White People are... Better?

[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?

 

[Doitpow]

Oh cool I read this thread on /b/ a while back.
I'll respond just like I did back then.
OP is batshit.

 

[Overusedname]

So...better in what regard?

Certainly better at war, weapons and cultural control. Western society and the Christian empire defied the notion of free thought and discouraged philosophy and science for years on end, where as the 'third world' remained a hive of creative arts, alternate beliefs and spirituality. Some legendary thinkers existed in the dark age, but many were not appreciated until centuries later.

Living as a 'primitive' has it's upsides. You're a person who lives in a technological world, where technological advancements equate to success in place of spirituality, art and introspection. So of course we measure success by technology. And of course tech helps as all, and allows us to enter a higher state of living, but don't disrespect the things other culture's focused on because they don't match up to your definition of 'advance'.

In my opinion (as a white guy) whites are the least artistically genuine and talented over all. I think a contemplative Jazz solo had more positive impact on life than the invention of the semi-automatic rifle. Or any country music. Just my opinion on that second part.

Besides, there's less than a 0.01% genetic difference between the average black man and white man. It just so happened that different religions and resources steer us in certain ways. Both Europe and Japan found a metric poop ton of gun powder and iron in their backyards. Look how feudal their histories were.

...As a side note, Racial guilt is the most ridiculous notion on the face of the earth. I'm just saying that the other races were not twiddling their thumbs until the magical white people popped up. They simply had different influences.

What I said was a mix of fact and opinion, so kindly oppose things that fit in the second category.

 

[Helmholtz Watson]

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.

Huh, well Japan should be very familar with that kind of "help", seeing as they gave even more "help" to foreigners before [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Unit_731].

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

Well then, perhaps you get some perspective and see how other countries(like China) think about the bombings [http://www.chinasmack.com/2009/pictures/japanese-atomic-bomb-victim-photos-chinese-netizen-reactions.html].

OP: *Reads title* ......this, this will not end well at all.

 

[Headdrivehardscrew]

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.

That Japan was filled with almost only Japanese has its own reasons that are pretty much still alive and kicking today.

As to the bomb drop - you know, history is a funny and evasive little thing. It keeps changing, really, no matter how everyone involved swears to report the truth and nothing but the truth. Just keep an eye on Syria or Egypt these days.

Nuclear power is easily one of the biggest achievements of mankind, nuclear bombs one of the more horrifying things. If history would have developed a little differently, it could very well have been the evil nazi socialists of Hitler's Germany that could have dropped the bomb on, say, Washington D.C. or London or Moscow. Imagine the implications of that.

Thing is, a lot of the (human) experiments and knowledge (as in R&D assets) that started in Germany were continued during and after the war, mainly in the land of the free. Because America really felt - and was - more free than most other places in the developed world.

Some people really wanted to stop the Japanese, and they also really wanted to try out their new toys. It's only human.

Europe just became the chessboard of great military nations, and one of the few things keeping them from having a go and try to grab countries and draw borders as they pleased was those other guys wielding nuclear weaponry.

Oh, and long before ye evil imperialist US whitebread pigs considered slavery to be a swell thing, slavery was alive and kicking, already in pre-Islamic Middle East and way before that in all the Pharaoh's Egypt... slavery isn't really a white man thing. "Let my people go!" wasn't about Jack, Rudolf and Mary Whitebread.

 

[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.

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.

Germanic and Latin languages are fundamentally different but they are grouped together on the map. Like I said, this map was made with an agenda, knowingly or not.

We've come a long way since then, we should update it.

 

[Hyrum Higgins]

What's wrong with everyone? The backwardness of most countries is barely linked to Europe at all. It could be said that the thing that set the middle east back the most was the Mongol invasion, which killed almost 9/10th of the population in some areas. China was advanced far before Europe, and it's ludicrous to act as though Europeans somehow impoverished it. A good deal of Africa was still tribal in it's recent past. Again, not having to do with Europeans. Heck, Europeans mainly just raped and plundered each other. The native Americans were mainly killed off by smallpox. The muslims were more far more aggressive than the Europeans ever were. The crusades could be seen as a defensive war. After all, muslims had conquered christian North Africa, Turkey, a good deal of Spain, and had even recently invaded France! At one point the Ottomans invaded Germany with a half a million soldiers! All this anti-Europe stuff is ridiculous...

 

[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.

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?

Well I'd argue that by 1885 we had already moved too much, but depending on what you're talking about the map should be accurate. As for the whole white people being more developed, it depends on what time you believe white people started gaining (or not) the upperhand on other races.

As for the classification thing I though I'd answered above with the whole, there is no proper classificaion.

The answer to your question:

Spoiler

I don't have a clue because neither answer is right.

 

[Paradoxrifts]

Could people please stop tossing around antiquated notions of race informed by mid-19th century eugenic quackery, and join the 21st century. Clearly archaic human admixture theory [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neanderthal_admixture_theory#Neanderthals] is where being a racial bigot will be at in the century moving forward.

So get with the times people!