White People are... Better?

[Bato]

-snip-

The thing is the Northern European white guys were just hungry for conquest and land.

In the Ancient times there were three major civilizations who were the driving Scientific force, who everything we have today was built off of. There were probably more but fuck you these are the big guys I would say started everything.
The Egyptians, who are African/Arabic.
Mesopotamians, who were plain Arabic-ish.
And the Greek, who were I guess you could call them Mediterranean. Though they were ALL Mediterranean. The Greek/Romans weren't white though, they're Olive/Light Brown whatever Ethnicity you call that, probably Latino for the Latins and Slavic for the Greek these days.
The Irish/Norse were the white ones.

The Mesopotamian and Egyptians were wiped out over time because they made no effort to export their culture. And the Islams picked up the pieces and.. They didn't run, but they did a slow but steady power walk with them.

I was in the middle of writing up a summary of what happened in other parts of the world and their contributions to modern society.. But that got way too goddamn long.

But when it came down to it, each civilization has had a contribution. The Romans and Greeks took technologies and inspirations from everyone else in the world and refined them or archived them.
I remember reading a small thing, I really wish I could find it again, where it described every part of the Roman infantry's gear. Like, the Shields were originally Celtic in Origin, the Armour and Javelins was Germanic, Bracer-type things were Persian, the Greaves were Arabic, and about everything else was taken from the Greek. This is all they did, they were attempting a form of Globalization, except they did it in the wrong way trying to turn the whole world into Rome.

When Rome fell so did the entirety of Western Europe. Literacy and sciences went down the tube for a thousand years during the Dark Ages. People developed superstitions and weird stuff. The only thing they had going for them was the abundance of metals and food.
This is why stuff like Audits and Hearings and such things are common terms because for just a little under a thousand years, no one knew how to read or write.

The white guys didn't do a damn thing for a little under a thousand years other than trying to kill people for the lawd. It wasn't until they Seized an Islamic city and found, what the Islams considered a small Library, but to the Europeans it looked like:
http://lovelylisting.files.wordpress.com/2012/04/funny-real-estate-your-daily-bookcase-all-for-you.jpg

After that literacy slowly began to trickle back. And around the 18th century is when Literacy was in full swing again and they pretty much picked up where the Greek and Romans left off. World domination, Sciences, and Globalization.

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

 

[Blazing Steel]

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

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

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

 

[FalloutJack]

-Snip-

-Snap-

Other Jack? Eyeball? Let's just agree that Humans Are Bastards and move on, 'kay?

OT I blame the English, and I choose 'English' as my answer for good reason. True, it's not really a fault of today, but it is with the old English empire that The New World was founded, where their principles were transferred into rougher locales and had to adapt to a less-refined way of life. This less-restrained way of life that eventually (which I say because of Puritans) evolved from them is where the American way of life does stem from at core. It's both the English desire to hold power over others along with the rebellious nature to answer to no one because we're the ones tilling this field, King George!

Historically, every war won and every territory or resource seized is because they want it badly enough. This seems to be the center of things here in the US. By god, YEARS obsessing over terrorism like you can make the idea go away and finally they root out the guy they wanted out of all of it. Crazy shit. They want it badly enough. That's the reason.

 

[Clearing the Eye]

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 :/

 

[xplosive59]

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

After the fall of the roman empire the majority of "white" European countries were screwed up until the renaissance (mostly due to Christianity having almost complete control) where education, literacy and medical knowledge returned over time (which had previously been destroyed by the church or people became so uneducated over time that books were useless) and even then China had already discovered gun powder and were 100's of years ahead.

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

 

[Andre Rapp]

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.

the Empire of the Rising Sun had no civilians, all citizens were considered resources for the war, and at the disposal of the empire. near the end of the war people were being plucked off the streets and handed a rifle. at the time there were 2 choices, the bomb or a land invasion, in the event of a land invasion every man, woman and child would charge into battle and the invading armies would be forced to systematically exterminate the nation. the bomb did not just destroy two cities, it demolished the resolve of the empire, forcing surrender without the need for a far more bloody land invasion. the bomb saves lives.

 

[Glademaster_v1legacy]

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

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

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

Because they mean Caucasian.

Blue kinda colour is Caucasian areas.

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

 

[Clearing the Eye]

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

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

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

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

 

[Bato]

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.

 

[swani24]

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

 

[Cedric Rolle III]

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.

They started the raping and pillaging long before technology caught up. It started with the Greeks, then the Romans, then the English, French, and Spanish, then America (at least with the slave trade). And again, Europe and America are overly-abundant in natural resources, as opposed to Africa or the Middle East. So really it just comes down to circumstance and dumb luck.

They only started to vastly outpace the rest of the world during the industrial revolution, anyway.

LMAO, thank you total stranger.

 

[Clearing the Eye]

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

 

[Kragg]

-snip-

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

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

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

 

[SciMal]

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

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

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

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

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

Could you elaborate on this?

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

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

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

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

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

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

Both those people are white, they both have white skin. I really don't see how you would argue that the Roman in the picture wasn't white.

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

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

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

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

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



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

 

[Andre Rapp]

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

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

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

^ this ^

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

 

[Darkmantle]

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

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

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

Because they mean Caucasian.

Blue kinda colour is Caucasian areas.

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

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

 

[Blazing Steel]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

 

[TrevHead]

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

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

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

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

 

[Darkmantle]

Snip

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

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

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

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

NOPE.avi

lol

 

[Glademaster_v1legacy]

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

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

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

Because they mean Caucasian.

Blue kinda colour is Caucasian areas.

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

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

Aryan
Semitic
Hamitic

Those are the three groups considered Caucasian on that map.