White People are... Better?

Guybythestreet

New member
May 31, 2009
26
0
0
White nations were pretty lacking in technology but because the much more advanced China had isolationist policies they never felt the influence of China's power.

As previous people said the Arab countries were also much farther ahead of the white nations, but Genghis came and conquered them. This was the best thing for the white nations, Genghis had never really pushed into Europe but he established transcontinental trade (11th grade world history for the win). This let the Southern European countries flourish. Give about 500 years of technological and cultural development after this boost and then Europe went and fucked up everyone else.
 

SciMal

New member
Dec 10, 2011
302
0
0
Axolotl said:
SciMal said:
I mean, we trace our cultural routes back to Romans, but do you think Romans/Greeks were white? Hell no, they weren't.
By what standards were the Romans not white?
By just about every.

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

The Romans were also a different Haplotype than the Celts, Nords, and Germanics. A Haplogroup is a term for specific mutations in the human genome that are traceable over several thousand years. Almost all of Europe has Haplotype R1b2 (if I'm remembering correctly) and the Mediterranean is E-V13. R1b had already spread throughout Europe before the Romans started absorbing the people with it.

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

 

CatComixzStudios

New member
Jan 19, 2011
12
0
0
We've actually watched some things that discussed this in my high school, and there was a special I saw on Through the Wormhole with Morgan Freeman about the possibility of a "better" race.

Guns, germs and steel are the common things people cite, but there are some other things I suspect had an impact. For example, European nations, in general, tended to be more united than African ones. When the British came along to "politely borrow tons of resorces and people", we were shown a map of all of the different groups and cultures. It was amazing to see just how many different groups lived in such small areas in some cases. In that case, the Europeans just had to divide and concuer the groups.

I would also cite geograpy as having at least a little impact. In Europe and places like that, the climates tended to be less extreme than African ones. Though I've never been there, I hear Africa tends to be not the most fun places to live. Compare that places like Europe. Again, I've never been, but I hear alot more things about Europe's beauty. So when living in a more "gentle" climate, you don't have to just focus on water and other sometimes scarce resources.

tl;dr version - White people tended to be more united in their conquest to take over other races, and if you live in an unforgiving climate, you're probably gonna be more focused on food and survival rather than advancing technology.

Obviously there would be tons of other factors as well.
 

Clearing the Eye

New member
Jun 6, 2012
1,345
0
0
Kragg said:
Clearing the Eye said:
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.

BNguyen said:
Clearing the Eye said:
Jack the Potato said:
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.
exactly, take a look at the Native Americans, the Incans, Mayans, and Aztecs. They came over to the Americans during the Ice Age and yet still lived like how the ancient Babylonians did. The European groups existed in Europe during the ice age and developed at over 100 times faster than everywhere else except the Chinese who developed paper and explosives before everyone. Why is it that these two areas developed so much better than everywhere else? Is it because these areas had some sort of unifying factor while the rest of the world suffered from conditions that caused divisions?
The Spanish sure did a number on the Inca people. At least they out up a good fight. Out numbered and grossly outmatched in technology, they still proved difficult to conquer.

Stublore said:
Clearing the Eye said:
I never realized it was this much of a difference. How did it turn out this way? Am I imagining things?
Try reading Jared Diamond's Guns,Germs,and Steel for an interesting idea on why this is so.
Simplistically the answer is easy, the past was a shitload more violent than today. So the path to success was to be the most successful in warfare. Europeans were the best back then.
A lot of people have suggested that book. It's getting harder to to refuse to buy it, lol. Wonder how much it is...
 

Barry93

New member
Mar 5, 2009
528
0
0
Clearing the Eye said:
Jack the Potato said:
Clearing the Eye said:
Jack the Potato said:
thaluikhain said:
Guns, germs and steel?

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

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

Look at places like Japan or Singapore, for example, they were able to make the most of the changing world and have done well for themselves as nations.
While I agree, I just feel like pointing out that while Japan was an impressive nation before WW2, AFTER WW2 most of its progress was due to massive rebuilding and reconstructing efforts from the US. It's why the USA and Japan are best buddies today even though we nuked them... twice.
Dropped them right on residential cities, too. The Yanks attempted to tell us both cities happened to be important military points, but considering something like 90% or more of the causalities were civilians >_>

Pretty much as disgraceful as the Jewish Holocaust, only smaller.
Wow. Not even close. Not even in the same ballpark. Not even in the same country! No. Just, no.
I'd call dropping nuclear weapons on innocent men, women and children akin to genocide--just on a much smaller scale. Areas of Japan are still fucked from it; birth defects, cancers and disease still claim lives. Watched a sad documentary about it a few weeks ago on The Discovery Channel. They interviewed a woman who was a child when it happened. The U.S. wanted to know what the radiation would do to humans, especially children, so they organized "medical research" teams to go over and "help." She vividly recalled being inspected and made to take her clothes off in front of a room full of men. Disgusting stuff, really.

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

Clearing the Eye

New member
Jun 6, 2012
1,345
0
0
Scorpid said:
You're spat of history gathering is admirable but your getting the wrong impression. If you're approaching this from a genetics point of view then you'll be disappointed about how little difference there is between Europeans and other races. What you're ignoring is something important and that's a centralized belief system. The differences between ancient rome, the empires of africa and asia technologically speaking wasn't vast. And as other people pointed out it was China that had the lead for a very long time. It wasn't until Catholicism that things went in a different direction between Europe and the other continents and even then it wouldn't be for another 1000 years once all that nasty Crusades stuff finished. (crusades can't be ignored if you're talking about the advancement of europe). With Catholicism there was a general set of beliefs and norms between countries and its citizens and the popes managed to, to no small, degree bring them together under a loose band to form a their own distinct and similar nations with recognized borders. So now there were countries and citizenry that had a common set of beliefs and norms so that when wars happened and finished it didn't reset political/alliances advancements back to zero. England was still England, France was still France, Spain still Spain after wars came and went so there was still governments to pick up the pieces to put countries back together.
But Europeans even still weren't better at every thing. India, Iroquois confederacy, Japan, China, Africa, the Middle east. Europeans would be more advanced after each one of the meetings because they'd win and take these lessons like castle building, paper, rule of the citizenry over kings, metallurgy. Also if you ever want to read/watch Guns Germs, and Steel you'll probably find that interesting. One popular opinion you shouldn't listen to is that Europeans were simply the most savage and brutal of all societies and that simply isn't true. China right up until the 70's loved nothing more then a good genocide to clear things up. Not to say that Europeans were simply wonderfully peaceful people just that if China had decided to set about building ships and take off to build a global Empire they would of been about as violent as the Europeans.
It was a mixture of simple greed and stable long term governments that forced the advancement of Europe into the age of exploration that set Europe on the path of world dominance that is actually coming to an end as we speak. Interesting times we live in, there are no real indicators of any of this being genetic predisposition of being smarter that I've ever seen.
You're the first person to mention religion. Interesting.

Daveman said:
Because Genghis Khan never managed to reach Europe to fuck everything up. The arab world was miles ahead of us technologically and scientifically until Genghis fucked their shit up.
Genghis made it quite close, didn't he? I know basically all of northern Asia was his, but just how far he dominated I'm not sure. Dude was pretty fucking boss at rallying his people, lol.
 

Ledan

New member
Apr 15, 2009
798
0
0
Clearing the Eye said:
I've been on a history bent lately and have noticed something odd that I've never thought about in detail. It seems white countries (countries either predominantly run by or founded by Caucasians or Europeans) have it a great deal better than black nations (those occupied mainly by African descendants) and a fair deal better than Asian countries. Not saying the individual people are better or worse, smarter or dumber, just that overall the nations seem vastly different. We're all aware of the "privileged white" status. But have you ever really thought about it?

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

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

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

I never realized it was this much of a difference. How did it turn out this way? Am I imagining things?
Read "Guns, germs, and steel" by Jamed Diamond or watch the documentary by the same name. It's all about the answer to this question.
If you really don't feel like reading it, or watching it: The basic answer is geography. The Europeans have a better position relative to everyone else, and some more complicated reasons explained by James Diamond.
 

Jamieson 90

New member
Mar 29, 2010
1,052
0
0
It's partly due to enlightmen period and how non white/european cultures viewed technology and science. At the time in europe we recognised the power of technology and science, while other cultures may have been aware of it but had reasons for not persuing it. For example the Chinese at the same time had vastly superior and larger war ships, but they didn't see any cultural reason to keep them so they got rid of them, whereas Europeans saw their own navies as advantages. So what I'm saying is that non white countries didn't not have the capacity to use the technology they just didn't persue it.

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

Clearing the Eye

New member
Jun 6, 2012
1,345
0
0
Ledan said:
Clearing the Eye said:
I've been on a history bent lately and have noticed something odd that I've never thought about in detail. It seems white countries (countries either predominantly run by or founded by Caucasians or Europeans) have it a great deal better than black nations (those occupied mainly by African descendants) and a fair deal better than Asian countries. Not saying the individual people are better or worse, smarter or dumber, just that overall the nations seem vastly different. We're all aware of the "privileged white" status. But have you ever really thought about it?

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

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

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

I never realized it was this much of a difference. How did it turn out this way? Am I imagining things?
Read "Guns, germs, and steel" by Jamed Diamond or watch the documentary by the same name. It's all about the answer to this question.
If you really don't feel like reading it, or watching it: The basic answer is geography. The Europeans have a better position relative to everyone else, and some more complicated reasons explained by James Diamond.
Mmm. The basic gist I'm getting is the Europeans lucked into fantastic soil and landscape. But, like anything, our reign as top dog will end soon enough. Maybe it's Asia's turn again, lol.
 

sunsetspawn

New member
Jul 25, 2009
210
0
0
Hmmm...

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


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

The specific gene HLA-A, for example, is present in the Neanderthal and Denisovan genomes. It contributed this much to the following modern human populations: Up to 95.3 percent for Papua New Guineans, 80.7 percent for Japanese people, 72.2 percent for Chinese people, 51.7 percent for Europeans, and 6.7 percent for Africans.
http://news.discovery.com/human/neanderthals-interbreeding-humans-110825.html


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

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

Axolotl

New member
Feb 17, 2008
2,401
0
0
SciMal said:
Axolotl said:
SciMal said:
I mean, we trace our cultural routes back to Romans, but do you think Romans/Greeks were white? Hell no, they weren't.
By what standards were the Romans not white?
By just about every.

The Romans originated in the Mediterranean. The term "Caucasian" refers to the Caucus mountains between the Black and Caspian seas. While the Roman Empire did, eventually, reach that far, it didn't originate there.
And? I really don't see you're point here, Caucasian is a term that refers to the race generally inhabiting Europe, the Middle East and North Africa. The Romans certainly fall under that category.

The Romans were also a different Haplotype than the Celts, Nords, and Germanics.
Could you elaborate on this?

Also, the Romans weren't white (German|Historically Accurate Mediterranean):
Both those people are white, they both have white skin. I really don't see how you would argue that the Roman in the picture wasn't white. Seriously look at the paintings they left, they show white people in them.
 

Darkmantle

New member
Oct 30, 2011
1,031
0
0
Not out-tech, out-war. Being warlike doesn't make you a better "race" or person, just a better killer. If that's what you mean, then sure. But personally I would never refer to being more brutal as "better"

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

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

Clearing the Eye

New member
Jun 6, 2012
1,345
0
0
Axolotl said:
Both those people are white, they both have white skin. I really don't see how you would argue that the Roman in the picture wasn't white. Seriously look at the paintings they left, they show white people in them.
The one on the right (a picture of what Jesus most likely looked like) is brown skinned. What you would generalize as "black." Really only those from northern Europe descent are white. It gets tricky because "black" and "white" are pretty lose terms and most races that actually fit under the former aren't even that dark, really.
 

Clearing the Eye

New member
Jun 6, 2012
1,345
0
0
Darkmantle said:
Not out-tech, out-war. Being warlike doesn't make you a better "race" or person, just a better killer. If that's what you mean, then sure. But personally I would never refer to being more brutal as "better"

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

EDIT: Roman's weren't white :/ they were much more tanned, they were Latin. Why do people argue this?
I was really referring to now, not so much the past. The white nations of today are easily the best places to live for your average person.

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

Clearing the Eye

New member
Jun 6, 2012
1,345
0
0
Abandon4093 said:
EUROPE FUCK YEAH!
Well, that's a new one, lol.

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

Thaluikhain

Elite Member
Legacy
Jan 16, 2010
18,680
3,591
118
sunsetspawn said:
Hmmm...

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


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

The specific gene HLA-A, for example, is present in the Neanderthal and Denisovan genomes. It contributed this much to the following modern human populations: Up to 95.3 percent for Papua New Guineans, 80.7 percent for Japanese people, 72.2 percent for Chinese people, 51.7 percent for Europeans, and 6.7 percent for Africans.
http://news.discovery.com/human/neanderthals-interbreeding-humans-110825.html


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

Just throwing some speculation out there that goes beyond the derpy, "white peoples are teh evils, roflcopter."
Er, no. Neanderthals might well have bred with Homo Sapiens, but making Caucasians superior because of this...no.
 

Axolotl

New member
Feb 17, 2008
2,401
0
0
Clearing the Eye said:
Axolotl said:
Both those people are white, they both have white skin. I really don't see how you would argue that the Roman in the picture wasn't white. Seriously look at the paintings they left, they show white people in them.
The one on the right (a picture of what Jesus most likely looked like) is brown skinned. What you would generalize as "black." Really only those from northern Europe descent are white. It gets tricky because "black" and "white" are pretty lose terms and most races that actually fit under the former aren't even that dark, really.
What? He certainly is what I would generalise as Black. Also have you ever even been to Southern Europe? The people there are white, and that includes Italy.
 

Clearing the Eye

New member
Jun 6, 2012
1,345
0
0
thaluikhain said:
sunsetspawn said:
Hmmm...

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


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

The specific gene HLA-A, for example, is present in the Neanderthal and Denisovan genomes. It contributed this much to the following modern human populations: Up to 95.3 percent for Papua New Guineans, 80.7 percent for Japanese people, 72.2 percent for Chinese people, 51.7 percent for Europeans, and 6.7 percent for Africans.
http://news.discovery.com/human/neanderthals-interbreeding-humans-110825.html


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

Just throwing some speculation out there that goes beyond the derpy, "white peoples are teh evils, roflcopter."
Er, no. Neanderthals might well have bred with Homo Sapiens, but making Caucasians superior because of this...no.
Such a shady area. Because of the way evolution works, it's not as if one day a Homo Sapien was born from a non-Homo Sapien. It's so gradual that it's almost impossible to split the hairs down to an exact point. Maybe they did procreate, maybe they were too different by the time they met, who knows. Not me >_>