White People are... Better?

[Kragg]

-snip-

people who make topics like this should be banned, this is just ... and you call yourself a philosopher? this is like the most basic of history + a stupid title to draw people in. White people arent better, and you didn't mean that, you just tried to get as many people in here as possible, is it the 10views "medal" you want?
Atleast the gun control topics make some kind of sense.
Easy agriculture + imperialist expansion = mostly europe spreading, that plus rich getting richer and poor getting poorer, 15 year olds know this. This isnt discussion worthy at all

You should probably calm down. It's a thread on the internet.

excuse me for trying to find substance on the internet, I thought this was a good place for it, it usually is... be sure to reply to this post and prove my point of post padding
captcha: one way street

 

[SciMal]

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.

No, Caucasian is a term that refers to the descendents of tribes from the Caucus area of Europe, which is between the Black and Caspian seas (the border between Russia and Europe). The more general form, "White," refers to anyone of pale skin color - usually implied to mean anyone that's descended from Celts, Germanics, and Francs.

To some extent all ethnic terms centered around biological variations are hard to define. Especially in recent centuries, humans have interbred like mad, and overall we're not really that diverse a species.

However, if you can find 5 other people who think that Egyptians or Iranians are Caucasians, I'm willing to cede this point.

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

Could you elaborate on this?

Haplotypes/Haplogroups are based on Y-DNA mutations inherited from Mitochondrial DNA. Mitochondrial DNA is only passed matrolinealy - from the mother to all of her offspring, never from the father, and without any recombination events. It is basically a straight shot back through history, and any mutations in Mitochondrial DNA will be present in ALL of the descendents of the woman whose DNA first mutated. So if 95% of Scotsman have a single mutation that nobody else has, it means one woman originated 95% of the Scottish people.

Because mutations generally don't hit the same spot twice, as mutations accumulate, you can compare the genetic code between anyone and get a good sense of which "edition" is more recent.

The Haplotype for almost all of Europe is R1b, and the Romans - who were Mediterranean - were a different Haplotype.

This pretty much implies that all of Europe was inhabited by people descended from one tribe/mother/originator, and then the Romans - who were the descendents of a different tribe/mother/originator - conquered them, which is why you see Greece/Italy at about 25% R1b density (as opposed to 75%+ density in the rest of Europe).

Short version: Genetic analysis reveals that the Celts/Francs/Germanic tribes were pretty much all descendents of a line carrying the R1b genetic mutation. The Greeks/Romans/Middle Eastern civilizations carried a different mutation, and at places where the two cultures mixed (usually due to one conquering the other), there is more of a mixture in the population (but never in an individual, since they are inherited only from the mother and do not recombine or otherwise interact with other genes).

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.

So the blonde-haired, fair-skinned guy that's going to sunburn in about 30 minutes on a hot day looks pretty much the same as the black-haired, mocha-skinned guy who's just going to get darker in the sun?

One has multiple times the melanin production of the other. Unless your definition of "White" is "Not black", they are different.

Seriously look at the paintings they left, they show white people in them.

I'm not a proper Art Historian, and with something like the paintings you mention it's important to be more knowledgable than I am. I do not know how paint or stuccor wears over several millenia, and I do not know enough about Roman religion/beliefs to state whether pale skin was an ideal that wealthy families wanted to be represented in paintings.

I do know that not all Roman paintings showed white people, a lot show mocha-skinned people with black, curly hair. Pretty much how Mediterraneans looked at the time:



I also know that, without a firm time period of the paintings you're talking about, it's hard to say if there had been any interbreeding with Celtic/Germanic/Franc populations - which would have reduced the melanin in the skin of those families.

 

[Andre Rapp]

Actually the majority of the original historical advancements were taken from Egypt, the middle east, Persian and Mongol Empires. Almost all advancements in medicine pre-Greek/Roman Empire were done by the Egyptians and middle eastern countries, mainly because they used to record data and recipes which could be passed on and improved by scholars. At the same time however white people in Europe were uneducated and only really good at survival and conquering small territories which would unlikely remain in their control for long. The Romans and Greeks essentially just improved upon ground rules already set by Ancient Egypt and the middle eastern countries and made it more widespread.

After the fall of the roman empire the majority of "white" European countries were screwed up until the renaissance (mostly due to Christianity having almost complete control) and even then China had already discovered gun powder and were 100's of years ahead.

It is really only the past 400 years or so where White people have really taken control which is also due to the downfall and in-fighting in the middle east, Japan and China as well as the industrial revolution and the discovery of new countries which would be later colonised by mainly white people.

^ this ^

but also, strife breeds success, while bounty breeds sloth and inefficiency. regions with fewer resources tend to foster cultures that value individuals far more then cultures created in bountiful areas, but at the same time, once infrastructure is created the opposite becomes true, with bountiful resources freeing up time and manpower for other ventures like science and mathematics. areas in Africa developed cultures that would grow to the minimum size needed to survive, but never managed to reach a point of infrastructure that permitted science, however the Niel gave the Egyptians the ability to gain enough food to free up labor for luxury items and research, while the Greeks controlled the Fertile Crescent, and the Romans after them. A similar thing happened in Nordic regions, with sprawling but primitive kingdoms spread out across the region. They were forced to work together to survive, and today that culture can be seen in the extreme liberal political views of those nations, while today many parts of Africa still shows the influence the region had on their culture, with small villages still being a major part of life, and many warlords fighting each other for control of the bounty of resources.

 

[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?

Because they mean Caucasian.

Blue kinda colour is Caucasian areas.

As in place of origin it is certain a Caucasian place as an empire they took anyone as slaves and anyone can be a citizen so a valid argument could be made for being nothing.

question though, who decided what areas were considered "Caucasian" and why? What metric was used to separate the "races"? Because, (as I mentioned in a later post) white people seem to have this awful habit of declaring successful peoples white. Jesus is the most obvious example.

 

[Blazing Steel]

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 :/

Elaborate because what you've just said is very generalised. Pretty much anyone who's ever had contact with the Native Americans tried to eliminate them, just by the time Americans got around to it, other nations were on more friendly terms. As for Indian, do you mean "Red Indians" linking on from your first point or do you mean the people from India because you've mentioned British colonies and since they were present in both areas it could be either.

Because the Spanish and French (maybe the Dutch, too?) butchered the Native Americans, it's less horrific how the early Americans slaughtered them? Not really, lol. It's the same with the English/Australians; we absolutely massacred the Aboriginal people, wiped entire family trees out and killed every single native person in Tasmania. Pretty fucked up.

Yes, it was less horrific. Everyone else went to their camps and killed everyone the old fashioned way, (or at least that's how the majority were killed off) or on the battlefield. European nations saw them as just another set of people they could kill and then take their resources. Patriots/Early Americans however desided that the best way to kill them off was to burn their women and children while the men were out fighting or to pretend to be nice by giving them diseased goods. They even believed that the Natives were a lower form of life, even below african americans on the scale of lifeforms.

Winning back then without the aim of colinization meant killing every member of enemy. That's how war worked back then.

EDIT: Completely off topic, not even tangentally linked; I find the amount of 'lol's being used on threads talking about war, genicide etc, kind of disturbing. Just doesn't sit right with me.

 

[TrevHead]

Europe is the ideal place for civilization to grow, for instance lots of flat arable land, rivers for transportation and water,ideal climates and more! European civs advanced at a faster rate because many of the basic needs other civilizations had to worry about we already taken care of by the area in which they lived. Also the constant warfare in this area plus the religious constraints that focused all the peoples efforts in one unquestionable direction led to societies that had to constantly advance to stay even with enemies/competitors.

Yes and to add that those wars were usually minor wars or cold wars with no one nation totally coming out on top and no outside Empires like the Monguls. It bred highly competitive nations who looked upon the rest of the world as something to aid in their cold war with other European nations. In the end Britain, France and Spain were at war in the colonies but never really spilled into total war at home, although the Napoleon Wars did happen.

The fact that Britain is an Island nation and much of its wars in Europe was on othe water played a good part of this

Much like current affairs are with modern nations and multinationals plus the cold war.

 

[Darkmantle]

Snip

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.

Off topic I know, but I once spawned at the bottom of the map, one square up from the ice caps, with only two accessible squares. I was on the top end of Antarctica!

NOPE.avi

lol

 

[Glademaster_v1legacy]

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?

Because they mean Caucasian.

Blue kinda colour is Caucasian areas.

As in place of origin it is certain a Caucasian place as an empire they took anyone as slaves and anyone can be a citizen so a valid argument could be made for being nothing.

question though, who decided what areas were considered "Caucasian" and why? What metric was used to separate the "races"? Because, (as I mentioned in a later post) white people seem to have this awful habit of declaring successful peoples white. Jesus is the most obvious example.

Aryan
Semitic
Hamitic

Those are the three groups considered Caucasian on that map.

 

[imnot]

Generaly black people have lived in places like Africa, which are much harder to live in and thrive than say, France, actually not France, Germany. They would presumably have to spend more time not being eaten by LIONS and ELAPHANTS than making progress.
Thats what I think anyway.

 

[Blazing Steel]

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?

Because they mean Caucasian.

Blue kinda colour is Caucasian areas.

As in place of origin it is certain a Caucasian place as an empire they took anyone as slaves and anyone can be a citizen so a valid argument could be made for being nothing.

question though, who decided what areas were considered "Caucasian" and why? What metric was used to separate the "races"? Because, (as I mentioned in a later post) white people seem to have this awful habit of declaring successful peoples white. Jesus is the most obvious example.

Aryan
Semitic
Hamitic

Those are the three groups considered Caucasian on that map.

Wouldn't there be a Caucasian present around Russia? Since the cold and the lack of sunlight should create the features which would cause someone to be classified as Caucasian? I'm just spitballing here but I thought that's how people developed their features before we had the ablity fly/sail long distances.

 

[Darkmantle]

snip
Aryan
Semitic
Hamitic

Those are the three groups considered Caucasian on that map.

See, I take issue with that classification. It seems that "Aryan" Just means European. For example, I would say that the Scandinavian Vikings would be a distinct race from the people who inhabited Portugal at the time, but they both fall under "Aryan". It sounds more like colonialism influenced who got to be included in the "superior race".

And that's largely my issue, I think the classifications are bad.

 

[CaffeinatedBandit]

I don't know if anybody's mentioned this, but the OP should read a book named "Guns, Germs, and Steel". It focuses on the topic of European dominance in the world, and why that happened.

 

[Arrogancy]

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?

You're correct in your findings, but wrong in your conclusion. If you want to know why white people came to be seen as a "dominant" race, read Niall Ferguson's "Rise of the West." In his book he explains the trend you've seen. It's not a conflict of race, it's a conflict of culture. In the 1400s, Europe was a backwater collection of barbaric societies, and Asia and the Middle East were home to the world's greatest and most advanced empires, in a few hundred years just the opposite was true. It all boils down to the culture the Europeans cultivated that drove them to advancement. Like I said, read Niall Ferguson's book, but I'll summarize the main points. First was the fact that Europe was filled with countless minor countries and principalities which were constantly at war with each other. This lead to a need for advancement in the military and in technology that Asia, Africa, and everywhere else lacked. It's why Asia invented gunpowder, but Europe produced the gun. Then was the conflict with religion and state. Throughout the Middle Ages the Catholic Church was constantly getting into political battles with monarchies and governments throughout Europe, these clashes were the foundation of individual rights which became staples of every European-style democracy. Thirdly was the trend of financial innovation. This gave rise to the entrepreneurial class necessary to pay for the constant warring Europe did with itself, and created the capitalist system of advancement, further hammering home Europe's advantages. When all taken together, Europe emerged from the Middle Ages as THE premier power on the globe, and since then, even today, much of the rest of the world has been sprinting to catch up.

 

[Glademaster_v1legacy]

snip
Aryan
Semitic
Hamitic

Those are the three groups considered Caucasian on that map.

See, I take issue with that classification. It seems that "Aryan" Just means European. For example, I would say that the Scandinavian Vikings would be a distinct race from the people who inhabited Portugal at the time, but they both fall under "Aryan". It sounds more like colonialism influenced who got to be included in the "superior race".

And that's largely my issue, I think the classifications are bad.

By that logic you can't include half the people who are Asian in the Asian or in this case Mongoloid bracket. Caucasian doesn't mean "white" which is what people need to stop associating it with.

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?

Because they mean Caucasian.

Blue kinda colour is Caucasian areas.

As in place of origin it is certain a Caucasian place as an empire they took anyone as slaves and anyone can be a citizen so a valid argument could be made for being nothing.

question though, who decided what areas were considered "Caucasian" and why? What metric was used to separate the "races"? Because, (as I mentioned in a later post) white people seem to have this awful habit of declaring successful peoples white. Jesus is the most obvious example.

Aryan
Semitic
Hamitic

Those are the three groups considered Caucasian on that map.

Wouldn't there be a Caucasian present around Russia? Since the cold and the lack of sunlight should create the features which would cause someone to be classified as Caucasian? I'm just spitballing here but I thought that's how people developed their features before we had the ablity fly/sail long distances.

I didn't make the map nor do I study anything to do with this but Caucasian means more than just pale skin.

 

[TrevHead]

So the moral of the story is:
If you want to be the very best. Kill everyone around you.

More like: knee-cap everyone around you, steal their shit and then kill them, lol.

It's funny how much the Roman Empire gets mentioned in regard to Western culture and science. I think the Greeks did a lot more for what we consider the modern Western world. For a while they were almost an idyllic civilization, full of art, liberating government and proud people. But you know... people got jealous and fucked them pretty good :/

Yeah they kind of tore themselves apart. Which makes me really sad.
And then Modern Day Greece nearly goes bankrupt by being silly.

It's a train wreck. I'm not some terrorist nut, but 9/11 and the various other attacks (such as in England and South-East Asia) pretty much ruined Greece. What do the Greeks export? Fuck all, lol. Besides tourism, they didn't have much bringing in money, so when the world went into lockdown, they suffered. Now, for the millionth time, Germany saves the Eurozone like a boss. Pretty amazing considering before WWII, Germany was a disaster and after it they were even worse off. Somehow they managed to get back on top in no time. Hard bastards

The main reason Germany bounced back was that like Japan was though US aid. The UK is kinda similar, although abit more complex as WWII had crippled it's ecomony and had seeked aid from the US, although just after the war the US was very much anti Britain / Colonial and gave them a "dodgy" loan that did more damage than good. Britain only really pulled itself out of the shit when the cold war got into full swing in the 50s.

 

[Darkmantle]

snip
Aryan
Semitic
Hamitic

Those are the three groups considered Caucasian on that map.

See, I take issue with that classification. It seems that "Aryan" Just means European. For example, I would say that the Scandinavian Vikings would be a distinct race from the people who inhabited Portugal at the time, but they both fall under "Aryan". It sounds more like colonialism influenced who got to be included in the "superior race".

And that's largely my issue, I think the classifications are bad.

By that logic you can't include half the people who are Asian in the Asian or in this case Mongoloid bracket. Caucasian doesn't mean "white" which is what people need to stop associating it with.

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?

Because they mean Caucasian.

Blue kinda colour is Caucasian areas.

As in place of origin it is certain a Caucasian place as an empire they took anyone as slaves and anyone can be a citizen so a valid argument could be made for being nothing.

question though, who decided what areas were considered "Caucasian" and why? What metric was used to separate the "races"? Because, (as I mentioned in a later post) white people seem to have this awful habit of declaring successful peoples white. Jesus is the most obvious example.

Aryan
Semitic
Hamitic

Those are the three groups considered Caucasian on that map.

Wouldn't there be a Caucasian present around Russia? Since the cold and the lack of sunlight should create the features which would cause someone to be classified as Caucasian? I'm just spitballing here but I thought that's how people developed their features before we had the ablity fly/sail long distances.

I didn't make the map nor do I study anything to do with this but Caucasian means more than just pale skin.

Maybe I wouldn't.

And honestly, it only matters when people start coming out and saying "Caucasians are better" or anything like that. You can't use a faulty classification system that was made with an agenda. That map is 100s of years old, perhaps we should update it.

 

[Glademaster_v1legacy]

snip
Aryan
Semitic
Hamitic

Those are the three groups considered Caucasian on that map.

See, I take issue with that classification. It seems that "Aryan" Just means European. For example, I would say that the Scandinavian Vikings would be a distinct race from the people who inhabited Portugal at the time, but they both fall under "Aryan". It sounds more like colonialism influenced who got to be included in the "superior race".

And that's largely my issue, I think the classifications are bad.

By that logic you can't include half the people who are Asian in the Asian or in this case Mongoloid bracket. Caucasian doesn't mean "white" which is what people need to stop associating it with.

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?

Because they mean Caucasian.

Blue kinda colour is Caucasian areas.

As in place of origin it is certain a Caucasian place as an empire they took anyone as slaves and anyone can be a citizen so a valid argument could be made for being nothing.

question though, who decided what areas were considered "Caucasian" and why? What metric was used to separate the "races"? Because, (as I mentioned in a later post) white people seem to have this awful habit of declaring successful peoples white. Jesus is the most obvious example.

Aryan
Semitic
Hamitic

Those are the three groups considered Caucasian on that map.

Wouldn't there be a Caucasian present around Russia? Since the cold and the lack of sunlight should create the features which would cause someone to be classified as Caucasian? I'm just spitballing here but I thought that's how people developed their features before we had the ablity fly/sail long distances.

I didn't make the map nor do I study anything to do with this but Caucasian means more than just pale skin.

Maybe I wouldn't.

And honestly, it only matters when people start coming out and saying "Caucasians are better" or anything like that. You can't use a faulty classification system that was made with an agenda. That map is 100s of years old, perhaps we should update it.

There is no need to update it in terms of this is Caucasian or Mongoloid. The only reason there are separate groups is due to languages. They are the 3 "Great" with their sub-division I don't see any problem with the map.

 

[Blazing Steel]

snip
Aryan
Semitic
Hamitic

Those are the three groups considered Caucasian on that map.

See, I take issue with that classification. It seems that "Aryan" Just means European. For example, I would say that the Scandinavian Vikings would be a distinct race from the people who inhabited Portugal at the time, but they both fall under "Aryan". It sounds more like colonialism influenced who got to be included in the "superior race".

And that's largely my issue, I think the classifications are bad.

By that logic you can't include half the people who are Asian in the Asian or in this case Mongoloid bracket. Caucasian doesn't mean "white" which is what people need to stop associating it with.

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?

Because they mean Caucasian.

Blue kinda colour is Caucasian areas.

As in place of origin it is certain a Caucasian place as an empire they took anyone as slaves and anyone can be a citizen so a valid argument could be made for being nothing.

question though, who decided what areas were considered "Caucasian" and why? What metric was used to separate the "races"? Because, (as I mentioned in a later post) white people seem to have this awful habit of declaring successful peoples white. Jesus is the most obvious example.

Aryan
Semitic
Hamitic

Those are the three groups considered Caucasian on that map.

Wouldn't there be a Caucasian present around Russia? Since the cold and the lack of sunlight should create the features which would cause someone to be classified as Caucasian? I'm just spitballing here but I thought that's how people developed their features before we had the ablity fly/sail long distances.

I didn't make the map nor do I study anything to do with this but Caucasian means more than just pale skin.

Wait, shit. I'm refering to the caucasian definition of people when were hardly more than cave men. The map is on wikipeadia that refers to the spread of causcasian people in 1885. After some web searches I can determin that caucasian is a right ***** to define. It can mean what I had in mind (large eye orbits, pale skin, fair hair etc), but it can even mean people of middle eastern descent (which I guess is more in line with your interpetation?) which I personally would never classify as caucasion. It's one of thoses things that you can argue back and forth and you're both wrong.

 

[Blazing Steel]

snip
Aryan
Semitic
Hamitic

Those are the three groups considered Caucasian on that map.

See, I take issue with that classification. It seems that "Aryan" Just means European. For example, I would say that the Scandinavian Vikings would be a distinct race from the people who inhabited Portugal at the time, but they both fall under "Aryan". It sounds more like colonialism influenced who got to be included in the "superior race".

And that's largely my issue, I think the classifications are bad.

By that logic you can't include half the people who are Asian in the Asian or in this case Mongoloid bracket. Caucasian doesn't mean "white" which is what people need to stop associating it with.

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?

Because they mean Caucasian.

Blue kinda colour is Caucasian areas.

As in place of origin it is certain a Caucasian place as an empire they took anyone as slaves and anyone can be a citizen so a valid argument could be made for being nothing.

question though, who decided what areas were considered "Caucasian" and why? What metric was used to separate the "races"? Because, (as I mentioned in a later post) white people seem to have this awful habit of declaring successful peoples white. Jesus is the most obvious example.

Aryan
Semitic
Hamitic

Those are the three groups considered Caucasian on that map.

Wouldn't there be a Caucasian present around Russia? Since the cold and the lack of sunlight should create the features which would cause someone to be classified as Caucasian? I'm just spitballing here but I thought that's how people developed their features before we had the ablity fly/sail long distances.

I didn't make the map nor do I study anything to do with this but Caucasian means more than just pale skin.

Maybe I wouldn't.

And honestly, it only matters when people start coming out and saying "Caucasians are better" or anything like that. You can't use a faulty classification system that was made with an agenda. That map is 100s of years old, perhaps we should update it.

There is no need to update it in terms of this is Caucasian or Mongoloid. The only reason there are separate groups is due to languages. They are the 3 "Great" with their sub-division I don't see any problem with the map.

Map is a 1000 years off. Good if you want to talk about any time period around 1885, but other wise it's relatively usless since we humans move around so damn much.

 

[Glademaster_v1legacy]

snip
Aryan
Semitic
Hamitic

Those are the three groups considered Caucasian on that map.

See, I take issue with that classification. It seems that "Aryan" Just means European. For example, I would say that the Scandinavian Vikings would be a distinct race from the people who inhabited Portugal at the time, but they both fall under "Aryan". It sounds more like colonialism influenced who got to be included in the "superior race".

And that's largely my issue, I think the classifications are bad.

By that logic you can't include half the people who are Asian in the Asian or in this case Mongoloid bracket. Caucasian doesn't mean "white" which is what people need to stop associating it with.

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?

Because they mean Caucasian.

Blue kinda colour is Caucasian areas.

As in place of origin it is certain a Caucasian place as an empire they took anyone as slaves and anyone can be a citizen so a valid argument could be made for being nothing.

question though, who decided what areas were considered "Caucasian" and why? What metric was used to separate the "races"? Because, (as I mentioned in a later post) white people seem to have this awful habit of declaring successful peoples white. Jesus is the most obvious example.

Aryan
Semitic
Hamitic

Those are the three groups considered Caucasian on that map.

Wouldn't there be a Caucasian present around Russia? Since the cold and the lack of sunlight should create the features which would cause someone to be classified as Caucasian? I'm just spitballing here but I thought that's how people developed their features before we had the ablity fly/sail long distances.

I didn't make the map nor do I study anything to do with this but Caucasian means more than just pale skin.

Maybe I wouldn't.

And honestly, it only matters when people start coming out and saying "Caucasians are better" or anything like that. You can't use a faulty classification system that was made with an agenda. That map is 100s of years old, perhaps we should update it.

There is no need to update it in terms of this is Caucasian or Mongoloid. The only reason there are separate groups is due to languages. They are the 3 "Great" with their sub-division I don't see any problem with the map.

Map is a 1000 years off. Good if you want to talk about any time period around 1885, but other wise it's relatively usless since we humans move around so damn much.

Which is why there is no need to change it.

snip
Aryan
Semitic
Hamitic

Those are the three groups considered Caucasian on that map.

See, I take issue with that classification. It seems that "Aryan" Just means European. For example, I would say that the Scandinavian Vikings would be a distinct race from the people who inhabited Portugal at the time, but they both fall under "Aryan". It sounds more like colonialism influenced who got to be included in the "superior race".

And that's largely my issue, I think the classifications are bad.

By that logic you can't include half the people who are Asian in the Asian or in this case Mongoloid bracket. Caucasian doesn't mean "white" which is what people need to stop associating it with.

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?

Because they mean Caucasian.

Blue kinda colour is Caucasian areas.

As in place of origin it is certain a Caucasian place as an empire they took anyone as slaves and anyone can be a citizen so a valid argument could be made for being nothing.

question though, who decided what areas were considered "Caucasian" and why? What metric was used to separate the "races"? Because, (as I mentioned in a later post) white people seem to have this awful habit of declaring successful peoples white. Jesus is the most obvious example.

Aryan
Semitic
Hamitic

Those are the three groups considered Caucasian on that map.

Wouldn't there be a Caucasian present around Russia? Since the cold and the lack of sunlight should create the features which would cause someone to be classified as Caucasian? I'm just spitballing here but I thought that's how people developed their features before we had the ablity fly/sail long distances.

I didn't make the map nor do I study anything to do with this but Caucasian means more than just pale skin.

Wait, shit. I'm refering to the caucasian definition of people when were hardly more than cave men. The map is on wikipeadia that refers to the spread of causcasian people in 1885. After some web searches I can determin that caucasian is a right ***** to define. It can mean what I had in mind (large eye orbits, pale skin, fair hair etc), but it can even mean people of middle eastern descent (which I guess is more in line with your interpetation?) which I personally would never classify as caucasion. It's one of thoses things that you can argue back and forth and you're both wrong.

Once again Caucasian is more than just surface appearance would you consider the Japanese, Eskimos and Americans all part of the same greater race at a glance?