You mean to tell me the glorious Empire could have tamed the european savages and we could have had a more peaceful world instead of the mess we have now?
More like they got lucky they stumbled onto a land teeming with resources that saw war as an exhibition sport and not a “who can do the most genocide” competition.
Meh. Dad nailed it. “Son, we’re not the best race, we’re the most violent.”
Been thinking on that for 30 years. Still rings true.
Have you ever heard of the history of Asia?
If the Aztecs had sea worthy warships they probably would have tried to conquer North America as well.
This was a common argument used in the colonial era and is actually a common rationalization used by sociopaths (if you had my ability you’d hurt people too).
But the Aztecs were known for their military conquest of other tribes.
We can speculate they’d hop on a boat and do that but the reality is only one region of the world actually did it on a scale that was globally disruptive in recent history.
In any case, it’s still a sociopathic argument that relies on gaslighting.
Did you forget about the Japanese? They got western tech and then started colonizing Asia. And that was also globally disruptive.
Also why you keep calling me a sociopath. fucking loser
Never said Westerners were the only imperialists. But the scale of their foreign interference, in recent times, is unmatched. The Japanese mostly stayed within East Asia.
You can attempt to throw out as many supposed counter-examples you like. Nothing will match the scale of destruction and genocide that was the European colonial era.
No one is saying that the Europeans were the only ones that lacked the ethical framework to forego the colonial pursuit. The point is that they absolutely did lack that ethical framework and, well, here we are. There are many cultures on Earth that would not have done what they did, if given the same circumstances. Even though I know you’d prefer to focus on the cultures that would.
That doesn’t mean white people are more evil or violent. I personally beleive Abrahamic religions are often interpreted by their followers as a justification for conquest. It’s part of why Europe and the Middle East are so similar in their imperialistic aspirations over the past millennia.
Also you’re not a sociopath. The argument that you suggested is sociopathic though.
The lesson was supposed to be “Son, races aren’t actually a thing, they’re a categorical method of sorting people into groups based on variable forms of bigotry. Where one race begins and another ends is as arbitrary as the lines we draw in the sand.”
Not turning the white supremacy around into some kind of self-hating racism. That makes about as much sense as the white supremacy. And progresses the human race about as far.
Dad’s point of view had nothing to do with self-hate, to him it was merely a statement of fact.
Dad’s point of view had nothing to do with self-hate, to him it was merely a statement of
factopinion.Fine. Let’s have some reading comprehension.
to him it was merely a statement of fact
The speaker is repeating an opinion given by the subject of the sentence.
Jesus fuck me. Some of you people are so intent on delivering a sick burn you can’t stop to parse a single sentence.
In 8th grade I was talking to my bff who is half Druze and my buddy Dan whose family immigrated from Portugal about how it’s weird that Dan is “white” and yet has a dark brown skin tone while my BFF was not despite having a similar skin tone to myself who is very white.
I went to a pretty mixed high school and a lot of people there decided it was okay to be racist to white people. I asked my Portuguese friend why he didn’t have a problem with it, and he said because he’s not white. Same with my Polish friend. Same with my Portuguese teacher.
Apparently you can earn all the benefits of white privilege while not self-identifying as white, and as long as you aren’t calling yourself “Irish”, people are okay with that.
For the record you should not be racist to anyone and the “you can’t be racist to white people” are no different than klanspersons.
Hey thanks for saying that.
Denying diferencess actually regresses the human race. What should be thought is that personal and cultural differences have much bigger influence over behaviour then biological ones. And that humans have this thing called a brain, whos internal wiring can be changed to different levels of being an asshole.
If you don’t accept the basic thing, you won’t understand the advanced one.
Who said anything about “denying differences”?
“races arn’t actually a thing”
Race isn’t the only thing that differentiates people…
Some people seem to base their entire personality on their race and/or sexuality.
Hence the rest of what I said. But yea, being right is more important then… anything.
I guess saying things like “asians have lower lactose tolerance” is also racist, even though I am also lactose intolerant.
Than*
Lumping people into groups and applying attributes to those people based on the groups they find themselves in denies the individual their right to be different.
Hence I said that it is far less important then individual and cultural differences. But I guess being righteous is more important then reading.
People are people. We are more a product of our environments than any innate differences.
Europeans and their descendants have had environmental pressures that led to certain advantages which they were willing to capitalize on globally. The inhumanity involved was predicated on dehumanizing other peoples and cultures, giving birth to white supremacy. The resultant industrialization they sought after has wreaked havoc on our planet and may bring our species to extinction through climate change.
I appreciate where your dad was coming from. It’s disappointing that we live in a world where your father even had to challenge such a proposterous notion (racial superiority).
But white people are not more violent. In the same way, I don’t see any accomplishment by a white person as unique to their race. They are human accomplishments first and, in my view, could have been achieved by any person in the same environmental circumstances.
I don’t even see white people as an amalgamation anymore. Or any ‘race’ for that matter. My ancestors are Indian so you can imagine we don’t all see or refer to ourselves as just Indian (an identity that within it holds 1500 dialects). I don’t think it’s a meaningful designation. It’s happenstance.
I’m much more interested in the specifics. Particularily, defining and understanding a persons worldview. If youre a person that tries to put people on a hierarchical ladder based on arbitrary physical traits, we’re probably not going to vibe. If you’re someone that understands that identity is fluid and evolves over time (just as our values might) and have a goal of making life better for ourselves and others then I would reassert what I said earlier. We are more similar than we are different.
No one can claim superior jeans
My jeans are pretty awesome. They’re actually durable, like good jeans should be. IDK what happened to Levi, but they suck these days. Don’t know my brand off hand… Something Bay, or whatever.
I have worn Levi for forever, and you aren’t wrong. They used to be great, but for many years now, they’ve been garbage. I gotta find a better brand.
You’re half right. White people are not superior. HOWEVER… Your argument as to why is complete trash. The Mongol empire as impressive as it was didn’t touch SE Asia, India, most of Russia, the entire fucking continent of Africa, or anywhere not connected to Eurasia. Also it wasn’t the Mongols who burned the great library of Alexandria.
Where did I applaud the Mongols? Also, they burned the Library of Baghdad.
Strawman. Original Commenter (OC) didn’t say you applauded the Mongols. All we’re doing in this thread is correcting facts, not applying judgements
They’re just saying that many other parts of the world weren’t scourged by Mongols so the theory that Europe rose to prominence because it was spared doesn’t really hold water.
That’s if I understood them correctly.
The post is a jab at the recent controversy on Sydney Sweeney ad for American Eagle jeans, claiming there is white supremacist undertone, not about being spared from the Mongol invasion itself is what lifts societies to prominence.
You can’t really dismiss the main text of the post and claim the subtext makes it irrelevant.
Europe was considered a backwater fringe by the time the Mongols under Subutai arrived. I mean, if Europe is inherently superior, it would not have been considered as “backwater” in the first place. The more prosperous and more developed areas then were Middle East, Central Asia and the Far East. If the Mongols continued advancing and ravaged those who did not submit, Europe would have been set back a lot further or may not even have ever become the major power as it did. Being unscathed by the Mongol destruction gave them a leg up later. It is very much the same story as the USA. US was considered second or at the very least third rate by Europeans. But not being destroyed by the Second World War and one of the two remaining major economy and manufacturing country gave US it the massive advantage post-war.
A couple of things come to mind.
Didn’t the mongols ravage poland? That’s Europe. Meaning Europe did not get spared.
European philosophy and math started back with ancient greece. They were ahead of the rest of the world in geometry and math in the year 1000 B. C.
But empires come and go. The next empire took the science and further improved. The romans, Macedonians, ottomans etc. Europe is not one people.
At the time of the mongols the Catholics were in charge of most of Europe. Kingdoms were organized. “Backwater” might be a bit of a stretch?
There was war between the Christians and the Muslims at the time so Europeans might have been expecting attack. It might have been very difficult for the mongols to conquer the European territories.
Millions of Europeans preferred USA over europe for the last three centuries because the opportunities were scarce. Europeans were mainly a farmer people so land was equal to prosperity. They gave out farm land for free back then. Which one would you prefer?
Do you have any idea of how much war and destruction the European countries have committed against each other? It is not so simple as to say “peace is the only driver of prosperity and science”.
Removed by mod
Ignoring that trash book.
One thing I read is that a major factor that drove western Europeans to be so dominant worldwide is that their North Atlantic ocean fishing vessel tradition resulted in them being faster and more capable than most other vessels in the world, initially proving superior to the typically Roman-esque rowing-focused designs of the Mediterranean.
One thing I read is that a major factor that drove western Europeans to be so dominant worldwide is that their North Atlantic ocean fishing vessel tradition resulted in them being faster and more capable than most other vessels in the world, initially proving superior to the typically Roman-esque rowing-focused designs of the Mediterranean.
And this doesn’t apply to polynesia because…?
It does. Just generally unfamiliar with their history outside of them having an open ocean sailing tradition that completely dominates all others.
I cannot claim to know the actual answer here, but I can definitely see some possible ones. For a start the Pacific Islands just have nowhere near as much productive land as Europe, so it’s going to be alot easier for Europeans to gather resources and build relatively large and unified societies that can cooperate on things. They’re also much more isolated from other large population groups, being scattered across the world’s biggest ocean, unlike Europe which can easily have contact with the rest of Europe, with the Middle East, and with North Africa. As such Europe has far more opportunities for ideas to spread and also a far greater need to compete against its neighbours
The maritime skills of Pacific Islanders were absolutely phenomenal, they were just working with a much tougher situation than Europe if the goal is to build a large industrial society. Europe’s own maritime cultures distinguished it from its rivals like the Ottomans, who had a capable navy but nothing like the ability that some European nations at the time had to venture far from shore
Ming Chinese ships reached East Africa, and may have crossed the Cape of Good Hope. Although, to be fair, the later Ming were generally isolationist, and discouraged overseas trade.
Could you point me towards some reading about the Cape of Good Hope bit? I was gifted the ridiculous Menzies 1421 book by my dad a few years back and it has made very suspicious of basically everything about Zheng He
Still, Good Hope or not, the treasure voyages definitely were impressive feats of seafaring. I would also suggest that they actually reinforce justOnePersistentKbinPlease’s idea, as China was undoubtably one of the most powerful regions on Earth for most of history and only really fell behind Europe after it started drawing back on sea power
It was the exploitation of peoples that took them as only visitors, not conquerers at they thought of themselves. As hispaniola shown us and other places too. Might makes the right was justified for them, but not for the exploited.
Edit: whenever people thought of exploiting others and enslaving them, there only comes one time to do so, when overpowering and turmoil take over, as seen in america (the continent), india, africa, etc.
It is incorrect and presumptive to label all European exploration as exploitation.
E.G. during the 7 years war, the various tribes of the Ohio river valley almost had a treaty with Philidelphia and the English crown, but were cockblocked by the Iroquois, who wanted to be the exclusive native power brokers with the European powers.
Or, still sticking to that era, that one of the Intolerable Acts from the english crown to the rich colonists was that the existing native land was to not be infringed upon.
Or famously, that Captain Vancouver was very considerate, to the point that Hawaii voluntarily surrendered its soverignty because of him.
Then you have things like the Cherokee war, the founding of Illonois and the Hudson’s Bay Company(in general) that are great examples of european exploitation.
I didn’t label european exploration as exploitation, polinesians did it too, like to colombia in the 13th century probably. I have said america to mean the continent, this includes south and central america, as in latin america “america” means the whole stretching land, not north america as people in the US and Canada think. They exploited and stole from us, they exploited us for too long.
Edit: I’m talking about the colonization, exploitation, slavery (taking people from this land and from africa to work on plantations, factories, etc), land stealing, etc, that only comes from literally war. This happened from the Indian continent, to Africa, to here (in Suriname, Guiana, Africa, etc, there is a lot of people from the Indian subcontinent, because they were brought as slaves from the Indian subcontinent).
To be fair to Europe, the Romans and Ottomans did it to Europe.
But yeah, ita a culture of violence all the way down.
deterministic theorizing without peer reviewed does not a proof make.
I loved GGS, but only as good storytelling. Poor support for many main points, but it is a good template showing you don’t have to resort to racist tropes to explain the world. It may be shoddy scholarship, but I was raised Mormon and it runs circles around the books by Cleon Skousen they tried to get me to believe.
I think something that GGS offers is the concept of a “theory of world” that frankly, it’s surprising that no one has attempted before. For those who haven’t read it, it’s an attempt to offer an explanation for “why are things how they are, rather than how they are not” that is grounded in geology, geography, ecology and environment, rather than the almost exclusively either racist or religious explanations which had come before.
The actual argument falls flat and is fairly easily contradicted, but the principal behind it, that you can explain, at least in part, why the world is the way it is by a function of ecology and geography, I think is compelling.
The one bit of reasoning I especially liked was connecting the fact that it is harder for plants to adapt to different latitudes than to move east-west to the difference between empires in South America versus in Eurasia.
It is a very reasonable idea, armies travel on their stomachs and good crop plants are essential. Yeah it’s full of holes in reality, but it represents a way of thinking that can be the beginning of wisdom if pursued in a disciplined way.
GGS is pop-sci. The author had a conclusion and worked backwards to justify it. It’s not academically respected in the slightest.
The Mongols couldn’t handle forests.
My Wrangler jeans are so tough they can’t even be destroyed by the NX-5 planet destroyer
Oh dear, a “Slavs aren’t white” take.
I don’t know about the Slavs, but tbf, the “white” race and the categorisation and conceptualisation of race itself has been arbitrary from the beginning. Not long ago, the Italians and Irish weren’t considered white. Who goes where depends on the person making the categorisation. The English despised the Irish and Iberians, so both were lumped together as “Irish Iberian”.
…and that’s why Pizza is American food!
… and that’s why USA is AMERICA.
yep. correct.
why , why would it be desired for slavs to be counted as white?
I mean I’d say any I’ve met would be puzzled if not angry if you told them they’re not white. Probably 100% would be confused about what they are then.
It would probably be “desirable” in the sense that it’s mostly the grouping they feel they belong to.
I mean I’d say any I’ve met would be puzzled if not angry if you told them they’re not white. Probably 100% would be confused about what they are then.
So would people from north india. Are they considered white?
The stem of all this crap is that people are trying to group themselves into in-out groups based on elitism, and wanting to make themselves seem better. This is a racist and fruitless endevour, since not only are you an asshole for trying to make yourself seem better than other “races”, you’re also trying to diminish the cachet of other groups.
Slavs have usually been denied access to this grouping, alongside Mediterranean.
It would probably be “desirable” in the sense that it’s mostly the grouping they feel they belong to.
So do Argentinians, and the aforementioned North Indians.
To be clear: I don’t think white people are superior, nor do I give a shit where slavs or other people groups fit into it. What I do think, is that it’s a misguided pathetic attempt to make yourself look better if you’re getting into arguments why your people group deserve to be called white.
I mean you were yourself taking part in the conversation on who is and isn’t white. I was just saying that most slavs definitely consider themselves white at least.
I mean you were yourself taking part in the conversation on who is and isn’t white.
yeah, to tell the people who are in marginal communities to not bust their ass, because of all the reasons I explained.
I was just saying that most slavs definitely consider themselves white at least.
Yeah sure, and so would most north indians/argentinians/other borderline people to make themselves seem better
I mean if Slavs want to consider themselves white and do that effort then why not. Identities such as that are important to people.
I feel that you don’t get the point of my argument.
Americans say so much stupid shit, this wouldn’t warrant puzzlement, much less anger from me.
More of a “huh, that’s a new one” kind of reaction.
And “Jews aren’t white” while we’re at it.
deleted by creator
It’s a response to a question that nobody asked.
deleted by creator
i don’t even like jeans, why would i care for superior ones
The idea of ‘superior genes’ is a myth that flows out of noble class animal breeding
It was folded into ‘divine right’ as one of the many stupid reasons they justified their power and luxury
The rich bred dogs and horses and saw inheritable traits and then just applied that to people with zero actual understanding of biology and genetics.
Behold the power of my ancestors to…digest lactose into adulthood.
To be fair not all of us have that
As far as I can tell that’s the one genetic advantage white folks can genuinely lord over the other phenotypes, our anomalously high rate of lactose tolerance. Hell of a basis for naming a master race.
My jeans are Calvin Klein. They are superior because they are mine.
Nah, being spared the Mongol invasion was incidental at best. What really gave the Euros their kick-start was discovering a whole-ass continent filled with resources, and polities that did not have the capacity to resist the sudden introduction of Old World technology.
I’m going to go out on a limb and say with a self-administered grain of salt that colonialism didn’t really matter that much to European development in the grand scheme of things. Really we’re looking at the Renaissance and the beginnings of capitalism here. The only contemporary society that could’ve competed on both fronts was the formerly-Abbasid, formerly-proto-capitalist Middle East, but the Mongols heavily derailed that. I’m not sure how correct the post is in general, but it does bear thinking how the Renaissance would’ve went had Florence met a fate similar to Baghdad.
I’m a little tired right now and going to have a bit of a lay down, but I’d point out that Europe’s increasing economic parity, and then slowly gaining economic superiority, over the rest of the world would have to be one hell of a coincidence to match up nearly perfectly with the discovery and exploitation of an entire continent’s worth of resources. Vitally, the Americas provided Europe with trade goods (or the appropriate environment for growing them) that the rest of the world wanted - a recurring weakness of Europe in European history.
Also Real Mughal Hours
Could be reverse causality? Rich and industrializing countries have the money and resources to send out explorers and start colonies.
If you’re not on the rise already, you’re probably not throwing away ships on suicide missions.
Prestige projects are an ancient endeavor, though. The Norse, for example, were not exactly awash in riches during the height of their exploratory voyages, but a few desperate men or leaders with little else to their name (or boundless ambition) can make a massive difference.
In any case, Europe’s economic success is largely concentrated post-Columbus; at the time of Columbus, Europe was not particularly wealthy compared to the competing states. There are European advantages which contributed to the decision, but I don’t think wealth or industry is a compelling factor.
