally inhabiting Europe, the Middle East and North Africa. The Romans certainly fall under that category.

The Romans were also a different Haplotype than the Celts, Nords, and Germanics.

Could you elaborate on this?

Also, the Romans weren't white (German|Historically Accurate Mediterranean):

Both those people are white, they both have white skin. I really don't see how you would argue that the Roman in the picture wasn't white. Seriously look at the paintings they left, they show white people in them.

 

[Darkmantle]

Not out-tech, out-war. Being warlike doesn't make you a better "race" or person, just a better killer. If that's what you mean, then sure. But personally I would never refer to being more brutal as "better"

and as other have said, it's often down to co-incidence, where the resources were etc. For example, Japan is an Iron poor nation, not a big deal now, but it was way back.

EDIT: Roman's weren't white :/ they were much more tanned, they were Latin. Why do people argue this?

 

[Clearing the Eye]

Both those people are white, they both have white skin. I really don't see how you would argue that the Roman in the picture wasn't white. Seriously look at the paintings they left, they show white people in them.

The one on the right (a picture of what Jesus most likely looked like) is brown skinned. What you would generalize as "black." Really only those from northern Europe descent are white. It gets tricky because "black" and "white" are pretty lose terms and most races that actually fit under the former aren't even that dark, really.

 

[Clearing the Eye]

Not out-tech, out-war. Being warlike doesn't make you a better "race" or person, just a better killer. If that's what you mean, then sure. But personally I would never refer to being more brutal as "better"

and as other have said, it's often down to co-incidence, where the resources were etc. For example, Japan is an Iron poor nation, not a big deal now, but it was way back.

EDIT: Roman's weren't white :/ they were much more tanned, they were Latin. Why do people argue this?

I was really referring to now, not so much the past. The white nations of today are easily the best places to live for your average person.

Yeah, Romans weren't all that white. They were most certainly dark skinned. But this is the problem with "white" and "black"--very few people are actually white or black, lol.

 

[Clearing the Eye]

EUROPE FUCK YEAH!

Well, that's a new one, lol.

You're right about how it went down. The European invaders (like Spain, France and England) really did just luck into being on top. Most of the places they conquered just wasn't that great resource wise, or was at least vastly inferior to other locations. Kind of heart wrenching, to think so many amazing peoples, like the Aztecs, got wiped out because of chance. Damn Spanish! lol

 

[Thaluikhain]

Hmmm...

Could Caucasians of Europe have evolved differently due to the cold, which may have been exacerbated by an ice age. Cold weather would only allow the most cunning to survive the winters, causing a different environmental "fitness of mentality" to occur in Caucasians, which has also recently proven beneficial in global society.


There's also the Neanderthal argument. It's already theorized that Neanderthals and Denisovans may have interbred with modern Homo Sapiens greatly strengthening their immune system.

The specific gene HLA-A, for example, is present in the Neanderthal and Denisovan genomes. It contributed this much to the following modern human populations: Up to 95.3 percent for Papua New Guineans, 80.7 percent for Japanese people, 72.2 percent for Chinese people, 51.7 percent for Europeans, and 6.7 percent for Africans.

http://news.discovery.com/human/neanderthals-interbreeding-humans-110825.html


Well, the Neanderthals were in Europe, and they moved there hundreds of thousands of years before Homo Sapiens. Perhaps the interbreeding with the European Neanderthals gave Caucasians, that came later, some sort of mental component that later became a drive for global domination.

Just throwing some speculation out there that goes beyond the derpy, "white peoples are teh evils, roflcopter."

Er, no. Neanderthals might well have bred with Homo Sapiens, but making Caucasians superior because of this...no.

 

[Axolotl]

Both those people are white, they both have white skin. I really don't see how you would argue that the Roman in the picture wasn't white. Seriously look at the paintings they left, they show white people in them.

The one on the right (a picture of what Jesus most likely looked like) is brown skinned. What you would generalize as "black." Really only those from northern Europe descent are white. It gets tricky because "black" and "white" are pretty lose terms and most races that actually fit under the former aren't even that dark, really.

What? He certainly is what I would generalise as Black. Also have you ever even been to Southern Europe? The people there are white, and that includes Italy.

 

[Clearing the Eye]

Hmmm...

Could Caucasians of Europe have evolved differently due to the cold, which may have been exacerbated by an ice age. Cold weather would only allow the most cunning to survive the winters, causing a different environmental "fitness of mentality" to occur in Caucasians, which has also recently proven beneficial in global society.


There's also the Neanderthal argument. It's already theorized that Neanderthals and Denisovans may have interbred with modern Homo Sapiens greatly strengthening their immune system.

The specific gene HLA-A, for example, is present in the Neanderthal and Denisovan genomes. It contributed this much to the following modern human populations: Up to 95.3 percent for Papua New Guineans, 80.7 percent for Japanese people, 72.2 percent for Chinese people, 51.7 percent for Europeans, and 6.7 percent for Africans.

http://news.discovery.com/human/neanderthals-interbreeding-humans-110825.html


Well, the Neanderthals were in Europe, and they moved there hundreds of thousands of years before Homo Sapiens. Perhaps the interbreeding with the European Neanderthals gave Caucasians, that came later, some sort of mental component that later became a drive for global domination.

Just throwing some speculation out there that goes beyond the derpy, "white peoples are teh evils, roflcopter."

Er, no. Neanderthals might well have bred with Homo Sapiens, but making Caucasians superior because of this...no.

Such a shady area. Because of the way evolution works, it's not as if one day a Homo Sapien was born from a non-Homo Sapien. It's so gradual that it's almost impossible to split the hairs down to an exact point. Maybe they did procreate, maybe they were too different by the time they met, who knows. Not me >_>

 

[Clearing the Eye]

Name one time the U.S. has committed genocide. Oh wait you can't. So shut the fuck up troll.

The British colonies went out of their way to exterminate the Native Americans, dude. In many cases they succeeded, wiping out entire groups of Indian bloodlines :/

 

[TrevHead]

While I usually enjoy debates about colonial history, there's a little too much white anglo bashing going on here, although i'm glad others have put some context into the history other than whites raping everyone else, which paints whites as evil while glossing over that every race is just as bad as each other, if circumstances were different if could have been any colour.

All I want to add that a good part of European globalisation was born out of the constant fighting between the nations, to some extent the rest of the world was viewed as something to exploit to get one up on it's neighbour.

 

[Clearing the Eye]

Both those people are white, they both have white skin. I really don't see how you would argue that the Roman in the picture wasn't white. Seriously look at the paintings they left, they show white people in them.

The one on the right (a picture of what Jesus most likely looked like) is brown skinned. What you would generalize as "black." Really only those from northern Europe descent are white. It gets tricky because "black" and "white" are pretty lose terms and most races that actually fit under the former aren't even that dark, really.

What? He certainly is what I would generalise as Black. Also have you ever even been to Southern Europe? The people there are white, and that includes Italy.

Eh. It's shady. The Romans were "white," but they were certainly darker than you'd think.

Seriously, black and white are just way too broad. We should stop using them. Confusing, lol.

 

[Darkmantle]

Not out-tech, out-war. Being warlike doesn't make you a better "race" or person, just a better killer. If that's what you mean, then sure. But personally I would never refer to being more brutal as "better"

and as other have said, it's often down to co-incidence, where the resources were etc. For example, Japan is an Iron poor nation, not a big deal now, but it was way back.

EDIT: Roman's weren't white :/ they were much more tanned, they were Latin. Why do people argue this?

I was really referring to now, not so much the past. The white nations of today are easily the best places to live for your average person.

Yeah, Romans weren't all that white. They were most certainly dark skinned. But this is the problem with "white" and "black"--very few people are actually white or black, lol.

Well exactly, but often people try to claim that whoever the "victors" of the past are actually the same race as them, it's a weird kind of racial pride. White people seem to do it the most, hell, they even made jesus white.

If you are referring to why they are the best places to live now, it's because they destroyed the other nations and set them back hundreds of years. Think of africa, or my area of expertise specifically, the Congo. Before the Europeans got there, the inhabitants already had a fully functioning monarchy, a whole kingdom (the kingdom of the Kongo). It had a deep tradition of metal-working and many interesting inventions, but they did not have the same amount of rich resources that Europe enjoyed, and advanced at a slightly slower pace. They got destroyed when many countries pretended to be their friends, all the while undermining the Kongo king's influence and power until they toppled him.

they them proceeded to pillage the resources(rubber in this case) for the next 100 years. And now the nation is a mess, much of it's culture and technology lost forever. You will find this pattern in many "non-white" countries. All they need is time to catch up and repair the damage caused.

PS: have you ever played the game "civilization"? Try it some time, at least once you will find your nation crushed because you happened to spawn/settle on a bad location. Same idea.

 

[Clearing the Eye]

While I usually enjoy debates about colonial history, there's a little too much white anglo bashing going on here, although i'm glad others have put some context into the history other than whites raping everyone else, which paints whites as evil while glossing over that every race is just as bad as each other, if circumstances were different if could have been any colour.

All I want to add that a good part of European globalisation was born out of the constant fighting between the nations, to some extent the rest of the world was viewed as something to exploit to get one up on it's neighbour.

Well, it worked, I guess. Too bad for the other guys >_>

China really shot itself in the foot with how closed off they were (are). Japan embraced a more open door policy and they virtually went from pre-industrial to superpower in a few centuries. China's still quite advanced, but they censor and shy away from Western culture so much that the people suffer. The government is one of the worse examples of being stuck in the past. Sort of the opposite of Japan--easily top dog for a long, long time, to still powerful, but poverty stricken and no longer king of tech.

 

[Clearing the Eye]

Not out-tech, out-war. Being warlike doesn't make you a better "race" or person, just a better killer. If that's what you mean, then sure. But personally I would never refer to being more brutal as "better"

and as other have said, it's often down to co-incidence, where the resources were etc. For example, Japan is an Iron poor nation, not a big deal now, but it was way back.

EDIT: Roman's weren't white :/ they were much more tanned, they were Latin. Why do people argue this?

I was really referring to now, not so much the past. The white nations of today are easily the best places to live for your average person.

Yeah, Romans weren't all that white. They were most certainly dark skinned. But this is the problem with "white" and "black"--very few people are actually white or black, lol.

Well exactly, but often people try to claim that whoever the "victors" of the past are actually the same race as them, it's a weird kind of racial pride. White people seem to do it the most, hell, they even made jesus white.

If you are referring to why they are the best places to live now, it's because they destroyed the other nations and set them back hundreds of years. Think of africa, or my area of expertise specifically, the Congo. Before the Europeans got there, the inhabitants already had a fully functioning monarchy, a whole kingdom (the kingdom of the Kongo). It had a deep tradition of metal-working and many interesting inventions, but they did not have the same amount of rich resources that Europe enjoyed, and advanced at a slightly slower pace. They got destroyed when many countries pretended to be their friends, all the while undermining the Kongo king's influence and power until they toppled him.

they them proceeded to pillage the resources(rubber in this case) for the next 100 years. And now the nation is a mess, much of it's culture and technology lost forever. You will find this pattern in many "non-white" countries. All they need is time to catch up and repair the damage caused.

PS: have you ever played the game "civilization"? Try it some time, at least once you will find your nation crushed because you happened to spawn/settle on a bad location. Same idea.

Jesus being white is one of the more gob smacking inventions of Western culture. I know why it happened--it's easier to relate to and sell a religion if the prophet loos like you--but it's kind of sad how many people today actually believe Jesus *was* white. Like... C'mon... Dude was born in the Middle East >_>

I love Civilization! Today I spawned in a desert with very little floodplain. Instantly restarted, lol.