White People and History

[The Ben Boys]

The white 'race' has dominated history, according to some.

History is Western focused as a whole, not "white race dominated". There's a difference. The first means that, from a historiographic perspective, education focuses on the West (not whites), which is true (disproportionate amount of material on Europe and North America). Second means that a specific ethnicity has been dominating the world throughout history (not true).

Is this view ahistorical, whatever its (In my opinion, complete lack of) scientific merit?

No, the largest empire in terms of world population percentile was Persian, whilst largest empire in terms of land area was British (very) closely followed by the Mongolians.

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?

No. It has to do with the development of modern history. The colonial era was insanely Western dominated (Romans had the Carthaginians, Mongols had the Chinese, Ottomans had the Spanish, etc); there was almost no one to challenge them from 1700(isn) on save for the fledgling Turks, and even that merits more of a pity pat on the head than anything else. Therefore traces of Western society are found all around the world, and by extension history tends to focus on the West. The fact that there was a disproportionate amount of record keeping, writing of books, and journals that can be used as sources for books and histories helps.

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?

It's simply misunderstanding of history by those that erroneously believe that the West has dominated history, there are only the most recent and most international sans the Chinese and the Mongols.

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.

I wouldn't call it morally unsound unless people claim it's racial-based (which is then racism), rather just a (large) lack of knowledge.

[NeoColumbia]

Wrote a long response but for some reason it did connect.

TL;DR Version.

Marvopen,

Yes it's probably a theme because you have an autistic persistance with posting walls of texts from idiot academics who grew up in nice all white neighborhoodsand then try to tell anyone who beleives in the reality of race that their evil and wrong by setting out with the premise beforehand that race doesn't exist (obviously you care enough to put it in your signature).

Conformation Bias as you pointed out.

Maybe people who beleive race exist actually have other things to do than discuss it for an hour when their original post wasn't about argueing the existance of race(shocking i know) but if you want to chock it up as great intellectual Victory be my guest. It has nothing to do with ebarassment i don't care enough about what you think to possibly be embarrassed (Someone who has a fixation on Anime, Ponies and Nationstates forums apparently) yeah blah blah ad hominem whatever.

Now go along and spend more time talking about how im just so embarressed that you disproved my views by reposting useless wall of text over and over.

P.S. White Power 1488

[Mavorpen]

Wrote a long response but for some reason it did connect.

Suuure.

TL;DR Version.
Marvopen,

Yes it's probably a theme because you have an autistic persistance with posting walls of texts from idiot academics who grew up in nice all white neighborhoodsand then try to tell anyone who beleives in the reality of race that their evil and wrong by setting with the premise beforehand that race doesn't exist (obviously you care enough to put it in your signature).

Conformation Bias as you pointed out.

Maybe people who beleive race exist actually have other things to do than discuss it for an hour when their original post wasn't about argueing the existance of race(shocking i know) but if you want to chock it up as great intellectual Victory be my guest. It has nothing to do with ebarassment i don't care enough about what you think to possibly be embarrassed (Someone who has a fixation on Anime, Ponies and Nationstates forums apparently) yeah blah blah ad hominem whatever.

Now go along and spend more time talking about how im just so embarressed that you disproved my views by reposting useless wall of text over and over.

P.S. White Power 1488

So basically, "waaaaaahhhhh! How dare you use facts!?!?!"

[NeoColumbia]

"Facts"?

Thats a funny way to spell Bullshit.

[Soldati Senza Confini]

"Facts"?

Thats a funny way to spell Bullshit.

And that's funny coming from you.

Mr.I-Don't-remember-my-phrenology-definition.

[Mavorpen]

"Facts"?

Thats a funny way to spell Bullshit.

I wouldn't lecture someone on spelling, considering your horrendous track record on just that.

Either way though, I don't understand why you're still here, kid. You clearly don't have any evidence, and you clearly don't know how to debate nor do you have any real knowledge on this topic. If you're here to circle jerk, you're in the wrong forum.

[Land and Freedom]

Only great men have dominated history.

On the risk of going off-topic... cultural forces have forced history along just as often as great men. It's not an either/or - great men create cultures, cultures create great men, and every great man in history has worked through the lens of his culture, even if he seeks to change it.

Genghis Khan did not conquer half the world, his soldiers, a loose confederation of hundreds of tribes did it collectively. Neither did the Pharaohs build the pyramids. Architects laid out the plans, and workers built them, collectively. When the workers famously went on strike the future of the pyramids fell into jeopardy. These enterprises did have chief visionaries, individuals that through cunning and charisma did move history in different ways. But let us not forget the progress of society is a collective effort, an effort of all different kinds of people the whole world over.

[Purpelia]

Genghis Khan did not conquer half the world, his soldiers, a loose confederation of hundreds of tribes did it collectively. Neither did the Pharaohs build the pyramids. Architects laid out the plans, and workers built them, collectively. When the workers famously went on strike the future of the pyramids fell into jeopardy. These enterprises did have chief visionaries, individuals that through cunning and charisma did move history in different ways. But let us not forget the progress of society is a collective effort, an effort of all different kinds of people the whole world over.

I would not go so far to call these people different. Sure they came from different times and different cultures, races and genders. But ultimately a working man is a working man. The Mongol soldiers raping their way through Eurasia were just as equally members of the proletariat as were the pyramid builders of Egypt. It's just that their line of work was different.

[The Batorys]

There are no girls adults on the internet.
Upon joining I made the dumb, dumb mistake of presuming NS would be principally comprised of college students-to-thirtysomethings, like pre-popularized Reddit.

I sorta made the same mistake too.

I thought this would be a more mature space.

I was very, VERY wrong, but now I can't leave God damnit.

It used to be.

[The Batorys]

Well, Europeans, and other whites may have certainly shaped the world as it is today.
Languages and cultures have been shaped by the actions of the white man.
The majority of the people in the world are either Christian or Muslim.
The whole way of life in Africa and the Americas has been shaped by the colonialism of Europe
Some in a positive way, like Mexico, some in a bad way like Africa, and some in a way we can not really decide weather or not it is good or bad like the United States.
But truth is, overhunting by whites, or by other races using technology they got from the Caucasian People.
But while the majority of History may be shaped by the whites;
Islam, Christianity, the Roman empire, imperialism, the Persians, the Crusades
but others like the Mongols and the Chinese have also played a huge part,
in fact, nearly everybody played their part in history.
But truth is, that the whites may have had a bigger part in history how we know it today

Romans were not universally white, most people who care about race count Arabs or Persians as whites (Not that people who care about race are of any concern, really).

Most of the influence of the white people is recent. They were a minor little backwater in a far corner of the world.

Pretty much this.

In terms of the scale of human history, Europe has been significant for only a very small percentage of the time.

[Purpelia]

I sorta made the same mistake too.

I thought this would be a more mature space.

I was very, VERY wrong, but now I can't leave God damnit.

It used to be.

Really? When?

[Old Tyrannia]

I sorta made the same mistake too.

I thought this would be a more mature space.

I was very, VERY wrong, but now I can't leave God damnit.

It used to be.

Not since I've been here, and judging by your join date, it looks as if you joined just after me (you may have had previous nations, of course). I think you're looking at the past through rose-tinted glasses; NationStates has always had its fair share of edgy teens.

Phrenology? Jesus Christ. What's next, are you going to tell us you can cure cancer with some magic quartz crystals and incense?

No no, that's after bringing someone's dead mother back to life using the Philosopher's Stone.

*Insert Fullmetal Alchemist reference here*

Wrote a long response but for some reason it did connect.

TL;DR Version.

Marvopen,

Yes it's probably a theme because you have an autistic persistance with posting walls of texts from idiot academics who grew up in nice all white neighborhoodsand then try to tell anyone who beleives in the reality of race that their evil and wrong by setting out with the premise beforehand that race doesn't exist (obviously you care enough to put it in your signature).

What is this, International Offending Autistic People Week?

[Land and Freedom]

Genghis Khan did not conquer half the world, his soldiers, a loose confederation of hundreds of tribes did it collectively. Neither did the Pharaohs build the pyramids. Architects laid out the plans, and workers built them, collectively. When the workers famously went on strike the future of the pyramids fell into jeopardy. These enterprises did have chief visionaries, individuals that through cunning and charisma did move history in different ways. But let us not forget the progress of society is a collective effort, an effort of all different kinds of people the whole world over.

I would not go so far to call these people different. Sure they came from different times and different cultures, races and genders. But ultimately a working man is a working man. The Mongol soldiers raping their way through Eurasia were just as equally members of the proletariat as were the pyramid builders of Egypt. It's just that their line of work was different.

Very true.

[The New Lowlands]

While not directly relevant, this comes to mind.

[Purpelia]

What is this, International Offending Autistic People Week?

This is one thing I newer understood about the PC crowd. How is comparing someone to a disabled person in order to insult that someone insulting to the disabled person he is being compared to? The disabled person is clearly disabled, so pointing that out is not insulting. And it's not like he or she has a choice in being that way. So again, not insulting. Not unless pointing out the obvious is suddenly a bad thing. Where as the person being compared to is basically being told: "See that disabled person? Well he can't chose he is that way. But what's your excuse?" The only person that should feel insulted is the original person and not the disabled one.

[Old Tyrannia]

What is this, International Offending Autistic People Week?

This is one thing I newer understood about the PC crowd. How is comparing someone to a disabled person in order to insult that someone insulting to the disabled person he is being compared to? The disabled person is clearly disabled, so pointing that out is not insulting. And it's not like he or she has a choice in being that way. So again, not insulting. Not unless pointing out the obvious is suddenly a bad thing. Where as the person being compared to is basically being told: "See that disabled person? Well he can't chose he is that way. But what's your excuse?" The only person that should feel insulted is the original person and not the disabled one.

Well, first of all, many people with high-functioning ASDs do not consider themselves "disabled," myself for one. Second of all, using a medical/psychiatric term as a pejorative has the effect of stigmatising the people who are actually affected by that condition. It's rather like asking how using "gay" as an insult is offensive to homosexuals; it reinforces the idea that we are inferior, and that there is something wrong with us, hence many of us don't like it. It's not even about being politically correct; I for one consider political correctness to be bullshit. It's a matter of not being an insensitive arsehole.

[Avenio]

What is this, International Offending Autistic People Week?

This is one thing I newer understood about the PC crowd. How is comparing someone to a disabled person in order to insult that someone insulting to the disabled person he is being compared to? The disabled person is clearly disabled, so pointing that out is not insulting.

Yeah, I mean, it's clear that you've taken a few too many blows to the head, but what's wrong with pointing it out?

[Quintium]

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?

In many cases, it is, although due to geographical isolation there have been many non-white civilizations that developed similar ideas (writing, astronomy, agriculture, domestication of animals, horseback riding, fortifications) independently. What I would say, though, is that the root of the civilizations that have traditionally controlled the world in terms of inventions, trade and cultural and military power lay in the migration out of Africa. From that one migration came, with time, the civilizations of Europe, Asia Minor, most of the Indian subcontinent, South-East Asia, East Asia, North America and South America. On the other hand, groups that remained in Africa or migrated independently (such as certain groups in the south-west of India and in Oceania and Australia) did not typically build such civilizations.

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 terms of technology, culture and trade, there are tribes even today that haven't developed a system of writing and work with wooden, bone or stone tools. And I don't think it is unfair to say that, if man's ultimate purpose in life is to explore his rationality and develop what separates him from the animals, there are certain groups of people who have typically been more advanced and other groups of people who have typically been less advanced. Think of the contrasts between Rome and the Germanic invaders that ended it, or the contrasts between the settled and technologically-advanced Chinese and the nomadic Mongolians of their day. Or think of the contrasts between Spanish, Portuguese and British settlers and the Native Americans or Africans they encountered.

Here's the reasoning that I follow.

If groups of people have had to fight and compete with other groups of people for resources and the ability to live and reproduce in certain areas, and man's distinguishing characteristic as a species is the ability to think and to create complicated tools, then certain groups of people can be considered superior to others for making the best use of man's comparative advantage over animals by developing the tools and social connections that made them able to secure more land and resources for their own reproduction than other groups of people.

[Conserative Morality]

In many cases, it is, although due to geographical isolation there have been many non-white civilizations that developed similar ideas (writing, astronomy, agriculture, domestication of animals, horseback riding, fortifications) independently. What I would say, though, is that the root of the civilizations that have traditionally controlled the world in terms of inventions, trade and cultural and military power lay in the migration out of Africa. From that one migration came, with time, the civilizations of Europe, Asia Minor, most of the Indian subcontinent, South-East Asia, East Asia, North America and South America. On the other hand, groups that remained in Africa or migrated independently (such as certain groups in the south-west of India and in Oceania and Australia) did not typically build such civilizations.

What.

I think you need to do a little research into the history of Ancient Africa.

In terms of technology, culture and trade, there are tribes even today that haven't developed a system of writing and work with wooden, bone or stone tools. And I don't think it is unfair to say that, if man's ultimate purpose in life is to explore his rationality and develop what separates him from the animals, there are certain groups of people who have typically been more advanced and other groups of people who have typically been less advanced. Think of the contrasts between Rome and the Germanic invaders that ended it, or the contrasts between the settled and technologically-advanced Chinese and the nomadic Mongolians of their day. Or think of the contrasts between Spanish, Portuguese and British settlers and the Native Americans or Africans they encountered.

Here's the reasoning that I follow.

If groups of people have had to fight and compete with other groups of people for resources and the ability to live and reproduce in certain areas, and man's distinguishing characteristic as a species is the ability to think and to create complicated tools, then certain groups of people can be considered superior to others for making the best use of man's comparative advantage over animals by developing the tools and social connections that made them able to secure more land and resources for their own reproduction than other groups of people.

Certainly then the 'settled and technologically advanced' Chinese were less able to secure more land and resources for their own reproductions than the Mongols? What about the vastly more meritocratic standards of the steppes, or the inventive siege techniques and weapons they employed? Did the practice of setting orders to verse in order to maintain communication even with a largely illiterate army make them more advanced or less than the Chinese? What about the creation of a universal script to write all languages the Mongols encountered in?

There's a problem with viewing all progress as connected.

[Avenio]

Think of the contrasts between Rome and the Germanic invaders that ended it, or the contrasts between the settled and technologically-advanced Chinese and the nomadic Mongolians of their day.

The Mongols were not dumb barbarians piggybacking on Chinese discoveries. They were every bit as technologically and organizationally inclined as the settled societies they conquered. Take, for example, the yam - a network of outposts and messengers that allowed important information to travel across the Mongols' territories at incredible speeds.

Besides which, the fact that Mongol armies routinely annihilated forces from your 'civilized' states that outnumbered them many times over should put the idea that they were anything other than the equals of the settled states they went to war against.

[Cetacea]

Lets see
Black people discovered Europe
Black people discovered Asia
Black people discovered Australia
Black people discovered the Pacific

Black people invented Agriculture
Black people Invented Fire-making
Black people invented Culture
Black people invented Technology
Black people invented Religion
Black people invented Science
Black people invented Navigation
Black people invented Boats
Black people invented Music
Black people invented Construction
Black people invented Cities

From Africa to India, North to Europe, through Asia to Australia and across to America, Black People dominate the World and
Whatever one's opinion on race, is it true that the cultural construct we generally recognize as Black people have dominated world events right back to the beginning of humanity, striving forward so that all other races have merely followed as offshoots and inheritors of their achievements

[Papait]

Romans were not universally white, most people who care about race count Arabs or Persians as whites (Not that people who care about race are of any concern, really).

Most of the influence of the white people is recent. They were a minor little backwater in a far corner of the world.

Pretty much this.

In terms of the scale of human history, Europe has been significant for only a very small percentage of the time.

yes but this is about 'white people' not just europeans.
And though they have been significant for a short time, they have shaped the modern world.
Imperialism, Christianity, Islam, transporting people across continents and either wiping out animals, or giving natives the technology to do so

[The Matthew Islands]

I don't know if this is has been covered (and in no way is my view, I find this kind of topic way above my intelligence) but:

Could it perhaps be that, arguably, for lack of a better phrase 'white culture' has maybe had a big impact on the world?

Also, sure there have been African and Asian Empires, but I don't think the effects of those Empires have had the global impact that the white European empires (again for lack of a better word) have had.

Apologies if this has already been addressed, this is clearly not my area of expertise.

[Nervium]

I don't know if this is has been covered (and in no way is my view, I find this kind of topic way above my intelligence) but:

Could it perhaps be that, arguably, for lack of a better phrase 'white culture' has maybe had a big impact on the world?

Also, sure there have been African and Asian Empires, but I don't think the effects of those Empires have had the global impact that the white European empires (again for lack of a better word) have had.

Apologies if this has already been addressed, this is clearly not my area of expertise.

"White culture" does not compute.

[The Batorys]

It used to be.

Not since I've been here, and judging by your join date, it looks as if you joined just after me (you may have had previous nations, of course). I think you're looking at the past through rose-tinted glasses; NationStates has always had its fair share of edgy teens.

See my signature.