White People and History

[Dracoria]

Thing is, if you consider the USA and Russia to be exclusively white, he's almost right. Of course, that would be bending the truth until it breaks but that is beside the point. Militarily, China is the closest (unless one also considers the Chinese, Mongolians, Tuibetans and any other groups within the country to be white), but still has a bit of catching up to do. Economically, China (and to a lesser extent Japan) are very close but that trend may not last much longer. We'll see in the coming decacdes.

Russia and America are majority white, plus it's she.

America is still 60% White, the majority of Military Leadership, Bureaucrats and Government positions are operated by whites. Barack Obama is basically a figurehead meant to solidify black support of the Democratic Party, as well as gain a big prestige "hurr first black president" (Who is actually a mulatto)

First off, my apologies over gender pronouns.

Secondly, 60% white may mean a slight majority is of European descent, but that's still a far cry from being a 'white country'. That number's kind of dropping as time goes on, too.

And thirdly, yes, I'm pretty certain Barack's skin tone was one of his selling points in the primaries and the elections. Granted, with the golfing, the smiling for pictures, the fly fishing and the bicycling in one of those silly aerodynamic helmets he seems pretty damned white to me, but the current face of the American government is one many would call 'black' in appearance.

[Forsher]

That wasn't the point. The point was that you were asking for a country stronger than a larger region, which should be obviously unreasonable. Also, much of Asia is very wealthy, with modern technologies/tactics/weapons and far larger, younger populations than Western Europe.

Europe has to be united for the sake of argument in order to make them a superpower. If I can not utilize them, then Russia and the USA are good enough.

So, what you're saying is that the majority of "white" countries can be held as not as strong as some non-white countries?

And, as I said before, selecting the US is unfair on the grounds that China is, ultimately, not yet a superpower in the full military-economic sense... and it is the closes to being so. Certainly, it is important enough for the US to re-orient but still not a superpower. Russia is, also, not a superpower any more. It is a brick.

Because I am going to bed, I'm going to reiterate my point. You've chosen the only superpower as a nation to find stronger countries than. This is, obviously, impossible. Your question is, as such, incapable of establishing any worthwhile point beyond, "The US is still #1, for now."

[Purpelia]

On the other hand if america had been such a dictatorship the VC would newer have even attempted the move to begin with.

The Tet Offensive was aimed as sparking a popular revolution, not at a military/propaganda victory.

Something which could only work against a government not willing to fight a popular revolution with the kind of methods a dictatorship can use.

[Fascistic Republic Of Canada]

Russia and America are majority white, plus it's she.

America is still 60% White, the majority of Military Leadership, Bureaucrats and Government positions are operated by whites. Barack Obama is basically a figurehead meant to solidify black support of the Democratic Party, as well as gain a big prestige "hurr first black president" (Who is actually a mulatto)

First off, my apologies over gender pronouns.

Secondly, 60% white may mean a slight majority is of European descent, but that's still a far cry from being a 'white country'. That number's kind of dropping as time goes on, too.

And thirdly, yes, I'm pretty certain Barack's skin tone was one of his selling points in the primaries and the elections. Granted, with the golfing, the smiling for pictures, the fly fishing and the bicycling in one of those silly aerodynamic helmets he seems pretty damned white to me, but the current face of the American government is one many would call 'black' in appearance.

The country's military/industrial base and power were built up by the European majority. The majority of the military is White, especially as you go up in ranks into the officer corps. Obama is a token black president.

[Fascistic Republic Of Canada]

The Tet Offensive was aimed as sparking a popular revolution, not at a military/propaganda victory.

Something which could only work against a government not willing to fight a popular revolution with the kind of methods a dictatorship can use.

The idea is that if the entire South Vietnamese population joins the revolution, America has to withdraw at fears of simply becoming overwhelmed. ARVN Forces switching sides or deserting would be major catastrophe.

[Fascistic Republic Of Canada]

Europe has to be united for the sake of argument in order to make them a superpower. If I can not utilize them, then Russia and the USA are good enough.

So, what you're saying is that the majority of "white" countries can be held as not as strong as some non-white countries?

And, as I said before, selecting the US is unfair on the grounds that China is, ultimately, not yet a superpower in the full military-economic sense... and it is the closes to being so. Certainly, it is important enough for the US to re-orient but still not a superpower. Russia is, also, not a superpower any more. It is a brick.

Because I am going to bed, I'm going to reiterate my point. You've chosen the only superpower as a nation to find stronger countries than. This is, obviously, impossible. Your question is, as such, incapable of establishing any worthwhile point beyond, "The US is still #1, for now."

Russia is a military super power, it has the ability to project naval power across the oceans. It can stage multiple military interventions, it has client states and overseas military bases.

China is the strongest non white nation, and it doesn't even compare in strength to Russia or America or united Europe.

[Sahrani South]

European people may be superior because they mated with neanderthalians, who had bigger brains and created thus smarter descendants with more power and cleverness.

[Wine-loving Chimps]

The white 'race' has dominated history, according to some. Is this view ahistorical, whatever its (In my opinion, complete lack of) scientific merit? Whatever one's opinion on race, is it true that the cultural construct we generally recognize as the white race has dominated world events, striving forward where other races merely followed? Is it true that certain races have gotten the short end of the historical stick, so to speak, or is it simply that the bias of some leads them to apply current circumstances to history?

In case my tone didn't make it apparent, I'm not a fan of the idea. I think it's morally unsound and has no basis in history; not even in European history.

Discuss.

I agree with you OP that race is no way to base history off indeed. ''Race'' is an ill-defined cultural construct- Heck, they didn't even recognize Spaniards and Portuguese people as white until the 20th century (they were classed as 'non-white Europeans) but if you are going to have to, you must admit whites (as we understand it today) have dominated world history for the past few hundred years.

OK, time for me to wade into this fire storm....

1) They colonized almost everyone else. The British Empire once covered a quarter of the planet. French Empire covered huge swathes of Africa and Southeast Asia. Fact is, nowadays you really can't look at them without a basic understanding of the white history that lead to where they are today. The mid to late 20th century was dominated by 2 (part) white superpowers threatening to blast each other to oblivion and their struggles to get everyone to side with them.

2) Too much of this discussion is about dissing white's scientific and technological contributions. Yes, whites were fortunate with what they plundered from everyone else, but then they contributed more with it. Philosophically, the roots of many nations are white dominated. Or is China not communist?. Are not India and Japan democracies just like Britain and the USA? Do they respect human rights attempting to bring about equality? Is not the dominant economic model today capitalism? Correct me if I'm wrong, but those concepts all have whites as the spiritual parents and they dominate most political discourse today. Technologically, are you using the internet? Or are you on a phone traveling on a train or plane or car? And do they use electricity? Linguistically, we're debating this in English, right? ... ... OK that was a cheap shot.

3) Please don't accuse me of racism or imperialism. My mouth is dry and has a bad taste just from typing all this. Race is but the amount of melanin there is in the skin or how much skin there is in their eyelids and is a terrible way to judge someone. People have to look what people say, think and do. Great people have emerged in all races and awed everyone else with their discoveries, literature, music, poetry and philosophies. And while changing, whites still have the dominant position today.

*takes cover.

[Occidentria]

Not keeping control of your nuclear weapons displays a complete lack of structural stability.
Russia was at this point in the 90's and they've since recovered.

Pakistan was a sh!tty example by whomever suggested it. Ukraine was put forth as a "white" country with a comparable holistic circumstance, and until the '90s, (since you used it as a point of reference in your own argument) the owner of the third largest nuclear arsenal on the planet.

A full blown marxist insurgency, where government control is not extended and police refuse to travel.

I felt safer in Calcutta than in Brownsville, but that's anecdotal.

I'd say military power is the best display of 'power' on a global scale.

On what basis, and what standards?
We live in a world where war is "politically incorrect" at worst and an ineffective tool of diplomacy at best, where policymaking decisions are more guided by holistic economic considerations and the perpetual PR campaign that is 21st century reality. Team America: World Police hasn't engaged in a strategically successful military intervention since well before the turn of the century and the world's conventional militaries by and large suck at counterinsurgencies, generally because the only successful means of suppressing them generate a lot of sour press.
If size is our standard, DPRK ought to be mighty spoopy, but it isn't. If equipment and funding as a portion of central budget is our standard, the U.S. also ought to be mighty spoopy, which it is on paper, but in pragmatic practice isn't.

If we're talking about the strength and size of nuclear arsenal, then there's no question that the United States and Russia are without question the strongest countries on the planet, and will be for centuries to come. But let's wait until we see another use of nuclear arms in action before we regard them as the sole trump card of military strength-- terrifying as it may be, global governance quietly operates on the assumption that no state will ever use a nuclear weapon against another state.

Two or three more generations' separation between us and Nagasaki might lead us to take that presumption irreparably for granted.

It was something to the tune of "please to be naming me of countries of minorities that are is stronk as waite countrez."

I'm only exaggerating by a little bit, that's the sad thing.

That's a nice Ad Absurdum argument.

Again it seems necessary for me to clarify to you that these are insults, not arguments.

Thing is, if you consider the USA and Russia to be exclusively white, he's almost right. Of course, that would be bending the truth until it breaks but that is beside the point. Militarily, China is the closest (unless one also considers the Chinese, Mongolians, Tuibetans and any other groups within the country to be white), but still has a bit of catching up to do. Economically, China (and to a lesser extent Japan) are very close but that trend may not last much longer. We'll see in the coming decacdes.

Of course she's right.
But presuming that those countries call the shots solely because of the skin pigmentations of their leadership and the virtues that entails is some ph level 14 retard shit.

[Wine-loving Chimps]

European people may be superior because they mated with neanderthalians, who had bigger brains and created thus smarter descendants with more power and cleverness.

That's untrue. Brain size is the same for all races.

[Purpelia]

Something which could only work against a government not willing to fight a popular revolution with the kind of methods a dictatorship can use.

The idea is that if the entire South Vietnamese population joins the revolution, America has to withdraw at fears of simply becoming overwhelmed. ARVN Forces switching sides or deserting would be major catastrophe.

Something that could only happen with an america that is not a violent dictatorship. A violent dictatorship america would have had access to the entirety of its national resources to pursue a war. So basically WW2 take 2. I imagine even nukes would have flown. Messy.

[Fascistic Republic Of Canada]

Not keeping control of your nuclear weapons displays a complete lack of structural stability.
Russia was at this point in the 90's and they've since recovered.

Pakistan was a sh!tty example by whomever suggested it. Ukraine was put forth as a "white" country with a comparable holistic circumstance, and until the '90s, (since you used it as a point of reference in your own argument) the owner of the third largest nuclear arsenal on the planet.

A full blown marxist insurgency, where government control is not extended and police refuse to travel.

I felt safer in Calcutta than in Brownsville, but that's anecdotal.
\

I'd say military power is the best display of 'power' on a global scale.

On what basis, and what standards?
We live in a world where war is "politically incorrect" at worst and an ineffective tool of diplomacy at best, where policymaking decisions are more guided by holistic economic considerations and the perpetual PR campaign that is 21st century reality. Team America: World Police hasn't engaged in a strategically successful military intervention since well before the turn of the century and the world's conventional militaries by and large suck at counterinsurgencies, generally because the only successful means of suppressing them generate a lot of sour press.
If size is our standard, DPRK ought to be mighty spoopy, but it isn't. If equipment and funding as a portion of central budget is our standard, the U.S. also ought to be mighty spoopy, which it is on paper, but in pragmatic practice isn't.

If we're talking about the strength and size of nuclear arsenal, then there's no question that the United States and Russia are without question the strongest countries on the planet, and will be for centuries to come. But let's wait until we see another use of nuclear arms in action before we regard them as the sole trump card of military strength-- terrifying as it may be, global governance quietly operates on the assumption that no state will ever use a nuclear weapon against another state.

Two or three more generations' separation between us and Nagasaki might lead us to take that presumption irreparably for granted.

Again it seems necessary for me to clarify to you that these are insults, not arguments.

Of course she's right.
But presuming that those countries call the shots solely because of the skin pigmentations of their leadership and the virtues that entails is some ph level 14 retard shit.

That's not the point, people only hold these idiotic cushioned views toward war because they're padded with massive amounts of consumerist goods. They're padded, they're at the top of Maslow's hierarchy of needs. Once things start to get a little hotter, they'll start to see the necessity of war.

Western Military's are excellent at counter insurgency. Look at the loss/kill ratio in Iraq, by 2011, things had calmed down massively. Restrict RoE is the main problem, soldiers should simply be allowed to target large sections of the population. The French in Algeria had the right idea.

But presuming that those countries call the shots solely because of the skin pigmentations of their leadership and the virtues that entails is some ph level 14 retard shi

Race is a lot more than pigmentation. Proto-Europeans mated with neanderthals and developed in a much more hostile resources scare environment than the other races. They are simply more intelligent, more evolved and more capable of building developed structures.

The best empires in Africa would simply fall apart after a 10-200 years because of structure flaws and incapable management. Wide spread agricultural and not even the wheel was developed.

[Fascistic Republic Of Canada]

European people may be superior because they mated with neanderthalians, who had bigger brains and created thus smarter descendants with more power and cleverness.

That's untrue. Brain size is the same for all races.

Not true, Frontal Lobe is larger in Europid skulls.




The left is an aboriginal from Australia, the unmistakably least developed people on the world

[Dracoria]

First off, my apologies over gender pronouns.

Secondly, 60% white may mean a slight majority is of European descent, but that's still a far cry from being a 'white country'. That number's kind of dropping as time goes on, too.

And thirdly, yes, I'm pretty certain Barack's skin tone was one of his selling points in the primaries and the elections. Granted, with the golfing, the smiling for pictures, the fly fishing and the bicycling in one of those silly aerodynamic helmets he seems pretty damned white to me, but the current face of the American government is one many would call 'black' in appearance.

The country's military/industrial base and power were built up by the European majority. The majority of the military is White, especially as you go up in ranks into the officer corps. Obama is a token black president.

I'm going to sound so much like a liberal saying this, but yes, the military and industry were built by those of European descent, a good portion being on the backs of either black slaves or recent immigrants, often of minorities which tend to be clustered together as 'white' now (Irish, German, what have you).

As for the military, that's a cultural thing within the US. Many who make a career in the military have direct ancestors who did the same, especially in the officer corps. Due to segregation in various points over the years, especially in the Army (and Air Force that split from it), most of the military families have been white. As a result, many who look forward to serving in the volunteer military have likewise been white. There have been a gradually increasing number of nonwhite officers climbing the ranks in the years since Vietnam, though.

[Immoren]

That's untrue. Brain size is the same for all races.

Not true, Frontal Lobe is larger in Europid skulls.



The left is an aboriginal from Australia, the unmistakably least developed people on the world

Could be any hominid, given only evidence for it beingAustralian aborigine is your word.

[Old Tyrannia]

The ancient Near East was laying the foundations for modern Western civilisation long before Rome or Greece. "White" people were living in tents and making cave art whilst the Egyptians erected the Great Pyramids of Giza and the Sumerians produced the world's earliest writing system. The great civilisations of the Mexica and Tahuantinsuyo rose independently of European influence; Song dynasty China was vastly more advanced than contemporary Europe technologically. History does not support the idea that "white" people are in any way "dominant" or "superior" to other ethnic groups.

[Fascistic Republic Of Canada]

The country's military/industrial base and power were built up by the European majority. The majority of the military is White, especially as you go up in ranks into the officer corps. Obama is a token black president.

I'm going to sound so much like a liberal saying this, but yes, the military and industry were built by those of European descent, a good portion being on the backs of either black slaves or recent immigrants, often of minorities which tend to be clustered together as 'white' now (Irish, German, what have you).

As for the military, that's a cultural thing within the US. Many who make a career in the military have direct ancestors who did the same, especially in the officer corps. Due to segregation in various points over the years, especially in the Army (and Air Force that split from it), most of the military families have been white. As a result, many who look forward to serving in the volunteer military have likewise been white. There have been a gradually increasing number of nonwhite officers climbing the ranks in the years since Vietnam, though.

Colin Powell is mixed, and an anecdote and doesn't even have a military career of much note.

There have been a gradually increasing number of nonwhite officers climbing the ranks in the years since Vietnam, though.

Yes, that's called affirmative action and political appointment.

The majority of infrastructure in the United States was built by Europeans. A few railroads were made by Chinese, but simply because the labour was cheaper. The fact that they were so easily utilized shows how inferior their civilization was.

[Fascistic Republic Of Canada]

Not true, Frontal Lobe is larger in Europid skulls.



The left is an aboriginal from Australia, the unmistakably least developed people on the world

Could be any hominid, given only evidence for it beingAustralian aborigine is your word.

Google Aboriginal vs Slav Skulls

Or even Australian Aboriginal Skulls

[Dracoria]

That's untrue. Brain size is the same for all races.

Not true, Frontal Lobe is larger in Europid skulls.

http://i.imgur.com/MTPZ8I2.jpg

http://jewamongyou.files.wordpress.com/ ... s-slav.jpg
The left is an aboriginal from Australia, the unmistakably least developed people on the world

Brain sizes do in fact vary, but not by a very substantial range. Brain size does not necessarily correlate with intelligence, either. In fact, neanderthals - undoubtedly even less developed than modern Australian aboriginals - had larger brains than any modern humans, and their genes are probably why modern Europeans and Asians have larger brains than those without neanderthal blood.

[Immoren]

Colin Powell is mixed, and an anecdote and doesn't even have a military career of much note.
.

Most of people serving in military doesnt have career of much note, so that's not really relevant.

[Fascistic Republic Of Canada]

Not true, Frontal Lobe is larger in Europid skulls.

http://i.imgur.com/MTPZ8I2.jpg

http://jewamongyou.files.wordpress.com/ ... s-slav.jpg
The left is an aboriginal from Australia, the unmistakably least developed people on the world

Brain sizes do in fact vary, but not by a very substantial range. Brain size does not necessarily correlate with intelligence, either. In fact, neanderthals - undoubtedly even less developed than modern Australian aboriginals - had larger brains than any modern humans, and their genes are probably why modern Europeans and Asians have larger brains than those without neanderthal blood.

Neanderthals were more intelligent than the Early Humans of the period. Neanderthals being stupid is simply a modern day myth.

[Fascistic Republic Of Canada]

Colin Powell is mixed, and an anecdote and doesn't even have a military career of much note.
.

Most of people serving in military doesnt have career of much note, so that's not really relevant.

Then he shouldn't use him an example of exceptional capability, then should he?

[Occidentria]

The French in Algeria had the right idea.

That's literally the exact point I made. But you'll notice things look a bit different in Algeria these days, don't they?

Look at the loss/kill ratio in Iraq, by 2011, things had calmed down massively.

How's it doing now, though?
You're looking at this strictly from a tactical standpoint, overlooking the strategic failure of every significant counterinsurgency operation every MILITARY (not just Western) has attempted since the '50s. Ironically enough, Sri Lanka might be the only debatable example to the contrary.

The best empires in Africa would simply fall apart after a 10-200 years because of structure flaws and incapable management. Wide spread agricultural and not even the wheel was developed.

10-200 is a downright autistic sample range, unless you meant 10-20 years. In either case you're just like, wrong.
Maritime European colonialism is to blame for the fall of most African nation-states, and not for the "oooh, whitey's evil" argument espoused by most Tumblrists, but rather the comparative levels of development (Europeans with the upper hand in part for the reasons you describe), and the fact that even during the height of the Scramble for Africa, European nations by-and-large played nice in their partitioning of the continent for their own interests, whereas African tribes perceived relationships and cooperation white slavers as a diplomatic opportunity to gain the upper-hand in their conflicts with neighboring nations. The concept of black racial identity and pan-Africanism on the continent didn't arrive until decades after total European domination of the continent was non-debatable.

[Immoren]

Most of people serving in military doesnt have career of much note, so that's not really relevant.

Then he shouldn't use him an example of exceptional capability, then should he?

I don't know. I am just dyslexic with short memory eyeing the thread. I already forgot specific part about "exceptional"

[Dracoria]

Colin Powell is mixed, and an anecdote and doesn't even have a military career of much note.

There have been a gradually increasing number of nonwhite officers climbing the ranks in the years since Vietnam, though.

Yes, that's called affirmative action and political appointment.

The majority of infrastructure in the United States was built by Europeans. A few railroads were made by Chinese, but simply because the labour was cheaper. The fact that they were so easily utilized shows how inferior their civilization was.

Guess what? many, many 'black' Americans are mixed with at least a splash of European blood. And no military career of any note? Are you serious? Are you fucking serious?

Political appointment doesn't get you through most of the ranks in the US military these days. It only helps at the very top; to get there, you have to work your ass off. Unless things have changed in the past couple years, affirmative action won't help you in the military either. Yeah, I heard something about lowering some physical requirements for women in some service or another, but that still doesn't mean anything if they can't tough it out through boot camp and training carrying a lot more gear than most civilians could probably carry for long. If anyone could be considered favored, it's the offspring of high-ranking officers as they often achieve high ranks themselves, but even this isn't true. John McCain the Third's father and grandfather both made it to admiralty, but his injuries in Vietnam left lasting marks on his health that would prevent him from achieving the rank himself. He was CO of a training squadron and liasion from the Navy to the Senate, but that was somewhat of a career dead end until he decided to just leave and go into the Senate full time.

As for the last bit, you're really, really, really sounding racist now. The Chinese immigrants worked for little because there were very few jobs available for them. They did what they had to to feed themselves and their families. There were a lot of Black guys working before them, too. Usually against their will.