White People are... Better?

[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?

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.

We aren't talking about white people we are talking about Caucasian in this case so I'm not going any further at all.

 

[NinjaSocks333]

Goddamn i knew this thread was going to get bad.

 

[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.

We aren't talking about white people we are talking about Caucasian in this case so I'm not going any further at all.

Before some google searching I was under the impression caucasion = white people and although I now know that's not correct my thinking is still kinda based within that nonfact. Still think that we need better maps and classification regardless of what we're talking about. Sources need to be as accurate as humanlly possible or our arguements are rendered pointless due to them not being based on facts or our opinions, not being informed correctly.

 

[GenericAmerican]

You know, sometimes the escapist is a nice place.

Then there are threads like this . . .

 

[monkey_man]

Well, I think we whities just had better surroundings. The black people lived in a scorching hot desert, while the white men went to a cool climate. It's much easier to survive (and THINK) in a cool and safe environment, than in a hot and unfair environment. (where even today people die because they have no water, while we have water coming out of our ears, in rivers and rain. If men have spare time, (and you have no spare time when you have to walk hours to get a drink) they get bored, and start poking the world for stuff to do. sometimes you get tired arms, and sometimes you decide to make a better stick, or house, or plantpot. The Mayans where also quite well developed before they went to war and basically destroyed themselves, and then the Europeans came and wiped the remaining piddle out, or dominated them in another way. And don't forget the Egyptians, who were also doing pretty well. If the Nile hadn't been there, the great Egyptian empire would never have made it to the size and prowess it had

It's all about environment, I say.

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.

I find your lack of context... disturbing. Also, it was 70 years ago. Seems silly to hold that against the US for so long.

Lol. So it's time to forgive the Nazi party for the holocaust, too then? Lol no. Besides, the U.S. continues to be the modern day Nazi Germany, invading countries they have no business in and fucking everything up. Remember a fear years ago, when one of their CIA assassins accidentally killed the wrong person? Good times. Almost as funny as the 100,000 dead civilians in the Iraq flame they fed. Easily one of the worst thing to happen in modern history, the American colonization.

Well I think you're holding two different standards now. You're comparing America to Nazi's, not just Germany. An entire country, filled with normal (well they ARE Americans) people, living their normal day to day lives, compared to a racist, sexist cult.
Of course the USA makes a lot of mistakes, but it's a young country, (about 300 years old) That doesn't justify anything, but it's something that you should keep in mind. If you want to blame anyone here, blame the people doing the bad things. Like the US Government, and the actual (still active) Nazi's. Not the normal people who , sometimes, dream about cheese.

 

[A3Bf72rVWE5hA]

You know, sometimes the escapist is a nice place.

Then there are threads like this . . .

You know, I really can't even bring myself to respond to Clearing the Eye, because he seems to have some obvious prejudice against America, Europe, and pretty much everyone that isn't China and seems to insist on ending every other sentence with "lol," which especially doesn't belong when talking about genocide and killing thousands of innocent civilians.

 

[tofulove]

read the book guns germs and steel.

 

[revjor]

The easiest explanation for Asia is that the Mongols happened. The black death catapulting, library burning Mongols sent Asia and The Middle East back centuries.

They never made it to the Atlantic but the black death they used for germ warfare did. Once Europe was stripped of 1/3 of it's population, employers/lords HAD to offer better salaries and benefits to employees to compete to hire the now much smaller workforce. The better supported working class had more free time for crafts, sciences and general civilization progressing living.

China like they always did eventually converted the Mongols to their way of life. In China their centuries old education and testing system did wonders for governance, order and education, ultimately it caused them to sort of rest on their laurels because it worked so well. China went on business as usual while Europe was forced to adapt and change their society which eventually lead them into the Renaissance.

Also keep in mind that while Europe was in the turmoil of black death, the Malian empire was happy and healthy in West Africa. Mansa Musa was the richest man of his time and probably EVER.(seriously read about his Hajj to Mecca. He gave away so much gold in Egypt that he inflated their monetary base and fucked their economy for a decade.) Musa also promoted great levels of scientific advancement in Mali with scholars from across the Muslim world.

You think in 1303 someone in Mali asked "Why are us Africans so much better than the lowly whites?"

Fun Fact: 1/3 of modern Africa is considered middle class nowadays and it's growing.

2nd fun fact: Caucasoid, Negroid and Mongoloid are terribly outdated terms and ideas. Just stop using em.

Really European people are just having their time/age. Throughout history though it's generally been China or Persia's time to shine.

 

[BeeGeenie]

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.

Erm... I went to Japan a couple years ago, to a town near Nagasaki. The people there generally were GRATEFUL that the US had ended the war so decisively. The US didn't want to keep the war going and knew that an invasion of troops would result in more deaths in the long run. (They weren't sure about the lasting effects of radiation, cancer, etc.)
My point is that even many Japanese consider it a tragic, but Necessary measure that ended the war and led to Japan's current state as a progressive and peaceful nation.

 

[Mordereth]

It's geopolitics, as had been said money time, nothing to do with white people.

Also, until the Industrial Revolution you can't really argue China and Japan are horribly less advanced than "white" countries.

I would also posit that America has ceased to be a "white" country, as have many European countries, and are only the better for it.

 

[Thyunda]

I always thought the reason for it was necessity. The African tribes, for example, needed only shade from the sun, water and food. The land isn't much good for farming, and animals would tend to stick around water, till it dries up. So a nomadic existence is in order, there's no need to settle, since a settlement would last only as long as the water source.

Whereas in 'white' countries, the colder weather means finding permanent shelter is more practical, and the permanent water sources make long-term civilisation easily viable. It's not that white races were the only ones to rape, pillage and conquer. It was just that when two desert tribes clashed, all that was at stake was the people in the tribe and whatever small possessions they had. The permanence of European communities and such meant more was fielded, more was gained, and more communities learned the benefit of co-operation, eventually forming the nations we know today. So then the Western civilisations created through necessity and centuries of escalating war, met the cultures that had fought their wars in a constant stalemate.

 

[WanderingFool]

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.

Oh, shit. I just got here and already this thread is going someplace I dont want to go...

 

[geK0]

You know, because China, Japan and India haven't been doing much other than banging stones together for the past thousand years; haven't been successful in the least

 

[Twilight_guy]

For one, its less about skin color and more a response to environmental pressures. If the guys in Europe happened to be black they'd have 'evolved' the same way as if they were white. Its matte of where they were and where other people were and such. For two, your using the European standard of 'goodness' as your judgement. The values of 'western' countries are not the same values as other places and other ways of life are not 'less good' or below the European way but are different. You should do some research into the principles of anthropology and the history of the world. I think you will probably find the subjects interesting in relation to your question.

 

[AngelBlackChaos]

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.

Well for Japanese: Rape of Nanking
China's official estimate is about 300,000 casualties, based on the evaluation of the Nanjing War Crimes Tribunal. Estimates from Japanese historians vary widely, in the vicinity of 40,000?200,000.

Every single country, and ethnicity has had their own murders, their own atrocities. Every. Single. One. I would never once blame someone uninvolved for any massacre, just because of where they are from. Not every person should be held responsible, nor should they be. I have yet to find a single country without murder crimes in their history books.

So. Generalize again.

As for modern war crimes? Should I blame every person just because their country decided on war? There has never been a time where every single person in a country had a choice about its country's choice of war. Sure, we vote for politicians...who have the choice to ignore their constituents after they are in office, and sure we can protest. Thats for the adults, not for the children at time of war. They have no choice, and adults tend to have only the illusion. The point is, only the people in power have a choice, and the one with the controls. That is all.

 

[Weaver]

The Ottoman empire greatly outclassed anything at the time in terms of culture and technology. They had indoor plumbing while the europeans were shitting in holes.

 

[Ryan Hughes]

OT: Well, not exactly. First of all, the idea that Europe has constantly been at the forefront of learning and technology is outright wrong. A few examples: The oldest surviving work of literature that we have -I.E. something that tries to communicate aesthetic pleasure through the written language- is the book of Job in the Bible. After the fall of the Greek intelligentsia, and the subsequent burning of the library in Athens, all works of classical Greek philosophy that survived were located in Arabia. All versions of Homer, Plato, and Aristotle today are actually translated from Arabic, not from Greek because none of those works survived. And, while Europe toiled in feudalism, they invented our number system and algebra in Baghdad, while in India and China they began developing extensive philosophical systems that still survive today.

Fast forward to the colonization of America, and most of the colonies would have been wiped out if not for the superior agricultural knowledge of the native Americans, specifically the innovations of fertilizer and crop rotation, not to mention the ideas of wildlife management, rather than extinction hunting. So, while the Europeans had amazing Naval and Navigation Technology that allowed them to sail the Ocean, the Native Americans had superior agricultural technology.

I could go on. The main basis for the advancement of European society were the advancements of Military Technology, like the cannon, the ocean-fairing ship, and advanced monetary and trade systems, which all allowed them to colonize other countries and plunder their resources, leading to their greater wealth.

Now, I am not saying that Whites are inherently evil, in fact, the voices against colonization and economic plunder were vast and diverse in Europe and America, but they failed to stop these things largely because of their own governments and vested financial interests.

 

[Khayl]

As a great man once said:

''Its not that white people are BETTER, its just that BEING white is CLEARLY better. i could get into a time machine, go to any point in history, and it would be fucking awesome when i got there. now, a black guy, trying to doing the same thing? ''oh, nothing before 1980, thanks''

 

[Yopaz]

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

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

It's quite simple. In Europe there's a lot easier to build a society. Agriculture is easier because there's easy access to water. The weather has made us make sturdy houses. The structure about this is what eventually led to battles being fought over land and this pushed forward the birth of the feudal system with rulers. Huge societies were born and with time new technology was invented and passed on to the masses where someone improved on that.

Life in some of the African countries is a lot harder. There's the heat which makes agriculture hard, the wild life is wilder and more fit to the environment than the relatively young human species living there. There is malaria, there are sleeping diseases, there has never been the need to move past the stage we call primitive.

Really, there's too much for me to go into, but there is a lot of coincidences and there's a lot of environmental differences. It's hard to say much about the societies they had before our involvement, but Europeans invading has torn down what there was to tear down. Since then there has been corrupt leaders with no wish to make a good country and just reap in wealth of their position. In short there's both sociology, geography and biology to consider here.

I might be wrong about everything I say here though since history has never been my strong subject.

 

[Voulan]

It comes down to cultural values. Western cultures typically favour development and progression, and others were likely perfectly happy the way they were. Their system worked for them, and they felt no need to change it. It's not a question of intelligence, but a consideration of the fact that people think differently, do things differently and have different values.

And 'white' people weren't the only technologically able cultures. Just look at architecture from around the world, and you'll see that evey culture in existence had very clever ways of doing things.