White People and History

[Magna Libero]

Some cultures simply had especially good preconditions for their success.

Different cultures have different achievements that were amazing of their time. Some cultures have different values and simply just do not want to be successful in a materialistically and rather just stay to their ancient ways.

So, no, white people are not historically superior, because of our genes or something like that. It just happened. It could have been anywhere else on earth.
With the increase in mixing of people, open borders, travel and "third world countries" closing the wealth gap to more developed countries I think we could say that it doesn't matter as much as it used or it will matter even less in the future.

[Terra Sector Union]

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

Bigger skull/brain size or not, all humans that exist on this planet are self-aware beings. This is what should matter. That is why we really should consider ourselves superior to other animals. But instead, we decide to divide ourselves over psyhical appearance and bone structure. Really?

[Occidentria]

And no military career of any note? Are you serious? Are you fucking serious?

It's important for this to be re-emphasized.

Guess what? many, many 'black' Americans are mixed with at least a splash of European blood.

This is actually a source of contention and prejudice within the black community itself; many mixed-race people are ignorant of or consciously reject their biologically mixed identity. #TeamLightSkin is largely comprised of people with more European ancestry than black. But Stormskatchwan's pejorative use of the term "mulatto" suggests that she probably doesn't give a flying fuck.

As for the last bit, you're really, really, really sounding racist now.

Like, at what point wasn't she? I'm usually on the side of the folks calling out people for overdrawing their race card and even I'm feeling pretty Alsharptony in this thread..

[Dracoria]

Like, at what point wasn't she? I'm usually on the side of the folks calling out people for overdrawing their race card and even I'm feeling pretty Alsharptony in this thread..

Seriously, I know how you're feeling right now.

[Fascistic Republic Of Canada]

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.

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

That's just a liberal democratic failure, the war was won and France could have kept Algeria.

How's it doing now, though?

Left before the job was done because of Liberal Democracy.

Maritime European colonialism is to blame for the fall of most African nation-states

Maritime European Trade was the only things that kept the African Warlords alive, the delivery of arms gold.

I'm talking about the Western African so called "Empires" (Because lording over a few tribes and dirt is an empire)

Every single empire listed collapsed without successors.

Just the fact they were colonized so easily demonstrates weakness.

[Esternial]

Without Asia, though, Europe and it's spin-offs (America, Australia, etc.) wouldn't have been as successful as they have. They got some vital technology and ideas from a ways down the silk route.

That said, I can't say too much about it. I just know a dash of European history.

[Fascistic Republic Of Canada]

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



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.

The majority of US Military appointments are political? Are you kidding me?

There are hundreds of works on the politicization of the American military since the 90's and how it has negatively affected military preparedness. Those decorations aren't nothing to be boasting about either, they don't make him special, many exceptional soldiers have done the same. My Grandfather did ever better, but I'm not saying this made him special.

I'm saying he didn't effectively command an army, he didn't win a campaign, although he did spread propaganda for a useless war against Iraq.

[Berdanvia]

Whites did dominate most of history, although Asians also dominated a big part of history too.

[Occidentria]

I don't believe that it's nineteen or that it's female.

[Fascistic Republic Of Canada]

I don't believe that it's nineteen or that it's female.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ad_hominem

[Occidentria]

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

[Esternial]

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

If you're unable to have a mature debate you probably shouldn't bother trying at all.

[Dracoria]

The majority of US Military appointments are political? Are you kidding me?

There are hundreds of works on the politicization of the American military since the 90's and how it has negatively affected military preparedness. Those decorations aren't nothing to be boasting about either, they don't make him special, many exceptional soldiers have done the same. My Grandfather did ever better, but I'm not saying this made him special.

I'm saying he didn't effectively command an army, he didn't win a campaign, although he did spread propaganda for a useless war against Iraq.

No, the majority of officers earned their places. It's only at the top ranks where links to politicians really come into play. Probably Division command and up. Maybe Corps command.

Many exceptional soldiers have done the same, you say? So you are calling him an exceptional soldier? I'm not sure about exceptional, but he was certainly a good one. When he entered the military, it was before the Civil Rights movement had made much of an impact. He was among the early black soldiers to rise through the ranks, well before 'affirmative action' was even a thing. Yes, he didn't pull an Audie Murphie and hold off waves of Nazis with the machinegun of a burning tank destroyer, but he still performed many functions as an officer throughout Vietnam and later wars, which unfortunately at his rank was often desk work, planning and investigation in the other conflicts. His planning can be partially thanked for the blitz-styled warfare that the US and allies used in both invasions of Iraq, including the 'Shock and Awe' strategy. Powell's personality, drive and skill are what brought him up through the positions he held, not the color of his skin or political ass-kissing.

[Fascistic Republic Of Canada]

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

Oh, you're just an idiot then.

You're giving me a larger sense of self satisfaction, dealing with the fact that all that oppose me are as moronic as you.

[Occidentria]

If you're unable to have a mature debate you probably shouldn't bother trying at all.

Go back a few pages, would ya?
Was NSG's definition of the word 'debate' always this generous?

[Esternial]

If you're unable to have a mature debate you probably shouldn't bother trying at all.

Go back a few pages, would ya?
Was NSG's definition of the word 'debate' always this generous?

I don't have to.

As soon as you lose your composure, you should take a moment to realise how insignificant this debate is in your life before venturing into this thread again. It's nothing worth getting worked up about and especially not worth wasting those kind of insults on.

Yes. Because if one lags behind the entire group does.

[Fascistic Republic Of Canada]

The majority of US Military appointments are political? Are you kidding me?

There are hundreds of works on the politicization of the American military since the 90's and how it has negatively affected military preparedness. Those decorations aren't nothing to be boasting about either, they don't make him special, many exceptional soldiers have done the same. My Grandfather did ever better, but I'm not saying this made him special.

I'm saying he didn't effectively command an army, he didn't win a campaign, although he did spread propaganda for a useless war against Iraq.

No, the majority of officers earned their places. It's only at the top ranks where links to politicians really come into play. Probably Division command and up. Maybe Corps command.

Many exceptional soldiers have done the same, you say? So you are calling him an exceptional soldier? I'm not sure about exceptional, but he was certainly a good one. When he entered the military, it was before the Civil Rights movement had made much of an impact. He was among the early black soldiers to rise through the ranks, well before 'affirmative action' was even a thing. Yes, he didn't pull an Audie Murphie and hold off waves of Nazis with the machinegun of a burning tank destroyer, but he still performed many functions as an officer throughout Vietnam and later wars, which unfortunately at his rank was often desk work, planning and investigation in the other conflicts. His planning can be partially thanked for the blitz-styled warfare that the US and allies used in both invasions of Iraq, including the 'Shock and Awe' strategy. Powell's personality, drive and skill are what brought him up through the positions he held, not the color of his skin or political ass-kissing.

His planning can be partially thanked for the blitz-styled warfare that the US and allies used in both invasions of Iraq, including the 'Shock and Awe' strategy.

That's General Schwarzkopf and General Franks, I'm not sure why we are even talking about this guy when he is an obvious anecdote.

No, the majority of officers earned their places. It's only at the top ranks where links to politicians really come into play. Probably Division command and up. Maybe Corps command.

Everything from Brigade up actually

[Occidentria]

As soon as you lose your composure, you should take a moment to realise how insignificant this debate is in your life before venturing into this thread again. It's nothing worth getting worked up about and especially not worth wasting those kind of insults on.

The whole reason anyone participates in NS, or for that matter any pointless internet argument forum community, is for want of more significant things to do in their lives during the time of participation.

[Esternial]

As soon as you lose your composure, you should take a moment to realise how insignificant this debate is in your life before venturing into this thread again. It's nothing worth getting worked up about and especially not worth wasting those kind of insults on.

The whole reason anyone participates in NS, or for that matter any pointless internet argument forum community, is for want of more significant things to do in their lives during the time of participation.

It's just a way to pass the time. Hardly significant enough.

[Janshah]

Oh wow, I have so many thoughts and opinions on this topic.. where to start?

For starters, it depends on a lot of definitions. If 'white' is anyone with a skin lighter than the people who originated in the sub-sahara part of the continent of Africa, then yes - white people dominated history. Because in that view, most of the world would have been white people at the time history happened.

Or is white 'European, or with roots tracing to Europe'? That's still pretty vague.. entire peoples used to move around a lot over the centuries.

One of the most important 'recent' defining events of the 'European' peoples was the expansion of the Ottoman empire all the way to central Europe. Were the Turkic people considered a 'white' people? To their colonies in Africa and Asia perhaps they were. On their border with Austria, where the proximity of Germanic and Nordic peoples set a different standard for how light one's skin could be, a different opinion was held.

Therefore, Europe felt it had historical events thrust upon it by a dark skinned people, whereas from the same source Africa will have felt it was experiencing influence from a white people.

And history is full of stuff like that.

But even if all that ambiguitity didn't exist, we could safely say that history still would not have ended up where it is now without the influence and direction given to world history by people who were clearly among the most dark-skinned in the world. Remember for example the Malinese Empire, which spread its laws, culture and language through a substantial part of the world and was renowned for its wealth and its collection of knowledge. Antique european maps depict rulers like Mansa Musa with a gold crown and scepter, symbols that mean they took them as a very serious power. Trade connections of knowledge and goods from Timbuktu were factors in what did and did not happen along the Mediterranean and the Middle East, which at that time were quite defining places for what happened in ('white'?) Europe.


Further down, all the way to antiquity, it is worthy to note that a great nation like Ancient Egypt was not at all times controlled by the lighter skinned half of its people. Due to biased interest from the entertainment industry, people today are most familiar with that empire as it was during the Ptolemaeic dynasty (specifically, when Cleopatra lived and all that business with the Roman Empire was going down). Since the Ptolemies were originally Greek, they tend to be portrayed by actors who are perhaps a bit too light for the region. But at another stage in its history, Egypt was brought back from the brink of collapse by a succession of succesful pharaoh's who historians now know as the Black Pharaohs. (Amusingly, the Black Pharaoh dynasties were from what is now the area of Ethiopia and Eritrea, and the peoples there consider themselves to be 'brown', as a better balance between 'too dark' and 'too light'. They have a really cool creation myth about that.)

Anyway.. I think most people would agree that if Ancient Egypt, as a superpower of the ancient world, had disintegrated prematurely.. the story of civilisation would have looked different. How is that for influence.


Now this hasn't even gone into the question of Asia and the Americas, if you don't consider their inhabitants as light skinned peoples. I'll not discuss Asia because, quite frankly, it is just too obvious that it _has_ been of momentous importance to world history, even if you limit it to the easy reasoning that a damn lot of world history happened in Asia, which has throughout history always been the world's largest settled continent both in size and by population.

But let's go for a less commonly heard argument: the 'red' people of the North Americas. Too often I hear that they had hardly any influence on history, because almost nothing was left of them after the expanding European powers rather brutally colonized the continent half a millennium ago. But shaping history isn't battles and conquests -- it is the interactions of peoples. Consider this for a moment: if the peoples of pre-colonization America had chosen to live a culture of exploitation of the land instead of preservation for the generations to come, then what would Columbus (or whoever else you prefer to have been the first outsider to show up there) have arrived to? Instead of fertile lands ready for the taking, there would most likely have been deforested lands and degraded soils on the coast, like what Europe itself had at the time.. possibly still for the taking, but not with enough easy-for-the-taking riches to have kickstarted the colonies onto the fast track to independence.


How is that for making history what it is?

[Glorious Freedonia]

Societies rise and fall. People ridiculously claim the white "race" is somehow superior or different from others because white people happen to be in positions of power in the short term of history we think of. Powerful empires ruled over by individuals that weren't white, as was the case throughout much of history, is simply forgotten because the type of people who believe in racial superiority are the same type of people who struggle with history beyond what happened a week ago.

I think that is rather rude towards racial supremacists.

I am not sure if Egyptians were white but I bet the other middle Easter empires were. The Aryans who conquered India were white. The Chinese certainly are not white.
And they conquered the whites in Japan who I have no idea where they came from. Mali was at least a very rich Empire. Ghenghis Kahn established the largest empire ever and he was not white. The Soviet Union and the European empires were pretty white. I would argue that the outnumbered caucasoid race disproportionately dominated world history compared to his negroid and mongoloid brethren.

[The Sotoan Union]

Yeah white people dominated history. Except for those few thousand years when they didn't.

[Shnercropolis]

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.

Well, for 3000 years all dominant nations were middle-eastern or Chinese or Hindi. Then Rome came along and kinda dominated the Medeterranian for awhile(and yes I'd say Rome was greater than the Han or Gupta empires). Then Rome died out and Europe faded back into obscurity until the 1400s, when they started to explore and realized that most people didn't have cannons on their ships, which was really nice because it made sea empire-building really easy.

So, maybe for 1800 out of 5000 years Europeans have been dominant.

[Shnercropolis]

Societies rise and fall. People ridiculously claim the white "race" is somehow superior or different from others because white people happen to be in positions of power in the short term of history we think of. Powerful empires ruled over by individuals that weren't white, as was the case throughout much of history, is simply forgotten because the type of people who believe in racial superiority are the same type of people who struggle with history beyond what happened a week ago.

I think that is rather rude towards racial supremacists.

I am not sure if Egyptians were white but I bet the other middle Easter empires were. The Aryans who conquered India were white. The Chinese certainly are not white.
And they conquered the whites in Japan who I have no idea where they came from. Mali was at least a very rich Empire. Ghenghis Kahn established the largest empire ever and he was not white. The Soviet Union and the European empires were pretty white. I would argue that the outnumbered caucasoid race disproportionately dominated world history compared to his negroid and mongoloid brethren.

Akkadians, Assyrians, Persians and Arabs were all nonwhite.

[Estado Nacional]

Now, you'd have a point if the Great Empire of the Australian Aborigine was a rising world power.

Haha, good one.