White People are... Better?

[Doitpow]

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

 

[Overusedname]

So...better in what regard?

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

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

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

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

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

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

 

[Helmholtz Watson]

I'd call dropping nuclear weapons on innocent men, women and children akin to genocide--just on a much smaller scale. Areas of Japan are still fucked from it; birth defects, cancers and disease still claim lives. Watched a sad documentary about it a few weeks ago on The Discovery Channel. They interviewed a woman who was a child when it happened. The U.S. wanted to know what the radiation would do to humans, especially children, so they organized "medical research" teams to go over and "help." She vividly recalled being inspected and made to take her clothes off in front of a room full of men. Disgusting stuff, really.

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

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

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

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

 

[Headdrivehardscrew]

I'd call dropping nuclear weapons on innocent men, women and children akin to genocide--just on a much smaller scale. Areas of Japan are still fucked from it; birth defects, cancers and disease still claim lives. Watched a sad documentary about it a few weeks ago on The Discovery Channel. They interviewed a woman who was a child when it happened. The U.S. wanted to know what the radiation would do to humans, especially children, so they organized "medical research" teams to go over and "help." She vividly recalled being inspected and made to take her clothes off in front of a room full of men. Disgusting stuff, really.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

 

[Darkmantle]

snip
Aryan
Semitic
Hamitic

Those are the three groups considered Caucasian on that map.

See, I take issue with that classification. It seems that "Aryan" Just means European. For example, I would say that the Scandinavian Vikings would be a distinct race from the people who inhabited Portugal at the time, but they both fall under "Aryan". It sounds more like colonialism influenced who got to be included in the "superior race".

And that's largely my issue, I think the classifications are bad.

By that logic you can't include half the people who are Asian in the Asian or in this case Mongoloid bracket. Caucasian doesn't mean "white" which is what people need to stop associating it with.

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

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

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

Because they mean Caucasian.

Blue kinda colour is Caucasian areas.

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

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

Aryan
Semitic
Hamitic

Those are the three groups considered Caucasian on that map.

Wouldn't there be a Caucasian present around Russia? Since the cold and the lack of sunlight should create the features which would cause someone to be classified as Caucasian? I'm just spitballing here but I thought that's how people developed their features before we had the ablity fly/sail long distances.

I didn't make the map nor do I study anything to do with this but Caucasian means more than just pale skin.

Maybe I wouldn't.

And honestly, it only matters when people start coming out and saying "Caucasians are better" or anything like that. You can't use a faulty classification system that was made with an agenda. That map is 100s of years old, perhaps we should update it.

There is no need to update it in terms of this is Caucasian or Mongoloid. The only reason there are separate groups is due to languages. They are the 3 "Great" with their sub-division I don't see any problem with the map.

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

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

 

[Hyrum Higgins]

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

 

[Blazing Steel]

snip
Aryan
Semitic
Hamitic

Those are the three groups considered Caucasian on that map.

See, I take issue with that classification. It seems that "Aryan" Just means European. For example, I would say that the Scandinavian Vikings would be a distinct race from the people who inhabited Portugal at the time, but they both fall under "Aryan". It sounds more like colonialism influenced who got to be included in the "superior race".

And that's largely my issue, I think the classifications are bad.

By that logic you can't include half the people who are Asian in the Asian or in this case Mongoloid bracket. Caucasian doesn't mean "white" which is what people need to stop associating it with.

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

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

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

Because they mean Caucasian.

Blue kinda colour is Caucasian areas.

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

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

Aryan
Semitic
Hamitic

Those are the three groups considered Caucasian on that map.

Wouldn't there be a Caucasian present around Russia? Since the cold and the lack of sunlight should create the features which would cause someone to be classified as Caucasian? I'm just spitballing here but I thought that's how people developed their features before we had the ablity fly/sail long distances.

I didn't make the map nor do I study anything to do with this but Caucasian means more than just pale skin.

Maybe I wouldn't.

And honestly, it only matters when people start coming out and saying "Caucasians are better" or anything like that. You can't use a faulty classification system that was made with an agenda. That map is 100s of years old, perhaps we should update it.

There is no need to update it in terms of this is Caucasian or Mongoloid. The only reason there are separate groups is due to languages. They are the 3 "Great" with their sub-division I don't see any problem with the map.

Map is a 1000 years off. Good if you want to talk about any time period around 1885, but other wise it's relatively usless since we humans move around so damn much.

Which is why there is no need to change it.

snip
Aryan
Semitic
Hamitic

Those are the three groups considered Caucasian on that map.

See, I take issue with that classification. It seems that "Aryan" Just means European. For example, I would say that the Scandinavian Vikings would be a distinct race from the people who inhabited Portugal at the time, but they both fall under "Aryan". It sounds more like colonialism influenced who got to be included in the "superior race".

And that's largely my issue, I think the classifications are bad.

By that logic you can't include half the people who are Asian in the Asian or in this case Mongoloid bracket. Caucasian doesn't mean "white" which is what people need to stop associating it with.

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

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

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

Because they mean Caucasian.

Blue kinda colour is Caucasian areas.

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

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

Aryan
Semitic
Hamitic

Those are the three groups considered Caucasian on that map.

Wouldn't there be a Caucasian present around Russia? Since the cold and the lack of sunlight should create the features which would cause someone to be classified as Caucasian? I'm just spitballing here but I thought that's how people developed their features before we had the ablity fly/sail long distances.

I didn't make the map nor do I study anything to do with this but Caucasian means more than just pale skin.

Wait, shit. I'm refering to the caucasian definition of people when were hardly more than cave men. The map is on wikipeadia that refers to the spread of causcasian people in 1885. After some web searches I can determin that caucasian is a right ***** to define. It can mean what I had in mind (large eye orbits, pale skin, fair hair etc), but it can even mean people of middle eastern descent (which I guess is more in line with your interpetation?) which I personally would never classify as caucasion. It's one of thoses things that you can argue back and forth and you're both wrong.

Once again Caucasian is more than just surface appearance would you consider the Japanese, Eskimos and Americans all part of the same greater race at a glance?

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

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

The answer to your question:

Spoiler

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

 

[Paradoxrifts]

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

So get with the times people!

 

[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.