White People are... Better?

Recommended Videos

Gordon_4_v1legacy

New member
Aug 22, 2010
2,577
0
0
Jack the Potato said:
Clearing the Eye said:
thaluikhain said:
You can condemn the US government and military for a great many things, but what methods they use to kill and maim untold thousands of civilians is an odd choice.
It's odd to condemn a government for employing hideously painful weapons on civilians? Read what I quoted you writing a few times. You think about that.

But that's enough. Make a thread for it if you want--this aint about it.

EDIT:

"The bomb was dropped by parachute and exploded 580m (1,900ft) above the ground. Between 60,000 and 80,000 people were killed instantly. The heat from the bomb was so intense that some people simply vanished in the explosion. Many more died of the long-term effects of radiation sickness. The final death toll was calculated at 135,000. As well as residents of Hiroshima, the victims included Koreans who had been forced to come to Japan as labourers, and American prisoners-of-war who were imprisoned in Hiroshima."

-http://www.bbc.co.uk/history/ww2peopleswar/timeline/factfiles/nonflash/a6652262.shtml

Yes, the majority of people died instantly from the heat. Yes, the U.S. dropped a nuke on their POWs.
And frankly, it was just that kind of war. Shit was fucked up on all sides, and everyone was doing whatever it took to win.
.
You know, the more I read about World War One, the more I'm convinced it was a bloodier, dirtier and all around MORE fucked conflict. World War Two, had higher stakes of course and it left an immense impact on society that resounds to this day.
 

Axolotl

New member
Feb 17, 2008
2,401
0
0
SeeIn2D said:
The point of that story being that white people, generally Europeans throughout history, have always literally forced these other cultures to slow progression or stop all together. Apartheid in India was another horrible example of a culture being suppressed by "the white man". So in short I do believe that in many cases "white people" have it better. However I also believe that it's because other cultures were suppressed by those same "white people" and couldn't advance at the same rate.
For a start Apartheid was in South Africa not India. Secondly, saying that they're less developed because white people suppressed them isn't a very good answer because the white people were only able to suppress them because they were more developed.

Ryotknife said:
It is a matter of pure luck that the world wasnt shaped by the Asians, specifically China. They were worlds ahead of anyone else (even the Europeans) at one point, but were more interested in the arts and music than in math or science (even though they were fully capable of both)
Not really, China didn't decline because it focused on art and music, Europe produced no shortage of art and music but that didn't impair it's development. China declined because it adopted restrictive policies that didn't allow change or progress to happen, while in Europe any state that did that would find itself outcompeted by it's rivals.

China didn't fail because of luck, it failed because it stopped modernising.
 

Something Amyss

Aswyng and Amyss
Dec 3, 2008
24,759
0
0
White-washing history for the win. I mean, sure, civilisation developed in Africa and the Middle East while Europe was trying to decide if fire was good or bad, but...Whites have dominated history because....It says so in white people's history books?

Vegosiux said:
Only that Godwin was invoked with full justification here, since WW2 event were being discussed - of course that would involve Nazis at some point, they were righ there!
Godwin's Law only dictates that as a discussion goes on, the chances that the Nazis will be mentioned rises greatly. It says nothing about whether a Nazi or Hitler mention is a bad thing or not. There are many other sentiments that "you lose" or something, but really, Godwin's Law should have no real bearing on discussion. Nazis should not be brought up inappropriately, but many discussions relate to them. Hitler and the Nazis were very influential in the 20th century. It's unfortunate, but true.

So yeah, it's justified. But isn't mentioning Godwin's Law a little silly in the first place?
 

Thaluikhain

Elite Member
Legacy
Jan 16, 2010
19,538
4,128
118
Gordon_4 said:
You know, the more I read about World War One, the more I'm convinced it was a bloodier, dirtier and all around MORE fucked conflict. World War Two, had higher stakes of course and it left an immense impact on society that resounds to this day.
Bloodier? It was the third bloodiest war in history, WW2 was the bloodiest war in history. WW1 involved less civilian death as well.

On the other hand, both sides used large amounts of chemical weapons, although it was responsible for comparatively few casualties.
 

Kragg

New member
Mar 30, 2010
730
0
0
Clearing the Eye said:
people who make topics like this should be banned, this is just ... and you call yourself a philosopher? this is like the most basic of history + a stupid title to draw people in. White people arent better, and you didn't mean that, you just tried to get as many people in here as possible, is it the 10views "medal" you want?
Atleast the gun control topics make some kind of sense.
Easy agriculture + imperialist expansion = mostly europe spreading, that plus rich getting richer and poor getting poorer, 15 year olds know this. This isnt discussion worthy at all
 

userwhoquitthesite

New member
Jul 23, 2009
2,177
0
0
Clearing the Eye said:
Jack the Potato said:
Clearing the Eye said:
Jack the Potato said:
thaluikhain said:
Guns, germs and steel?

Anyway, some group was always going to do better than the others, based on random chance.

Europe happened to develop faster than other groups, or perhaps didn't run into stagnation, and was able to dominate the others. This will change at some point, but hasn't yet.

Look at places like Japan or Singapore, for example, they were able to make the most of the changing world and have done well for themselves as nations.
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.
You don't know what you are talking about, you don't understand what genocide means, and have no sense of history. This thread is either an epic troll or disgusting racism and ignorance. shame on you
 

Vegosiux

New member
May 18, 2011
4,381
0
0
Zachary Amaranth said:
Godwin's Law only dictates that as a discussion goes on, the chances that the Nazis will be mentioned rises greatly. It says nothing about whether a Nazi or Hitler mention is a bad thing or not.
Quite true, and it's both highly amusing and highly exsperating how people on the internet don't get that. Then again, I bet they don't know the constitutions of their nations, either, so meh...

But what I was saying is that in this particular case, Nazis had to come up not because we're having a discussion on the internet, but because of the historical facts.
 

SeeIn2D

New member
May 24, 2011
745
0
0
Axolotl said:
SeeIn2D said:
The point of that story being that white people, generally Europeans throughout history, have always literally forced these other cultures to slow progression or stop all together. Apartheid in India was another horrible example of a culture being suppressed by "the white man". So in short I do believe that in many cases "white people" have it better. However I also believe that it's because other cultures were suppressed by those same "white people" and couldn't advance at the same rate.
For a start Apartheid was in South Africa not India. Secondly, saying that they're less developed because white people suppressed them isn't a very good answer because the white people were only able to suppress them because they were more developed.
Yeah I used the wrong word. Completely forget what the term for British rule of India was lol. If anyone knows please remind me because I feel like an idiot right now.
 

tautologico

e^(i * pi) + 1 = 0
Apr 5, 2010
725
0
0
In case no one did it yet, I recommend you take a look at the book "Guns, Germs and Steel: The Fates of Human Societies" by Jared Diamond. The aim of the book is to answer your question about European civilizations.

From the Wikipedia page [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Guns,_Germs,_and_Steel]:
The book attempts to explain why Eurasian civilizations (in which he includes North Africa) have survived and conquered others, while refuting the assumption that Eurasian hegemony is due to any form of Eurasian intellectual, moral or inherent genetic superiority.
 

ElPatron

New member
Jul 18, 2011
2,130
0
0
nikki191 said:
european empires had a habbit of zerg rushing their neighbours with superior weaponry for the most part
>zerg rush (numerical advantage)
>superior technology

What? Zerg rushing is based on sending a lot of underdeveloped units. Europeans were also in numerical disadvantage in many invasions.

Zerg rushing with superior tech is an oxymoron.

SeeIn2D said:
The point of that story being that white people, generally Europeans throughout history, have always literally forced these other cultures to slow progression or stop all together.
Still doesn't explain how we were able to control civilizations we didn't even know about.

Honestly that book that others have linked to sounds a lot more plausible to me, otherwise everyone in the world would have the achieved the same tech as Europeans by the time we build ships to get to them.
 

wrightguy0

New member
Dec 8, 2010
296
0
0
I'd say we're worse, probably the most oppressive, violent, savage and vain of any ethnic umbrella group as a whole, it possibly goes back to being the last group to develop and having to fight off the other two for territory and resources, growing into our modern collective will to dominate.

as for tech, we stole much of it from other nations and empires, and were quick to implement it's use, unlike other groups Like the chinese who invented gunpowder (but hadn't had the idea to use it propel lead balls of various sizes into other people) and when we did impliment it, the primary purpose was for military use, all other functions came second or were just incidental to us. (the computer was originally for the army and spent nearly 3 decades calculating where the nukes would fall if WWIII were to break out, with only a few of the largest corporations and prestigious universities employing super computers or computing equipment of any kind.

Why caucasians have spread out so fast is because of a sickeningly ruthless nature

Captcha: Be my friend? Fuck off captcha, i hate your guts
 

SciMal

New member
Dec 10, 2011
302
0
0
Clearing the Eye said:
If we look through history, time and time again white people (usually some form of Anglo Saxon) show up on the scene, rape and pillage the vastly worse off native population of black people, then install their own technology and culture. The English did it, the Germans did it, the French did it, the Spanish did it, etc., etc. People with a massive technological advantage, all whom happen to be white, demolish and replace nations. Why? How?
Why? Imperialism.

How? Better technology and luck.

It's widely believed the first of our species developed in Africa, before later moving through what is now Asia and eventually up to Europe. While the oldest human being we've ever found was discovered in Australia (50,000 ish years-old, btw) Africa is thought to be the pool from which the majority of humans developed.
Not "thought to be"... is. Mitochondrial DNA data universally point towards an African origin for humanity.


They spent a long, long time there, then moved North and into China, establishing the longest running empire yet. White people as we've come to know, didn't arrive on the scene until both the two other major ethnic "types" if you will, had already been growing, learning, evolving and advancing for quite some time.
Europe was colonized in multiple waves, as was Asia, Asia Minor, and every other continent besides the Americas - which were colonized via an ice bridge basically once (relatively speaking).

So, no, "white" people were well established around the same time as Asians. We may have lost territory due to the Ice Age that had to later be recolonized, but that's not an impedance - it means a land pretty much devoid of natural predators and rich in resources.

But somehow, white man managed to acquire a massive technological lead, obtaining things like mechanical engineering, health care and medicine, advanced sanitation and water systems, weapons of war--you get the idea.
Open. A. Fucking. History. Book.

The letters you're using to read this are Roman, the numbers you use to count are Arabic, the Mesopotamians had running water and sewer systems if I remember correctly, the Chinese had gunpowder while the Celts were still using chainmail...

Fuck it, just... you're just wrong. Yeah, we have all of those things, it didn't mean we invented them.

So, somehow European humans managed to outpace and out-tech their older relatives, take over much of the world during centuries of exploration and conquest and end up today as easily the best off nations.
Yeah, a lot of it was just being brutal.

In the case of North America, it was getting lucky. When the English colonies were established the Native American populations had been devastated by disease (as much as 75-90% of their numbers were wiped out), which made waging war on them about 10x easier than it otherwise would have been.

So, there's that. Also, a lot of what you're talking about has only existed for a few hundred years. Go forward a few thousand years, and for all anyone knows Mozambique will be a world leader.

How? Look at the top countries by way of health care, economy, human rights, education and levels of conflict. The top half of the list is comfortably white--Norway, Canada, Australia, France, Germany, etc. They've all had their ups and their downs, going through wars and depressions like anywhere else, but still the happiest, healthiest and most advanced peoples are white.
They only became that way after brutally enacting imperialistic and apathetic regimes.

Plus, Japan.

Asia isn't far behind, held back mostly by extreme levels of poverty that offset their smaller, better off minorities.
I'd say they were held back by technology, since both computers and the internet were invented in the last 100 years by a Western Nation and wasn't something China/Vietnam/Korea/etc. easily had access to until they were already well ingrained.

Most Asian countries have made an astonishing amount of progress, and aside from Dubai, are pretty much the only countries left building impressive national engineering feats. When was the last time you saw a new skyscraper go up in an American city (aside from the 9/11 Memorial)?

Fuck all never, that's when, and Middle Eastern/Asian countries are putting new ones up by the truckload.

I never realized it was this much of a difference. How did it turn out this way? Am I imagining things?
No, you're experiencing cultural relativism.

The victors write the history books. You're white. You read history books written by white people, so bits are left out to make white people superior. It happens ALL the time.

I mean, we trace our cultural routes back to Romans, but do you think Romans/Greeks were white? Hell no, they weren't.

You are on the crest of the wave. You're riding at the high-point of "white" culture and dominance. Go back something like 2000 years and being white is shit. Go back 4000 years and it's even shittier. 8000 years? Still shit. 40,000 years and you don't even exist.

There's absolutely nothing preventing the wave from rolling onto the shore and another ethnic group taking the place of prominence. Nothing.

NOTHING.

White people are not superior, you're merely born in the middle of when we're on top.
 

BNguyen

New member
Mar 10, 2009
857
0
0
Clearing the Eye said:
Jack the Potato said:
Well, Europeans civilizations basically raped, pillaged, and ruined many civilizations that were advancing at a decent pace. Then they colonized all the places that had the best resources, usually over the ruins of those civilizations they wrecked. It was how the world worked back then, really. It could have just as easily been any other geographically based ethnicity that did so. Nobody's really to blame for it, it was just how the world worked back then.
But how did the white population, much, much younger than the others, manage to gain better technology, health and government that quick? We sort of went from zero to one hundred in five minutes, while everyone else struggled to get up to sixty. Then, with our technology that must have seemed godly to the poor natives, we took over everything.
exactly, take a look at the Native Americans, the Incans, Mayans, and Aztecs. They came over to the Americans during the Ice Age and yet still lived like how the ancient Babylonians did. The European groups existed in Europe during the ice age and developed at over 100 times faster than everywhere else except the Chinese who developed paper and explosives before everyone. Why is it that these two areas developed so much better than everywhere else? Is it because these areas had some sort of unifying factor while the rest of the world suffered from conditions that caused divisions?
 

Rainboq

Elite Member
Nov 19, 2009
16,620
0
41
Go play Europa Universalis 3. The only reason the Europeans were able to conquer so much was because of the romans, who became the template that every european faction tried to emulated to various degrees of success. Also, the industrial revolution.
 

Blunderboy

New member
Apr 26, 2011
2,224
0
0
8-Bit_Jack said:
Clearing the Eye said:
Jack the Potato said:
Clearing the Eye said:
Jack the Potato said:
thaluikhain said:
Guns, germs and steel?

Anyway, some group was always going to do better than the others, based on random chance.

Europe happened to develop faster than other groups, or perhaps didn't run into stagnation, and was able to dominate the others. This will change at some point, but hasn't yet.

Look at places like Japan or Singapore, for example, they were able to make the most of the changing world and have done well for themselves as nations.
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.
You don't know what you are talking about, you don't understand what genocide means, and have no sense of history. This thread is either an epic troll or disgusting racism and ignorance. shame on you
Given that the OP seems to think that 'lol' is a form of punctuation, I'd say the former.
 

Baalthazaq

New member
Sep 7, 2010
61
0
0
China. Caliphate. Persian Empire. Islamic Golden age. Spanish Empire. Jewish Golden Age. Ottomans. Japan. Mongol Empire. Egyptian Empire. Etc.

You have an interesting definition of white. Every period of history has dominant groups. "Imagining things" isn't quite right, but you're not really looking backwards unfiltered.

If you were around in the 1400s, you'd be asking "White people worse", given how "obviously superior" the thriving Mongol and Ottomans were (before they started on each other of course).

So in short answer: Looking through history:
1) I think you're giving too much weight to one group.
2) The British Empire. That's what you're looking at. The remnants and results of the British empire.
 

SciMal

New member
Dec 10, 2011
302
0
0
BNguyen said:
The European groups existed in Europe during the ice age and developed at over 100 times faster than everywhere else except the Chinese who developed paper and explosives before everyone. Why is it that these two areas developed so much better than everywhere else?
Because we didn't invent shit.

Arabic numbers, Roman Numerals, Calculus, Algebra, Geometry, Metallurgy...

None of these are "European."

We took the inventions of others and applied them, just like China and India are doing right now. It's easy to take an idea that already works and improve upon it.

Is it because these areas had some sort of unifying factor while the rest of the world suffered from conditions that caused divisions?
Ha ha ha ha ha ha...

Unifying factor? Have you LOOKED at a map of Europe? Does it look like there was a unifying factor?

Petty wars broke out ALL the time. The largest unifying factor Europe ever had was Rome, and Romans weren't caucasians so they're evidence against the OP's thesis.
 

zehydra

New member
Oct 25, 2009
5,033
0
0
" and a fair deal better than Asian countries."

Not really, Japan has always been on par with the West, because it actually traded with the West. China was walked over in the 19th century because it was a massive empire that didn't mind exporting but refused to import, and refused to build up an army capable of withstanding Western military tech.

In terms of politics, China for a millenium was ahead of the game. They never really developed democracy, but they never really needed to. The majority of the Chinese populace over the years have never really valued real democracy. The idea of a Democratic China is about as new as the 20th century.

Scientifically, China was also ahead of the West for a very long time, considering they developed the Compass, Gunpowder etc.

It's only in recent years that China has been in decline, due to a combination of 19th century foreign imperialism and the 20th century Mao disaster.
 

neverarine

New member
Nov 18, 2009
139
0
0
its not that whites are better we are just bigger jerks than everyone else.... thats all it is...