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].Clearing the Eye said: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.
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].Clearing the Eye said: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.Clearing the Eye said: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.
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.Glademaster said: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.Darkmantle said:Maybe I wouldn't.Glademaster said: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.Darkmantle said: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".Glademaster said:snip
Aryan
Semitic
Hamitic
Those are the three groups considered Caucasian on that map.
And that's largely my issue, I think the classifications are bad.
I didn't make the map nor do I study anything to do with this but Caucasian means more than just pale skin.Blazing Steel said: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.Glademaster said:AryanDarkmantle said: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.Glademaster said:Because they mean Caucasian.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?
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.
Semitic
Hamitic
Those are the three groups considered Caucasian on that map.
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.
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.Glademaster said:Which is why there is no need to change it.Blazing Steel said: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 said: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.Darkmantle said:Maybe I wouldn't.Glademaster said: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.Darkmantle said: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".Glademaster said:snip
Aryan
Semitic
Hamitic
Those are the three groups considered Caucasian on that map.
And that's largely my issue, I think the classifications are bad.
I didn't make the map nor do I study anything to do with this but Caucasian means more than just pale skin.Blazing Steel said: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.Glademaster said:AryanDarkmantle said: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.Glademaster said:Because they mean Caucasian.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?
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.
Semitic
Hamitic
Those are the three groups considered Caucasian on that map.
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.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?Blazing Steel said: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.Glademaster said: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.Darkmantle said: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".Glademaster said:snip
Aryan
Semitic
Hamitic
Those are the three groups considered Caucasian on that map.
And that's largely my issue, I think the classifications are bad.
I didn't make the map nor do I study anything to do with this but Caucasian means more than just pale skin.Blazing Steel said: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.Glademaster said:AryanDarkmantle said: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.Glademaster said:Because they mean Caucasian.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?
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.
Semitic
Hamitic
Those are the three groups considered Caucasian on that map.
We aren't talking about white people we are talking about Caucasian in this case so I'm not going any further at all.Blazing Steel said: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.Glademaster said:Which is why there is no need to change it.Blazing Steel said: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 said: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.Darkmantle said:Maybe I wouldn't.Glademaster said: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.Darkmantle said: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".Glademaster said:snip
Aryan
Semitic
Hamitic
Those are the three groups considered Caucasian on that map.
And that's largely my issue, I think the classifications are bad.
I didn't make the map nor do I study anything to do with this but Caucasian means more than just pale skin.Blazing Steel said: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.Glademaster said:AryanDarkmantle said: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.Glademaster said:Because they mean Caucasian.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?
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.
Semitic
Hamitic
Those are the three groups considered Caucasian on that map.
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.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?Blazing Steel said: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.Glademaster said: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.Darkmantle said: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".Glademaster said:snip
Aryan
Semitic
Hamitic
Those are the three groups considered Caucasian on that map.
And that's largely my issue, I think the classifications are bad.
I didn't make the map nor do I study anything to do with this but Caucasian means more than just pale skin.Blazing Steel said: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.Glademaster said:AryanDarkmantle said: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.Glademaster said:Because they mean Caucasian.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?
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.
Semitic
Hamitic
Those are the three groups considered Caucasian on that map.
As for the classification thing I though I'd answered above with the whole, there is no proper classificaion.
The answer to your question:
I don't have a clue because neither answer is right.
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.Glademaster said:We aren't talking about white people we are talking about Caucasian in this case so I'm not going any further at all.Blazing Steel said: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.Glademaster said:Which is why there is no need to change it.Blazing Steel said: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 said: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.Darkmantle said:Maybe I wouldn't.Glademaster said: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.Darkmantle said: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".Glademaster said:snip
Aryan
Semitic
Hamitic
Those are the three groups considered Caucasian on that map.
And that's largely my issue, I think the classifications are bad.
I didn't make the map nor do I study anything to do with this but Caucasian means more than just pale skin.Blazing Steel said: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.Glademaster said:AryanDarkmantle said: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.Glademaster said:Because they mean Caucasian.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?
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.
Semitic
Hamitic
Those are the three groups considered Caucasian on that map.
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.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?Blazing Steel said: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.Glademaster said: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.Darkmantle said: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".Glademaster said:snip
Aryan
Semitic
Hamitic
Those are the three groups considered Caucasian on that map.
And that's largely my issue, I think the classifications are bad.
I didn't make the map nor do I study anything to do with this but Caucasian means more than just pale skin.Blazing Steel said: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.Glademaster said:AryanDarkmantle said: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.Glademaster said:Because they mean Caucasian.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?
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.
Semitic
Hamitic
Those are the three groups considered Caucasian on that map.
As for the classification thing I though I'd answered above with the whole, there is no proper classificaion.
The answer to your question:
I don't have a clue because neither answer is right.
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.Clearing the Eye said: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.Jack the Potato said:I find your lack of context... disturbing. Also, it was 70 years ago. Seems silly to hold that against the US for so long.Clearing the Eye said: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.Jack the Potato said:Wow. Not even close. Not even in the same ballpark. Not even in the same country! No. Just, no.Clearing the Eye said: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 >_>Jack the Potato said: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.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.
Pretty much as disgraceful as the Jewish Holocaust, only smaller.
One of the many reasons I hate the U.S. with all of my tiny, black heart, lol.
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.GenericAmerican said:You know, sometimes the escapist is a nice place.
Then there are threads like this . . .
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.)Clearing the Eye said: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.Jack the Potato said:Wow. Not even close. Not even in the same ballpark. Not even in the same country! No. Just, no.Clearing the Eye said: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 >_>Jack the Potato said: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.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.
Pretty much as disgraceful as the Jewish Holocaust, only smaller.
One of the many reasons I hate the U.S. with all of my tiny, black heart, lol.